If the Catholic Church taught poor, less educated people that using seat belts was a sin...?

Question

....even though they knew that more people would die and be seriously injured in auto accidents.

But they said that their main teaching was that people should just never get in cars (or that they should only get in cars where they have no danger of hitting other cars or objects and they should not go over 5 miles/hr.)

Yet they saw that most people continued to still drive on fast roads and get into accidents, and they still said that seat-belt use was a sin... would they be at least partly responsible for those deaths?



[sorry for the run-on question]

Noam, would you feel the same way if it was the government doing this?

Wooderson: If they were teaching people not to use helmets they would be at least partly responsible. And yes, if they TEACH promiscuous behavior when they know people would not use condoms they would be partly responsible (imagine if schools did this with children right now). And (as much as I am anti-gun) they would be partly responsible (this is in fact the best argument I’ve ever herd from the gun nuts).

Wooderson: to your edit... Yes, they are partly responsible. Any action the government makes for trade-offs that result in deaths is partly their responsibility. Imagine if they approved a drug that they knew would kill many people - that is at least in part their responsibility.

Well, off to work everyone - thanks for answering. I will respond to any additional comments this evening.

Thomas (I mean St. Preachy): I’m sorry you didn’t like my question. I have asked worse questions and I’m sure I will do so in the future. Of course we will not agree on what is more moral or more of a sin here… I see cars as a huge problem that causes death, pollution and wars (why do you think we are in Iraq right now?). But sex, if done responsibly, I can not see as a sin but as a beautiful interaction – one of the best we can have as humans.

You say we can not separate the churches teachings, but as Sonorandesertgirl has pointed out, the less educated will do just that and here in lies the problem with the Churches teaching, i.e. what you think should happen and what will happen are two different things.

It would make A LOT of sense for them to say “Don’t sleep around. But if you do, for Gods’ sake use a condom. It will protect your wife from AIDS and your children from becoming orphans if you’re cheating on her.” In fact it not only makes sense, it is the only humane thing to do.

It is well known that people with less education will make very different choices that those with more (you are in denial if you say otherwise – compare rates of smoking among the less vs. more educated).

delsydebothom: Good writing as always from you. But I would seriously worry about anyone who thought a seat belt was evil.

Chris: I have a lot to comment on your answer and I may not get to it all right now. Suffice to say, we have very different views on sex. Condoms are not permanently attached so your first counter-argument fails. I do not think it debases sex in anyway to see it as more then a method of procreation the way you do. Also, it seems you are unaware of the overpopulation problem the rest of the planet is having.

My analogy is just that – an analogy, you are intelligent enough to know that and I’m not saying sex is like driving a car. You’ve missed the point entirely.

My argument is that we KNOW people will only follow part of the two-part teaching and that innocents (wives and children) will suffer because of it. The Church knows it too but they choose to ignore it as well.

I’m not talking about driving recklessly, PLENTY of people die every day by driving normally and I believe precautions should be taken (why did you change my words?).

Your whole argument about not loving someone because you use birth control would be absurd if it wasn’t scary. Do we all need to have 30 kids? Would you love your wife less if she only had 1 or 2?

I can't say if you are brainwashed. One could get that way in just a few months. But your idea that planning and having a little control is some kind of a bad thing is beyond logic.

I usually find you have better reasoning in your responses (even if I don't agree with them). I can not say you have done so here.

All in all, I'm quite appalled at the "morals" of the Catholics who seem to care so little for true pain and suffering.

I do realize my analogy is not good in one way: In my scenario, the only one who dies is the one who did not put on the seat-belt. In the real-life scenario, innocent wives will suffer horrible deaths and children will become orphans because of the unfaithful (or blood transfusion receiving) father. What did the wife and kids do to deserve this?

djddan: I believe you are right But the question was about the Churches' influence on less educated people. As they are taught the church is the best/ultimate source of knowledge, they will mostly do what the church says. THAT is the problem here.

also djddan, I believe many people DO place their faith before common sense... did you read the responses I got to this question? Some of these people I have been writing to for quite some time and I know that they are otherwise rational intelligent people.

But look at what their faith has done for them: they are all able to rationalize a policy/position that results in more death and suffering, all the while thinking they are more moral.

Answer 1

Very interesting question & a lot of interesting answers.

Personally I believe the church would be responsible.

The key to this & the point so many people over look when citing personal responsibility for choices is that this would not be so true if they were spreading these teachings where alternative sources of information were easily available to a group of people who were educated enough to interpret the information for themselves.

This is not the case in either your analogy or in the real life situation to which I believe you are referring.

In these cases the only source of information is what is given out by the Catholic church.

