Contraception in Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kthanksbuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it a “serious or grave” reason that you are done having babies, and it’s time to move on? Yes, I know, you should evaluate your decision to avoid every month. I am talking practical application in the real world. Is this using NFP in an inappropriate way?

Can a Catholic couple never say they are done adding to their family?
Yes, a Catholic couple can prudently say they are done having children. It’s a matter of conscience. It is reasonable to avoid pregnancy because you feel you have all the children you can handle. However, we need to be careful that these decisions are based on need rather than wants. For example, if your house is holding all the people it reasonably can and you can’t afford a bigger house, you could avoid pregnancy. But if having another child would mean a family could no longer afford to vacation at Disney Land and Hawaii every year, that would probably not be the best reason to avoid more children. There’s a lot of grey area, but each couple needs to prayerfully consider these decisions.

That being said, even if there are legitimate grave reasons to avoid having more children, every marital act must be open to life. We are never supposed to use artificial birth control.
 
I agree that it’s not a fair statement to say “our family is complete”… actually, in all reality - IS IT? No, eventually there will (hopefully) be nieces and nephews and grandkids and lots and lots of future kin. “Complete” just sounds so harsh, in the overall tone.
Of course, “complete” has a finality about it. But, yes, I did mean “no more children”. Can you ever say “We have all the kids we will have”?
Is God not bigger than serious health and financial issues? Could they not (miraculously) be resolved?
“Complete” says that’s impossible.
I am in my early fifties. A baby now would leave the house when I am seventy or older. Is age a serious reason?
 
Of course, “complete” has a finality about it. But, yes, I did mean “no more children”. Can you ever say “We have all the kids we will have”?
You can say “Through prayer, we have all the kids we believe prudence and reason allow.”
I am in my early fifties. A baby now would leave the house when I am seventy or older. Is age a serious reason?
It can be. The older you are, the higher your at risk in pregnancy are. The older you are, less you are able to take care of the baby’s you have. You also have an obligation to the children already in your home. If you can’t take care of them sufficiently, as you get older, that would seem to be pretty serious reason to not have anymore.
 
PaulinVA;9783031:
I am in my early fifties. A baby now would leave the house when I am seventy or older. Is age a serious reason?
It can be. The older you are, the higher your at risk in pregnancy are. The older you are, less you are able to take care of the baby’s you have. You also have an obligation to the children already in your home. If you can’t take care of them sufficiently, as you get older, that would seem to be pretty serious reason to not have anymore.
👍
Absolutely.
 
I am pretty well versed in catholic sexual ethics and understand why the church has always stood against contraception, but I have run into a dilemma.

What would you do if you were married, have a set of kids close in age to each other well in their teens already, and were a woman in your late 40s or 50s (at such an age where a pregnancy would seriously endanger your life as well as significantly increase the risk of a new child having a mental disorder). And to boot, your menstrual cycle is out of whack so NFP is out of the question. Wouldn’t it seem necessary to use condoms, for instance, For your safety? Or would you and your husband be forced to live celibate lives? Which would probably harm the relationship (we can’t be idealistic here).

Your opinion is appreciated!
Well, I am that woman who is married and of a certain age, but NFP is NOT out of the question. Hubby and I still practice NFP, as we’ve done for years since my last pregnancy ten years ago, which was high risk due to gestational diabetes and “advanced maternal age” (anyone over 35 is considered to be “advanced maternal age” and “high risk.” :p). My cycle is wonky now, so NFP is a bit more challenging now, but Holy Mother Church teachers what She teaches, so we obey.
 
I am pretty well versed in catholic sexual ethics and understand why the church has always stood against contraception, but I have run into a dilemma.

What would you do if you were married, have a set of kids close in age to each other well in their teens already, and were a woman in your late 40s or 50s (at such an age where a pregnancy would seriously endanger your life as well as significantly increase the risk of a new child having a mental disorder). And to boot, your menstrual cycle is out of whack so NFP is out of the question. Wouldn’t it seem necessary to use condoms, for instance, For your safety? Or would you and your husband be forced to live celibate lives? Which would probably harm the relationship (we can’t be idealistic here).

