Freedom vs social control

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

What if the person making these declarations is your priest?

About Harry Potter and yoga?

In a nutshell, I would try to understand his concerns and move on with my life.

Can you expand on this. To what extent does your priest constrain your intellectual curiousity?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

He (they) doesn’t. That’s never happened to me. If it’s happened to you then I’m sorry.

If anything, I could give priests credit for expanding my intellectual curiosity.

 

[IdaCatholic]

I’m confused as to why the examples of yoga and Harry Potter are your focus here. Is that an individual opinion you disagree with or a broader teaching of religion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons I abandoned religion, and still struggle with it to this day, is the social control so inherent in organized religion.

I think your generalization here is not completely warranted. There is a great deal of diversity between religions and even within one religion there can be a great deal of diversity among members of that religion. What you have observed is a tendency common to all humans - the tendency to assert what they believe. That can be true of what political party people support, what political ideas they promote, all the way down to what variety of grass you plant in your front lawn. (Just look at some very restrictive zoning codes that disallow a front yard turned into a wildflower garden.)

From your description of the church you were raised in, it appears that church may have been especially oppressive. Also there are people here on this forum that claim to speak for the Catholic Church, but are actually much more oppressive than most priests I have known. (But maybe I have lived my 71 years among especially easy-going priests - I don’t know.) I cannot blame you for forming impressions of this or any other church based on the members of that church that you encounter. How else would someone form an impression? If you have a bad impression of our church, it is not your fault. It is ours. We are a church full of sinners. Most of us know it and acknowledge it openly, along with our acknowledgement that we are in need of God’s mercy for the ways in which we have fallen short.

But if you have an intellectual bent, I suggest you do your own research. Our son did that after being away from the Church for many years. He is quite intellectually oriented, and so after some trying times in his life, he decided to read a book by Richard Dawkins and a book by G.K. Chesterton and give each a chance to state their case. I think you know who both these men are. He concluded after reading both of them that G.K. Chesterton had the better argument. But he didn’t stop there. He read Aquinas and other great thinkers in Church history. He has now fully returned to the Church. (I had absolutely nothing to do with it, but I am extremely pleased by the outcome.)

This in no way is turning a blind eye to serious problems among people in our church or any other church. I am just saying that if you want to know what any particular religion or movement or political party or philosophy stands for, judge all of them by the best of their representatives, not the worst.

 

[meltzerboy2]

It is a tendency with SOME, yes, but NOT with all. If you believe in the tenets of a religion, I learned a long time ago not to worry about what others think or how they may judge your behavior, or how devout and righteous others may appear to be. Just do your own thing, so to speak, regarding what you believe, striving at the same time to better yourself, and let G-d and G-d alone be your judge.

 

[niceatheist]

My issues with theism versus atheism are quite different, and I’d prefer not to broach them in this thread

But let’s take a harder case. The notion to be a certain kind of Christian must mean imposing at least some beliefs on non believers. It’s not hard to find people here who would reverse gay marriage, ban birth control pills, or outlaw no fault divorce, all in the name of Church and God. How does one deal with that within a religion. From outside I find such people more than a little frightening.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m confused as to why the examples of yoga and Harry Potter are your focus here. Is that an individual opinion you disagree with or a broader teaching of religion?

There have been a couple of threads of late, and some pretty absurd claims all backed up, supposedly, by clergy (well a now deceased Exorcist in Rome who seemed to market himself as the Vatican’s official Exorcist). So apparently, in these people’s eyes, if I was Catholic and reading Harry Potter or taking a yoga class, I’m risking demonic possession.

Perhaps this is where my inherent skepticism comes into play. In short, I don’t believe these claims, but that’s easy because I’m not Catholic. What do you do when someone makes these sorts of claims, along with appeals to authority, and you’re a Catholic?

 

[IdaCatholic]

People can have opinions that is the essence of freedom. I personally feel yoga is dangerous, but I read my children harry potter at night. That is my opinion of the theology involved. Any Catholic is free to disagree and revive the Eucharist right next to me. Do you give my opinions carry the same weight as those others you speak of? Do I speak for all Catholics? Do my opinions and beliefs contradict the freedom of an entire religion or religions in general!?

 

[niceatheist]

It’s one thing to have opinions. It’s another to declare them tantamount to church teaching.

 

[JulianN]

Although that may seem to be the case because of the vehemence of opinions held by some people, it doesn’t mean that’s actually what a religion teaches. For example, you can be Catholic and read Harry Potter with enjoyment.

And of course you can be Catholic and not support a given politician.

