to think that the catholic church are bloody immoral and need to be made answerable to the shit they seem to get away with?

[cupcakesandbunting]

I am referring to this; www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296

and yes, I am totally aware that the police and government are to blame too but we expect governments and to an extent police, to be corrupt.

I am saying this as a RC too. I am fucking shocked at the amount of revolting crap that the church seem to get away with. Covering up paedophiles/abusers, bombers and who knows what else.

Why are they never made accountable?

They will indeed, they already do, as all their friends and all miy dise of the famyli are Christians and mostly catholic. I have no problem them hearing about anything really but I do not want it to be taught to them. There is a big difference.

WRT pushing on them my beliefs, yes but as a parent I have to have something to stand on to eduvcate my children.What I stand on are the moral values that I folow as well as the moral values I grew up with wich asre essentially the same. If I noew had to raise my Dcs without "passing on" any of that I might as well just give birth to them, feed them... but not raise them (not sure raise is correct term, I mean by that pass on anything that is down to feelings, moral, education in a broad sense)

But if morality is based on principles of survival of the species - does that not make abortion the ultimate wrong?

Firstly - my personal morality is not based on survival of the 'species'. Evolutionary theory at the genetic level just helps me to understand the world a bit better.

I would say (broadly and crudely again) that I would aspire to behaving in a way which respects others and does not inflict unnecessary pain, suffering and damage. I try to do things towards the 'common good', whether that be recycling, helping out the neighbours, helping at the school fair, or making donations to charity (yada yada). I wouldn't describe myself as a paragon of moral virtue however, I think this is just basic common sense for anyone who wants to live in a pleasant and functional society.

Re abortion being 'the ultimate wrong' in terms of survival of the species, this doesn't really stand up in terms of evolutionary theory. There are many cases where an animal's chances of having lots of other viable offspring may actually be improved by aborting or committing infanticide. I don't personally want to embark on a debate on human abortion though, as I think it would be fairly pointless, and it's not something I feel I have enough detailed knowledge on.

I think the most you can teach children is that in your experience and opinion certain things are not going to make for a happy and fulfilled life for them, and are not good for society at large. I don't agree with teaching them that issues of personal behaviour which impact on the individual concerned are wrong or right. Life is far more complicated than that.

I love that Daftpunk is talking about schools and Freddo is talking about incest; it makes for such an interesting juxtapostion of posts...

Re: incest, yep, HouseofBamboo, I feel pretty yuk, yuk, yuk at the thought of carnal relations with my brothers, but I know that Freddo is asking for a more reasoned argument.

I guess my answer would go back to what I said earlier. Viz:

a) the possibility of genetic abnormalities. Yes, of course contraception and abortion (which would allow incest while preventing the birth of possible genetically abnormal children) exist now, but they did not exist over the thousands of years when this taboo became hardwired into our brains. And even today, contraception is not 100% failsafe; abortion is a difficult decision; and neither option is available to millions of women on this planet. So it's best that this taboo continues to operate.

b) the possibility of abuse. Over the thousands of years of evolution that have brought us to this point, living in familial groups without strife has proved to be a bit of a winner (barring a war or few; but I'm getting off the point here). Incest might provoke strife (power play within the family group). And even today, living in a small family group, power comes into play. So if, for example, a father commits incest with his child, or a mother does the same, or an older sibling does the same with a younger sibling - well, that's not just bullying (I'm bigger/more powerful than you, so I can do what I like), but it also upsets the dynamic within the family (to put it mildly). So, again, it's best that this taboo continues to operate.

(Once again, I have taken ages to post this - so please forgive me if the debate has moved on.)

I like your posts PrincessFiorimonde. And also from you others, they are all very reasonable arguements. I really need to take my time to look at them properly and am [obviously given the time I've spent on this this morning] a bit behind on everything I should be doing.
I really must go and give my DCs some attention, but will try to come back later and think about these points more fully.

"First, do no harm"

An encapsulation of a life philosophy that predates Christianity.

Daftpunk, I didn't see posts about your parents (perhaps they were deleted by the time I clicked on this thread), but I'm very sorry if they were subjected to abuse. I wish all the best to them, and I'm sorry to hear your father isn't well.