Your opinion is appreciated!
I would not worry about the remote chance that a child would have a mental disorder. First, look up the odds on it. Second, a child with mental disorders is just as valuable as any other child. Third, a child with mental disorders who is baptized but never reaches the age of reason (because of the disability) by default goes to heaven.

What if you had to live a celibate life? Individuals who have same sex attraction and who follow Church teachings live celibate lives if they choose not to marry the opposite gender. Individuals who never are able to find a spouse live celibate lives. Individuals with injuries or medical problems or have spouses with such conditions live celibate lives. Individuals whose spouses, for whatever reason, are only willing to engage in the marital act occasionally are forced to be celibate for considerable periods at a time. In other words, you wouldn’t be the first person to go through the hardship.
 
I am in my early fifties. A baby now would leave the house when I am seventy or older. Is age a serious reason?
At first blush it seems like that might be a serious reason. On the other hand, God, through nature, made menopause. It could be argued that as long as a woman is still fertile (prior to menopause), nature says she is still young enough to have and raise children. I’m not saying that menopause proves that age is not a serious reason, I am just saying that it clouds the determination.
 
At first blush it seems like that might be a serious reason. On the other hand, God, through nature, made menopause. It could be argued that as long as a woman is still fertile (prior to menopause), nature says she is still young enough to have and raise children. I’m not saying that menopause proves that age is not a serious reason, I am just saying that it clouds the determination.
Well, 16 year old girls should not have babies but they do. Fertility is an ambiguous indicator of whether you should have children.

What I was getting at is that we have, most of us, much more fertility than we need. If we go like gangbusters for ten years and have four or five kids, in most situations we are done having any more.

Now, you can make the argument that we should all have ten or twenty kids, but, practically, unless you get married very late you will be finished having children when you still have ten or fifteen years worth of fertility left. That is really the question - at a certain point, you are done. You want to move on.

If age can be a serious reason, I would say that “we are done” is a serious reason as well - to use NFP, not contraception. The Church refuses to accept this, and many people here also think that we should all have large families, which isn’t practical at all.
 
at a certain point, you are done. You want to move on.

If age can be a serious reason, I would say that “we are done” is a serious reason as well - to use NFP, not contraception. The Church refuses to accept this, and many people here also think that we should all have large families, which isn’t practical at all.
Are you saying that the the Church doesn’t accept “we are done” as a serious reason but you believe that the Church should accept it is a serious reason?

To me, “we are done” sounds like a conclusion not a reason. For example, we are done because we are tired of waking up in the middle of the night, we are done because we are exhausted, we are done because we want to focus on our school aged children, etc. One then must evaluate the seriousness of the reasons for being done.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that a couple that gets married at 24 and has one child per year for 5 years, at age 30, should be able to say “we are done.” We have great finances, great health, great abilities to raise children, a great supportive extended family, etc, but we are done.

That situation does seem to deny the call to be generous. When you actually get down to the root reason it seems probably that the root reason is that the couple wants to then live like a secular family. It seems the real desire is to able to have more leisure time, have more money, and to be able to relax. I’m not saying that such a couple exhibits an enormous amount of greed or selfishness but I am saying they may not be exhibiting the most generous actions either.

My wife will be “cranking out” our forth this month after four or five years of marriage at the age of 32. Could I say, I’ve had four, that is enough? Perhaps I could, but I wouldn’t feel right about it.

Could you apply “we are done” to anything? We are done contributing to the Church because we have been doing so for xx years. We are done serving the poor, visiting the sick, etc because we have done those things for many years.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not making a statement that using NFP (due to age) in one’s late forties and fifties is right or wrong. I don’t know the answer.
 
