HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

POPE IS A BARE-FACED LIAR
 
Catholics say, “The pope is a sincere Catholic who loves us all. If he were a closeted Atheist or hypocrite he would not be pope for you cannot be a Catholic if you deliberately repudiate the Catholic faith. God would not let a false brother sit upon the chair of Peter.”

To make the pope out to be sincere is a detestable claim often made by those who want to presume the pope to be a sweet old man who is simply ignorantly wrong about being head of the Church and infallible. The pope knows that the burden to make sure he is right rests on his shoulders for no one can give orders and love others unless she or he is certain that they have the authority. The pope has theological advisers and is familiar with the complaints against his teaching from liberal theologians and other critics so if he is wrong he knows he is wrong. Everybody does some good. That does not mean they are good. That does not mean that the good was done with caring motives. That does not mean that they are to be trusted.
 
Imagine if someone felt they were in love with an adopted sister or brother. The pope would say it would be wrong to admit this love to the other person. The proper answer is that it might be wrong. The loved one could be upset and embarrassed at the revelation. It could cause trauma to the relationship. Or as there is no biological relationship, the revelation might be just what the adopted sister or adopted brother wants to hear. It might turn out to be the greatest love story ever. So is revealing the feelings right or wrong? Nobody knows - the unexpected can happen. The most you could say is that it might be wrong but it all depends. To say it will be wrong or would be wrong is an attempt to manipulate the person into saying nothing. It is not about loving them but manipulating them. It is accusing them of being bad if they do not listen to you. The truly respectful approach would explain what could go wrong and advise the person to tread carefully. But it would clarify that they cannot be punished by condemnation for whatever course they take.
 
The unbeliever might tell the person that he or she must never tell the adopted sister or brother that he or she loves them for it is wrong. He or she thinks its wrong for it will hurt them and hurt the wider family.
 
If you tell somebody that something is wrong that does not necessarily mean you think that they should pay for it or suffer for it. In other words, it does not necessarily mean you think they should be punished. A teacher will not punish a child for making a mistake or two in the homework.
 
Back to our love for an adopted brother or sister scenario. The pope will be more concerned that God will be offended. He will therefore have less concern for the brother and sister than the unbeliever would. A person can only have so much concern so the pope gives the concern to God. The pope however believes that all wilful wrong is sin and must be punished.
 
The unbeliever is more of a human being than the pope! It is a disgrace how powerful the awful religion of Catholicism is. Many clerics act as human beings not as Catholics. Then people mistake this behaviour for Catholic behaviour . It is not. True Catholicism is anti-social and malicious. The pope would say we see God allowing a lot of human suffering. He would not say we believe in God in spite of suffering. That is like saying you believe Anthony should be fit to teach children despite having raped one. It sounds unreasonable. It sounds callous - even spiteful. He would say we have to believe in God because of suffering. That would put anybody off believing in him. It would imply that we should not be horrified when we see great suffering and should not wonder if God is looking after people at all.
 
If I needed help with a problem, I would feel I have rapport with the unbeliever and none at all with the pope. I wouldn't find Catholic "help" helpful. Nobody wants to hear about God and sin when they have a problem. If they do, then they have a new problem!
 
The pope says that couples who cohabit have rejected any necessary link between sex and marriage. He says they harm their marriage if they bring that outlook with them into it. He says that they might agree to be faithful but for them its just a personal preference. He says that it is not based on the nature of sex. He says that its not based on the meaning and purpose of sex. He means they ignore the teaching that having sex implies being united in marriage for life. He says the couple make the rule to be faithful and since it is their rule they will feel free to stick to it or abandon it or modify it. He says that if they see sex before marriage as okay they must see it as okay under certain conditions to have sex with other people during marriage.
 
Clearly such a teaching encourages people not to marry unless they repent for living together. It forbids their wedding if the priest has no reason to think they have repented. It implies that they are only serious about having their own rules and not being married. They pretend marriage. Such a teaching denies protection to the family unit headed by couples who lived together before marriage.
 
Such a teaching implies that sex indicates that the man and wife must live together no matter what - even if he beats her up every night. To avoid the backlash, the pope refuses to admit that this is his belief.
 
