Church teaching on birth control could be wrong, says English Catholic bishop

[JReducation]

The bishop probably doesn’t practice frequent confession. You can see lack of grace is working on him

That kind of statement is a big “NO NO” in Catholic spirituality. We don’t make those kinds of judgments about others.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Right. A sincere confession is a good one. We recieve grace. What I cannot figure out from the quote is why would frequent confession would be bad simply because people confess the same sin. Would infrequent confession solve the problem?

I understand the principal, because we studied it in moral theology and in theology of the sacraments. But it is not clearly stated, either by the Bishop or the reporter.

The principal is that if one is commiting a sing out of habit, it is very likely that culpability is mitigated and Holy Communion is enough.

The other possibility is that the person can be lying to himself believing that a sin is going to be forgiven each time they get absolution when in fact they have no intention to try and overcome the sin. The absolution will be given, but it’s invalid if there is no plan to overcome the sin.

The point is, don’t come to confession every week if you don’t plan on changing and if you have a habit you may not need to come every week. You’re probably not in a state of mortal sin. Habits have a way of diminishing one’s freedom. Therefore, a person’s degree of guilt may be reduced to that of venial sin, which can be taken care of in Holy Communion and prayer.

Does this make more sense?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The point is, don’t come to confession every week if you don’t plan on changing and if you have a habit you may not need to come every week. You’re probably not in a state of mortal sin. Habits have a way of diminishing one’s freedom. Therefore, a person’s degree of guilt may be reduced to that of venial sin, which can be taken care of in Holy Communion and prayer.

So as long as we commit the mortal sin on a regular basis, we won’t go to hell and don’t need confession?

I wish I had known that. I skipped communion for almost two years because I couldn’t break a bad habit!! EEK

 

[fix]

I understand the principal, because we studied it in moral theology and in theology of the sacraments. But it is not clearly stated, either by the Bishop or the reporter.

The principal is that if one is commiting a sing out of habit, it is very likely that culpability is mitigated and Holy Communion is enough.

The other possibility is that the person can be lying to himself believing that a sin is going to be forgiven each time they get absolution when in fact they have no intention to try and overcome the sin. The absolution will be given, but it’s invalid if there is no plan to overcome the sin.

The point is, don’t come to confession every week if you don’t plan on changing and if you have a habit you may not need to come every week. You’re probably not in a state of mortal sin. Habits have a way of diminishing one’s freedom. Therefore, a person’s degree of guilt may be reduced to that of venial sin, which can be taken care of in Holy Communion and prayer.

Does this make more sense?

Fraternally,

JR

I think you are applying a very specific circumstance here. All we have is the quote. If we take it as it is reported it refers to frequent confession in general.

If the bishop is talking about scrupulous folks or those with psychological habits or those who are too attached to a particular sin then that should be conveyed. I am all for giving the benefit if the doubt, especially to a bishop, but either the reporter has an agenda or there is some other issue going on here.

Spriritual conseling is great and the things you say would apply to particular cases, but Rome has called for more frequent confession, not less.

Also, many think HV is infallible by the* universal and ordinary magisterium*. As you know a truth can be infallible even without a formal declaration and a truth can be irreformable without it being declared infallible.

 

[grampben]

I think you are applying a very specific circumstance here. All we have is the quote. If we take it as it is reported it refers to frequent confession in general.

If the bishop is talking about scrupulous folks or those with psychological habits or those who are too attached to a particular sin then that should be conveyed. I am all for giving the benefit if the doubt, especially to a bishop, but either the reporter has an agenda or there is some other issue going on here.

Spriritual conseling is great and the things you say would apply to particular cases, but Rome has called for more frequent confession, not less.

Also, many think HV is infallible by the* universal and ordinary magisterium*. As you know a truth can be infallible even without a formal declaration and a truth can be irreformable without it being declared infallible.

The reporter on that blog does seem to have an agenda, I’m not quite sure what it is though. Reading some of his other posts make me want to break my computer.

 

[childofmary1143]

What the English bishop is saying about Humanae Vitae is the same thing as the Prefect for the Congregation on the Faith. It is not infallible dogma. He does not encourage dissent. I don’t see that coming through in the interview, unless there is something missing from the interview.