When a religious teaching conflicts with one’s own conscience after truly prayerful consideration, it should be ignored.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My issues with theism versus atheism are quite different, and I’d prefer not to broach them in this thread

But let’s take a harder case. The notion to be a certain kind of Christian must mean imposing at least some beliefs on non believers. It’s not hard to find people here who would reverse gay marriage, ban birth control pills, or outlaw no fault divorce, all in the name of Church and God. How does one deal with that within a religion. From outside I find such people more than a little frightening.

I will address that question. It is understood in Catholic teaching that not all doctrines should be enforced by civil society. But I think you will agree with me that some doctrines (like the prohibition against murder) really should be enforced by civil society. Of course atheists also believe (if I could be allowed to speak for you) that the prohibition against murder should be enforced by civil society, but perhaps for different reasons that theists might give. The point is, this distinction between doctrine that we find binding for us and doctrines that we want to make binding on all of society - that distinction does exist. There are many other examples of very firmly-held doctrine that Catholics do not try to enforce through the agency of civil society. Another such example is the prohibition against having sex outside of marriage. Catholics believe this, and believe it would be good if others believed it too, but Catholic teaching does not call for civil punishment against those who violate this prohibition.

I could go on and on listing doctrines that Catholics hold, but do not think should be enforced by civil society. And of the doctrines that Catholics do think should be enforced by civil society, many of those are doctrines that unbelievers also agree should be enforced by civil society, dealing with issues like murder, theft, racial discrimination, private property, fairness toward workers, etc.

So that brings us to the most contentious cases - the ones that Catholics believe should be enforced to some extent, but where there is not such widespread agreement with the Catholic position among non-believers. Same-sex marriage is one example of such a thing. Here is how I look at those issues:
continued:…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing (with “Here is how I look at those issues:”)

In a representative form of government, all people have a right to express what they think should be done. That goes all sorts of issues, from taxes to education to to zoning laws to speed limits to minimum wage to the very urgent issue of repaving main street vs. just filling in potholes. It also includes the contentious issues mentioned, like same-sex marriage, justice for the poor, abortion, pornography, and freedom of religion. In this government, we allow all citizens to express their view on these issues - sometimes by direct referendum, but more commonly by electing representatives who make these decisions on our behalf. But one this is absent, and that is any requirement for the citizen to give a reason why he chooses what he does. We allow citizens to vote their choice based on any reason whatsoever. You could make your selection based on tea leaves and tarrot cards, and that is OK with our system of government. And of course that is as it should be. A citizen should not have to explain his vote to at the polling station. He just makes it however he wants.

When applied to a Christian, that means as Christian can (if he chooses) decide who to vote for based on what his faith teaches him. His reason for voting is no less valid than any other citizen’s reason for voting. If a Catholic believes it is bad for society to recognize gay marriage, he should be given just as much consideration and respect as a someone who thinks gay marriage is a great idea. There is nothing unique about religion that distinguishes its role in civil society from any other group or philosophy.

If you are thinking that the religious institution forces these choices on members against their will, not is not accurate. No one is forced to join the Church. They are invited. Their friends may encourage them. But the decision always rests with the individual, to confess a belief in the tenants of the religion, or not. In this respect, the Church is also not unique. All sorts of secular organizations have similar interactions. Imagine, for example, a member of the NRA who decides not to support gun rights. He could continue to pay his dues and be on their mailing list and they would continue to take his money, but if he went to an NRA meeting and expressed his new view on gun rights to his fellow members, he would not be warmly received. Take any organization at all that proclaims a strong message and you will find the same behavior.

So Christians push for civil society to recognize their values just like non-Christians and gun-lovers and bicycle enthusiasts and farmers and bankers and long distance truckers push for their values to be recognized in law. It is a right that we all enjoy. There is no reason that right ought to be denied to
Christians.

 

[Annie]

As I question my own world view, I can’t help but wonder if part of where I ended up was a reaction to an extreme attempt at social control, using the Bible as a weapon to beat independent thought out of people.

I think this is a very good question to consider. It may be that some people need to consider the reverse: do I live my life this way because I believe it, or because I was raised this way and it is comfortable? Either way, to consider and evaluate the roots of one’s world view is a good step to take in life.

It’s one thing to have opinions. It’s another to declare them tantamount to church teaching.

I think you have answered your own question

I remember attending Mass and a visiting priest was there saying things that were contrary to Church teaching. I knew that because I have studied and know what the Church teaches, so I am able to evaluate “what someone says” against my knowledge or against what I research, if someone says something about a topic I know little about.

In fact, I just realized that The First Principle and Foundation of St Ignatius of Loyola addresses this very thing. Briefly, it says our overarching task in life is to love God and get to Heaven, and while we can gratefully enjoy the things of the world, we must discern which things help us in our overarching task and which things do not.