The pope advocates self-sacrifice and constant self-denial. The mother who puts her daughter first and before herself may also put her before other children. If there was a choice between her daughter being gunned down and the other children being gunned down she would choose her daughter. She is called selfish if she would do that. She is called unselfish if she sacrifices her beloved daughter. This is arbitrary. It states that even if an action is selfless it can still be selfish. It indicates that just because my action is selfish doesn't mean I do it for me. Selflessness is very improbable and so we should assume that psychological egoism, the doctrine that I can't help being selfish is true.
 
We know that if we do something and seek nothing back that we find we will derive happiness from it. Happiness involves being at peace and you cannot have happiness if you keep wanting it for then you have no peace. If you forget about it, you get it. Forgetting about happiness then to be happy is not selflessness at all. It may be objected that just because you forget about happiness does not mean you are forgetting to be happy. You might be just forgetting. But you would not be forgetting unless you believed you would be okay or if you felt it or both.
 
Forgetting about happiness then to be unhappy would imply that it is reasonable for somebody to ask you to carry them on your back from Edinburgh to London. So would forgetting about happiness to be neither happy or unhappy. You wouldn't want that. So you wouldn't be doing the forgetting unless you believed or felt you were going to be okay. Death does not seem real to the person risking his life who jumps into the water to save you from drowning and that is why he is able to take the risk. He enjoys the forgetting and this enjoyment takes over. It is not the best kind of enjoyment but it is still enjoyment.
 
The pope would say that if you love your father but help him mainly for the money and not exclusively for the money you must be called selfish. He would say you demean the unselfish part of your love so you use it to become selfish. You are selfish for demeaning it.
 
The pope holds that being self-sacrificing in your motives is more important than what you do. He says you are bad if you look after your father simply because he pays you. He says you are good if you look after your father just for your father's sake and if you refuse the money. But is the motive more important than the action? If it is, must we refrain from helping our father if we don't have selfless reasons for doing it? The answer is yes in principle. In practice, we would still have to help him. The person who does grave wrong deserves no kindness at all from others. Deserving the evil implies that. That is what deserving means, what you should get for what you did or didn't do. But the Church says there are other reasons why we can't treat evil persons as they deserve. The help they get is grudging help. By saying that we never deserve to have God with us as the Catholic Church does is just evil. It is better to be a secularist. Any moral laws that are unnecessary are evil. Morality sticks with what you need to believe is bad action and what you believe is good. More or less is immoral. Religion makes extra rules so it is immoral.
 
The basic doctrine of Catholicism is that doubt is a sin and calling God a liar for he set up and revealed the Catholic faith. If you can doubt and not sin then there is no point in the pope claiming to have authority. Authority is the right to give commands that people are obligated to obey. But if you doubt that God really revealed you are not calling him a liar. So there can be no sin in that. You could doubt for that reason thus escaping the possibility that you might be accusing God of lying. Thus this religion is opposed to you trying to find out if it is wrong. It commands love but makes it impossible with its manipulations. Like the worship of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned as being in vain, the love of the Catholics is in vain.

The pope knows that one of his major doctrines, loving the sinner and hating the sin, is ridiculous. Trust is a part of love. Love will do you no good if you are not trusted at all. Trust the sinner and don't trust the sin is a hidden teaching and it is in love the sinner and hate the sin. It makes no sense at all. The rule is just a way of ordering people to hate others on religious grounds while helping them to pretend that they don't hate the persons.
 
The Catholic trash, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, page 127, says that you cannot hate the sin without becoming a Pharisee, or a self-righteous prig. It says too that we cannot hate sin without hating the sinner. It makes a final point that to hate at all makes you hard and negative and that hating evil and sin makes us haters or vindictive.
 
It says that to love evil and sin is to succumb to them. I will call this option one.
 
It says that to hate evil and sin is still giving in to the evil of hate. I will call this option two.
 
I would add that to do neither is really to do both. It is still giving in to evil. If you don't care about evil and sin then you succumb to them. If you don't care about the hating of evil and sin then you are agreeing with the evil of hate. I will call this option three.
 
To do neither which means to do both is worse than picking one or the other. The second option, the option of hating sin and evil is the only one that can be taken. Thus the doctrine of hate the sin and love the sinner incites to hatred.
 
The pope would say that the solution is forgiveness but even if you forgive a sin that does not mean you are supposed to stop hating the sin. If you love your husband, you will hate his alcoholism that nearly killed him years ago even though he has never touched a drink since. So it is a hypocritical solution. But we can glad he admits that loving the sinner and hating the sin is impossible though he argues that a miracle can make it possible.
 
If you hate the sin you hate the person who freely causes the sin. There are no sins without persons. Being against somebody's sin is being personal. It feels personal. You can't and don't hate the door you hit your head on but you can hit the person who strikes you on the head. Sin may be described in our language as if it were separate from the sinner but in actual fact the person is the sin for there is no such thing as a sinful act as such but only sinful characters or people. When the pope is lying and advocates his lying doctrine, owing to the fact that it is so fundamental, it makes his whole system and life built on a lie. It is like a marriage built on lies.
 
Hate is vindictive. Hate implies a dislike of a person that inclines you to want to see the person hurt for your pleasure. You can't want to see a sin hurt. It is the sinner you want hurt. Hate is not necessarily an intense dislike. But it can be. To hate evil is to give evil power over you and to become evil.
 
The Church believes that it is love to want to see a person hurt in a way that will help them or make them become better people. This shows that hate is not forbidden because it can hurt people. This shows that the Church approves of your arrogance in deciding that the person needs to be hurt to be changed. You don't know the future. You don't know if it is the best road. You can't even prove that your moral code is correct - such codes are relative. The doctrine is vicious and vengeful because pain never changes people - it is only how they respond that effects a change. Yet Jesus wished evil on people supposedly for their good. We read that the apostle Paul handed a man over to Satan for tormenting that he might repent and be saved. Hate is not forbidden because it hurts you for it hurts you to wish pain on another. Hate is really just forbidden because God forbids it and concern for the hater and the hated doesn't come into it.
 
The hypocritical claim that you can love the sinner not the sin is foundational to the Catholic system so the whole system is based on a lie. Would you believe a person who said to you, "I have nothing against you. It is just your sin I have something against"? Love the sinner and hate the sin means love the sinner in spite of the sin which you hate so it is grudging love - if it can be called love at all. It can hardly mean you must love the sinner because of the sin you hate for that is impossible - you can't both hate the sin and love it. Religious love is fake love. Religious people are required to hate sin more than non-religious people are and do. Religious have to see it as an insult to such a good God and see it has necessitating the death of Jesus Christ for sinners. Religion encourages hate.
 
Contrition is when you repent your sin because it is sin and offends God. Attrition is when you vow to stop your sin because you want to avoid punishment or shame. It has no concern for God. Attrition is called repentance by the Catholic Church though it is not. It may look like it a bit but that is all. Repentance is turning away from the sin because it is a sin. It is an act of love. Attrition is just fearing the punishment and not despising the sin and is an act of selfishness - it is a bad manifestation of self-interest. Attrition is wanting the sin but not the punishment. If that is not a sin in itself then what is? The pope advocates the sacrament of confession - the need for this sacrament is based on the idea of attrition. God does not forgive people who have attrition unless they go to confession and absolved by the priest. The confessional then is totally immoral. If Jesus provided the sacrament for attrition and to reward such fake repentance then he was immoral. The confessional is really about rewarding sin more than eradicating it.
 
The doctrine of the sufficiency of attrition is official "infallible" Catholic doctrine. The Bible God says that if a prophet teaches things that match what God says or predicts the future accurately but makes one false report in his capacity as prophet he is to be rejected. Presumably Satan is keeping him right but uses him to teach error. Satan as counterfeiter has to teach mostly truth and deliver some error with the package to lead people astray. Even if the acceptance of attrition were the only error Roman Catholicism made, it would prove that it is not the true Church and not infallible. The Council of Trent said, “If the person in confession is sorry for he will burn in Hell if he doesn't that will do for absolution” (Session 14).
 
The Church does not censure the belief that repenting out of the fear of punishment or repenting out of shame is enough to get you forgiven in confession (Denz 2071, New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Contritionism). But it is certain that the Church believes that it is sufficient in confession. The doctrine of Genesis that God rejected Cain's offer of fruit and accepted Abel's offering which was a better one comes to mind. The Catholic Church offers rubbish to God.
 
To teach such an evil doctrine such as attrition being enough for salvation belittles those who go to Hell which is for all eternity. It shows the Church does not love them at all. It hates them. The pope expects people to assume Hell exists and believe in it even if they have poor evidence for it. This is virtually asking them to want there to be a Hell. The pope cannot say he wishes the doctrine of Hell wasn't true for that suggests that there should be no such fate for those who go there and that the doctrine does not give dignity to God. Yet if he said he wished that we would plainly see how vindictive his religion is.
 
The doctrine that attrition is enough shows that the Church hates the sin but loves the sin when the person comes to confession. Is this fair or sensible? How could a paedophile priest feel bad about his sin of child molestation with a doctrine like that? It would be an encouragement to the paedophile tendency to feel that he has done nothing wrong.
 
The pope permits natural family planning which like contraception implies that the husband and wife do not want the gift of fertility to work. Yet he condemns contraception for allegedly implying that. He claims natural family planning makes conception unlikely but it is okay as it is still open to life. But why not let the couple use a condom with a pin-prick in it then? That would be open to life despite reducing the risk of pregnancy!
 
The pope teaches that a Catholic judge who issues a decree of divorce is only saying that the marriage does not exist any more in the eyes of the law but not saying it ceases to exist in the sight of God and so the judge is free from sin (page 307, Question 1265, Radio Replies, Volume 3). The Church says that the judge is not to blame for the law. He only gives the effects of the law so his declaring a marriage to be dissolved is a merely legal one and does not imply he is trying to end a marriage that God has made.
 
But why not let somebody that believes in divorce do the job? The Church says that divorce is evil because it declares a marriage that still exists to be non-existent and then it lets the judge give a divorce. The damned hypocrisy! Would the Church permit a Catholic judge give out a court decree that permitted a person to be raped? It would not argue then that he should abide by the law and that he is not commenting on or opposing God's law.
 
If the law opposes God or endangers marriage, the judge cannot give out a decree of divorce and must resign. The law is claiming that it is more important for it to treat a marriage that still exists in the sight of God as a non-marriage than for it to respect God.
 
If the Church really believes the judge is acting without sin, then why does it fight so hard against legal divorce? To take a parallel case why fight the legalisation and liberalisation of contraceptives?

The Church of Rome teaches that it is never right to let others err and be confused about religious truth. Catholicism condemns saying nothing while others err as mortal sin (sin that puts God out of your soul and heart and if you die unrepentant you will burn in Hell forever without hope) for the promotion of heresy is mortally sinful. To let others do evil is to will that evil and carry the same guilt as they carry or the same guilt they would carry if they knew it was evil. It is a kind of deception to let others err. Catholicism strongly insists that the truth of God should be told even if it upsets others for then he will take care of things and Jesus said the truth will set you free. It says that if man is upset by God’s truth man is the one with the problem. The Bible says the Lord Jesus and his apostles told the truth even though it meant great trials for themselves and for those they hit between the eyes with it.
 
Preaching the truth of the gospel is God’s law.
 
Jesus said that if you are popular then you are doing something wrong (Luke 6:26; Matthew 5:11,12). He said that the one trusted with a lot can be trusted with little and the one that cannot be trusted in little cannot be trusted in bigger things (Luke 16:10). The true follower of Jesus then is very strict and methodical. Jesus said that you should hate sin so much that you would rather lose a limb than commit it.
 
There is no person in this world who can avoid being talked about and despised by uncharitable people. It is certain that Jesus meant that you have to be unusually hated and exceptionally smeared to be a good person. His words were spoken to ordinary people most of whom considered themselves good. They were spoken to Jews and at that time Jesus hadn’t even claimed to be Christ publicly. He was saying anybody good Christian or not must be persecuted. He expected a high standard of goodness.

The pope should use his infallibility as much as possible to prevent the Church from being beset by confusion, schism and division over doctrinal and moral problems now and in the future. He won’t tell countries on the brink of war what to do - what the best solution is. He could use his infallibility to determine the moral thing to do. Though the Church doesn’t believe in relativism it does admit that there is some truth in it. For example, whether a war is just or not has to be decided according to the situation. Morality, for the vastly most part is, about these decisions and the Church used to use the casuistry system to deal with them. Jesus according to the gospels focused more on ethics than on rubbish such as God being this or that. Curiously the infallibility of the Church is more concerned about dogma such as Mary being without sin than in morals. Infallible moral statements have been issued by the Church extremely rarely – with the nasty ban on contraception being a notable example. Here we have a God who supposedly wants us to live good lives above all things and who is more concerned about what we believe than what we do. The Church knows fine well that it is not infallible. That is why it avoids making infallible statements on morals for it knows that it will get caught out for making wrong statements.

The pope doesn’t like helping the world out of confusion by his infallibility.  He can’t pretend that there is no point for it won’t make a difference for he doesn’t know if it will or not so it is worth a try. So much for his confidence in the Holy Spirit’s power to guide him in resolving difficulties.

The pope will say that any divisions caused by his silence are not his fault. That is only an excuse with a man of his influence.

He will say that the persons responsible should unite but agree amicably to differ or look into the problem thoroughly. This is no excuse for he has no right to keep his lips shut when he knows it tempts people to tear the Church apart. In his wonderful and sincere way, he says this while he condemns unnecessary actions which give others an excuse for evil works.

It is clear by now that the pope does not really believe that he is infallible for he is afraid to use his alleged gift too much in case he gets found out. He is a con. He devises rules that cause suffering and death like the ban on contraceptives and he doesn’t believe a word of it! He is a murderer!

If the pope really believed in his infallibility he would have given an infallible interpretation of the Bible to the world considering the Church considers the Bible so important and devotes much of the Mass to reading it. It would save scholars a lot of bother. The Church claims to have the power to interpret scripture without error and has made some statements about the meaning of some Bible texts. Today, most Bible scholars give out interpretations and criticise the Bible in a way that must horrify the Church but the pope is silent.
 
Why is it that the Church says that Catholics do not believe doctrines because they are defined but the Church defines them because they are believed by the people (The Church and Infallibility, page 18). That is an admission that the Church courts popularity. It is an arbitrary standard for it is only in recent years that most Catholics have rejected the ban on birth-control and are slammed as unorthodox and going to Hell. Before then, it was a different story. The whole Christian world disapproved of it.
 
Sometimes the Church defines to keep a grip on its power over the people. The Church usually defines when a popular doctrine starts to be threatened by large numbers and sometimes even most members challenge the doctrine. The doctrine of the Church that no dogma is an article of faith until the Church infallibly proclaims it (page 20, The Church and Infallibility) is an admission that the Church is not interested in what evidence says at all. You can’t make a dogma just because everybody or most people believe it. That is not evidence that they are right. Given the negativity the New Testament bears towards human reliability when it comes to matters of God, it is downright heretical and reckless.
 
The Church used to believe from the start that usury was wrong and in recent centuries it has dropped this doctrine without trace (chapter 18, Rome has Spoken). Another tradition that was universal in the early Church in the second century and that has been scrapped by Rome is that Christians are to be pacifist (chapter 17, Rome has Spoken). That means that by its standards, it has abandoned an infallible doctrine for the first universal beliefs of the Church would be the ones that count which is the reason why the Church does not hold that its ban on contraception is fallible doctrine on the basis that the Church does not believe in it now for it accepted it in the past. All this is so absurd that it is seems plain that the Church couldn’t possibly seriously believe that it is infallible.

The pope is not a Roman Catholic for he does not believe in his own infallibility. The Catholic Church cannot be the true Church when a fake pope runs it for then it would be right to break from his Church to continue the true Church and elect a new pope.
 
To say the pope would excommunicate himself if he tried to deliberately fake an infallible declaration and that God would kill him before he would commit this act conserves the idea of God protecting the Church from error. But it makes no sense to say that the pope can mislead the Church in a far worse way by not defining a dogma that needs to be defined and not excommunicate himself or prove that Jesus’ alleged promise that the Church would never err was false. Not defining is always an indication of disbelief in infallibility though the Church says it is often inopportune to do it which is why it declines to define some teachings as dogmas. For example, the definition of Mary being the co-redeemer with Jesus has been put off in case it does damage to the ecumenical process. The Church and the Bible both teach that the Holy Spirit uses us to convert one another and it is he who is entitled to most of the credit through his interior graces. If the Church really had confidence in him it would go ahead and define that Mary is co-redemptrix. After all it is impossible to be very sure it would harm ecumenical relations or that no solution for this problem could be found if it does happen especially if the Holy Spirit has any power at all. Any corporation can do something at a bad time and the Holy Spirit will do all he can if the Catholic Church does the same. The Spirit can’t expect the Church to be infallible in its diplomatic relations.

If the pope is wrong to say that he is the visible head of the Church then he wants to deceive. He knows he should make sure he is the Vicar of Christ and has the theologians and books to assist in his research. If he is not then he knows he is not or he doesn’t care. He should set up his tribunal and then step down as pope if his office is illegitimate. He should go back to being just the bishop of Rome.

The pope is indeed a man of sin or THE man of sin who planks himself in the temple of God as if he were God (2 Thessalonians 2). He is an impostor and he tells us to obey him for he is the voice of God. He is really claiming to be above God for God wouldn’t want us to. When you worship a man who interprets God for you without authority you are really worshiping that man more than God when you worship God for the revealer is more important than the revealed.

To claim that you know that a person like him is being sincere is evil for you know how much pretending you do yourself.
 
Roman Catholicism is a religion that is led by a man who is unashamedly called, “Your Holiness.” They say that the pope can be called this even if he is no saint for he is holy to God in his office as pontiff. In other words, his job is holy and not necessarily him. That is seen to be false when you think for a minute. It contradicts the very way they address him. You don’t say, “Your Importance”, to a person who is not important but whose job is. Why can’t the pope be called the Vicar of Christ instead of His Holiness? The pope is boasting of his spiritual and moral superiority. He is a Pharisee. I don’t want to call him a religious snob but many would.

Reverence means treating something as holy to God. Reverend is the title that comes from this. Priests and clergy bear it, they have no shame though they condemn pride as a sin. They are telling people to revere them as if they were something special. Snobs. They are not indispensable if there is a God of power and might.
 
When you jail a killer it is not because you know he meant to kill – maybe he was possessed? - but because the evidence tells you to jail him to be on the safe side. The pope doesn’t want safe sides. He wants to be regarded as the Vicar of Christ and obeyed . The office of the papacy contradicts the wisdom and the justice endorsed by this principle therefore it is an evil office.

Catholics believe that the bread and wine of communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the literal sense on the altar. Jesus becomes present in every part of them. Yet the pope allows communion in the hand which inevitably means that small particles of the host, each of which are the Lord, are lost. There would be less chance of this happening if communion were only placed on the tongue. And the pope excommunicates people who sacrilegiously defile communion hosts though his policies do the same sacrilege. The pope defiles the communion host himself for unnecessary loss of the body and blood of Christ occurs when communion in the hand is allowed. Therefore he, by justice, has excommunicated himself and is not a Catholic. A non-Catholic pope is not entitled to obedience in matters of faith and dogma.
 
The popes entered the priesthood knowing it facilitated a culture of secrecy about clerical child sex abuse and such abuse was rife in Catholic schools even at the hands of lay teachers though the priests were their bosses and the patrons of the school. That is what is so disgusting about the alleged compassion of the likes of Benedict XVI about the clerical sex abuse scandals.

It is frightful for a man to give out teachings which he claims are not infallible but nevertheless to be obeyed for they cannot be wrong. He knows that much of Catholic Tradition, which the Church says is the word of God, cannot be traced back to the time of Jesus. So much of the teaching he gives must be man-made because of that. He is just guessing that he is right. Does he not care what harm he is doing if he is wrong?

For the Catholic and Protestant and Pagan world to bless and approve the pope and to accept him as a bona-fide teacher is for them to make themselves as bad as he is.
 
We need to see the enemies of reason as our own enemies. That is what they are! We need to see the pope and the system he stands for for what they are! Then we won't be taken in by their beatific facades! Their goodness is just superstition masquerading as goodness. It is superstition masquerading as morality.