Ho hum, yet another bitter article bashing the Catholic Church *massive yawn*. Mr Holden conveniently forgets the great good and the charity services provided by the Church such as hospitals, universities, charities, homeless shelters, outreach services, etc, providing services to all, regardless of their religious belief, or lack thereof. Yes, there were cruel and psychologically disturbed priests, nuns and brothers in the past, but to write off all religious as neurotic sexual degenerates out to victimise children is outrageous, deeply offensive, and I take great umbrage to it. Just another vitriolic ex-Catholic taking a free kick.

No AMB, not just another "bitter article bashing the Catholic Church". This historical perspective explores dysfunctional institutions which did a great deal of harm as well as a great deal of good. Certainly there were well-intentioned men among the brothers, but when your touchstone and culture is closed to the broader society, little wonder that perversion flourishes.

AMB there are valid viewpoints apart from those of the blinkered religious.

It seems to me that celibacy, of itself, it not the problem. The problem is how celibacy was lived and taught, and still is lived and taught in many cases. Celibacy is not about having no sexual feelings - it's about what you do with those feelings, the relationship one has with those feelings, the way the energy of those feelings are used in the living of a good and loving life. The reality seems to be that there are not many people who can be and want to be celibate and sexual. The conventional way is to be sexual in ways that include the genital expression of sexuality, often within a relationship of mutual emotional and practical support. Celibacy - when lived by someone who has the appropriate psychological, relational, spiritual and practical support, who has the necessary want to live it, as well as the necessary balanced personality - can be a viable life choice (despite its seemingly paradoxical nature).

Brian Holden wrote: "Charles Darwin told us long ago that humans are just another species of sexually reproducing animals."

The idea that humans belong with other animals predates Darwin. Linnaeus introduced the word, mammal, in 1758 to name the group of animals which includes humans. This was 101 years before the publication of "The Origin of Species."

Possibly, that misinformation is the consequence of a Catholic education.

david f, that's a little harsh. the "just another" is still difficult for many people to accept, and darwin did much to make it difficult to argue against.

as for the catholic church, this ridiculous cult is currently trying to convince everyone that a dead mary mackillop cured cancer. god knows how anybody can take them seriously.

Dear bushbasher,

Before Linnaeus most naturalists thought flowers were organs of nutrition. When Linnaeus commented that the stamens, pistils and pollen were connected with sexual reproduction he was accused of being dirty minded. However, Linnaeus also believed in the immutability of species. It was Darwin's contribution to suggest a mechanism by which new species would develop. Darwin did not need to point out the sexual nature of life or make it difficult to argue against since it was accepted well before he was born.