This means that as these people are uneducated and they look up to the church they will believe this & act accordingly.

The church knows this & still acts the same way. The people acting do not know their other choices.

Therefore as the church is the holder of more knowledge & is withholding knowledge then yes, they are responsible.

Most of the other comparisons are no longer valid - cigarettes are an example where the choice is up to the individual as they know what damage smoking will do (in this country at least)...even condom use in this country is a choice as people can either follow the suggestions and teaching of the church or they can follow the advice of medical professionals.

Any person knowingly withholding information when teaching to an uneducated group of people (be it children or people from the third world) is at the very least morally responsible for decisions people make based on that information.

Answer 2

Only if the hypothetical teaching against seat belts was false would the Church be responsible. One might say, and say truly, that the teaching led to the sad deaths, but it would not answer whether or not the Church was culpable in her action. She would only be nocent if the teaching was objectively wrong.

If the teaching, hypothetically, were true, then seat belts would be harmful to the soul--which soul being eternal, would be far more important than the body--and the deaths which resulted, though terrible, would be far preferable to the eternal consequences of using the demon belt.

More importantly, abstinence from the Belt del Diablo, would be an easy step to achieve sanctity, and this orientation towards sanctity--or towards some ultimate good, whatever that may be--would be fundamentally healthier than focusing on the darkness of death. The one who abstains from the Belt D'enfer, may die--but he'll die for a love of life. The user of that Gemeiner Belt may survive--but he'll only survive because of a deathly fear of death.

Answer 3

This is a poor question and you are smarter than this. I assume that you are trying to make some comparison to other Catholic moral teachings like it's stance on contraception use? If so, then I have to say, your question misses the point entirely. Nobody is saying that driving a car is immoral, and people are within their rights, and even morally obligated to protect themselves and the ones around them when participating in a perfectly acceptable activity. If you are getting at what I think you are, you have to realize that you cannot divorce one Catholic teaching from another. It is against Catholic teaching to engage in the sort of behavior that spreads disease in the first place. What sense would it make for them as an entity to say "sleeping around and shooting heroine is wrong, but if your going to do it make sure you use a condom". That doesn't make sense. Furthermore, people are under no compulsion to obey Catholic teaching if they don't want to. Education level has nothing to do with it. Unless of course, you are assuming that people without college degrees are not intelligent enough to sort things out for themselves. You wouldn't say that would ya?
Apples to oranges my friend. Sorry about that sentence fragment. And that one. etc.....

Edit: Fair enough sir, although I do disagree. Is this a great country or what!?

Answer 4

The question assumes believers place their faith before common sense which is very rarely the case. If the Pope himself denounced seat belts as intrinsically evil and a work of the Devil, hypothetically for the sake of argument, more than 95% of devout Catholics and even non-practising Christians, would continue wearing their seatbelts but publically deny that they wear one.

In the analogy to condoms the vast majority of Catholics will wear a condom and even have physical relations outside of wedlock despite the Church's position. Pope John Paul II I believe, the Pope right before the current Pope, openly denounced a very private and personal activity we will not mention by name but it is primarily something you do by yourself when you don't have a girlfriend yet I'm positive it makes no difference really what he said to most of them.

If the Pope said something outrageous which flies in the face of common sense such as, I don't know, to murder every dog you see on the street as being of the Devil I'm sure the vast majority of believers would ignore the urging to do this and call for his resignation.

Edit: Thank you for the additional details. I am afraid the poorer or less educated people may be in a serious bind. It is my feeling these people, if they are exceptionally zealous, will not wear their seat belt and this would perhaps cause problems. I believe they would probably not wear them.

Answer 5

very good analogy, unfortunately, as you may have suspected, it was lost on the objected target. as far as the answer that compares this to the bike helmet law, that state is not saying it's a sin to wear the helmets, they have just not taken a stand on it. the church states that condom wearing is a sin - completely different!

ever notice that when a non believer posts a question that takes the believers beliefs, turns it around on them, they just avoid it, or tell you it doesn't make sense? kind of like pascal's wager - if you turn it around and use other gods, they won't understand it, or tell you it's totally wrong, but yet use it as a difinitive arguement FOR the reason you should pray to their god! LOL

have a great day!

Answer 6

Maybe morally responsible, but not legally. Of course, the DA would argue a case for it, but in the end I'd hope that it wouldn't hold up. People are responsible for their own actions; they can't use a church or its teachings as an excuse not to use their own judgment. That's why, when the mother who belonged to a cult refused her child medical attention that would've saved his life, using the teachings of her cult against doctors and medicine, she was held responsible. People will follow what their religious leaders tell them, but the law will in turn hold them responsible.

