An open letter to religious people

[Andy Monkey B]

"The Catholic Church originally raised objections to the [cervical cancer vaccination] jab on the grounds it could encourage promiscuity"

OK hold on, it seems that the Catholic church is saying "If you have sex you will DIE!!!!!" or something similar, and is taking precautions to make sure their threat still stands. Surely its a bit like blocking the development of HIV/AIDS treatments, vaccinations and cures because 'they encourage promiscuity'. The fact that it saves lives is secondary (remember, in the catholic church life begins at conception and ends at birth!)

OK a little unfair, RCs aren't all that bad, its just that this article makes me wonder about their reasoning and compassion.

Incidentally, on the subject of statistics and correlations, don't assume a causative relationship:

[Frank]

In a (slight) defence to the Catholics: Their position is that sex outwith marriage (i.e. a loving, wholesome relationship) is evil (and thence you will "DIE!!!!!").

I assume then that sex education comes along with the wedding planing.

Now, this isn't exactly just speculation, it's derived directly from 'the horses mouth', i.e. archbishop (at the time, now cardinal) O'Brian's position (as to myself and a couple of friends in person a few years back). So it isn't so much that they're anti-contraceptives as much as they're anti-using-contraceptives-outside-marriage and won't support encouragement or condonement outside of marriage.

But considering that most folks aren't Catholics one might question why the Catholic Church poke their collective noses in.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[exnihilo]

Cardinal O'Brien (still Archbishop as well as being Cardinal) is the leader of a very significant religious community within Scotland and is perfectly entitled to put his organisation's position as forcefully as he can. We might deplore his position, but we cannot deny his right to speak on behalf of his Church - he's its acknowledged head - any more than we would deny the Principal's right to speak for the University. Not everyone within the university necessarily would agree with him, but not everyone in the Church necessarily agrees with the Cardinal either.

A great many people are Catholic, and in Scotland a growing number. And, even were that not so, it is the practice of the Scottish Government to consult widely on legislation and gauge the opinion of all of Scottish society before enacting it. The Government can't speak to every single citizen, so it goes to community, political, and local leaders who might reasonably be supposed to speak with the backing of their members. You'll note that the impact of Scotland's Bahá'is (to pick a random other faith) has been very insignificant, this would be because there are under 1,000 of them. There are 500,000 Roman Catholics, so it's not unreasonable that their leader carries some weight.

[macgamer]

The Catholic Church did not want contraceptive sex education to be issued in Catholic schools and this is what the negotiations were about.

However, not all Catholic children go to Catholic schools, so it would not be enough to just prevent the issuing of contraceptive advice by medics within Catholic schools.

Alternatively, the information could have been on an opt in basis, by ticking a box on the consent form. That way Catholic families with children at non-Catholic schools could opt out of the contraceptive education.

The aforementioned article does not state how this is going to be achieved. What I've outlined about is what I would have pressed for, it would have been the most equitable solution.

Exnihilio makes a good point, and I'm glad it was brought up. I'd like to develop this to suggest that the Catholic parents, whose children make up a significant proportion of Scotland's children, have a say on whether or not their children receive such advice. The Catholic Church was arguing on their behalf.

The Catholic Church is not against sex education in principle, provided it makes clear what the role of sex is: a married couple cooperating in God's creative force, hence, contraception is never permissible.

[macgamer]

I take your point about interpreting statistics. However I do not think I was entirely unjustified in concluding as I did from the statistics.

Consider this mechanism for favourable transmission of STIs:

There is a high incidence of STIs.

The likeliness of contracting an STI increases with the frequency of sexual encounters and the number of different partners.

We know there is growing sexual promiscuity particularly amongst teenagers.

Confounding factors:

Increased screening and sensitivity inflate the statistics above the increase due to the above mechanism.

This requires investigation by a statistician to determine the effect this has and apply the necessary correction on the data. However I have much doubt whether improvements in screening alone is sufficient to explain the meteoric rise in STIs.

Mitigating factors:

Increased sex education and access to barrier contraceptives to reduce the rate at which STIs are contracted.

