This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Given that the baptism of your children requires that you ask the Church to accept them as a member and publicly state that you intend to raise them in the Catholic faith, I think your in-laws can be forgiven for bringing this up. Since at least one point you least mimed agreement. I have friends in similar circumstances and I'm also unsympathetic. If you don't want to raise your children religious why get them baptized, if you had been clear with your intentions from the start I don't think you would have this conflict (might have other conflict but not this one!).
I'm entirely uncool with Catholics pressuring people into obviously false statements of faith and baptism, and then acting like that person is a betrayer violating an honest promise when that person honestly states the perfectly clear fact it was all lip service.
You can coerce people into loyalty oaths. Of course that has no bearing on their actual beliefs. It just means they gave into coercion. Some people then act performatively shocked that coerced pledges are worthless.
Is it "obviously false" though?
"Are you going to raise your kids as Catholics?" is a fairly straight forward question, and there is little reason to lie unless you're explicitly trying to get a free-ride off of church resources in which case I'd say they have a right to be annoyed.
I don't think avoiding social ostracism counts as "getting a free ride off of church resources".
It absolutely is "getting a free ride" if the church is offering any sort of perks for membership.
And yes I include things like social functions, play-dates, blue-bag groceries, school supplies, etc.. under the heading "perks"
Is a light-skinned black person who tries to pass for white, in a situation where a lot of people don't like blacks. "getting a free ride"? I would say no.
And if it's a light-skinned black person, at least his parents and siblings are okay with him being black. In the analogous situation with religion, you can have religious beliefs that are completely different from your whole family. It's hard thinking of even a good analogy, but let's say you want to marry a light-skinned black person and you tell your parents that this person is white because you know your parents would otherwise ostracize you. Are you getting a free ride from your parents every time you come home for Thanksgiving dinner, because you know that if you had told the truth, they wouldn't let you in the house?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If that's coercion, then having any requirement for romantic partners is coercion.
"She said must love dogs in her profile, and I had no other choice but to feign a love of dogs, though I am actually a cat person."
"Coercion" and "not getting a free ride off of church resources" are separate arguments, though related.
I'd agree that feigning a love of dogs doesn't count as getting a free ride off of church resources.
No that a free ride of your partner instead which is arguably worse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My wife verbalized this at the baptism, I didn't. We planned this out before we got married - it was annoying but they'll get to make their own decisions once they're older.
I'm unsympathetic to you because you knew all this going in. "Yeah, I think it's all horseshit, my fiancée knows I think it's all horseshit, but I'll pretend and she'll go along with my pretence for the sake of peace".
Well sorry bunky, but you didn't make that bargain with the rest of the family. Now you're asking us to shake our heads at "I had no idea some of these idiots really believed this horseshit, why aren't they all tolerant and accepting that I'm lying about every single thing to do with their dumb rituals because I'm banking on my kids being influenced by my attitudes and not my go-along-to-get-along wife's attitudes?" Oh poor widdle you!
Yeah, that is what tends to happen when you encounter people who really believe things. "Can you believe it? I married into a family of doctors, even though I'm a homeopathic practitioner, and one of the in-laws had the gall to ask my father if I was going to give up pseudoscience and that he, as a consultant at a major regional hospital, should talk to me about scientific evidence!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You think condemning his kid to Hell would have caused less conflict?
Allowing his kid to be baptized was the path of least conflict, so I think it's wholly appropriate to be annoyed when the other party insists on causing more conflict, rather than returning the favor.
Whether or not your spouse is committed to raising your kids Christian is a private conversation. Your spouse mouthing some words because she knows a tradition is important to you is not a substitute for that.
I never said there would less conflict, only different conflict. If you don't want to raise your children religious then why get them baptized? I understand changing ones mind but still I think as a parent in a free-confessional state you have the absolute free choice. Your decision will have consequences and this may lead to conflict, but I think taking a firm stance at initiation would certainly have made their stance public and the future conflict would not have occurred. To stand up in public and pantomime these words, while you might have them not hold weight, I don't think its fair to discredit those who took your pantomime at face value.