Are you saying that the the Church doesn’t accept “we are done” as a serious reason but you believe that the Church should accept it is a serious reason?
Yes. I am.
To me, “we are done” sounds like a conclusion not a reason. For example, we are done because we are tired of waking up in the middle of the night, we are done because we are exhausted, we are done because we want to focus on our school aged children, etc. One then must evaluate the seriousness of the reasons for being done.
Wanting to focus on the children we have is indeed a good reason. If I am spread so thin as a parent that the older children have to raise the younger children, am I really doing a good thing?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that a couple that gets married at 24 and has one child per year for 5 years, at age 30, should be able to say “we are done.” We have great finances, great health, great abilities to raise children, a great supportive extended family, etc, but we are done.
Not everybody has all of those attributes in place. If it will cost you over a million dollars to retire (with only a 401(k), shouldn’t you be saving towards that? Why should you be saddling your extended family with raising your children?
That situation does seem to deny the call to be generous. When you actually get down to the root reason it seems probably that the root reason is that the couple wants to then live like a secular family. It seems the real desire is to able to have more leisure time, have more money, and to be able to relax. I’m not saying that such a couple exhibits an enormous amount of greed or selfishness but I am saying they may not be exhibiting the most generous actions either.
No, I reject your accusation that I am denying a call to be generous. I reject your accusation that the couple who wants to limit their family to three or four children is living like a secular family. And being financially secure and having leisure time for relaxation is not a bad thing. When Jesus said we should take up our cross and follow Him, He didn’t mean that cross should be one of our own making. Families should be joy filled and everyone should have their needs met.
My wife will be “cranking out” our forth this month after four or five years of marriage at the age of 32. Could I say, I’ve had four, that is enough? Perhaps I could, but I wouldn’t feel right about it.
This is your decision. Do not attempt to make it a universal truth. I, too, have had four children. However, at 52, I can look back and realize that there are many different things that occur down the line that require our time and energy. If you have no reserve left because you have taken yourself to the limit by cranking out baby after baby, you have done your family a disservice. We have buried our oldest, and each of the kids have had their own issues; one is learning disabled and took thousands of hours of my wife’s time over the years to make her the A/B student she is today.
Could you apply “we are done” to anything? We are done contributing to the Church because we have been doing so for xx years. We are done serving the poor, visiting the sick, etc because we have done those things for many years.
Not at all analogous.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not making a statement that using NFP (due to age) in one’s late forties and fifties is right or wrong. I don’t know the answer.
At some point, whether it’s next year or five years from now, you will be done having children. You might end up with 6-7 kids. Maybe ten. But, one day you will wake up and realize you can not handle any more kids in your family. And, you will still be fertile. What then?
 
As an agnostic, I firmly believe that using condoms and/or contraception to avoid pregnancy is NOT “intrinsically evil.” In fact, it could very well be the most moral act a couple can do for the sake of existing children, as well as for the sake of potential children.

I say this as a severely premature child who was born in the second trimester. My parents, who were both past age 35, did not realize the very real dangers that accompany pregnancy past this age. My mom had been operating under the assumption that it was “safe” for mothers to have children until age 40. Unfortunately, the pregnancy began to compromise her life and the only way to save us was to deliver me through an emergency C-section. I was only given 48 hours to live and had a 10% chance of survival; my mother had a less than 50% chance of survival. About a day after I was born, a panel of doctors summoned my parents into a conference room and recommended that I be taken off life support, as the chance of my survival was so very small. My parents vehemently refused to do so. A day later, a doctor explained to my parents that because of my prematurity, it was very likely that I would be blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, have internal bleeding in my brain, develop cerebral palsy, and/or have a host of other lifelong, crippling conditions that would compromise the quality of my life, earning potential, ability to marry and raised a family, etc. My family was so assured of my death that they requested a priest to come visit before I passed. However, against all odds, I survived and was released from intensive care after a number of months.

The issues did not end there. Due to my prematurity, I had very low muscle tone and required intensive speech and physical therapy from infancy through elementary school. White matter was also damaged in my brain that resulted in sensory integration issues and dyspraxia. To this day, I am still compelled to do regular physical therapy. However, the most “disabling” (I loathe that word, but I can’t think of a better alternative at the present time) condition that likely resulted from the circumstances of my birth is a very rare degenerative spine disease that also compromises organs, muscles, and other bones. This disease causes extreme pain in the cervical and thoracic spine (I have dealt with increasing chronic, acute pain since before the second grade) and forced me to take an extended medical leave from college. Even though I have already had a surgery related to this illness, I am scheduled for another, more dangerous surgery that carries a risk of paralysis in a few months. I will also need another operation relating to this disease within the next decade. My constellation of illnesses forced one of my parents to leave work a few years ago, resulting in a substantial amount of lost income during a time when my medical bills are tens of thousands of dollars annually. Perhaps most importantly, my quality of life this past decade has been a net negative in terms of enjoyment, and I wonder about my ability to earn an income, maintain relationships with friends who have no reference point to what my family and I are going through, and marry. (It is quite true that I have a loving, supportive family with the financial means to support me. It is also true that I am very academically accomplished despite my challenges, and was accepted into a number of top-tier colleges. However, these positive qualities are tempered with chronic pain and, as a result, chronic unhappiness.) All of these experiences are directly related to a difficult pregnancy that occurred past the page of 35.