Despite the widespread use of this scheme the rate of STI transmission has not slowed.

This could be because enough people are not practicing 'safe sex' thereby causing the observed increase in rate, combined with screening improvements.

Alternatively, improvements in screening have had a more dramatic effect on the statistics than anticipated and are the principal factor in the statistics.

Or perhaps the principles of 'safe sex' are somehow flawed. For example often the mental state during which many young people in particular, engage in sex is unfavourable for the execution of 'safe sex'.

Hopefully I've give you something to think about.

[Frank]

Quoting macgamer from 09:14, 19th Aug 2008This could be because enough people are not practicing 'safe sex' thereby causing the observed increase in rate, combined with screening improvements.

Alternatively, improvements in screening have had a more dramatic effect on the statistics than anticipated and are the principal factor in the statistics.

Or perhaps the principles of 'safe sex' are somehow flawed. For example often the mental state during which many young people in particular, engage in sex is unfavourable for the execution of 'safe sex'.

As I've mentioned earlier, we don't have the case of 'little-to-no sex education' to compare this shenanigan to.

Simply, I honestly don't think we have the data to comment at this point. Not even sufficient to suggest (more than other alternatives) that the sex education is responsible for the increase in STI.

Of course, we might have overestimated the efficacy of contraceptives and safe-sex practices in preventing STI. So it might not be the existence of the education, but the quality of it. Which is to say: We might be teaching ourselves silly practices.

Obviously, the safest way to prevent STI spread is via abstinence, but that raises its own issues.

There's likely answers out there on how to 'improve' things and I certainly don't think anyone's arguing that the current system is beyond improvement, but I don't see how sex-education as a principle is the problem.

Thus, I'd suggest, that the Catholic Church (happily conceding exnihilo's points) should be endeavouring to secure an opt-out system (this is in public health interests and my stance is that such measure ought to be opt-out rather'n opt-in) and to secure appropriate sex education for generally (and specific, if there's availability for a range of options) sensible choices of outlook, belief etc.

Macgamer: The word on the street (well, the chapel) from O'Brien himself a few years back was that contraceptives within a marriage are permissible (and, indeed, encouraged if they're not in a position to support a child).

As outlined to me, it's alot more to do with sensible responsibilities and living well and less to do with a God-borne imperative to go forth and multiply.

But then that might have changed, or O'Brien might have got it wrong etc.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[Guest]

[macgamer]

Thanks for your measured response.

Quoting Frank from 11:19, 19th Aug 2008
Macgamer: The word on the street (well, the chapel) from O'Brien himself a few years back was that contraceptives within a marriage are permissible (and, indeed, encouraged if they're not in a position to support a child).

But then that might have changed, or O'Brien might have got it wrong etc.

You are correct, His Eminence did suggest the use of contraceptives might be permissible within marriage, however he might have changed his position since being made a Cardinal. I've not heard him repeat that since.

The position of using contraception within marriage is dissent from Church teaching and was regrettably quite popular even amongst Bishops following the promulgation of Humanae Vitae.

However the Church teaches that sex must be open to procreation at all times. Hence the use of contraceptives of any kind or sterilisation is not permitted. Humanae Vitae did allow for the spacing of children and generous limitation of family size through natural family planning.

NFP has developed greatly in 40 years and is very effective. However you can still use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. NFP is still instrinically more open to procreation than contraception.

As outlined to me, it's alot more to do with sensible responsibilities and living well and less to do with a God-borne imperative to go forth and multiply.

I think that sensible responsibilities are intrepreted from a 'God-borne imperative'. However I think one can also see the truth of this as perhaps you can without using scripture, but through reason. It is quite evident what the biological function of sex is.

[Senethro]

Quoting macgamer from 12:59, 19th Aug 2008
NFP is still instrinically more open to procreation than contraception.

I suppose thats one way to put it.

[Frank]

This is indeed quite intriguing. I might try to engage a couple of the priests back home on this sort of discussion. As I recall one's largely more conservative than any else I've met (the archbishop included) whilst the other was quite happy with the idea that The Creator (whom we, at the time being a catholic, term God in at least part of our belief system) could happily be viewed as a three-headed dragon...it didn't really have any significance or relevance to the importance of 'the message'.