Just as some can drink alcohol and not get drunk, while others must avoid alcohol to avoid getting drunk, there are decisions each of us has to make for ourselves. There is a wide area where the Church lets us do that.

 

[IdaCatholic]

A good place to start is the catechism when deciding what Church teaching is. Not an internet thread or my opinion or yours. So it sounds like you are condemning an entire system concerning freedom and social control based on the opinions of people you will never talk to

 

[Eric_Hyom]

It’s not hard to find people here who would reverse gay marriage, ban birth control pills, or outlaw no fault divorce, all in the name of Church and God.

That’s the problem with ‘free thinking’. We can’t all be right.

 

[OddBird]

To what extent does your priest constrain your intellectual curiousity?

Not a priest but a (Reformed) pastor here.

To that question, and from my pastoral point of view, my answer is : absolutely none. Nor would I want to limit anyone’s intellectual curiosity; what good could it possibly do ?

I concur with what Father @edward_george1 said upthread : the exact amount of influence I have on people is the one they are willing to give me. In most cases it means that they will shake my hand at the church’s door on their way out and say “Nice sermon, pastor” before resuming their daily lives.

Following church teaching always is a personal decision. Nobody can force that on anyone else. The best I can do is trying to make a convincing case for it – and, of course, pray.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

It’s not hard to find people here who would reverse gay marriage, ban birth control pills, or outlaw no fault divorce, all in the name of Church and God.

That’s the problem with ‘free thinking’. We can’t all be right.

It’s not the thinking that bothers me, it’s those who feel emboldened to act to reduce other people’s liberties.

 

[niceatheist]

And yet, in the specific context of gay marriage, the Church has taken a stand in opposition. I’ll put it plainly, can one approve of, or at the very least feel it’s none of one’s business, gay marriage, and actually hold themselves as a Catholic in good standing? My personal view has always been that it is none of my business, that two people of the same gender getting hitched affects me in no meaningful way, and that my blessing is not required.

It has since taken on a far more personal dimension since my youngest daughter came out, and some of the language I find here is actually quite hurtful to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And yet, in the specific context of gay marriage, the Church has taken a stand in opposition…can one approve of, or at the very least feel it’s none of one’s business, gay marriage, and actually hold themselves as a Catholic…? My personal view has always been that it is none of my business, that two people of the same gender getting hitched affects me in no meaningful way, and that my blessing is not required.

If it were only that simple. The Church does not propose any laws that restrict gay couples from buying a house together, living together, having a joint bank account, visiting each other in hospitals, etc. In short, everything that any other married couple can do that affects only them, they can do, and the Church does not propose any civil laws to stop them, as much as they might regret to see people acting that way. So in what ways does the Church oppose gay marriage in the civic square? It is the ways in which the official recognition of gay marriage affects all of society. Anyone can have an interest in what affects all of society. For example, if schools were to start teaching that Jews were inferior people, I would vigorously oppose that policy and work hard to elect school board members to overturn it and elect lawmakers to outlaw such practice in schools. All this, even though I am not a Jew and I do not even have any children currently in school. The policy does not affect me directly, one way or the other. I just think it is bad for society, and bad for the children (other people’s children, but still, people who will be members of the society I inhabit), and thus bad for all of us. Similarly, I think that school programs that include descriptions of family life in which same-sex unions are normalized and put on the same level as what was called “marriage” only a few years ago, is bad for society. For another comparison, consider an elementary school program that taught that children of a mother and father who are not married at all are just as normal and acceptable a family form as a married couple having a child is bad policy, and I think you would agree. It is not that we refuse to recognize that such families exist, and certainly not so that we would stigmatize any child who, through no fault of their own, happen to be from such a family. But that is not the same thing as declaring it to be normal. It would be like a kid who breaks his leg and comes to school on crutches. We should not make fun of him and deride him for his “un-normal” state of being. But neither would we act like a broken leg is just as good as an unbroken one. It is a careful balance that must be struck - not to unfairly discriminate against people who are different in some way, and also not to completely normalize their difference either. If you study Catholic teaching carefully, especially more recent teaching (for we have learned some things too), you will see that the Catholic position on same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general is quite nuanced, and not very well represented by certain laymen who espouse their personal interpretations of that teaching.

 

[niceatheist]

It is nuanced to be sure, but at the end of the day the church still desires civil law to reflect its own theological positions. It’s that imposition that scares me. What the church thinks of SSM, indeed what it teaches from the pulpit is its own business, because as many have observed , modern churches are free associations. But when non believers become ensnared in any church’s attempt to impose their own beliefs, or at least the effect of their beliefs, on everyone else, that my feathers get ruffled.