Ask the Atheist

Excellent questions, Jack. I hope you don't mind speculative answers. Anyone with a bit more background on this stuff, chime in.

From your elaboration on the childbirth question, I'd say what you're specifically wondering about is the catholic teachings on contraception. Assuming this, you haven't mentioned one possibility: that the purpose is not to increase the birth rate at all, but to prevent sex and masturbation.

The crucial doctrine is that not just the fertilised egg but individual sperm are to be protected, as explained in the Monty Python song, "Every Sperm Is Sacred". This provides an easy-to-understand reason why masturbation, anal sex and casual protected sex, all long declared sinful because God just said so, are physically sacrilegious. The doctrine took new knowledge of human anatomy obtained through microscopes and worked it into the existing millennia-old directives.

Having established this doctrine and ensured that no male orgasm outside of marital intercourse could escape being sinful via some loophole, the Church couldn't exactly create its own loophole for married couples. The sperm of a married man is no less valuable than anyone else's. Catholic married couples were and are stuck with the task of giving every sperm its own tiny chance (one in millions) of becoming a baby, so hard cheese.

My main reason for thinking an increased birth rate is not the primary purpose of the doctrine is that the Church does advocate one form of contraception besides abstinence: the oft-unreliable rhythm method. If they really wanted to max out the influx of new babies to baptise, they wouldn't even allow that much.

Moving on...

I think there will be a pope as long as the Catholic Church exists. It's a brilliant staff member for any religion to have: an incumbent, replaceable leader with a direct line to the deity, whose word is therefore unquestionable. It's like being led by a prophet, except that he doesn't have to predict things so he'll never be discredited by being wrong.

A solid figurehead is a powerful thing even outside of religion. Microsoft depends so heavily on the reputation of Bill Gates, the world sees America in the guise of its president and so on. An organisation only ever displaces its own figurehead in order to erect a new one, like Kim Il-Sung for Kim Jong-Il in North Korea (though in that instance, the late Il-Sung still officially holds some sway). Go ahead, try to find an example of a group cutting its own head off and just leaving a hole.

Therefore the question during every Catholic schism is not whether the papacy will survive, but which side of the divided Church will hang on to it. That side, almost solely by merit of winning the Vatican over, is newly defined as the Church, while the other gets the booby prize of a new, longer title. The papacy is an asset the Catholic Church will never willingly surrender.

As for what the papacy wants, beats me. Go to Vatican City and ask. A primary objective would likely be its own long-term survival in the face of so many religious alternatives, new and old, and the constant threat of irreligion. All of its other practices and targets - new converts, political power, financial resources, behavioural control, etc. - ultimately help ensure that there will continue to be a capital-C Church for the forseeable future.

- SmartLX