JR

I don’t know how you can say that. Here is the interview of what he actually said Emphasis mine]

Time to move on to something else. It is 40 years since Humanae Vitae. It became acceptable, I suggested, for many otherwise loyal Catholics to routinely disobey a key teaching of the Church.

"Well, first of all, I would disagree that it’s a key teaching.[It is a key teaching if its something that can wind a soul(s) into Hell.] The key teachings of the Church are in the Creed. It’s not a life issue**[What?!! Ever heard of an abortificent!!]." To do with the transmission of life, then? “It’s to do with what family and married life means, being open to procreation. So it’s not a life issue because then you tie it in with abortion. The two are completely different issues.”[See above]**

Does it matter if people disobey that teaching?

"In the great scheme of things I don’t think it’s high up the list. It became a very public issue which affected a significant number of people, not the majority of Catholics. The majority of Catholics are not in that position, where birth control is an issue. Look around on Sunday morning and see ‘is birth control an issue for most people here?’ No, it’s not.First off notice how he doesn’t answer the question which is so typical of dissenters, except in this case for a Bishop is scandalous and disgusting. But to an extent his answer is right in the sense that its not high up on the list and that is because of the utter abject failure of our clergy to teach about the evils of artificial birth control.

But it became the place where the tug of war took place: it was to do with dissent and obedience. Can you be a Catholic and dissent?"

He thinks there should be greater emphasis on the virtues. “Why do people never go back to the Beatitudes, ‘blessed are the poor in spirit’? You know, are you poor in spirit? No. Does that bother you? No. Do you practise birth control? Does that bother you? Yes. We’ve got a very distorted view of what we think Christian morality is.”[Again an evasive answer and not directly answering the question.]

The Church has attempted to codify every detail of our behaviour hasn’t it? “Yes, but it rarely in tradition has attempted to codify charity, for instance. Again the basic commandment of God - love God, love your neighbour. That has been left largely unexplored.”

Codify charity? “You can’t quantify love. The birth control issue becomes easy because it’s measurable. You do it or you don’t. But love: you do it or you don’t do it, how can you measure that? We fight the easy battles but we ignore the bigger ones.”

Was Humanae Vitae a mistake? “I don’t know. I don’t know. **[You don’t know? Wow so sad.]**But at the same time we’ve seen the disastrous effects of the devaluing of sexual relationships, to say they don’t mean anything, which has had catastrophic effects on society, catastrophic effects on the value of women.”

He disagrees with environmentalists who attack the Church’s teaching on birth control.

“You get people like George Monbiot saying: ‘If the Pope changes his position tomorrow, the world would be rid of the scourge of Aids.’ He’s talking nonsense. Because, first of all, what percentage of the developing world is Catholic? The biggest growth in population is among Islam, not among Catholics. The Church isn’t encouraging people to have children, it’s the culture. That’s not why they’re having large families, because the Church is teaching it.”[Absolutely true]

But is the teaching itself wrong? “It could be. It’s not an infallible teaching.[So the litmus test of a teaching is if its infallible?] Clearly the basic Creed formula, what the Church teaches about the sacraments is infallible but there’s only been one strictly infallible statement.”

So in a sense it’s a matter of opinion? “Well, it’s… It is.[So a Papal encyclical is an opinion. Church teaching is an opinion. Time to go back to the Seminary Bishop.] It’s an expression, however, of something quite profoundly important about human sexuality and relationships. If you really love your fellow human being then you’ll have profound respect for them and that has clearly disappeared from large sections of our contemporary society.”[And you don’t think that the Pill has caused that?]

 

[JReducation]

So as long as we commit the mortal sin on a regular basis, we won’t go to hell and don’t need confession?

I wish I had known that. I skipped communion for almost two years because I couldn’t break a bad habit!! EEK

An action can be ojectively a mortal sin, but the individual can be innocent of mortal sin in such cases where his or her freedom is so impaired that he has trouble breaking free, such as is the case with masturbation, substance abuse, etc.

In that case, the individual has the moral obligation to do whatever is possible to overcome the problem, counseling, AA, SA, spiritual direction, etc.

