Yabby, I think you need to stop living in the past. I went to a Catholic school run by nuns in the 1980s, and even then there was hardly any Catholic content. I learnt about Shintoism in RE and we did meditation. The only Catholic thing I recall was the saying of the Our Father each morning (but all Christians do this). My atheist stance was respected and no one tried to "re-educate" me.

But if you are going to live in the past, at least get it right. The abhorrent craze of witch-burning, for example, was most rampant in non-Catholic countries after the Reformation, and the Inquisition didn't actually burn anyone at the stake - heretics were handed over to the secular authorities for a secular form of punishment. If you genuinely want to know about the Inquisition I suggest you consult Henry Kamen's work - it is highly regarded amongst academics (who don't tend to be sympathetic to Catholics) and I believe he's a Jewish historian (not that it should matter, but I suspect it does to you).

As for your other ludicrous claims, do you actually know any practicing Catholics under 40? You've described a caricature of the Church. There are plenty of things to criticise, corruption to fight, and so forth, but you'll find that Catholics themselves are engaged in changing the Church for the better (and that they have a healthy attitude to sex, alcohol, and various other pleasures of life). You're entitled your opinion, but when your opinion of the modern Church is clearly based on a skewed and selective reading of the Church centuries ago, it's difficult to have any respect for that opinion. The Church has always respected people's freedom of conscience, which is why so many of its saints were rebels against members of the Church hierarchy. It was the Inquisitor-General who found that the English trial of Joan of Arc was invalid and that she was innocent, after all. If ecclesiastical law had been followed, Joan of Arc would never have been burned at the stake.

Saltpetre, I think your understanding of the Church’s stance on birth control is somewhat under-informed. Yabby and Wikipedia are not exactly good sources of Church teaching – may I suggest you read some of the varied views within the Church? Wrt the Time article, I personally think a better approach would be to address the living conditions that make having multiple children so problematic. I think it's dreadful that any woman should be in such circumstances that she's denied the choice to have more than one child and that the priority should be to improve living conditions. That said, the issue of birth control isn’t as clear-cut as some like to make out. If you go along to Natural Family Planning classes provided by the Catholic Church, you will find that half the class aren’t remotely Catholic – there are non-religious health/medical and lifestyle reasons to use NFP. Furthermore, more than half of the women who have abortions in this country were using artificial contraception that failed. Whatever one’s views of abortion, most people I know disagree with it at some point during pregnancy and consider it a reluctant last resort, and the reliance on artificial contraception is often under the false belief that it's highly effective with no health repercussions. There is a ‘do no harm’ ethos behind the ban on artificial contraception and, while you may disagree with the Church’s conclusions on this subject, it's unfair to suggest otherwise.

I understand that most people will never be able to reconcile themselves to a lifestyle that relinquishes control over procreation – we expect to have so much control over our lives, nowadays – but I think it's presumptive to cast the Church’s stance as some backward hangover from the Middle Ages. It's a complex and somewhat radical stance, but the Church isn't an arbitrary spoil-sport – there are complex and valid reasons behind all Church teaching which some Catholics choose to follow and others not. No one's forced to stay in the Church; we all have freedom of conscience. That ought to be recognised and respected.

Thanks Mishka,

I'm not trying to pick a bone with you, or with the Church, and my comment about extremism was meant in broad-brush, and not particularly with the Catholic Church in mind, if you know what I mean. There are unfortunately far more relevant cases of religious extremism in our troubled world. I also accept that people are free to exercise their conscience, and very many do I'm sure, but that doesn't really alter the Church's official view, and it is this which I have some difficulty justifying.

You are not the only one on this forum to mention that artificial contraception methods may be detrimental to female health, but I fail to see how the use of a condom could produce such unwanted side-effects, for male or female. I am aware that the pill can be a problem, and probably IUD's as well. However, I don't see how a blanket ban on artificial contraception can embody an ethos of 'do no harm', for obviously it does, even indirectly perhaps, cause harm and hardship to some followers. Then, you also indicate that even NFP is unacceptable, perhaps being contrary to God's law? This more or less shuts the gate, doesn't it? Thus logically forcing people to break the rules or risk a lot of unnecessary pain for themselves and their potential offspring. I don't see how this can be justified in good faith.

