Being 'socially inacceptable'...

[MrsSeanBean]

I just wanted to say that it's great to be able to chat about this topic (Philosophy / religion / spirituality ) on MN.

I find it so much more diffuclt to talk about religion / faith / spiritual things in RL.

I find assume that no-one in RL will think in a remotely similar way to me, or share any of my beliefs, and will think I am some kind of religious nutter.

Do you think it's just the case that people are more reluctant to talk about these things in RL?

Do you think it would be worthwhile / beneficial to instigate more RL conversations on this subject?

I heard the other day that to say you believe in God is almost 'socially inacceptable' now, which is rather sad.

I don't think that any organisation should have the "right" to have a say in parliament, unless its representatives have been duly elected by a constituency. And I don't think any group should automatically have the right to "put its views across" whether in parliament, or in public. As an individual, I have the right to say "bollocks" to any group which I don't want to listen to. Normally I only do that after giving them a chance of course, but I reserve the right to disapprove of them on principle without even listening (eg BNP).

I have fundamental problems with many parts of the teaching of the RC church, and their position on sex is one of the ones which springs most easily to mind, though I could list a few others if I felt so inclined .

But any organisation which reckons that abortion is evil, but doesn't allow artificial contraception, is going to have to work very hard to convince me that they have the right to tell me what is right and wrong.

I think everyone should be able to put their views across - and I just think if you want to become a wiser person it is better to listen first (then ignore afterwards if you wish!)

The church does 'allow' contraception, although it does advise that it is wrong - it doesn't STOP anyone using it (and nor should it in my opinion - but it is allowed to say it's wrong) -it says that there will be negative consequences if you use it (eg. increased risk of various kinds of cancer with using the pill)

Must go now for a bit too (this is taking over my life!!!) but will check back later

Must add though that I also ignore the BNP without listening - but in some ways that does make me unqualified to criticise them too much....

Mrs MerryHenry,

I honestly don't know if my friends find me judgemental but I really really hope not. I think they are worried about offending me although I have told them I am hard to shock or offend! I think it's all down to misunderstanding what being a Chirstian is about. Many of my friends seem to have grown up in churches where following rules was the main focus. We have talked about why I think that is missing the point.

An example of a misunderstanding....some friends organised a casino night but took me aside to say they didn't ask me as they thought I wouldn't agree with gambling, but they wanted me to know why they didn't invite me. It was quite sweet really. I said thanks for considering me but actually if I wanted to go I would. (Actually I didn't want to go because I think it would be a huge waste of money!)

And I'm afraid I'd be way out of my depth in the other discussion going on here, so no comment there....

argh, just popped back to have a look, and it's turned into abortion. I've yet to see a debate on that which hasn't been a bit strained.

fwiw, I agree with the RC church's position on abortion, but not on the strict application of it's rules about artificial contraception and sterilization. I had a catholic priest solemnly tell me, after I had borne 4 children under great physically strain, that the only acceptable course for me, from a Catholic perspective, would be to never have sex with my husband again (not that I do anyway, but still)

I understand the idea of being open to life and the blessing of children, and I agree that it's a good and healthy thing for Christians to welcome children into their lives. But marriage is not solely for the rearing of children, and sexual affection is clearly not only valid if it is possible to produce children by it - else the infertile and post-menopausal would have to be celibate.

I am 100% opposed to abortion. To be against all contracepton, even the non-abortifacient measures, is a pretzelling of logic I don't really understand.

KayHarker - that Priest was talking rubbish! Did he not mention natural family planning to you? Marriage is NOT solely for the rearing of children and the Catholic church does not say it is - any Priest who has told you that is telling you some other view than the church's (are you sure it was actually a CATHOLIC priest you were speaking too? ) Your view that ''it's a good and healthy thing for Christians to welcome children into their lives'' is exactly the view of the Catholic church.

My views regarding contraception go back to the arguements i was making before about consequences (sorry, I know they get on some people's nerves, but to me they really do rationalise some of the church's views) - all non-abortive forms of contraception go against nature and have some kind of bad outcome, mostly by convincing your body it is permanently pregnant which has been shown to increase the risk of various kinds of cancer. Natural family planning is the only SAFE form of bith control - the church has no problem in it (and even provides courses in it in some areas) - and it works.
So for me - that is the logic!