Re my earlier post about incest, I've realised I was writing about sibling incest, for example where people who spent time apart as children subsequently have a sexual relationship.

Parent child incest is something which is much harder to see as being 'okay' in any circumstances because it will always involve an abusive power relationship.

PF, please don't worry, I quicky read yr post last night on my phone, maybe misunderstood. I have had to deal with the most appalling behaviour on this thread, read the word C**T, after all that particular poster had said previously left me feeling something I've never felt on mumsnet before. And having other posters join in, well.... Just totally unacceptable. and then reading you say I'm on here 'winding people up' ....I could have cried. Especially as I've always considered you a good friend on MN.

But today is another day......and I keep thinking it's Monday.

"I suppose you are saying that the strong should protect the weak, but where does the morality for that come from? Surely if you are relying on 'survival of the fittest' principles the strong should be killing the weak off?"

There are all sorts of scenarios where it makes evolutionary sense for the strong to protect the weak. Aside from the obvious one of protecting your own children, it can also be a sensible strategy for animals/humans to cooperate and live in a broadly non-aggressive societal structure because each individual's survival chances are enhanced because of it.

If you ever get a chance, have a look at this book on game theory. It explains the principle of the 'evolutionarily stable strategy' whereby from a survival point of view, it doesn't always make sense to go around being 'selfish' and aggressive:

Evolution and the Theory of Games

Daftpunk - you mean it ISN'T Monday???

Seeker: in our local state school, so many parents are getting annoyed by the religious overtones (CofE in this case, but I would object whatever religion in OUR LOCAL state school)that we are banding together to protest and hopefully the fact that so many of us are objecting will have some impact. It's not just a minute of prayer here and there, it's the religious symbolism all over the school, the pictures, the crosses, the visits by the local priets, the religious plays and stories. I object to all of that, but not to the teaching of RE.

I've had these debates before, and I was brought up very striclty catholic so I know it's basically impossible to get some people to see reason. My parents' local priest recently told them in church that the stories about child abuse and the protection of child rapist priests had been exaggerated and that some were 'made up' to harm the church yet again. My parents said most people around them nodded in agreeemnt and I'm afraid that's the way of it.

'My frame of referenc spans further than a measly 2000 years and from a wider range of sources, occasionally contradictory, often flawed, but I'm always learning and rely on MYSELF to draw conclusions. I'm a grown up human being with the ability to think, observe and decide for myself.'

Are you saying that the Catholic Church demands blind, unthinking loyalty, that believers check their thinking faculties at the door of the church? You have referred to a God who 'demands' worship, and above you seem to draw a contrast between the way you arrive at moral conclusions and an implied other way that the Catholic Church insists upon.

Apart altogether from the fact that this is part of an old prejudice against Catholics and the Catholic Church, that Catholics are a bunch of brain-dead fools being led gladly by the nose, completely under the sway of some puppeteer in Rome, ready to jump up and commit treasonable acts whenever the Pope snaps his fingers, the Catholic Church has always posited free will as one of the defining characteristics of human beings (unlike Luther, who greatly downplayed the role of free will). Hence the role of the human intellect in discerning one's own morality (albeit with the guidance of the Church in its role as teacher), and the Catholic Church teaching responsibility for one's own conduct and the availability of grace through the sacraments.

Classical philosophers have wrestled with the idea of free will, with perhaps Socrates coming closest to the Catholic idea of free will the rational being is always attracted to what is apprehended as good, the rational being is able to distinguish between right and wrong, and will do so whether consciously or unconsciously. If you do not have some construct of right and wrong, why do you choose to live the way you do? (this is FBM's question) How do you arrive at daily decisions general taboos such as incest aside, what's stopping you from shoplifting if you could get away with it, having sex with the postman while in a committed relationship with someone else if no-one would ever find out, spray-painting swastikas on other people's houses... What constitutes a psychological taboo in place of the notions of right and wrong?