A valid theory! My personal opinion is that refusing to allow my children to be baptized would have been much worse, consequence wise. My strategy is to play the long game. I'm confident that my kids will find their own way long term, whether that's being religious and having acceptance from my in-laws or not and having my protection and support.
Yeah, I think you're digging yourself in deeper here 🤦♀️ "I have no problem lying, why can't they accept that I'm a liar?" and you wonder why they don't trust you?
Where are you imagining dishonesty on my part? I have made no oaths or promises to Christianity or this family about converting.
About converting, I agree, and that is where your in-law was out of line.
The rest of it? You're telling us you knew the conditions required before going in, you said you agreed out of one side of your mouth while saying 'fuck no' out of the other, and now you want us to stroke your fevered brow about 'how dare they expect me to do what I publicly promised to do'.
"I only said it because I wanted to marry this woman" (except it was you who put it more crudely). That's still being dishonest, just as dishonest as if you promised her father you would take good care of her and any kids you had, then spent all your money on whores, booze and gambling while your family was in want, and your only response there was "oh come on, I never meant that dumb promise, I only said it because he wouldn't have let you marry me otherwise. When you married me you knew I was gonna get drunk and fuck around".
More options
Context Copy link
Did your parish not administer baptism properly?
http://www.ibreviary.com/m2/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&id=103
More options
Context Copy link
The part where you lied about your intent to raise your kids as christians. I get that you think you were just mouthing a bunch of meaningless syllables devoid of semantic content but that's not how your in-laws see it.
I can see where, by my presence at the baptism, there was an implicit agreement and therefore dishonesty.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have personally known Catholic families that used maximum pressure to coerce false statements of faith out of people and then are horrified when the obvious truth that those pledges are fake is revealed. Using hard pressure to get compliance should predictably result in false statements rather than changing their honest beliefs deep in their heart.
Maybe that's not what happened with OP. Maybe his in laws were honestly blind sided in this one instance. But this is a predictable and in my experience apparently common failure mode for Catholic families. Acting wounded when it turns out that coerced actions are not a reflection of someone's honest beliefs.
Define "coerced" though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From within the Christian worldview, it's not though and that's the disconnect. Christian ,marriage and baptism are necessarily public and community arrangements and within Catholicism, sacramental. Marriage is a living metaphor for the relationship of Jesus and the Church itself.
That doesn't mean everything is everyone's business all the time, but even if you come into the marriage as nonChristian, this is what you are getting into. Christian marraige is not a function of an atomic, private, liberal mindset even if you want it to be.
As I said in the other comment, it's true that OP didn't necessary make a vow to raise his kids Catholic, but he publically entered a union with a person who did and the other members of the Church to an extent have a right and even (in the right context) a duty to assure that commitment.
OP's whole post is "why can't Christians subject their faith to my standard of polite secular tolarance within our family the same way I expect it from our state?" Because Christianity doesn't work that way and isn't a servant of liberalism.
Interestingly, this is a post-Reformation development. Luther pioneered, and the counter-reformation embraced, the practice of requiring marriages to be publically witnessed. Prior to that, secret marriages were allowed (though I assume still privately officiated by a priest?).
(I don't have a source to back this up on hand, and I was only told this once a few months ago, so take the requisite grains of salt)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be validly married in the Catholic Church in a mixed marriage, the Catholic party has to promise baptize and raise their children in the faith. Prior to 1970, both parties had to make the promise.
While I think mixed marriages are a very bad idea to begin with, assuming they had a valid Catholic wedding, @yofuckreddit is/was likely aware of this promise of their spouse and respects her enough to not obstruct it. If they are not validly married, I would spend my time pestering his wife about getting that fixed were I their relative, before I moved on to hassling @yofuckreddit himself.
I don't know why one marries someone who thinks their beleifs are idiotic, but love is love I guess.
It would be beyond rude for me to ridicule my wife in this way, and I have no plans to do so. That is intrinsically part of our "deal".
Well I assumed you don't ridicule her. But I assume she knows you don't believe and think it's 'idiocy' (if in lighter terms). I personal would advise people against marrying people with such fundamental moral epistemology mismatches It seems quite difficult for reasons you describe in your OP.
FWIW, my wife is Catholic, but her family isn't and that alone is hard enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link