|
Financial Assistance requested
Reverend David C. Trosch June 20, 1994 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Re: Questions concerning "Justifiable Homicide" in defense of innocent human beings. Your Eminence, The Church teaches and believes that at the moment of conception God places the immortal soul/spirit into the new body making it fully human and entitled to all natural human rights and protection. Yet, when it comes to the question of use of force in defense of these innocent human beings, these preborn infants are treated as second class citizens who are not worth full protection. While it is understood that certain rights and privileges are acquired by age and status, the value of each human being is the same to God. This is true since, from the moment of conception, all are created equal in His sight even though each has been given different gifts and life situations. Adult rights have adult responsibilities. This does not affect or change the fact of the personhood of someone with lesser human status. The real importance of human life rests with the immortal soul and its value to the next life. The world has become calloused to abortion. The impact of the seriousness of abortion either was never fully appreciated or has since been lost. Accusations made regarding attempted legislation of morality are not pertinent to the question. The question hinges on what is justice and are we willing to fight, when necessary, for justice to whatever degree it takes to win justice for our innocent brothers and sisters who are daily being killed around much of the world. The immediacy of the situation is this. A known murderer is about to kill more innocent people. Whether there are available political or diplomatic solutions to the situation is irrelevant because deaths of the children are imminent. It is further irrelevant that the child is legally being placed in harms way. It is also irrelevant that it is the mother most often who is placing the child in harms way. What is important is that a child, indeed numerous children, will soon be killed unless immediate action is taken. Imminent danger is the reason why the use of force, either in self-defense or in defense of an innocent person or persons, is justifiable even though such force is deadly force. There is no other immediate alternative or solution to prevent the deaths of these innocent people. It is most probable that at least some of the mothers learning of the death of their chosen paid assassin will repent of their intended evil and will keep their children while loving them even the more so because of the regrets they now have. The deaths of the innocent should not be allowed to continue to take place when there is an immediate solution, i.e. the deaths of the killers, the murderers, the practicing abortionists. This method is certain to stop the abortions scheduled to take place at their hands that day and for all days to come. Some children, perhaps even most, will be rescheduled to be done away with by another abortionist, but it will become increasingly harder to find an abortionist willing to risk his own life in order to take the lives of others. In today's society it is no longer arguable that an abortionist is not aware that his actions are considered to be murder by a large number of people. The numbers with such belief are increasing. Most religions believe in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception but, like Catholics, are, for the time being, having difficulties getting their priorities straight. He also knows that there is no sustainable argument to prove that human life does not begin at conception. Indeed medical science has proven to the contrary. The immediate solution to the problem is clear. The time for prayer is past, the time for action is now. For this reason "Justifiable Homicide" should be seen as the correct moral solution to the imminent deaths of innocent persons now taking place. If one were to save the life of an innocent child, who had run out into the street in front of great traffic, and was injured or killed in the process of saving that child that person would be considered a hero or a heroine. In war time, in a battlefield, if a soldier sees a situation in which he must expose himself to enemy fire in order to save his comrades, and does so, he is, in this country, given the "Medal of Honor" for heroic action under fire above and beyond the call of duty even though he may have had to kill dozens of the enemy in the process. This is true whether he lives or dies as a result of his action. Other countries have similar awards for bravery, for heroism. Worldwide only one man has thus far been brave enough to risk his own life to save the lives of many. What is the difference between the above situation and the situation of risking ones own life or imprisonment in the act of saving innocent human lives who will certainly be saved that day and at least some of whom would live to be born and cared for as intended by God. Make a comparison. Where is the clear cut Church condemnation of the IRA for their terrorists activities which unfortunately even include, from time to time, the killing of innocent bystanders? Where also is the clear cut condemnation of the Catholics of Bosnia-Herzegovina (Sarajevo) for their part in terrorist activities in the shelling which kills innocent civilians, non-combatants? Why does the Church not take a strong stand against Catholic pro-abortion doctors, public