I have to say, I would personally object to having any non-Catholic teach my DCs anything about Catholicism; I am against teaching 'RE' as just another school subject like Reading or Spelling. It means more than that to those who practice it -- it's not just some interesting, quirky anthropological phenomenon. When you 'teach' it as an element of society that children should be aware of because religion in general has influenced the history and the law of the land, you negate the essence of religion as something living and important and concerned with the spirit. Why not just teach history properly? OTOH, teaching RE as Truth to children whose parents and families do not see it that way is not fair to those families. It interferes with their right to bring up their children as they see fit. Exposing children to any religious experience without the enthusiastic consent of the parents is intrusive. There is no way to teach RE without falling short, in other words, and I don't think excluding your child from the praying part is a good solution for the children concerned.

Seeker, in the US, individual school districts get to decide what will be taught in the public schools in their districts. Districts usually coincide with municipal areas, or counties in rural areas. States have no say in what is taught in individual public schools. The religious right has to fight its battle one school district at a time; so far there have been only patchy victories and lots of resistance from the rational majority. Secular public schools are safe there for the moment.

The separation of church and state is considered to be one of the cornerstones of US 'freedom', especially by the Catholic Church, which gets to run its own schools and hospitals and social service agencies, all funded by Catholics and run without interference from a government bureaucracy that was historically rather anti-Catholic.

mrsanxiety - I don;t want to worry you, but I agree with most of your last post!

But it is true that, while the Catholic Church does teach the doctrine of free will, it makes it very clear to its adherents which is the one true path. "You have complete free will to make the right or the wrong choice" This is not exclusive to Catholics - most religions say the same in one form or another.

And, to be honest, some tenets of faith do mean you have to check at least a bit of your intellectual self in at the door. Thinking that it's right that a mother who helped her raped child to procure an abortion should be excommunicated, but the rapist not, for example. Thinking that it's OK to control fertility by mapping fertility with thermometer and a date chart, but not with a condom for another.

Not a bit worried, Seeker.

The Church does have a definite idea of the way to salvation (and for the Church, that is the reason we are all here) -- it is a church and that is its raison d'etre. It is the prerogative of a church to teach clearly what it believes. (Reformed churches tend to insist on the primacy of the individual conscience, the cutting out of the middleman and direct reference to the Bible as opposed to the teaching role of a church in forming one's conscience, not that many protestant denominations have not been historically rather rigid and dogmatic, and many still are.) Free will and the role of the intellect, and the availability of grace through sacraments for those seeking it through the operation of free will and intellect are essential to an understanding of Catholicism. Without it, the sacraments become meaningless, the word of God exhorting a focus on eternal salvation and the promise of redemption becomes gobbledygook. The striving towards 'righteousness' as understood by the Church has no rationale behind it.

Every Catholic can basically decide for him or herself what he or she believes and how he or she will conduct him or herself. Within the Church hierarchy itself there is debate over a vast range of issues. Nothing that emanates from Rome is ever the work of one single person.

The role of intellect does come up against the Church role of Magisterium occasionally, (not necessarily in the case of contraception) but ultimately you are free as a Catholic to seek the guidance of your own conscience, to do and say and behave as you yourself think is right. The Church itself has adapted its teaching according to developments in science and technology, while trying to maintain a consistent message (Humanae Vitae being the significant enunciation of the Church's philosophy in the area of biological life itself and the many issues swirling around that concept) and often having to choose between the lesser of two evils, weighing centuries of argument and theological thought. If you really cannot accept some teaching of the Church, your spiritual struggle may take you on a path separate from Catholicism; you can change your mind at any time.

Right have had a think about these posts and I just have a few points.

PrincessFiorimonde your arguements re incest being unacceptable do make a lot of sense. The only bit I'm not sure I agree with is about it being 'hardwired' into our brains, as I think society's morality as a whole is pretty adaptable. Abortion was considered to be wrong by most people until not so long ago, and it was only legalised to be used by a few in extreme circumstances in order to prevent back street abortions... Today abortion is seen as a human right in this country.