They always were interesting characters for debate; getting to the heart of religious arguments can be quite enlightening. Looking at the Humanae Vitae line of reasoning (as well as some curious ideas like those parodied by Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred!" song), it draws my reasoning back towards ID2004 Science Ethics.

That is the idea that drawing any sort of line between 'life' and 'can be sacrificed, not important' (i.e. when abortion is permitted, when it isn't) can be brought back before even conception when one considers that a combination of sperm and egg, even not inside a person but simply kept (safely) in containment elsewhere could be turned into a person. One might then argue that, if the potential for life is important as is being alive (to say that they are both Important and not ranked hierarchically at this point), then you run into some serious difficulties (and, for me, a whole big logical mess).

My objection at the time (still being catholic) was that conception was the least arbitrary position. Placing abortion deadlines after conception was (excluding obvious time-dependent objections), to me, just as arbitrary as forbidding masturbation etc.

My think, albeit surely becoming lost in a miasma of flawed logic, was then that a seriously mindful view with respect to preserving, maximising and keeping the potential for human life etc was simply to extract the sperm and eggs from everyone as soon as it's feasible to remove them!

(and then only ever create children and human life when it is feasible to do so, but never killing off unwanted sperms and eggs)

This, in a manner, would also protect us from the inherent sin that is simply 'life wasted' because of how nature works (one might even tie this sort of thing in, ethically if not realistically, with original sin and being expelled from paradise etc).

In essence, the most ethical move would be to entirely divorce sexual intercourse and reproduction. Thus the only 'sin', problem or other sort of dilemma is only to do with that of sexual intercourse, the argument from preserving life (and so forth) would be...won.

As I said: miasma of bad logic. But I did find it a particularly compelling line of thought to browse through!

Anyway, as it stands now I'm an apostate, probably due to the application of occam's razor to the above problem. Which is: the incidental loss of sperm and eggs (and all the possible combinations that can't be followed once you select one sperm and one egg, even alternatively a whole bundle to 'fight it out', and they're locked into their 'one life' [excluding twins, triplets etc]) doesn't appear to be an tangible (and, if you'll forgive the rather inflammatory phrasing) real-world issue. It's a fabrication, an affectation that really has no place being added into (my opinion of my idea of) ethics!

Now I'm a happy apostate.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[macgamer]

Sorry to keep going on about this.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you or you have me. So my apologies in advance.

One might then argue that, if the potential for life is important as is being alive (to say that they are both Important and not ranked hierarchically at this point), then you run into some serious difficulties (and, for me, a whole big logical mess).

Indeed a mess of logic, there is nothing sacred about sperm or eggs in Catholic teaching.

Life begins at conception and it is through sex which a married couple is understood to cooperate with God in his creation of new souls, so that at the moment of conception a new human life / soul comes into existence.

[...]as arbitrary as forbidding masturbation.

Well not that arbitrary, since masturbation is neither unitive nor procreative, lacking the essential requisites for the moral use of the sexual faculties.

The most ethical move would be to entirely divorce sexual intercourse and reproduction.

I think that happens during IVF, which is not permissible for two reasons. There is a lack of the unitive nature in sexual aspect of IVF (see above) and very often IVF involves the destruction of the excess embryos.

[Frank]

Quoting macgamer from 14:18, 19th Aug 2008
Perhaps I have misunderstood you or you have me. So my apologies in advance.

Indeed, but not to worry, I didn't make it clear that my story was just that...an amusing aside. It wasn't meant as the thrust of any sort of argument just a 'this happened to me one day and seemed a perfectly reasonable line to take after setting a couple of sorto-of-straw-man premisses'. That is to say: it was sort-of-straw-man because it was an argument I was genuinely having in my own head.