Continued…
 
I only mention all of this to illustrate a point: Having children past age 35 is, in my opinion, profoundly irresponsible and immoral. The risk of developmental disorders and some physical diseases increase exponentially. In situations where the child is disabled, healthcare costs can VERY easily add up to millions – yes, millions – of dollars over the first 18-21 years of a child’s life. The quality of life that disabled child would have would be severely compromised. Any aspirations that you may have of such a child graduating high school or college, finding and maintaining a good job, acquiring meaningful relationships, and marrying are not at all assured. In addition, you cannot expect extended family to pitch in when needed. (Most of my extended family has never offered any assistance.) The disabled child would likely receive the financial “dregs,” as the previous four children would already have consumed a disproportionate amount of resources, and would be competing with your retirement money. Moreover, it is not guaranteed that a disabled child would cease requiring resources at age 18. More likely, the child would continue to need assistance throughout its life. To force a newborn into existence without its consent, especially knowing that the risks relating to physical/mental limitations are very real, is profoundly and inexcusably immoral. At the end of the day, my parents – who were both raised as Catholics – made a joint decision to not have any more children after me. Not only would it risk my mother’s life and the life of her “pre-born” child, but it would also mean that, if my mother were to die, she would have abandoned my father and me. I unequivocally believe that they made the right choice.

My advice: If you are or will be stretched beyond your emotional, physical, medical, and financial means, or if an additional pregnancy would jeopardize a child’s mental/physical wellbeing, do everything you can to avoid pregnancy.
 
I am pretty well versed in catholic sexual ethics and understand why the church has always stood against contraception, but I have run into a dilemma.

What would you do if you were married, have a set of kids close in age to each other well in their teens already, and were a woman in your late 40s or 50s (at such an age where a pregnancy would seriously endanger your life as well as significantly increase the risk of a new child having a mental disorder). And to boot, your menstrual cycle is out of whack so NFP is out of the question. Wouldn’t it seem necessary to use condoms, for instance, For your safety? Or would you and your husband be forced to live celibate lives? Which would probably harm the relationship (we can’t be idealistic here).

Your opinion is appreciated!
You should try another form of NFP. There are a couple that work expecially well for women who don’t have regular cycles. No, it would not be good to use a condom.
 
I only mention all of this to illustrate a point: Having children past age 35 is, in my opinion, profoundly irresponsible and immoral. The risk of developmental disorders and some physical diseases increase exponentially. In situations where the child is disabled, healthcare costs can VERY easily add up to millions – yes, millions – of dollars over the first 18-21 years of a child’s life. The quality of life that disabled child would have would be severely compromised. Any aspirations that you may have of such a child graduating high school or college, finding and maintaining a good job, acquiring meaningful relationships, and marrying are not at all assured. In addition, you cannot expect extended family to pitch in when needed. (Most of my extended family has never offered any assistance.) The disabled child would likely receive the financial “dregs,” as the previous four children would already have consumed a disproportionate amount of resources, and would be competing with your retirement money. Moreover, it is not guaranteed that a disabled child would cease requiring resources at age 18. More likely, the child would continue to need assistance throughout its life. To force a newborn into existence without its consent, especially knowing that the risks relating to physical/mental limitations are very real, is profoundly and inexcusably immoral. At the end of the day, my parents – who were both raised as Catholics – made a joint decision to not have any more children after me. Not only would it risk my mother’s life and the life of her “pre-born” child, but it would also mean that, if my mother were to die, she would have abandoned my father and me. I unequivocally believe that they made the right choice.