Just remember ... in the end, when Jesus returns, the fact that people were led astray by liars in the churches won't have a bearing on the fact that they passed up their chance for salvation. They are fully expected to learn the Word for themselves and make their own judgments. Even though the church leaders will be held accountable - morally - they won't pay through the legal system for their followers going to Hell.

So ... even though the Catholic Church would likely NOT be held legally accountable for the deaths of those people, they WILL be accountable in God's eyes; not only for the deaths, but for the souls of those who died in sin. AND, while they are on earth, they will likely pay by their congregation getting wise to them and dwindling down to nothing.

Answer 7

No, they would not be responsible for those deaths.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including the Catholic Church as a group. Many people think it's o.k. to smoke, yet lots of people get sick from smoking. Are they to blame? Or, is it in fact "o.k." to do harmful things to yourself? Some people would say so.

There is still at least 1 state in the nation that does not require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. If Billy Bob rides without a helmet in that state, are the voters and representatives in that state "to blame" for his injuries?

There are people that "teach" that sexual relations with multiple partners is "o.k." because it allows one to explore their sexuality and learn about themselves. If people listen to that idea and then get venereal diseases, are the people with those opinions to blame for that?

There are people who are against homeowners having guns for home protection. If a person is robbed and killed by burglar, and a gun could have prevented it, are the anti-gun people responsible at least partly for the result?

Answer 8

Actually Bill, I think you need two crutches for this analogy because it is limping.

It assumes that condoms, like seatbelts, are only used for one's safety and have no negative drawback, that they do not inhibit some good... the good of openness to life and of total commitment to one's partner in marriage.

Secondly, it makes the use of a condom seem to be something individual, like one putting on a seatbelt, instead of an interpersonal act.

Thirdly, it takes something holy, sex, and relates it to driving a car... while the language of "riding" might be similar to both, there is a distinct difference between "using" a car as a mode of transportation, and having sex with another person (whose intrinsic dignity should be respected and who should never be "used" - even if they are willing).

A company issues two sets of safety instructions. An employee disregards one, but follows another, resulting in the death of one of his coworkers. Had he also disregarded the other safety instruction, perhaps the coworker would not have died (it is not certain) but he would have definitely done damage of another kind to himself and the coworker. Yet the company is to blame for not just telling him to disregard all the safety instructions?

That's what your analogy tries to say, that because some people only follow part of the teachings of the Catholic Church and not all of them, that the Catholic Church is to blame instead of the person disregarding the other teachings on abstainance before marriage and fidelity during marriage.

You would rather them say, if you're going to drive recklessly, at least wear a helmet, condoning dangerous (sinful) behavior instead of saying, hey, don't drive recklessly, because you see that as a limitation to one's freedom, but freedom to be irresponsible ultimately leads to death physically and spiritually, whereas true freedom means freedom to do what is good. Death is usually a major limit to one's freedom, just as sin is usually a major limit to one's life in God. Hence the teaching to reject sin, whether it be that of fornication (sex outside of marriage - including premarital and extramartial affairs) or artificial contraception (which denies sex as being a procreative act and tends to lead one to view one's partner as an object to be used for one's gratification, saying "I love you, but not your ability to produce a baby," which really simply means, I love getting off and you help that, whereas true love, however, means saying "I give myself wholely to you and I receive you wholely, with all that that might entail." And I'm sorry for the run-on!)

But I guess I must only be brainwashed (despite the fact that I was not always an orthodox and practicing Catholic and had been in New Age during high school and some of college... yah, that must be the explanation.).

Answer 9

Hello, Skeptic:

The tone of your question implies that because of the many ridiculous Catholic doctrines, your intelligence is insulted.

I felt the same way, and a peek at their history shows about 60,000,000 million people killed in the name of God because of their audacity.

Then, after several decades, I decided to study the Bible without a preachers influence. Yes, whether you know it or not, the fiasco in religions was foretold in the Bible. Now I am a devout believer in the Great I AM, but will never trust anyone with my precious faith.

Every morning during prayer I cite Psalm 118:8: It is better to trust in the Lord than to put your confidence in man.

If you have time to read an on-line publication that reveals the identity of the Abomination of Desolation that Jesus warned us of, please e-mail me.

Shalom, peace in Jesus, Ben Yeshua

Answer 10

This is ridiculous. Firstly, people are wholeheartedly responsible for their actions, not the church. And secondly, who are you to create analogies about something you obviously do not understand??

Just because people are going to make mistakes doesn't mean we should condone their mistakes by giving people a way out when they do commit them. Talk about ignorant!