Besides knowledge, you must have freedom to be guilty of mortal sin. It does not change the act. The act is still a mortal sin, but the person’s moral responsibility is mitigated. Immaturity also mitigates the gravity impugned on the person, not the act. The act remains serious. It’s the old case of seven-year old who shop-lifts and a 27-year old. Stealing is a mortal sin, but a seven-year old is more prone to be immature and impulsive and has less control than a 27-year old…

There are factors that influence the degree of culpability. When in doubt, always check with a spiritual director.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[RobertLGarrett]

An action can be ojectively a mortal sin, but the individual can be innocent of mortal sin in such cases where his or her freedom is so impaired that he has trouble breaking free, such as is the case with masturbation, substance abuse, etc.

In that case, the individual has the moral obligation to do whatever is possible to overcome the problem, counseling, AA, SA, spiritual direction, etc.

Besides knowledge, you must have freedom to be guilty of mortal sin. It does not change the act. The act is still a mortal sin, but the person’s moral responsibility is mitigated. Immaturity also mitigates the gravity impugned on the person, not the act. The act remains serious. It’s the old case of seven-year old who shop-lifts and a 27-year old. Stealing is a mortal sin, but a seven-year old is more prone to be immature and impulsive and has less control than a 27-year old…

There are factors that influence the degree of culpability. When in doubt, always check with a spiritual director.

Fraternally,

JR

Hi JR,

A few points…

Some penitents read your first paragraph, and say “Ah…I’m addicted…therefore it’s not mortal!” They then go on with their lives completely ignoring your second paragraph regarding doing “whatever is possible” to end that sin.

Second, spiritual directors are split on those issues. Regarding a habitual sin I have struggled with, I had priests tell me it is always mortal, other priests tell me it isn’t mortal because it’s habitual. Whom does one believe? For me, I chose to treat it as always mortal and made a serious effort to end it through prayer, weekly confession, etc.

To be more on topic, I once mentioned our use of birth control to a priest in confession. One of my wife’s reservation in going off birth control was that it also controlled her acne. When I said that, the priest jumped on it and said, “well then the contraception is a secondary effect.” Yeah…okay…I’ll go with that, right? Sadly, we have to do more than listen to our priests. We have to learn the correct teaching of the Church and act accordingly.

Pax,
Robert

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know how you can say that. Here is the interview of what he actually said Emphasis mine]

Time to move on to something else. It is 40 years since Humanae Vitae. It became acceptable, I suggested, for many otherwise loyal Catholics to routinely disobey a key teaching of the Church.

"Well, first of all, I would disagree that it’s a key teaching.[It is a key teaching if its something that can wind a soul(s) into Hell.] The key teachings of the Church are in the Creed. It’s not a life issue**[What?!! Ever heard of an abortificent!!]." To do with the transmission of life, then? “It’s to do with what family and married life means, being open to procreation. So it’s not a life issue because then you tie it in with abortion. The two are completely different issues.”[See above]**

Does it matter if people disobey that teaching?

"In the great scheme of things I don’t think it’s high up the list. It became a very public issue which affected a significant number of people, not the majority of Catholics. The majority of Catholics are not in that position, where birth control is an issue. Look around on Sunday morning and see ‘is birth control an issue for most people here?’ No, it’s not.First off notice how he doesn’t answer the question which is so typical of dissenters, except in this case for a Bishop is scandalous and disgusting. But to an extent his answer is right in the sense that its not high up on the list and that is because of the utter abject failure of our clergy to teach about the evils of artificial birth control.

But it became the place where the tug of war took place: it was to do with dissent and obedience. Can you be a Catholic and dissent?"

He thinks there should be greater emphasis on the virtues. “Why do people never go back to the Beatitudes, ‘blessed are the poor in spirit’? You know, are you poor in spirit? No. Does that bother you? No. Do you practise birth control? Does that bother you? Yes. We’ve got a very distorted view of what we think Christian morality is.”[Again an evasive answer and not directly answering the question.]

The Church has attempted to codify every detail of our behaviour hasn’t it? “Yes, but it rarely in tradition has attempted to codify charity, for instance. Again the basic commandment of God - love God, love your neighbour. That has been left largely unexplored.”

Codify charity? “You can’t quantify love. The birth control issue becomes easy because it’s measurable. You do it or you don’t. But love: you do it or you don’t do it, how can you measure that? We fight the easy battles but we ignore the bigger ones.”