My advice: If you are or will be stretched beyond your emotional, physical, medical, and financial means, or if an additional pregnancy would jeopardize a child’s mental/physical wellbeing, do everything you can to avoid pregnancy.
Thank you for your posts. I found the story of how you survived despite all the odds very inspiring. I am sure you have made a great many lives better by your existence; certainly, you made my day. Your value to this world exceeds any amount of money.

And I hope your surgery goes well. That must be a frightening undertaking.

You memtioned that your parents are/were Catholic. Did you ever believe in God? If so, what made you become agnostic? Please forgive me if I missed it in your posts.
 
I thought there was a type of NFP for irregular cycles. Critendon model or something (I probably have the name wrong).
Creighton Model. Yes. You know each day if you could become pregnant on that day. There are newer monitors on the market as well, that use a probe instead of strips, and they supposedly work great with women who are experiencing irregular cycles.
 
Wanting to focus on the children we have is indeed a good reason. If I am spread so thin as a parent that the older children have to raise the younger children, am I really doing a good thing?

However, at 52, I can look back and realize that there are many different things that occur down the line that require our time and energy. If you have no reserve left because you have taken yourself to the limit by cranking out baby after baby, you have done your family a disservice. We have buried our oldest, and each of the kids have had their own issues; one is learning disabled and took thousands of hours of my wife’s time over the years to make her the A/B student she is today.

But, one day you will wake up and realize you can not handle any more kids in your family. And, you will still be fertile. What then?
It sounds like you went from “we are done” as a reason in and of itself to “we are done” because we want to focus on the children we have, we are spread so thin, we need reserves for what lays ahead with the children we have, or we can not handle any more kids. So the Church does, in fact, accept “we are done” as a conclusion (as long as it means using NFP, not contraceptives and still open to life) as long as it is for a reason that the couple believes to be serious.

We are probably on the same page here but it seems you are using a poor choice of words that makes it sound like you don’t believe there needs to be a serious reason to use NFP. I don’t think that you think that.

Suppose a young couple has one child soon after marriage. The child hampers the couple’s lifestyle of going out to the boat, drinking, and being merry. The couple then says “we are done” because another child would really hamper our lifestyle. Suppose that this is the sole reason for the couple using NFP for the rest of their marriage. Do you believe they would be morally justified? I would say no because the reason is not a serious reason that could even remotely fall in line with those specified in Humanae Vitae.
 
Thank you for your posts. I found the story of how you survived despite all the odds very inspiring. I am sure you have made a great many lives better by your existence; certainly, you made my day. Your value to this world exceeds any amount of money.

And I hope your surgery goes well. That must be a frightening undertaking.

You memtioned that your parents are/were Catholic. Did you ever believe in God? If so, what made you become agnostic? Please forgive me if I missed it in your posts.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate your saying that! 🙂

After much personal struggle, I have determined that my suffering is a “sunk cost” and have resolved to improve the lives of disabled or otherwise vulnerable people in whatever capacity I can for as long as I am physically able. After encouragement from my parents and a few family friends, I am in the beginning stages of writing a book about my experiences.

Yes, the upcoming surgery is indeed daunting. The most sinister force right now is the few months separating me from the operating table. (I suppose you could say “the anticipation is killing me.”) However, I have sought medical advice from specialists in a number of states and have gone through a thorough, rigorous evaluation of the benefits and risks of such a procedure. Even though there is a chance of paralysis, I must accept it given the risks if I were to postpone it. In the meantime, my adorable puppy will keep me in a sufficiently happy mindset. <3

My parents have been agnostic for quite some time; certainly, at minimum, they were not actively practicing their respective faiths when they married. As an early child, my mother was raised Catholic. Her own mother (my grandmother) was born into a Catholic family and remained a practicing Catholic until she began to question – and ultimately reject – the Church’s stance on contraception and the traditional role of women. My mother’s father, meanwhile, was raised Protestant but agreed to raising my mother and her siblings in the Catholic faith. When my grandmother fell away from the Church, my grandparents decided to go “faith shopping.” They eventually settled on a denomination of Protestantism. While my mom attended church with her family as a minor, she opted to discontinue her church attendance when she entered college. Despite her current beliefs, she holds religion in some degree of regard and refers to it as a collection of “wisdom traditions.” Meanwhile, my father and his siblings were raised as cradle Catholics. However, my father decided that Catholic teachings were contrary to some of his social stances and that faith in any religion was simply illogical and unnecessary. Nonetheless, he still occasionally refers to himself as “culturally Catholic,” a nod to his belief in the sanctity of life.