officials, politicians and candidates who officially and publicly promote abortions? Why are they not officially and publicly excommunicated? The concern with procured abortion, in free countries at least, is that only one person has been willing to risk his life and/or possible long term imprisonment to save innocent preborn people. In the United States of America in early 1993, a man named Michael Griffin was alleged to have shot and killed one Dr. David Gunn. Michael Griffin has now been found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison. If Michael Griffin's sole motivation, in the killing of Dr. Gunn, was to defend and save at least some of the lives of the innocent babies scheduled for slaughter that day by Dr. Gunn, why was there no bishop present for his defense, or public statement made to the effect that what Michael Griffin did was justifiable? Dr. Gunn was a well known abortionist. He had been confronted with the evil of his activities by pro-life activists over a long period of time. He had revealed no desire to stop doing abortions. By moral law Dr. Gunn was not only a murderer, but was a mass murderer who was deserving of death according to St. Thomas Aquinas. -- Following the death of Dr. Gunn other abortionists have quit the profitable abortion business. In America Catholics share, to a high degree, in the guilt of murder by abortion. Priests and laity alike vote for pro-choice/pro-abortion candidates for public office. Only lip service and token pro-life activities are given by the vast majority of bishops to defend the pre-born. Few, if any, diocesan announcements are published and made from the pulpit stating which candidates may not morally be voted for. Yet this is an option which may, by civil law, be legally taken in this country and probably most other countries without losing tax exempt status, though, this should not be a consideration. Why has the Vatican not published an official list of priorities which must be reviewed and followed prior to a person voting for a candidate for public office? Long term spiritual values are of greater importance than short term peace. What humans think of as being at peace is not the peace which God understands as proper or true peace. In accordance with the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers, as an extension to the right of self-defense -- which need not be exercised, the defense of other innocent human beings is seen as a moral obligation. While certain conditions of time, circumstance, and personal ability may diminish or remove this obligation, other conditions make it a moral imperative to do whatever is necessary to save innocent lives. An undeclared war exists against pre-born human beings. Approximately one out of every three women, including Catholics, in the United States is a murderess. She has hired one or more assassins to kill, to murder one or more of her innocent children. These humans are totally innocent of any wrong doing and are totally incapable of defending themselves. It is justice to protect them by what ever means accomplishes the goal of defending them, even, as may be the case for many, if for only a short period of time. We are responsible for what is happening to the innocent now, not for what may happen to them tomorrow or at some future date. While it is understood that perhaps many women will go to another abortionist to have their babies murdered, it should also be understood that at least some will not. The evil of what these mothers were considering doing impacts upon them and they decide to have their babies and then raise them with much love. Regardless of the above, the abortionist, who is a practicing murderer, should be stopped from continuing his evil practice. If this means that his life must be terminated, because other deterrents are not immediately effective or practical, then it should be terminated with prudent dispatch. There is substantial Biblical precedence to this effect, and, there is substantial historical Christian evidence to this precedence also even to the extent of fighting major wars to defend the innocent. When civil government has become morally corrupt, the obligation of justice reverts, according to the teachings of the Church fathers, to lower levels of society, and, even to individuals as circumstances may determine. (See CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS under NOTES. Also see document on hand entitled "A Rational Presentation of the Use of Lethal Force in Opposing Aborticide") When human atrocities such as torture, rape, incest, pedophilia, murder inside or outside the womb, etc. are committed, they are invariably done in a private manner such as was the case of the Germans experimenting upon, raping, torturing, and murdering the many millions during the course of the Second World War. They committed these atrocities in deserted areas, behind the high walls of concentration camps or in other private manners. They did not want the average citizen seeing what was taking place. In the same manner, a woman, desiring to have her preborn child killed, wants to keep the termination private. She wants the killing of the life in her womb to be accepted as something personal even though what she wants to have done is protected by civil law. She and the abortionists and those who support abortion do everything possible to keep the general public from being aware of what actually is taking place during the abortion act. They want to keep the