Was Humanae Vitae a mistake? “I don’t know. I don’t know. **[You don’t know? Wow so sad.]**But at the same time we’ve seen the disastrous effects of the devaluing of sexual relationships, to say they don’t mean anything, which has had catastrophic effects on society, catastrophic effects on the value of women.”

He disagrees with environmentalists who attack the Church’s teaching on birth control.

“You get people like George Monbiot saying: ‘If the Pope changes his position tomorrow, the world would be rid of the scourge of Aids.’ He’s talking nonsense. Because, first of all, what percentage of the developing world is Catholic? The biggest growth in population is among Islam, not among Catholics. The Church isn’t encouraging people to have children, it’s the culture. That’s not why they’re having large families, because the Church is teaching it.”[Absolutely true]

But is the teaching itself wrong? “It could be. It’s not an infallible teaching.[So the litmus test of a teaching is if its infallible?] Clearly the basic Creed formula, what the Church teaches about the sacraments is infallible but there’s only been one strictly infallible statement.”

So in a sense it’s a matter of opinion? “Well, it’s… It is.[So a Papal encyclical is an opinion. Church teaching is an opinion. Time to go back to the Seminary Bishop.] It’s an expression, however, of something quite profoundly important about human sexuality and relationships. If you really love your fellow human being then you’ll have profound respect for them and that has clearly disappeared from large sections of our contemporary society.”[And you don’t think that the Pill has caused that?]

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing any malice or ill intention in his responses. I’m seeing a bishop be a bishop. He’s speaking to the press and he’s being very tactful. Everyone knows how the press likes to tear apart anything that bishops say or don’t say.

As to Humanae Vitae, that question was settled by the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine in the Faith by Cardinal Levada. The only part of Humanae Vitae that is infallible is that part that specifically addresses abortion. The rest has to be obeyed, but it is not infallible and was not intended to be an infallible statement. Read his quote from his doctoral dissertation and other statements.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada

JR

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

A few points…

Some penitents read your first paragraph, and say “Ah…I’m addicted…therefore it’s not mortal!” They then go on with their lives completely ignoring your second paragraph regarding doing “whatever is possible” to end that sin.

Second, spiritual directors are split on those issues. Regarding a habitual sin I have struggled with, I had priests tell me it is always mortal, other priests tell me it isn’t mortal because it’s habitual. Whom does one believe? For me, I chose to treat it as always mortal and made a serious effort to end it through prayer, weekly confession, etc.

To be more on topic, I once mentioned our use of birth control to a priest in confession. One of my wife’s reservation in going off birth control was that it also controlled her acne. When I said that, the priest jumped on it and said, “well then the contraception is a secondary effect.” Yeah…okay…I’ll go with that, right? Sadly, we have to do more than listen to our priests. We have to learn the correct teaching of the Church and act accordingly.

Pax,
Robert

Both of your confessors were correct. The act continues to be a mortal sin. You can’t turn a mortal sin into a virtue. However, the degree of culpability is not necessarily that of a mortal sin. There are two things that are looked at in moral theology, the act and the culpability. One priest is speaking about the act. He’s calling it what it is, a mortal sin. The other is looking at the culpability and is calling it what it is too. What concenrs the penitent is the effort that he or she puts into overcoming a behaviour, whether he is culpable of mortal sin or not.

As to the priest with the birth control and the acne, he partially correct. Medication may be taken for other reasons and have a secondary effect such as sterility. Whether your wife was taking birth control for acne or to avoid conception, only she knows and should act accordingly.

I’ll give you a good example. Most Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) prescribed for depression have a side effect on males, the inability to ejaculate. In effect, not every sexual encouner is going to be fruitful, because there is no orgasm. No orgasm means no conception. But the medication is not prescribed with the intent of reducing conception. This is a side effect in many males. They are not guilty of birth control.

Women often use birth control pills to regulate their menstraul cycle. This is a different reason than birth control.