As a child, I was never compelled to attend church at all. Oddly enough, I began to reject organized religion when I first recited the Pledge of Allegiance in the first grade. I found the phrase “under God” to be divisive and unnecessary, as I did not believe that faith in a supernatural deity was mandatory to being a decent person. Consequently, I determined that such a phrase subtly implied that “godlessness” was immoral and resented the government’s attempt to unify people through faith when I did not subscribe to any particular religion. Any residual faith I had shattered during 9/11. I believed in the good will and nature of people, in my country’s vows to bring terrorists to justice, in humanity’s fundamental resilience… but not in “God.” I reasoned that no benevolent “God” would permit such an atrocity. That disbelief was cemented even further after I began to develop more severe symptoms relating to my spine disease while simultaneously reading up on philosophy, religion, and science. As a young adult, I was swept up by Richard Dawkins’ convincing arguments and prolific rhetoric and resented organized religion. Years later, I accepted that I could not persuade the majority of religious folks to embrace agnosticism or atheism, as faith oftentimes plays an intricate role in one’s upbringing and personal identity. Moreover, the vast majority of religious people do not have malicious motives; rather, they are simply attempting to understand the implications of their existence – even though I disagree with many of their social stances. I still believe that organized religion, however “mild,” can frequently ignore, enable, or permit radical, militant sects. I also believe that faith neither insures nor is necessary for a sound moral foundation. As an agnostic, I continuously re-examine and improve upon my moral code. I have donated a substantial amount of money to charity and volunteered at soup kitchens and as an assistant teacher for disabled students, assisted elderly relatives. I believe myself, that the fundamental goodness in human beings will eventually override our more negative tendencies, in the value of human and animal life (I am trying to fully commit to being a vegetarian), that pacifism should always be embraced unless lives are in peril, in society’s commitment to the disabled and vulnerable, in personal responsibility, etc.
 
Thank you for your posts. I found the story of how you survived despite all the odds very inspiring. I am sure you have made a great many lives better by your existence; certainly, you made my day. Your value to this world exceeds any amount of money.

And I hope your surgery goes well. That must be a frightening undertaking.

You memtioned that your parents are/were Catholic. Did you ever believe in God? If so, what made you become agnostic? Please forgive me if I missed it in your posts.
To fully answer your question, I never believed in “God” the way Christians, Jews, or Muslims believe in “God.” Rather, I believed in an omniscient deity who recorded all benevolent, malicious, and indifferent acts to determine the merit of a given individual and was not tied to any organized religion and as a very young child. I also believed in Heaven (the simplistic notion of angels with various musical instruments where the deceased who had lived good lives resided) and Hell (a realm of painless “nothingness” that involved no demons or other supernatural entities). However, my belief in Heaven and Hell were dismantled when I first rode on an airplane and discovered that there were no angels amongst the clouds. Despite this, my mom enforced certain rituals that one could argue are loosely associated with theism, such as praying before bedtime or when ambulances passed by, even though I tend to view such customs in a more secular light.
 
Thank you very much. I really appreciate your saying that! 🙂

After much personal struggle, I have determined that my suffering is a “sunk cost” and have resolved to improve the lives of disabled or otherwise vulnerable people in whatever capacity I can for as long as I am physically able. After encouragement from my parents and a few family friends, I am in the beginning stages of writing a book about my experiences.

