R
Roy5
Guest
Willy Jose
Code:
You appear to be reasonable, so let the dialogue continue, as time permits.
1. My reading of history and persecution goes like this - briefly. Once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it began to do what had been done to it. It did not tolerate competing faiths, although I would suggest that it may have begun to borrow from other faiths.
Let me wander away from our topic for just a moment. Yesterday I watched a feature on Loreto, Italy, on EWTN. (I had heard the Lords expound on the same theme some time ago.) In a nutshell, Loreto claims to have a house where Mary and the Holy Family had lived in Nazareth, etc. How did it get there? Angels were seen by shepherds carrying it across the Adriatic several hundred years ago. They saw Mary and the Baby Jesus on the roof! This shrine attracts many pilgrims every year, and Pope John Paul II seemed to validate this 'miracle' by visiting it. Etc. Now, are educated people of the 21st century supposed to believe such stories? Give me a break! That is a basic problem which traditional Catholics either embraces or ignore. To successfully navigate the world of today, Catholicism needs to shed many of these pious myths that alienate millions.
Okay, back to persecution. There was much on both sides, true. I would suggest that Catholicism probably did more of it, but that is a pointless debate. If Luther hadn't been hounded as he was when he tried to reform the church things may have been very different. The Council of Trent actually recognized some of his charges as valid and made reforms. Vatican II even encouraged mass in the vernacular which he had asked for 500 years earlier. But, alas, I'm not a fan of Luther. I have trouble accepting any religious leader as infallible, including the Pope. As for that, have you ever read Abelard's *Sic et **Non?* Centuries ago he (a good Catholic) was arguing that the church's position on basic doctrines and morals had changed.
By the way, I visited Spain under Franco when Protestants there were denied religious freedom. Remember, too, that it was only 150 years ago that Pius IX condemned democracy and separation of Church and State in his notorious 'Syllabus of Errors'. Have you read it? What do you think of it? Fortunately, modern Catholicism changed its policy and now champions freedom of religion. But bear in mind the prejudices against Catholicism developed during those early years when Catholicism was adamant in insisting that it had special and exclusive rights and that it alone was the one true church (something it still maintains, of course).
2. As for Peter, as you know Protestants provide a variety of arguments against the idea that Peter was the first Pope. I would need to refresh my memory on those but they obviously convince millions of Christians. For example, they interpret the words "and on this rock I will build my church" not as referring to Peter but upon the confession of faith which had just declared.
3. I will not dismiss atrocities in the Bible and blaming them on God as my inability to understand God's purposes, etc. That always seems to be the reply when the horrors of the Old Testament come up. "God's ways are not our ways" - and such. I refuse to believe for a micro-second that Christ, God incarnate, would order such annihiliation of innocent people. Consider even the flood in the time of Noah. God saved eight people, but how about the many others, among them children and infants, some certainly still in the womb, who must have been drowned? Talk about means and ends! Do you actually believe that a just and merciful God would deliberately do that?! I could not worship such a god. He would be more like Hitler than the God of love! But many Christians (Protestants and Catholics alike) continue to declare all these atrocity tales as the written Word of God! I wince everytime I read how joyfully scripture quotes the ancient Israelites: "Saul had killed his thousands, but David has killed his ten thousands!" I believe instead the sermon on the mount, when Christ praised peacemakers and even called upon us to 'love our enemies'. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Christianity of that sort were ever seriously tried.
4. Back to our thread - abortion. I am against abortion, just like I am against capital punishment and war etc. But there may be situations in which that is a bad alternative but the wisest one available. In such rare instances, I would leave the decision up to the mother and the medical world and not make them into criminals or wicked, evil sinners. That poor mother has enough misery and sorrow to weigh her down without having the church add to it. I've always been uncomfortable that an all-male hierarchy can be so rigid and harsh on this very complex issue. I feel even more annoyed when this same all-male, celibate hierarchy is so self-righteous and unbending when it comes to the question of birth control. That is a decision for conscientious and loving married couples to make.
God bless people of every creed, color and country, and may religion serve as a bridge instead of a barrier. God bless especially those women with 'problem pregnancies' that the Lord may sustain and guide them through this crisis in their lives.