evil act a hidden affair and the rest of society does not want to know of the hideousness of what takes place. The failure of the average person to comprehend the correct value of life in the womb can be best equated with their lack of comprehension of God and the having of faith in Him. This failure extends to their inability to accept the full presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Recent polls indicate that perhaps as high as two-thirds of Catholics do not believe in the real presence. This percentage seems to include clerics of all ranks. If even the hierarchy of the Church does not accept the full presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic, it is deleteriously understandable that they are not properly accepting full life in the womb. Denial of these facts is common, but such denial will not be of value to them on judgement day. Men share in the guilt of abortion by condoning, encouraging, paying for abortions, etc. Over one-third of all congregations are guilty of murder by direct participation in them. Catholics rank among congregations with the highest percentage of members directly involved with procured abortion. By omission almost all are guilty, particularly the clergy who fail to regularly and actively speak and act against abortion. Because of the hidden nature of life in the womb it is understood that the practice of abortion cannot be stopped entirely. But, when it is a matter of the public acceptance of procured abortion and condoning the protection of abortionists, even by bishops, a clearer and stronger statement than automatic excommunication must be made in regard to the graveness of the evil. The Church has made aborticide a greater evil than premeditated murder of healthy adults by attaching to it the censure of automatic excommunication. However, either most women who desire to have an abortion have not been made clearly aware of this censure, or, they have been mislead into believing that censures are meaningless. This may be true because Catholics either do not believe in the existence of hell, or believe that God is so merciful that it is all but impossible to be sent there. Both of these are of course erroneous teachings. The clearer and stronger statement would be that of "Justifiable Homicide" in regard to the abortionists and those who immediately assist him in the act of aborticide. I am hereby presenting to you the moral position that it is "Justifiable Homicide" to take the life of a practicing abortionist. Humans are in immediate danger of death, and immediate action is necessary. A long term waiting approach for the evil to be resolved is not reasonable. This is even more true, if that is possible, since it has been demonstrated over the past twenty or so years, and over one billion legal abortion murders worldwide, that there is no other practical means of ending the atrocity of abortion or of preventing imminent deaths. There is a lack of sincere belief in Jesus and all that such belief entails, and, there is lack of strength in leadership within the Church. Too many are happy with the status quo. They do not desire the real change of heart that leads to spiritual improvement and eternal life. In free democratic societies Catholics should be working with greater effort toward the establishment of civil laws which agree with both moral and natural law. Catholics should however not be dependant upon the use of politics and diplomacy. Rather, they should look toward what serves both justice and truth immediately and best. This is the thrust of Scripture and the concept behind the recent encyclical, "Veritatis Splendor". My bishop, Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb, has published "A Pastoral Instruction" in opposition to "Justifiable Homicide". He chooses therein to defend the life of guilty abortionists. I have written a commentary on his position paper which clearly demonstrates the ludicrousness of such position. You should have a copy of this commentary on file entitled, " "You Shall not Murder" versus "Justifiable Homicide" ". To date he has not responded to my rebuttal of his position. The killing of a practicing murderer is not murder but rather is the defense of innocent human life. It is a righteous act. It is a good act in the sight of God. Your Eminence, in your position as head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I ask you to answer the following questions with the expediency that the world situation, in regard to abortion, requires. The questions I am presenting you in regard to formal Church teachings are: 1. Are zygotes, embryos, and fetuses all spiritual beings with immortal souls in mortal bodies? 2. Are such beings the same as born beings in the sight of God, with the same eternal value to Him? 3. Does either the stage of development or age of an individual change his or her importance to God? 4. Was not the human soul, which was created at the moment of conception, designed by God to be the highest form of created being and be either a brother or sister of His only Son, Jesus? 5. Is each person individually and immediately responsible for the condition of his own soul and the condition of his own relationship with God at any given time? 6. Is the condition of someone else's soul, at any particular time, reason, in the sight of God who has capacity to control all situations to serve His own eternal purposes, to forestall action required in the defense of innocent human beings? 