celebrations of the reformation

my reaction to this blog post

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/some-thoughts-reformation-conversation/comment-page-1#comment-715732

yes we evangelicals have baggage. we can be obnoxious, heavy handed, judgmental, self righteous, pharisaical, but even given those elements, the fact remains that there is some underlying blockage to joint celebration of the reformation. i would venture to suggest that there is an elephant in the room.

i think that the elephant could be the so called "wars of religion".

this was one of the bloodiest times in world history if we look at the statistics as proportions of the population apparently. how ever the problem is finding the statistics. i suggest that this might be because of the size and effectiveness of the cover up and embarrassment factor. everything i have read about these so called "wars of religion" that followed the reformation on the continent or europe at least, suggests that although a few protestants took up arms, mainly reluctantly, on the whole we have to call what happened a genocide. an ethnic cleansing of protestants. it had already happened in Czechoslovakia after the Huss revival. it was at it's worst in france under king louis IV. the french population had been nearly 43% protestant at the height of the reformation "revival" and went down to under 2% due to massacres, forced conversions, removal and brainwashing of children, legalised persecution by official and non official bodies, death sentence, flight - refugees.

of course protestants aren't perfect but what did we do that deserved that treatment ? we damaged some statues, wanted to alter church organisation,  so we should be tortured and massacred ?

in england at least things were handled far more decently over all. even if  cromwell sold out on the issue of the poor laws (peasants were still left very nearly in a state of serfdom) but at least the protestants managed to invent the first ever war crimes public trial citing 22 atrocities committed by the king's side. it had a long way to go as legal affairs go but at least it wasn't the traditional method of bumping off kings by assassination and the knife in the bed chamber, and the motives were out in the open.the democratic changes demanded by the "naughty" levelers are now considered as normal in britain and anything else is unthinkable yet they are still portrayed as the villains of the piece most history accounts, dangerous extremists. the religious changes demanded by the "naughty" puritans are now considered as more or less normal in the church of england too yet to say someone is a puritan is still as much an insult now as the royalists made it when they came back into power.

in the catholic world history was rewritten before charles I's blood had the time to congeal. he was made into a saint and a martyr.

history was rewritten in ireland and scotland too. these situations were not handled well by any means, tho perhaps not that badly if you compare with the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in a very similar way the issues were never about those indigenous people, but about defensive action against internal and international forces. in the british isles religion it self was not even the deepest issue in my opinion even though the religious authorities sponsored it, but defense against alliances wanting to bring rival kings to the british throne - the catholic church backing ousted kings - james II (jacobite rebellion), charles I and II, bonnie prince charlie, to name but a few. these and others tried to re-invade england via the irish and scotish shores, but the full and willing help of those populations. the catholic church also encouraged a french invasion of england in the 13th century and by the spanish armada twice. england and france have had plenty of "neighbourly" wars of their own, i'm only thinking of where they have harboured the "enemies of national peace/rightful monarchs" - depending on which side of the fence one sits of course.

despite all this i have little or no problem with individual catholics in the present. i respect their faith and know i have things to learn from their approach to mysticism and other areas. now i know that the elephant is there, i don't think i can honestly have any dealings with the catholic church as such above priest level until it is dealt with. no one can go back to the past but as the french government has acknowledged in making holocaust denial an illegal act, they even have made it illegal to deny the armenian genocide, so i think there should be public admission of guilt of the protestant genocide. france says things in stone. their public monuments are very important to them. i think there need to be some pillars put up in the towns of some of the massacres of protestants. i think that catholic "saints" who were involved in such things should be demoted by the vatican and the marking of the saint day given to charles I on the 31st january should be abandoned and handed over instead to penitance for the massacres of so called "heretics".

i have forgiven. today i shall forgive again. tomorrow i hope i will forgive again. but i can't accept joint public acts of reformed and catholic groups. it's like a woman returning to a husband who beats her, or an abused child still hoping against hope that the parent is no longer an abuser. they should not be put in the position of having to do the emotional contortion act to try to have to do it. the success of the south african truth commission is exactly because it does not pretend that apartheid never happened. for there to be reconciliation as opposed to brushing under the carpet there has to be some sort of admission of guilt. we are walking round not just small piles of dust under our carpet but a mountain, maybe even an elephant.