KtNoo - I think your point is a good one, really I do not see the 'rules' of religion as 'rules' at all - but common sense that gets me where I want to be in life! I don't gamble (much!) because it's a waste of money... I don't take the pill because it would increase my risk of getting cancer... I think that all of the 'rules' are just a reflection of the natural laws of cause and effect.

Also Kayharker, with regard to sterilization, I would have thought the church would not have a problem with it so long as it was for sound medical reasons.

Well, pregnancy left me disabled, and taking opiates all through pregnancy because that's the only adequate and appropriate pain relief is the reason we, reluctantly, decided to stop. Having further children would actually be putting them at risk, too, as I was also prone to falls, quite apart from the drug risks.

We used NFP for a long time, but I have a very irregular cycle - and that's how we were blessed with Dc4. Not having been pregnant for a couple of years now, I've managed to recover mobility quite well, and my eldest told me the other day that it was lovely to have a mummy now.

I just can't pretend that risking another pregnancy would be a responsible or loving thing to do, for anyone concerned. If it was just me, that would be one thing - I personally see great redemptive value in suffering. But not in inflicting it on others, which is what I would be doing if I was accidently pregnant again.

The priest I spoke to was indeed a catholic, and there are certainly catholics who interpret the RC catechism in a very much stricter way, and sterilization is only allowed on the double effect principle - if I had cancer and had to have my womb removed etc. He opposed NFP used as a method of contraception - purposely avoiding contraception while still engaging in sex is inherently selfish and sinful, according to him.

As it happens, my Dh decided to have a vasectomy, because he thought I had done quite enough, and there is no 'double effect' reason, except not to cripple his wife (which I think is quite a noble reason to have your privates punctured, tbh )

KH - I think your reasons are perfectly justified. I know some pretty strict (Latin Mass attending!) Catholics who I don't believe would have a problem with anything that you've done.
I do believe the priest that you spoke to was misguided - and I'd like to have a good arguement with him

lol, I think there's quite enough arguing amongst Christians already!!

KH I also think your circumstances are quite extreme and not at all typical of how birth control is used generally (but others are free to tell me I'm wrong!)

I don't know. I mean, I understand the argument that contraception has contributed to an 'anti-child' perception. Four kids is hard, but I'd have happily had more if it had been medically advisable. I think people sometimes think they couldn't possibly cope with more than one or two, when they probably could.

But in a fallen world, where no-one circumstances are perfect (thanks Adam!) I think there are certain compromises to be made, and contraception really doesn't seem like a compromise to me, especially when the educated use of it could prevent abortion.

But I also understand that a church like the RC church is all about ideals, so the compromise thing is pretty meaningless anyway. I even understand the value of holding out for the ideal, it's the ever hopeful position, and I hold it myself about abortion. I just think the contraception thing doesn't quite manage to get my ire up... at all, really

But they do have the option of NFP KH - I know it didn't work for you (did you do all the temperature taking stuff by the way, because I thought you could go by that even if your cycle was irregular?) but in most cases if used carefully it is as reliable 9or more reliable) than more unnatural forms of contraception.

Have spoken to the most hard line Catholic I know about your situation, and they say the Priest's and churches view is probably that ideally abstinence should be the way forward, and a way for your husband to demonstrate his love for you (- does seem very harsh ) but also that the route you took seems a very minor wrong in the great scheme of things given the circumstances... you are right in seeing that the church is all about ideals which none of us can live up to all of the time (or indeed very much of the time at all in my case )
but like you say, holding out for the ideal is the hopeful thing to do.
I do understand your views on contaception, but my consequences arguement still holds - it is unnatural (except NFP) and is either abortive or damaging to long term health.
Incidentally, I am 100% positive that the priest you spoke too was wrong to oppose NFP - if you see him again tell him to read the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae which discusses 'Lawful Therapeutic Means' of birth control (NFP!)

Mersman - going to state my position firstly as ex-Catholic atheist, who had a very happy Catholic childhood, although this was, in hindsight, more liberal than your position.

I really don't buy the natural consequences argument, and don't think many of the priests I know would either. It's a bit pick'n'mix for my liking - homosexuals have sex, get disease - natural consequence of unnatural act. Married couples have sex, get disease - just plain bad luck - some people are just carriers, for example. And what about married couple whose baby has anencephaly, for example? Is that a natural consequence? Or just bad luck?

And how do condoms damage long-term health?

Sorry - going to post and run as it's dinner time...