A well-nourished conscience should not be so burdened with such unnecessary complications, in my humble opinion.

As for masturbation, I think it's perfectly natural and acceptable, in appropriate moderation. Birth control, however, is a far more serious consideration, and unwanted pregnancies present a host of very serious ramifications, not the least being the trauma and ethical dilemma of abortion.

I can understand the virtue of restraint in all things sexual, and why the Church would wish the world to contain far fewer sinners in this regard, but then I'm just an old fogey, and some would even label me prudish. (Or perhaps, more correctly, prudent.)

Mishka, I think you will find that Catholic doctrine and the effort
to enforce it, varies somewhat from country to country. In Chile the
church fought to the end, to lift the ban on divorce, for instance.
In the end they were thankfully rolled by people power.

Indeed Catholic schools have had to alter their tune somewhat.
Firstly there are simply not too many priests, nuns or monks left
in the West. Secondly few Western parents would accept the abuse
to their children that people like myself experienced. So most
teachers at catholic schools are far more like normal people, then
used to be the case.

How kind of the church to contract out the burning of heretics.
It saves getting ones hands dirty after all.

The issue of contraception is not about limiting children to one,
but not having 5,6,,7,8 etc, when they are not wanted. Tubal
litigation would be the easy solution, but in places like the Philippines
the church controls most of the hospitals, so that is
not an option. They just enforce their dogma on a poor public through
political and other means, these people arn't given options like we
have. Shame on them.

Crossing your legs for Jesus has been shown to be a dismal failure
when it comes to family planning. If the church was really so concerned
about abortion, they would look at the country with one
of the lowest abortion rates, ie Holland, to see how they do it.
It starts with great sex education. But of course when the WA Dept
of Education launched a comprehensive website for teens, to teach them
about sex education, family planning and contraception, catholic
schools in WA did their utmost to prevent access for their students.

It took the church around 400 years to concede that Gallileo was right
all along. No doubt it will take them about the same to concede to
reason on these other issues. The old farts who run Rome should frankly
have been put out to pasture, years ago.

Saltpetre, I must be brief, so I hope I can answer you satisfactorily. NFP is acceptable but should be governed by each Catholic's conscience as to its appropriate use, the guide being that it should be for grave reasons, not selfish ones. For example, Catholics use NFP when undergoing chemotherapy so as to not harm any offspring in the womb. As for your query about condoms, I know people (both male and female) who have latex allergies, and I know even more who have had condoms break - it seems to be a fairly common occurrence that often results in unwanted pregnancy.

Wrt do no harm, contraception reinforces a mentality that treats children as a commodity and an attitude towards sex that can be very selfish. It gives people a false sense of security that they can have sex without any consequences. But there are consequences, and not just children, but STDs, broken relationships, etc.. This blog articulates some of the concerns of someone who doesn’t even object to artificial birth control in theory: http://thinklaughweepworship.blogspot.com/2011/03/beyaz-commercial-part-2-making-myself.html I hope it helps explain just a tiny amount of the sort of thinking that lies behind Church teaching.

As for the pain you mention, pain and suffering are part of life. The fact that we all suffer to differing degrees shouldn’t be an argument for avoiding or exterminating life.

Mishka, if you know so much about the Catholic Church, why don't
you just come clean.

As you would know, buried deep within Catholic dogma is the belief
that suffering is actually noble.

http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/john-paul-iis-penitential-practices-the-opus-dei-connection/

That's just one of the URLs which came up when I googled Opus Dei
and whipping. There are many claims that old JP2 had his own
little whip to beat himself and of course he was closely associated
with Opus Dei.

What a freaky lot they are and what damage they do. It is truly
amazing....