The pro-life Church and attitudes to dangerous things like motorcycle riding, mountain climbing and smoking

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
@Tis_Bearself in another thread suggested I might like to start this one in order to ensure the uninterrupted flow of discussion about Catholic motorcycle organisations on the original thread.

Reading that thread it occurred to me that I could not recall the Church making stands against activities which posed significant threats to life.

To make the issue clearer I am talking about activities for which there are reasonable alternatives. Obviously if motorcycle riding is the only means of transport and transport is needed the risk can be justified.

Mountain climbing on safe slopes can be justified. But Mt Everest on which so many have died?

Smoking has well-known risks to the smoker and to others.

Has the Church, in line with its pro-life stance, ever taken a clear position on people who take this sort of risk or support it in other ways such as promotion of dangerous sports or practices?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smoking is as dangerous as mountain climbing and motorcycle racing?
 
Last edited:
I presume when they mention sports like skateboarding, mountain biking, snowboarding etc they are talking about the extreme versions of these sports. Many sports including surfing, diving, skiing, gymnastics etc can be done in an arguably “extreme” way or in a more ordinary “fun” way which is hardly the same thing as the extreme way.
 
Well half of smokers die earlier than they would otherwise because of smoking. Not sure about motorcycle riding or mountain climbing.
 
I do remember reading something in the catechism that we are not to recklessly endanger ourselves. What counts as reckless endangerment is left to our prudential judgement. An experienced mountain climber can probably climb Half Dome in an (arguably) safe way. I cannot, and it would probably be a sin for me to try it without the proper experience. Then again, even experienced climbers could die climbing Half Dome or El Capitan - but at what point does something go from dangerous to reckless? It’s a grey area, and I dont think the church ventures into specifics.
 
Last edited:
The CCC is relective of a pro-life stance especially in this context

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess : the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

But it gives no clear guidance on what ‘abuse’ and ‘endanger’ means. This is very vague compared to other pro-life statements by the Church such as on abortion and euthanasia. There is, for the individual, a lot of wriggle room.
 
FiveLinden said:
This is very vague compared to other pro-life statements by the Church such as on abortion and euthanasia. There is, for the individual, a lot of wriggle room.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is obvious. Riding a motorcycle may kill you, but it won’t inherently, and nobody riding a motorcycle does so with the intention of dying. And there are definite precautions you can take to reduce the chance of death. An abortionist or euthanasia doctor definitely intends to kill. There is no euthanasia or abortion that doesn’t end in death.
 
Last edited:
SPBlitz said:
An abortionist or euthanasia doctor definitely intends to kill
Click to expand...
People who have abortions usually do not think they are killing a person, just as those engaged irresponsibly in drunk driving do not expect to kill anyone.
 
FiveLinden said:
People who have abortions usually do not think they are killing a person, just as those engaged irresponsibly in drunk driving do not expect to kill anyone.
Click to expand...
Come now, this is a silly argument and you know it.

Objectively, an abortion ends with the death of the fetus. That’s the goal. That’s the whole point. Both the doctor and person receiving the abortion intend that as the result. Nobody climbs Everest with the intention of dying. That isn’t the purpose of climbing it.

Doing something that has the risk of death to a person, and intentionally killing something that you don’t believe is a person, are two wildly different things. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

Also, the church does condemn drunk driving specifically in the catechism.
 
Last edited:
I’d guess there’s a whole lot of prudential judgement involved in the sheer variety of what can fall under the category of ‘sport’.

For example, I remember a priest making a (controversially received) YouTube video critiquing some particular kind of martial arts discipline that was unusually likely to result in grave human injury for the disproportionately inadequate purpose of mere entertainment. I think he compared it to Roman gladiatorial activities. Whereas other kinds of martial arts or martial arts conducted with more of a focus on demonstrating technique rather than causing injury, he didn’t take the same issue with.