I'd been quite aware my interpretation of events differed quite differently from the current church rthodoxy, but that wasn't an issue for me as priesthood, two-way interaction with the dogma etc was still quite feasible for me 'back in the day' (i.e. I was an insider and thus available to change it, whereas now I'm simply on the outside casting criticism and aspersions).

Anyway, you're right, my line of thinking doesn't hold up as catholic reasoning, but as a possible and plausible line of reasoning (certainly a line of sceptical or critical reasoning) I felt it held weight.

I mean to say, somewhat rhetorically: Why are sperms and eggs not sacred when so mcuh can come from them. Surely there's potential still being wasted?

(I have to say, however, that I still think some of my madcap ideas have an amount of merit if only the science and technology were feasible...
- Environmentalism: Humans ought all to live on self-sufficient space stations and simply 'abandoning' earth and stopping any further actions [e.g. simply swicthing off most power stations and simply letting nature reclaim everything).
- Cloning and medicine. At conception we all grow lobotomised clones of ourselves which are kept in storage. They're never permitted to develop their brains to any sort of sentience or self-awareness, and so are vegetative...except for body growth matters. Thus bone marrow, organ donorship and so forth ought never need be a problem.
- Divorce sex & reproduction. This way we have the psychologically important act of sexual intercourse/pleasure and the important act of reproduction (and also of bringing up kids) so that society continues to function.

We just need a bit more knowledge!)

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[Haunted]

Quoting exnihilo from 08:08, 19th Aug 2008

I don't think anyone here was denying someone's right to free speech.

I, personnaly, was expressing disgust that the government would negiotate to deny education to children and that catholics would put the health of their children before their bizarre practices and doctrines.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Anon.]

Quoting Haunted from 16:33, 19th Aug 2008
...their bizarre practices and doctrines.

Whatever one's opinion on the ethics of it all, you can't get more un-natural than contraception and abortion.

[Power Metal Dom]

Quoting from 12:02, 19th Aug 2008

That man's eating his Bible lolly all wrong.

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon metal I drool

[Delts]

Quoting Anon. from 12:04, 20th Aug 2008

Quoting Haunted from 16:33, 19th Aug 2008
...their bizarre practices and doctrines.

Whatever one's opinion on the ethics of it all, you can't get more un-natural than contraception and abortion.

Yes we can, we fly. In metal contraptions.

[hr]

Quotes: For when you can think of nothing to say yourself.

[exnihilo]

Quoting Haunted from 16:33, 19th Aug 2008

Quoting exnihilo from 08:08, 19th Aug 2008

I don't think anyone here was denying someone's right to free speech.

I, personnaly, was expressing disgust that the government would negiotate to deny education to children and that catholics would put the health of their children before their bizarre practices and doctrines.

So he, and his followers, can have free speech providing it corresponds with your world view? Otherwise it's bizarre and mustn't be permitted? Sorry if I misunderstood.

[ezra]

As sex education and contraceptive provision have increased, so there has also been a dramatic rise in the incidence of STIs.

The Church predicted this would happen 40 years ago. See Humanae Vitae

The Catholic Church has not changed its position on this issue and I believe that the statistics in Britain alone, attest to the truth of its moral teaching.

An,d of course, in places where sex education and contraceptive provision are in very short supply - like sub-Saharan Africa - the incidence of STIs has fallen sharply. QED.

[Haunted]

Quoting exnihilo from 13:25, 20th Aug 2008
So he, and his followers, can have free speech providing it corresponds with your world view? Otherwise it's bizarre and mustn't be permitted? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Apology accepted; you have misunderstood.
Once again, I never said anything about what he is or is not allowed to say regardless of my "world view". I am free to find what he says disgusting and his actions morally abominable.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Anon. from 12:04, 20th Aug 2008
Whatever one's opinion on the ethics of it all, you can't get more un-natural than contraception and abortion.

Oh I never said anything about abortion being natural. But you must be careful in defining what is and isn't natural since we ourselves are natural and thus anything we do is natural behaviour. If a termite mound is a product of nature then so is a boeing 747. Besides, it's curious how the "it's not natural" arguement seems to hold some weight automatically. Why is something being "unnatural" a bad thing exactly?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn