Frank reflects over the role of religion in family in his latest blog post: "What does that cross mean?" This is a question worth asking. Like most smart middle class people who are trying to live in reality, he and his wife want to avoid both extremes:

I certainly don't have the answer; we know our child won't be part of the Catholic church, and we don't categorize ourselves as "atheist" either.

This is how many people argue today: yes, I believe there's a deeper, maybe spiritual meaning to it all, but I don't like the Church dogma and some of its politics. A rational point of view. So today I follow up on Frank's post and ask myself a post-Easter question, free from Protestant bias (sorry Martin!): Where does the Catholic Church stand today? Thumbs up or thumbs down? Let's start with the good news.

The Catholic Church says NO to sexual promiscuity

Concerning cultural values, I'm a (Northern) European Conservative. I don't think having sex with half the neighbourhood, stealing things that don't belong to me, buying lots of products I don't really need, and mixing all kinds of people and culture under the same roof makes much, if any, sense. That's why news like this from the Catholic world encourages me to support it:

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who will take over as the head of the Catholic Church of England and Wales next month, warned Friday against relaxing rules on broadcasting abortion and condom adverts.

"I doubt that any intended adverts about abortion would be fully truthful and tell the whole truth of the effects of abortion in a woman's life," he said of plans to allow pregnancy advisory services to advertise on radio and TV.

He added: "It will no doubt be presented as a simple solution. But in fact it has traumatic implications in women's lives. Surely you would not expect it to be advertised alongside a packet of crisps?"

To Protestant liberals, this is the kind of Catholic stuff they'd rather not listen to, but the Archbishop is merely thinking ahead in time: sure, sometimes abortion is the right thing to do, but misusing it hurts all parties involved. Many women feel depressed long after an abortion, something that's rarely mentioned in liberal debates. Here Catholicism scores points for defending a Conservative position, even though it crosses a line when it turns into dogma.

The Catholic Church is fairly consistent

There's a fine line to walk between dogma and consistency. Here is some proof of Catholic consistency at work:

Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint…

The Italian paper said that the Vatican strongly disapproved of Mr Obama’s support for abortion and stem cell research. The impasse over the ambassadorial appointment threatens to cloud his meeting with the Pope during a G8 summit in Itay in July.

If I'm going to convert to any Church, I want to see some proof of consistency. That means you adopt certain principles and promote them rationally. When certain principles become law, no matter what context, dogma triumphs over reason. That, as modern Christians, we do not want. Okay, so the Catholic Church is still pretty consistently "pro-Life." What else?

The Catholic Church is pro-West

If I'm a sound middle class person, I want my Church to defend my own lifestyle and values. That means no multiculti-jibberish and tolerance-worship. Like many families, I've seen the suburbian chaos, where different cultures wreck each other. I may not dare to say it in public, but in private my family and I think that too many immigrants without any government plan to integrate them will fail. We want to preserve our culture, like our parents did, because that's the way we want to live. Does the Catholic Church agree?

The collapse of Christianity has wrecked British society, a leading Church of England bishop declared yesterday.

It has destroyed family life and left the country defenceless against the rise of radical Islam in a moral and spiritual vacuum.

The Pakistani-born bishop dated the downfall of Christianity from the 'social and sexual revolution' of the 1960s.

Dr Nazir-Ali said the ' newfangled and insecurely founded' doctrine of multiculturalism has left immigrant communities 'segregated, living parallel lives'.

He speaks honest words, and he's even an immigrant himself. Although few middle class people would dare to say these things in public, we all know they're true: the 60s Leftist revolution gave us shattered families, insecure children, rampant sexual and violent behavior, and on top of that the entire third world is trying to get a European passport to welfare paradise. Although the Catholic Church officially doesn't back up all of these views, this is where you find the people who think in similar terms.

The Catholic Church cannot get universalism off its shoulders

We've spotted some of the good things about the modern Catholic Church. It defends traditional European values, doesn’t compromise on most of its principles, and is not afraid of speaking the truth even though it's controversial. That sounds like my type of church (I grew up in a non-religious environment with Conservative-Protestant values and a lot of Social Democratic bashing--more on that another time). So what's the catch? If you ask me, it is the universalism:

Racism is a cause that unites all creeds and colours. It is a universal enemy that can be attacked with the universalist Enlightenment belief that there are values that can be rationally and justly applied to all human societies. Splitting the world into “communities”, celebrating difference at all costs, is a counterEnlightenment strategy.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa — death sentence — issued against Salman Rushdie because of his supposedly blasphemous novel The Satanic Verses in 1989 put a sword to the throat of universalism. Malik, rightly, sees the moment as critical. A British writer had to go into hiding and books were burnt. In the same year the Berlin Wall came down. We were putting the horrors of 20th-century totalitarianism behind us, only to be confronted by an ostensibly religious absolutism that challenged our dreams of progress.

He wants to defend the universal values of the Enlightenment, but he doesn’t confront the real problem with this — people. We are tribal creatures, requiring enemies and exclusive identities. Civilisation temporarily restrains our tribalism, which is why multiculturalism was such a barbaric idea; but civilisation is local, not global. Khomeini, Al-Qaeda and the liberals have all tried to go global. The result, as always, is slaughter and, for the West, a huge curtailment of our liberties, not least our freedom of speech. Nobody now would publish The Satanic Verses and nobody now goes through an airport unmolested and unhumiliated. Such is modernity.

This may be the single issue where liberal Protestants and secular atheists join hands with the Catholic Church and several radical Islamic movements: universalism, or the belief that we can apply a few principles rationally to all human societies. This idea has got to be the most foolish – closely followed by democracy and equality – of those that came out of the French Enlightenment. The best writers of this time, like Voltaire, knew most of it was fairy tales, but ever since WWII, the West decided to go hardcore Progressive. And the rest of the world would, too, it reasoned.

The Catholic Church believes we should apply Judeo-Christian values to all societies, everywhere. It's a mission that will never work, and shouldn't either, since it would destroy the diversity and competition of culture on our planet. Further, most of these values have proven to be Pleasant Illusions (we're all equal, democracy is the best form of government, we need to nanny everyone, giving money to poor people solves poverty, u.s.w.), so we don't want to spread more illusion to the rest of the world. As Dambisa Moyo has shown, third world aid programs are part of the problem, not the solution.

The Catholic Bishops still cannot seem to control their unholy urges

Except the irritating universalism, the Church has still got problems with keeping its bishops' sexual needs in tune with holiness:

Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo admitted Monday he is the father of a child conceived while he was still a Roman Catholic bishop.

Lugo surprised journalists by acknowledging he had an intimate relationship with Viviana Carrillo, the child's mother — just five days after lawyers for Carrillo announced they were filing a paternity suit against him.

"Here and now, before my people and my conscience, I declare with absolute honesty and a sense of duty and transparency in relation to the controversy provoked by the paternity suit, that there was a relationship with Viviana Carrillo," Lugo said.

This has happened too many times before. If the Church wants to appear credible to the public, it needs to get rid of its horny followers, because no sane person wants to support moral hypocrisy and, in some cases, pedophilia. This is the dilemma for all organizations that believe in absolute principles: their followers easily feel tempted by the forbidden. That's why Catholics need to stop thinking in terms of allowed/forbidden and instead separate sound behavior from decadent behavior. It's a practical distinction, not a dogmatic one.

Am I Going To Convert To Catholicism Today?

At the end of the day, I don't feel the spiritual aspects are so appealing that I need to join the Church. I stand by most of its principles, although I'm also a classic liberal in that I believe in individual choice, without a Nanny State/Church to take my fall if I make the wrong move. In short, Catholicism is a good option for any Conservative-leaning believer today, but for those of us who place emphasis on less dogma and more private choice, we're probably going to stick with Luther, unspecified spirituality, and the condom. Wisely, of course.

If you feel the Catholic Church is appealing for aesthetic reasons (I once knew a friend who wanted to join the Russian Orthodox Church because she found the masses so beautiful), but for some reason don't feel like becoming a member, how about putting on a Catholic movie and enjoy all the beauty right at home in your living room? Hot Air lists the best religious movies:

I’m taking off the rest of the day to celebrate Easter, but today’s a good day to have a poll on a topic suggested weeks ago in a previous movie thread. On holidays like Easter, what religious-themed movie would you want to watch most? I’ve included 15 off the top of my head as well as from scouring a few sites. In no particular order, here are the choices I’ve suggested:

Jesus Christ, Superstar - Jesus gets down with Galilean hippies, and sings and dances with Judas. A cool sidenote: the men who played Jesus and Judas formed a long friendship and worked together for decades on stage playing the roles.

The Story of Ruth - I threw this in as a gag, really. It’s an example of a good story overcoming cheesy staging. And why do almost none of the Jewish men have beards?

Passion of the Christ - Uncompromising, controversial, and undeniably powerful depiction of what scourging and crucifixion really meant for Jesus.

I admit I haven't seen half of these movies. I fell asleep during the screening of a modern version of Jesus Christ Superstar at a Christian summer camp (the young female camp leaders stole most of my attention). Thus, my vote goes to Mr. Gibson's master-work "Passion of the Christ." Non-stop violence for 2+ hours, crying holy women, angry Jews and sadistic Roman soldiers. What more can you ask of a religious experience?