Habbibu - the consequences arguement is something that helps me personally - I'm sue many priests wouldn't be persuaded by it but for me it is helpful to say that things which go against what is natural normally have nad consequences. This really helps me to rationalise a lot of church teaching - so i'm sure there must be a few other people in the world who it might be helpful too.
It is not my only arguement for most of the 'rules' - just the one that I find most generally helpful for most of them.

As a Catholic I do not believe in 'luck' - bad or good - luck is something that you (as an atheist ) would believe happens by chance. I believe in consequences to actions...In response to your examples:

''Married couples have sex, get disease'' - a consequence of one/ both of them having a disease in the first place which must have come from having had previous sexual partner(S).
''Married couple whose baby has anencephaly'' - I wouldn't call that 'bad luck' (cos I don't believe in it) but extreme bad fortune which comes from original sin - not sin of the baby or that couple particularly - but of the whole of humanity as a fallen race (v. depressing I know!)

Condoms damage long term health less than other forms of contaception, but they do encourage promiscuity which I believe affects mental health. It really gets to me how you see so many adverts on buses etc... listing the danger of sexual diseases and ending with 'but you're fine if you use a condom!' Why not, 'You're fine if you only have one sexual partner for life!'?

Anyway, hope you caome back after dinner - I better go and do some of that kind of stuff myself!

Sorry I meant sure many priests and bad consequences - I'm not the best typer

But it's a bit arbitrary, then - you decide what you think is "natural" and then the consequences of that are assigned to it being an unnatural act, otherwise it's down to original sin.

I don't think I gave terribly good examples, before, but - ok - how about a child who contracts HIV from birth, going on to have sex with previously virgin partner, who then contracts HIV? Or someone who's contracted something from a blood transfusion? That's down to original sin in your book?

Also wanted to add habibu re ''Married couple whose baby has anencephaly'' I would not really use my arguement in that context. I'm saying that all of our actions have consequences NOT that everything that happens to us is the result of our own actions... there is a difference.

Yes, that last sentence I agree with - I guess you and I would disagree most strongly on the idea of natural and unnatural acts.

REALLY must go for a while after this (!) I don't decide what I think is natural at all - I just think it's pretty obvious (can you name something I've said that is natural which you think is not? I am open to the fact that I may be wrong about some things )

Regarding your example, HIV has been spread primarily by promiscuity - it is the natural consequence of promiscuity. It's completely not fair on the child you mention or the person who had the transfusion - but it is still the consequence of someone else's promiscuity. I didn't say the consequences were always for the person who did something wrong in the first place - just that the consequences were bad!

Christianity explains the bad things that happen in the world which are now beyond our control as the result of the original sin in the garden of Eden. So I suppose you could say the HIV in your examples was the result of the original sin of promiscuity.

mersmam, yes, we temp. charting, the whole nine yards. I think we were just in the 1%, tbh, and I don't regret it at all, because I love all my children and not for anything would I be choose to be without any of them. And believe me, we wrestled enormously with the decision to stop, and it's still not something I'm really happy about.

To be fair to you, mersmam, I'm not a Catholic, and I think you're doing a creditable job defending your church's beliefs, even though I don't agree with you 100% (if I did, I'd be a Catholic )

claps hands together

Ooo, right, Justa, lets get you straightened out

Well, sex outside marriage, for a start, mersmam. Marriage is a human social construct, same as government is - it's not "natural" in the biological evolutionary sense. Other animals don't marry, and it's likely that promiscuity to a greater or lesser degree was part of the natural state of early humans for a long time. At what point did that stop being "natural"?

I must thank you mersmam, because I have never before seen such good accounts of Catholic belief before.

My husband was brought up Catholic, our sons are baptized in Catholic Church, and our oldest spent two years at an RC primary school.

It is very interesting to see your reasoning, and I agree you do a sterling job on defending your faith and your Church.

I am currently in a discussion with my Catholic sister who is advocating that I should enrol my oldest for 1st communion at our local Catholic Church (the most northern in the world, in fact) as he is coming up to that age.

However, the alternative is that I shall let him continue along the Lutheran path (like I did when I was brought up), wich is a lot more liberal.

This is important to me, because my son has Faith.

I have to make an important choice for him, so that he is instructed in the faith best suited our views.

Issues such as sex, marriage, primal sin, abortion, illness, choice, causality, are very important.