Yes, the upcoming surgery is indeed daunting. The most sinister force right now is the few months separating me from the operating table. (I suppose you could say “the anticipation is killing me.”) However, I have sought medical advice from specialists in a number of states and have gone through a thorough, rigorous evaluation of the benefits and risks of such a procedure. Even though there is a chance of paralysis, I must accept it given the risks if I were to postpone it. In the meantime, my adorable puppy will keep me in a sufficiently happy mindset. <3

My parents have been agnostic for quite some time; certainly, at minimum, they were not actively practicing their respective faiths when they married. As an early child, my mother was raised Catholic. Her own mother (my grandmother) was born into a Catholic family and remained a practicing Catholic until she began to question – and ultimately reject – the Church’s stance on contraception and the traditional role of women. My mother’s father, meanwhile, was raised Protestant but agreed to raising my mother and her siblings in the Catholic faith. When my grandmother fell away from the Church, my grandparents decided to go “faith shopping.” They eventually settled on a denomination of Protestantism. While my mom attended church with her family as a minor, she opted to discontinue her church attendance when she entered college. Despite her current beliefs, she holds religion in some degree of regard and refers to it as a collection of “wisdom traditions.” Meanwhile, my father and his siblings were raised as cradle Catholics. However, my father decided that Catholic teachings were contrary to some of his social stances and that faith in any religion was simply illogical and unnecessary. Nonetheless, he still occasionally refers to himself as “culturally Catholic,” a nod to his belief in the sanctity of life.

As a child, I was never compelled to attend church at all. Oddly enough, I began to reject organized religion when I first recited the Pledge of Allegiance in the first grade. I found the phrase “under God” to be divisive and unnecessary, as I did not believe that faith in a supernatural deity was mandatory to being a decent person. Consequently, I determined that such a phrase subtly implied that “godlessness” was immoral and resented the government’s attempt to unify people through faith when I did not subscribe to any particular religion. Any residual faith I had shattered during 9/11. I believed in the good will and nature of people, in my country’s vows to bring terrorists to justice, in humanity’s fundamental resilience… but not in “God.” I reasoned that no benevolent “God” would permit such an atrocity. That disbelief was cemented even further after I began to develop more severe symptoms relating to my spine disease while simultaneously reading up on philosophy, religion, and science. As a young adult, I was swept up by Richard Dawkins’ convincing arguments and prolific rhetoric and resented organized religion. Years later, I accepted that I could not persuade the majority of religious folks to embrace agnosticism or atheism, as faith oftentimes plays an intricate role in one’s upbringing and personal identity. Moreover, the vast majority of religious people do not have malicious motives; rather, they are simply attempting to understand the implications of their existence – even though I disagree with many of their social stances. I still believe that organized religion, however “mild,” can frequently ignore, enable, or permit radical, militant sects. I also believe that faith neither insures nor is necessary for a sound moral foundation. As an agnostic, I continuously re-examine and improve upon my moral code. I have donated a substantial amount of money to charity, volunteered as an assistant teacher for disabled students, and assisted elderly relatives. I believe in myself, that the fundamental goodness in human beings will eventually override humanity’s more negative tendencies, in the value of human and animal life (I am trying to fully commit to being a vegetarian), that pacifism should always be embraced unless lives are in peril, in society’s commitment to the disabled and vulnerable, in personal responsibility, etc.
 
As an agnostic, I continuously re-examine and improve upon my moral code. I have donated a substantial amount of money to charity and volunteered at soup kitchens and as an assistant teacher for disabled students, assisted elderly relatives. I believe myself, that the fundamental goodness in human beings will eventually override our more negative tendencies, in the value of human and animal life (I am trying to fully commit to being a vegetarian), that pacifism should always be embraced unless lives are in peril, in society’s commitment to the disabled and vulnerable, in personal responsibility, etc.
This should instead read:

As an agnostic, I continuously re-examine and improve upon my moral code. I have donated a substantial amount of money to charity, volunteered at soup kitchens and as an assistant teacher for disabled students, and aided elderly relatives. I believe in myself, that the fundamental goodness in human beings will eventually override humanity’s more negative tendencies, in the value of human and animal life (I am trying to fully commit to being a vegetarian), that pacifism should always be embraced unless lives are in peril, in society’s commitment to the disabled and vulnerable, in personal responsibility, etc.

My apologies, when I wrote that post, I was quite tired. ^___^;;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top