What the confessor was saying is that if the purpose of the medication is to control acney, then there is nothing to worry about.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Both of your confessors were correct. The act continues to be a mortal sin. You can’t turn a mortal sin into a virtue. However, the degree of culpability is not necessarily that of a mortal sin. There are two things that are looked at in moral theology, the act and the culpability. One priest is speaking about the act. He’s calling it what it is, a mortal sin. The other is looking at the culpability and is calling it what it is too. What concenrs the penitent is the effort that he or she puts into overcoming a behaviour, whether he is culpable of mortal sin or not.

Actually, they were both taking culpability into account, as they were giving advice to me and my sinful act. They couldn’t have both been right - my sinful act could not have been both mortal and venial. So, again, whom does one listen to?

JReducation:

As to the priest with the birth control and the acne, he partially correct. Medication may be taken for other reasons and have a secondary effect such as sterility. Whether your wife was taking birth control for acne or to avoid conception, only she knows and should act accordingly.

Come on, JR. You really like to give a little too much leeway. The priest immediately went to the “secondary effect - not a sin” without asking any deeper questions. He should not have made that judgment without getting more details. It wasn’t prescribed for acne, therefore the reason was pretty clear. Besides, I’m sure you are aware that there are other acne treatments, so there is no reason to use Artificial Birth Control for acne. The acne control is the secondary effect…not the birth control, but I’m sure there are plenty of Catholics who would love to use that one to give them an excuse to use ABC.

Here is another one for you…a close friend of mine was divorced but “doesn’t believe” in annulments and still remarried. She confessed to a priest, and he told her there is no need to confess and she can receive the sacraments. I told her the priest was in error, but she was told by a priest…end of story.

What say you? Was the priest “partially correct” on that one? Is it no longer a mortal sin for her, because her culpability is lessened now that a priest told her she can receive?

There is a lot of bad advice in the confessional. As Catholics, it is our duty to learn what the Church truly teaches, in spite of bad advice from priests and speeches by Bishops who are at odds with Church teaching.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, they were both taking culpability into account, as they were giving advice to me and my sinful act. They couldn’t have both been right - my sinful act could not have been both mortal and venial. So, again, whom does one listen to?

Come on, JR. You really like to give a little too much leeway. The priest immediately went to the “secondary effect - not a sin” without asking any deeper questions. He should not have made that judgment without getting more details. It wasn’t prescribed for acne, therefore the reason was pretty clear. Besides, I’m sure you are aware that there are other acne treatments, so there is no reason to use Artificial Birth Control for acne. The acne control is the secondary effect…not the birth control, but I’m sure there are plenty of Catholics who would love to use that one to give them an excuse to use ABC.

Here is another one for you…a close friend of mine was divorced but “doesn’t believe” in annulments and still remarried. She confessed to a priest, and he told her there is no need to confess and she can receive the sacraments. I told her the priest was in error, but she was told by a priest…end of story.

What say you? Was the priest “partially correct” on that one? Is it no longer a mortal sin for her, because her culpability is lessened now that a priest told her she can receive?

There is a lot of bad advice in the confessional. As Catholics, it is our duty to learn what the Church truly teaches, in spite of bad advice from priests and speeches by Bishops who are at odds with Church teaching.

In answer to your first point an action can be a mortal sin without the person being guilty.

In answer to your second question, you did not say before that the priest had jumped the gun. That’s why I said, “partially right.”

As to the divorce, a person who is divorced is not in state of sin if he or she has not entered into a second marriage. That is the law of the Church. The sin is adultery, not divorce. Some situations people have to get a divorce for legal reasons or for protection of themselves or their family.

JR

 

[RobertLGarrett]

In answer to your first point an action can be a mortal sin without the person being guilty.

In answer to your second question, you did not say before that the priest had jumped the gun. That’s why I said, “partially right.”

As to the divorce, a person who is divorced is not in state of sin if he or she has not entered into a second marriage. That is the law of the Church. The sin is adultery, not divorce. Some situations people have to get a divorce for legal reasons or for protection of themselves or their family.

JR

On all three points…you obviously are not reading my posts. Please don’t bother to respond to me anymore. It makes no sense for me to correct every one of your responses only to have you repeat yourself after not reading what I wrote again.

 

[JReducation]

On all three points…you obviously are not reading my posts. Please don’t bother to respond to me anymore. It makes no sense for me to correct every one of your responses only to have you repeat yourself after not reading what I wrote again.

You made a statement. I answered. You resonded. I answered again with the only answer available in current moral theology. What do you want to hear?

JR

 

[mercygate]

There is debate as to whether Humanae Vitae is infallible teaching AND whether humanae Vitae applies to unmarried people.

I agree with this Bishop in his comments on confession and the EF Mass.

Who are you and what have you done with estesbob?

Humanae vitae simply restates the consistent teaching of the Church and thus, represents the binding authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible.

Humanae vitae does not apply to unmarried people because unmarried people who chose to fornicate are already committing mortal sin. A practicing Catholic who chooses to sin in this way has already stepped outside the pale of the encylical. It would be absurd to say, I’m going to fornicate but I won’t use contraception because contraception is a sin. Now, I know people who actually got themselves pregnant that way but it takes a colossal degree of stupidity to make such a ridiculous assertion.

If that news story is right (and you can’t ever be sure with the press) the bishop should be taken to the ecclesiastical woodshed.

 

[JReducation]

Who are you and what have you done with estesbob?

Humanae vitae simply restates the consistent teaching of the Church and thus, represents the binding authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible.

Humanae vitae does not apply to unmarried people because unmarried people who chose to fornicate are already committing mortal sin. A practicing Catholic who chooses to sin in this way has already stepped outside the pale of the encylical. It would be absurd to say, I’m going to fornicate but I won’t use contraception because contraception is a sin. Now, I know people who actually got themselves pregnant that way but it takes a colossal degree of stupidity to make such a ridiculous assertion.

If that news story is right (and you can’t ever be sure with the press) the bishop should be taken to the ecclesiastical woodshed.

Why should the bishop be taken to the ecclesiastical woodshed for saying what was said by the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of Doctrine in the Faith?

JR

 

[Letchitsa1]

Spot on Gen.

And, what’s more, the question about whether HV applies to unmarried people is somewhat immaterial in the sense that although artificial contraception might not be intrinsically evil for unmarried people, moral theology would still invalidate its general use even among unmarried people, because of the evil effects of society and individuals.

VC

Hmm…and here I thought that unmarried people would have no need for contraception unless unmarried people are doing things to need to worry about conception…methinks at that point, the sixth commandment comes into play there since all forms of extramarital sex fall under the general umbrella of adultery.

 

[mercygate]

I would agree that is true in the case as a contraceptive that can also be abortificant but I’m not so sure that that would apply a barrier methods of contraception. What is the intrinsic evil of using a condom or spermicide outside of marriage?

Hang in there, estesbob! We’re sending the troops to rescue you from the space aliens who have taken over your user name.

A condom interferes with and thwarts a natural human act of intercourse, which is innately good. It is, therefore, intrinsically evil. The question of whether contracepting a natural human act of intercourse that is being perverted to the moral evil of fornication is not even a question on the moral scale.

Both fornication and contraception are immoral. Not contracepting an act of fornication is not “good” in itself.

 

[Letchitsa1]

Letchitsa,

Off topic, but what are you trying to say? I can’t imagine you meant the paint all the people of England as inferior thinkers, did you, or otherwise malign the whole country?

VC

Simply that if I’m looking for moral guidance - the English leadership - state or Church - is the last place I’m going to look for it. From what I have seen, both are corrupt to the core.

 

[mark_a]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can’t use methods of contraception ( obviously abc doesnt exist but it doesnt condemn the pull out method etc.) Now, I know the story of Onan supports the Church’s teaching, and I respect that. But I don’t think there’s a direct relation. I can see maturbation being a sin but not loving sex between husband and wife with contraception. I mean, that may be the right interpreation, but but it also might not be. I just don’t see how people can be sure. It’s one thing for a Bishop to disagree with an obvious Biblical teaching - saying adultery is fine or whatever - that’s wrong. But think this is up for debate.

I realize you are an atheist and Catholic view of Onanism is really not a concern for you, but you are mistaken that the Catholic teaching about Onanism isn’t biblical.

This link explains the obvious biblical teaching, and reinforces it with the traditional Jewish teaching, showing the “loopholes” created by sola scriptura.

Even the sola scriptura Reformers spoke vehemently against Onanism. My signature link is a real eye-opener to the sins of ommission of present-day Protestantism.