Houseofbamboo: "I would aspire to behaving in a way which respects others and does not inflict unnecessary pain, suffering and damage. I try to do things towards the 'common good'"

Yes that does sound to me to be a good moral system (pretty much in line with what I believe myself!) I would only say that acting individually to define 'the common good' seems to me to be more dangerous than acting as a member of a group when others can quickly point out is you are obviously making any gigantic errors of judgement (eg. someone individually might think the world would be a better place if we eradicated a particular race of people. Hopefully if they put that idea forward as a member of a group it would be thrown out pretty quickly... although obviously and sadly that's not always the case).

I will indeed take some time to read about the theory of games as it does sound very interesting.

Seeker "I don't agree with teaching them that issues of personal behaviour which impact on the individual concerned are wrong or right. Life is far more complicated than that." Of course as always, you are entitled to your point of view. But I do believe in right and wrong in black and white terms, and I believe that wrong behaviour always has negative consequence somewhere along the line.

Using the example that has gone all through this thread, sex outside of marriage, leads to all kinds of physical and emotional problems. This is not just a Catholic or even just a Christian view. There is a quote from Mohandas Gandhi (a Hindu) on contraception; "Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any violation of her laws...If [contraceptive] methods become the order of the day, nothing but moral degradation can be the result" and another from Freud (an atheist); "the abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it."

However Seeker, I do agree that life is complicated, there is no getting away from that! I also believe that we all do wrong in one way or another, but the important thing is that we keep on trying to do right.

Also seeker with your quote "First, do no harm" - I would say all well and good - but it's the definition of 'harm' that is the tricky bit. I would imagine that Hitler believed himself to be doing good rather than harm in exterminating the Jews... I'd just repeat what I said above , that relying on your own personal definitons can be dangerous.

Anyway, this is going to be my last big post as I am in danger of spending the entire last week of the summer holidays on mumsnet! I will try and respond in brief if anyone has any major issues to raise over what I've said though. Thanks to those of you (seeker, HouseofBamboo, PrincessFiorimonde et al) who have taken the time to explain and give such reasoned arguements, you have certainly given me a lot of food for thought!

Also thanks to the other Catholics on here, Mathanxiety and DP who have put some great points forward!

"acting individually to define 'the common good' seems to me to be more dangerous than acting as a member of a group when others can quickly point out is you are obviously making any gigantic errors of judgement"

I'd argue the opposite in fact. Bonkers / dangerous ideas are more likely to gain ground when it's NOT just one individual thinking for themselves. Ideas take hold more easily in the context of a group of 'likeminded' people / cult / whatever you want to call it. People are also more likely not to take individual responsibility if others in the group are urging them towards a course of action.

I think the ideas may cause more harm when a whole group has them, but I'd say it's much more common for an individual to have a mad, extreme idea than it is for a group (unless I suppose the group is made up of one particular type of individual...) Being part of a group of people from different backgrounds usually means that more sensible decisions are likely to be made imo.

Ah, Freddo, 'Being part of a group of people from different backgrounds usually means that more sensible decisions are likely to be made imo'.

Doesn't that just describe Mumsnet (and all our various points of view)?

YES it does

Freddo, you are just so reasonable that I think I'm in love with you. (Attraction of opposites and all that.)

It is also very important to remember that the opposition to sex outside marriage by Freud, Ghandi and many others had a lot to do with the need to keep women "under control' and to make sure that there were no questions about paternity. A pragmatic idea bound up with moral outrage! No sex outside marriage often means "No sex for nice girls outside marriage"

Freddo - re incest avoidance being 'hardwired' in animals and humans, I think there is a reasonable body of evidence for this. Most animals, given a large enough gene pool to choose from, will avoid mating with close relatives.

This study in Scientific American addresses some of the points with regard to humans:
Evolving mechanism to avoid sibling sex

A quote from it reads:
"By mixing siblings in a litter, for example, scientists have shown that animals that grow up together appear to avoid mating, whether genetically related or not, largely based on recognizing specific smells."

Since your average litter of animals probably doesn't benefit from lessons in morality of any sort, would it not seem reasonable to assume that sibling avoidance has a biological basis?

Animals don't do contraception or abortion though HouseofBamboo!