7. Can one who sees visually an occurrence where, or knows mentally with reasonable certainty that, innocent persons are about to be casually murdered, i.e. imminently in danger of death, stay aloof from the situation and not take whatever action that is available and within their means and capacity to take, and not be guilty as an accomplice in the crime, by neglect or omission, in the sight of God? 8. Does a preborn person, from the moment of conception, have the same right to life and to self-defense and protection by one or more other persons from unquestionably unjust aggression as does a fully grown, born person? 9. Is the killing of an active abortionist, by a person of right motivation and intent, "Justifiable Homicide"? 10. If the killing of an active abortionist can not be considered Justifiable Homicide, then what authentic Church teaching goes against this belief? If the answers to numbers eight and nine are "yes", then I ask you to have the answers made into formal positions of the Church without equivocation. Please set aside concerns for the reactions of man which are in opposition to the will of God. Salvation is for those who live in the spirit. It is not for those who live in the body. I have taken a philosophical and theological position supporting "Justifiable Homicide". But, I clearly and freely state, that should the Church have any formal teaching which clearly goes against such position and present it, I will alter my position without hesitation. Should at any time in the future the universal Church promulgate a formal universal infallible declaration that there is no such thing as justifiable homicide, or, that it is sinful to take the life of an abortionist who has been, and is, demonstrably intent upon continuing to kill preborn babies, then I will alter my position. If this theological presentation is made as a dogmatic statement of the Church, then, it would almost certainly become unnecessary for very many abortionists to be killed. They would then read the signs of the times and withdraw from the evil practice. The failure of the Church to make such a statement only prolongs the unnecessary killing of the innocent. This unnecessary prolongation of the killing makes the Church hierarchy guilty by neglect of the horrendous crime of aborticide. Sincerely in Christ,
fr. David C. Trosch P.S. I believe that documents which have been furnished you on three prior occasions answer most if not all common objections, and contain quotes from Church fathers and other sources regarding "Justifiable Homicide" in the defense of innocent human beings. If, however, you have any specific questions in this regard, please FAX or otherwise communicate with me concerning such questions or documentation. Fr. John Rock, S.J. has in his possession a series of documents which I left at your office on 4 June 1994 during my most recent trip to Rome. "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12 MOTHERHOOD - 1 Tim 2:15 refers to the value of motherhood. With other values in proper place, motherhood is the prime decision women make in regard to their relationship with almighty God. Motherhood is the primary decision of truth and justice which women as a whole must make. Chastity, with dedicated service to God and neighbor, is the most acceptable alternative choice for women. ABORTION AFTERMATH - Once women, who have had an abortion, complete their period of denial, which takes an average of 8.7 years, they acknowledge, at least to themselves, that they have murdered their child. This child will most often be named by them as they reflect on what has taken place. They will acknowledge to themselves, for the rest of their lives, that they are murderesses. Many of these women have now gone public in their defense of the unborn, and are perfectly willing to give testimony before any judge here on earth, for they know, they have acknowledged it to God already, the depth, the greatness of their sin. Even though most of the hierarchy of the Church and the ministers of the world are still in denial as to the fact of murder of the innocents, these women will now readily acknowledge the exactness of their crime. Aside from the direct evil of abortion are the direct consequences of abortion on family and upon society as a whole. These consequences of and by themselves are sufficient reason to take drastic action in regard to abortion. There are many who are available and willing to testify to the detrimental effects of abortion on all directly associated with an abortion, i.e. spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, other close relatives, friends, neighbors, employers, co-workers, etc. The Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti, recently has stated that there has been an epidemic of domestic violence and domestic homicide in this country. Rape and child abuse have become so common that only infrequently does news media bother reporting the occurrences. The studies concerning the social effects of abortion are only in their early stages of development and public awareness. Recently a professor of Jesuit run Springhill College here in Mobile, Alabama, has easily and quickly raised over one thousand dollars, a sum which exceeded need, to have cosmetic surgery done on a vandalized dog. The excess was given to the veterinarian so that he could take his family out to have an expensive dinner. I am not aware that this professor or others, of Catholic Springhill College, have made efforts to raise funds for