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.

This author hides behind some very simplistic beliefs about human behaviour in order to maintain the resentment he seems to have harboured all his life.

You cannot have a vow which excludes having any sexual feelings. How would anyone know if you kept your vow or had broken it? Vows are public promises and whether a person lives up to them or not is under public scrutiny. Even in the case of a well concealed affair there is always someone other than the celibate who knows that the vows have been broken. Sexual feelings take place in the privacy of your own body. How can you tell if the person next to you on the bus is having ‘sexual feelings’ or not? It would be ridiculous to have a public vow which could not even be seen by anyone else.

Equating sexual abuse with celibacy is just as simplistic. Sexual abuse is not about sex. It is not just a preferred orientation or an outlet where no other normal outlet is available. Celibate people who abused children and then later marry and have ‘normal’ sexual relations can often continue to sexually abuse children as well. It is a very naïve understanding of sexual behaviour to think that all that is happening in a sexual act is the release of sexual tension. People indulge in sex for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual feelings and a great deal to do with emotional needs.

Similarly to say that physical abuse is the result of celibacy is trite. There are millions of acts of physical abuse committed by people who have healthy sex lives and there are many people with no sex lives who are not abusive. There is a whole range of reasons why people are physically abusive but lack of sex would be pretty much at the bottom of the list. Lack of freedom, lack of power, and injustice maybe reasons but lack of sex – hardly.

Only one word to say to this...

"EVENTUALLY??"

As someone who grew up in Ireland, I found Brian Holden's article to have a strong air of both being written from a long distance and being lost in the past.

Hostility (from current or lapsed Catholics) to the power of the Catholic Church is not something that has yet to occur. Instead it has a long and prominent history in Ireland. Examples include resentment of the Church's role in ruining the political career of Parnell in the 19th century (because of his adultery), the anti-clericalism in the works of a number of prominent writers (e.g.James Joyce), and the introduction of reforms, such as divorce, in the face of strong church opposition in recent decades.

Since the 1970s the Catholic Church in Ireland has declined greatly in status and influence, and is now but a shadow of its former self. English hostility to Catholicism was not just reserved for the Irish variey. The loyalty of English Catholics was regarded as suspect over many centuries and they too had been subject to penal laws.

I don't dispute Brian's account of his days attending a Catholic school, which he describes as cruel and puritanical. What needs to be understood is that both in Ireland and Australia, Catholic education (and Protestant education in independent schools for that matter)has changed dramatically over the decades. Religious attitudes are now far more liberal, and, even in Ireland, corporal punishment was abolished decades ago.

thanks david f.

i still disagree, but i think this is quibbling over a minor historical point. what is clear is that there is still no shortage of superstitious loons who think humans are god's special creatures, who deny the "just another" in every way, shape and form.