Regarding an example like climbing a ‘safe’ mountain versus a famously ‘unsafe’ mountain like Everest… I probably can’t put this in philosophically clever language, please forgive my lack of knowledge there. But something strikes me about proportionality. That is, perhaps (just perhaps, I don’t know enough to make the argument myself) there is a valid argument to be made for humans pursuing excellence at every activity that is not inherently immoral… including not just scientific and theological and musical (etc) endeavours, but certain sports or exercise of physical prowess. And the most excellent mountain climbing (eg) may be proven on Everest. So there’s a proportionality factor to weigh in, maybe? That it’s not inherently immoral for a person of considerable skill to undertake a difficult activity that can, with their high skill level, be carried out safely even if it carries a risk of harm to themselves (provided, perhaps, that they don’t have dependent children, etc?), if the activity is arguably carried out in the pursuit of some proportional excellence?

I’m really stretching outside my personal temperament on this one because I’m typically cautious and frankly it upsets me when love ones take unnecessary risks.

But I’m also reminded of a quote from American author John Augustus Shedd:
A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.
Click to expand...
Simple temporal, corporal safety will often not be the final word on an issue. It will depend on how much is being risked and by whom and why.

All that said, I do think no matter what there will indeed be a point at which everyone can agree things have gone ‘too far’ and we’re in the territory of ‘rash’. I’m just not sure the point of ‘climbing Everest’ or ‘riding a motorcycle’ is where the Church is likely to descend upon her children and apply a one-size-fits-all prohibition.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Familiar with those stats. Don’t trust them considering I knew a priest whose dad was a chain smoker and lived til he was 90
Click to expand...
It’s an average. Smokes who live until 90 often die of smoking-related issues too. Anecdote is not evidence.
 
SPBlitz said:
Doing something that has the risk of death to a person, and intentionally killing something that you don’t believe is a person, are two wildly different things.
Click to expand...
I was not arguing that they were the same but that each, in terms of Catholic teaching, required a similar response because of the overarching respect for life taught by the Church.
SPBlitz said:
Also, the church does condemn drunk driving specifically in the catechism.
Click to expand...
Yes I quoted that in full.
 
FiveLinden said:
I was not arguing that they were the same but that each, in terms of Catholic teaching, required a similar response because of the overarching respect for life taught by the Church.
Click to expand...
Then I suppose the difference is magnitude of risk. The risk of death in an abortion (according to the church) is 100% so it is always forbidden. The risk of death climbing Everest varies from person to person, so it isn’t always forbidden. Where the line is drawn is left to our prudential judgement. But, if the risk of climbing Everest/riding a motorcycle/whatever ever did reach 100%, it would be condemned just as abortion or euthanasia.
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
And the most excellent mountain climbing (eg) may be proven on Everest. So there’s a proportionality factor to weigh in, maybe? That it’s not inherently immoral for a person of considerable skill to undertake a difficult activity that can, with their high skill level, be carried out safely even if it carries a risk of harm to themselves (provided, perhaps, that they don’t have dependent children, etc?), if the activity is arguably carried out in the pursuit of some proportional excellence?
Click to expand...
A most interesting point and well made. I’d be open to be persuaded by this myself but I don’t share exactly the Church’s view on life. (As I often note here I am not a believer).

I could certainly see how personal sacrifice say in exploration or even self-administration of urgently-needed medicine to prove safety could be justified within the Church’s teaching but when things are done ‘for the challenge’? I wonder if any Catholic theorist has addressed this.
 
SPBlitz said:
Then I suppose the difference is magnitude of risk. The risk of death in an abortion (according to the church) is 100% so it is always forbidden. The risk of death climbing Everest varies from person to person, so it isn’t always forbidden. Where the line is drawn is left to our prudential judgement. But, if the risk of climbing Everest/riding a motorcycle/whatever ever did reach 100%, it would be condemned just as abortion or euthanasia
Click to expand...
This seems sensible. But should the Church not provide more guidance on what ‘prudence’ means?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top