abortion prevention. The priority of values in this country is very much out of keeping with the will of God. GENESIS 9:6 - The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant, the covenant between God and His people. But, the teachings of the Old Testament remain in effect except for those that have been clearly and specifically changed by Jesus. Note: A clear statement in Scripture can never be subrogated to a less clear statement found elsewhere in Scripture. To believe or teach that Genesis 9:6 has somehow been modified or replaced by the teachings of the New Testament is without foundation. God is immutable, He does not change from generation to generation, or from millennia to millennia, etc. If He were to change His moral law teachings, he then would not be a dependable God who would warrant true worship. Instead people would only pay Him unfelt tribute because His power demanded they should. God is justly worshipped not only because He is powerful, but because He is perfectly just and reliable in everything He says and does. He neither deceives nor can He be deceived. Many attempt to use the passage in John 8:2-11, concerning the adulterous woman, in an attempt to nullify Genesis 9:6, "If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made." If however they had any real appreciation of God's law they would understand that those bringing the woman to Jesus and accusing her were guilty of letting her accomplice in adultery go free. By doing so they become guilty under the law of freeing an accomplice in crime thereby themselves becoming subject to penalty. This fact was understood by the two unjust judges in Daniel 13:39 who had accused Susanna of adultery. They claimed, to forestall their own condemnation, that they could not hold the man because he was stronger than they and so he escaped. They further protected themselves by alleging that they could not identify the man. (Exodus 23:7 "You shall keep away from anything dishonest. The innocent and the just you shall not put to death, nor shall you acquit the guilty".) (Daniel 13:61-62 "They rose up against the two elders, for by their own words Daniel had convicted them of perjury. According to the law of Moses, they inflicted on them the penalty they had plotted to impose on their neighbor: they put them to death. Thus was innocent blood spared that day".) By the misinterpretation of JN 8:2-11, many claim GN 9:6 was diminished or abrogated. If they understood the fullness of the Mosaic law, then they would readily understand that this teaching in no way replaces GN 9:6. Both the man and the woman guilty of adultery were to be judged and condemned to death. Each one of those who brought the woman to Jesus for condemnation without bringing the man were guilty of letting the adulterer go free. By law they would be seen as accomplices to the adulterer, by letting him go free, and they would be subject to penalty accordingly. When the accusers were themselves accused, and they understood the consequences of their action, they refused to testify against the woman. They refused to cast the first stone and departed in silence. Jesus Himself was not a witness to the act and so had to let the woman go free even though, as God, He knew of her guilt. By Jewish law at least two or three witnesses were necessary before someone could be put to death. She had to be set free. Jesus did not abrogate the death penalty through this situation. (Deut 19:15 "One witness alone shall not take the stand against a man in regard to any crime or any offense of which he may be guilty; a judicial fact shall be established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses".) (James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it".) Human nature does not change with advances in technology. For this reason, if for no other, the commandment God gave to Noah and his sons is as just and valid today as it was in Noah's time. It is evident from what is taking place in society today that technological advances and increased knowledge alone do not change the human heart. God has the wisdom of all ages, and the wisdom He spoke then is valid for all ages. Human nature has not and does not improve over any span of time. It is egotistical to have thoughts that man morally progresses through the ages. It is also wrong to believe that each and every born person must live for the greatest possible length of time. If the command of Genesis 9:6 has been replaced by the New Testament, why is there still a reading in the "Lectionary" (the readings of Mass) which includes the command? (See Weekday Cycle 1, #338, GN 9:1-13). The command of GN 9:6 was a preliminary, a basic, to the covenant that God made with Noah and his sons that was binding upon God for all ages to come. The permanency of the covenant God made with Noah also applies to the command, "Be fertile and multiply". (see Sunday Cycle "B", #23, GN 9:8-15). WAR / INSURRECTION / ANARCHY - Because of logistics there can be no international war in relation to abortion even though the number of the innocents being slaughter well warrants it. For the same reason, logistics, there can be no civil war because there are no definable regions, as in the American Civil War, to operate from. We are currently in a state of anarchy -- of rebellion -- against the highest lawful authority of all. God's Most Holy Will. Any civil anarchy, civil disturbance, even violence, is inconsequential when compared with the greater seriousness of rebellion against God's commands and authority. JUSTICE p.72 -- Penal Justice. Iustitia vindicativa is the temperate will to restore violated justice and order through punishment proportionate to the violation and to the exigencies of the social order. (New Catholic Encyc.) CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS - 1 Mac 2:17-27 illustrates how one should act in the face of legal but evil civil authority. ST ST 2a2ae Q64 2nd Article: ...Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part of the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump (1Cor v. 6) ... Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgement, rather than the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them to repent, according as he knows what is expedient for the elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. ... although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i 1 and Ethic. vii. 6). As St. Thomas Aquinas and others have elsewhere stated, when a civil law is surely unjust it is to be treated as no law at all. All actions which would have been taken without that law can be taken during the existence of a corrupt law or laws. QUOTES - Judges 4:17-21 Sisera, in the meantime, had fled on foot to the tent of Jael, wife of the Kenite Heber, since Jabin, king of Hazor, and the family of the Kenite Heber were at peace with one another. Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, "Come in, my lord, come in with me; do not be afraid." So he went into her tent, and she covered him with a rug. He said to her, "Please give me a little water to drink. I am thirsty." But she opened a jug of milk for him to drink, and then covered him over. "Stand at the entrance of the tent," he said to her. "If anyone comes and asks, `Is there someone here?' say, 'No!'" Instead Jael, wife of Heber, got a tent peg and took a mallet in her hand. While Sisera was sound asleep, she stealthily approached him and drove the peg through his temple down into the ground, so that he perished in death. 1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel: "Do not judge from his appearance or from his lofty stature, because I have rejected him. Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the LORD looks into the heart." BELIEF IN COMING CATASTROPHES - I believe that by the third day of Advent of this current year, great catastrophes will come upon this planet because of the evils taking place in society and the lack of concern by such great numbers about the evils. I believe that these catastrophes will take place in such a manner that, in time, there will be no doubt as to the reason for their occurrence. An example of one form of such possible occurrence, in one area of the world, may be found in Zachariah 14:12. "And this shall be the plague with which the LORD shall strike all the nations that have fought against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths." Note: Modern Israel is believed to have developed a weapon which produces this effect. It is my belief that much of the world's expected destruction can be alleviated by early action on the above stated questions if correctly given and acted upon. It is anticipated that the world's annihilation could go as high as 80% of the total population. The destruction will probably not be below 20%. Object lessons are necessary for the continuing development of humanity, even when they mean great destruction. Such great destruction has taken place during both Noah's and Abraham's times and also were involved with the periods of Babylonian captivity. Modern times have seen the great wars, though most did not recognize the true reasons for their occurrence. Seismic activity has increased over 3,000% in just the last five decades. We are waiting too long to learn our lessons and return to a proper and full belief in God. Many bishops and priests may well be among the early casualties of this probable coming doom. Many people of good faith have been hesitant to act without clear leadership from the Church. Activities of faith are encouraged by positive action on the part of the Church. Our age is on the brink of expansion into the galaxy. It is probable that future generations will populate and/or evangelize the universe. As the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant were to the human race before the time of Christ, so the human race is to the potential or existing intelligent beings throughout the universe. There is however one difference. The existing covenant, received through Jesus, is the Universal Covenant which will remain valid for all time, never to be replaced as was the Mosaic Covenant. Population growth has always been a major reason for seeking new frontiers. Population growth pressures also serve the goal of God to complete the numbers of those who are to enter Heaven. He is the God of the universe, not just the God of this one planet. We are called the Catholic Church, i.e. Universal Church. Aside from all other criteria, the Church's position against abortion and contraception serve God's will to have the numbers who are to enter the eternal Kingdom filled. Genesis 1 and 9 give a command to the human race which will not expire until the end of time, "Be fertile and multiply". Human desires are against this command. The Church must promote the command more fully, clearly, and strongly. Note: All documentation can be furnished on I.B.M. compatible computer diskette if useful, or, can be transmitted via modem.  Editor
|
