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






You do not need to be a Catholic priest to help people. Is it really helping people? Is the good done by the Church the enemy of the best? Let's see.


Man gets power and influence in the name of God. What if you want to be honoured as if you were God? It is easier to claim to have the word of God than to claim to be God. It means you have less chance of being caught out. The "humble" believer gets the biggest honour of all when his word is taken for God's and he is in effect God to those who listen to him.


The Christian's faith is principally founded on the notion that no evil is permitted to happen by God for a purpose. God then does not let evil go out of control and you would see that if you see the big picture.

This teaching insults non-religious people who find meaning in life by trying to bring good about IN SPITE of evil. They get meaning FROM SEEING how devoid of purpose and use evil is.


The better person finds meaning in bringing good about in spite of evil instead of thinking that evil is part of a plan and ultimately for the best. You have no right to condone the horrendous suffering of others so that you can feel it has a purpose. You have no right to condone divine cruelty. Doing that is really just about how you feel. It is selfish.


Evil people give the evil they do meaning. The verbally abusive person feels good about it or okay about it by saying, "I am being me. At least I am not being fake." Giving meaning to evil is not something to boast about.


If there is no God, you are giving people false hope for if there is no supernatural power to help them then they are at the mercy of cruel ruthless nature. To worship a God who does not exist is to worship nature and mistake it for God. It is bad for the reason idolatry is bad. It would horrendous to worship the cause of a baby's horrendous suffering if that cause is random cold nature. It would show a lack of rapport and failure to understand how terrible it is.


If there is no God, then the suffering of a baby that is inflicted by nature is inexcusable in every sense of the word. To say its part of a plan or to imagine it is worth it in the end is making yourself excuse what you have no right to excuse. Its disgraceful. The believer who helps the baby can be said to be showing how contradictory human nature is rather than the innate goodness of religion. Not that there is such a thing as innately good religion!


So what about this divine purpose for evil stuff?


Do you assume there is a purpose?


Do you look at how good resulted from some evil and conclude that it will ultimately result from all evil?


It is too serious of a matter to merely assume it. Society trivialises the question but we must not. And some good will follow after some evil regardless of whether there is a God or not. The believer then who points to some examples is really still assuming.  If some good comes after evil it does not follow that good will ultimately triumph or win for long.


If there is a big overall good purpose, it does not follow that if you lose ten dollars and go to look for it but instead discover five thousand dollars that you are allowed to keep, that this good "result" was intended by God. If there is a big ultimate plan, the good you have experienced may be a side-effect. Medicine has good and bad side effects.


Religion will answer that no matter how terrible the universe and life get, we are judging it as bad by some standard. We are saying it should be good. This is what some term the problem of good.


The problem of good merely gives you a reason to judge not a reason to feel great about living.


If Adam and Eve had brought a Hell of extreme torment on the universe, believers would still be saying there is a problem of good. The problem of good is deployed by those who deny that no matter what evil happens or how much it is has nothing to do with refuting the existence and love of God. This shows that God is about the principle that moral principles matter and feelings do not matter at all in comparison. Happiness is down to luck.


Is morality morality because God says so or is morality a standard that does not depend on God? In practice, the believer acts as if morality is created by God. The danger with that is that it opens the door to people who give evil commands in the name of God. If moral rules are merely invented by God then a prophet can command genocide in the name of God. Indeed Moses and Joshua did just that in the Bible. Jesus himself gave out to the Jews for not obeying God's law to kill people who cursed their parents.


Is doing right right because God commands it or is it right whether there is a God to command it or not?


This question worries Christians for it asks: "Should we care if we obey God or not as long as we are good?" A God who is not important is not a God at all. Christianity says that the answer to the dilemma is that morality is grounded in God's nature. God is not the kind of God who would command you to do gratuitous evil for fun. But then we have to ask, "Is God's nature is good just because it is God's or if there is some independent standard that says it is good?" The answer solves nothing. It is a cheat. To use the answer is in fact immoral!


If there are problems saying that goodness is a standard that exists irrespective of there being a God or not, they are nothing compared to the problems of trying to make God and morality somehow one and the same. Good is not a person though a person can be good. God the "person" is not goodness in itself.


Moral codes claim to be right regardless of who sanctions and commands them. So goodness is independent of God. We should in theory at least, hold that if God commanded evil we would disobey. So it is not true that we regard it as an absolute duty to follow God with all your heart. God is only a block to real morality. He offers only a simulation of morality.


Jesus wanted us to love God with all our hearts. The doctrine that we are to love God most - is a hypocritical Christian distortion. In reality we are to value nothing and to find nothing worth any concern or love but God. Jesus was evil for as long as we love goodness who cares how much God is loved? He made that command the major one while he commanded we only love our neighbour as ourselves! Though we are told that you cannot love God without loving your neighbour, we must remember that Jesus made it clear that love of neighbour refers to action. You do good for your neighbour because you value God and solely want to obey his command to help others. Only God alone is to be valued and ultimately loved.


It is wiser to love a person with all your heart than a God for at least you are more sure the person exists! If there is no God then you love your belief in God not God. You are an idolater.


A command implies a threat. A command without a threat is not a command at all. Jesus by commanding love proved he did not understand what love was. You cannot command anybody to love. Christian "love" is toxic.


If you love God as much as you say, you will search for the religion that God wants you to be in. That religion is not the Roman Catholic Church because it makes serious errors.


As a priest you will be encouraging people to believe the Bible is authored by and inspired by God. That is unfair for they will not know the whole story - of how the book shows no sign of genuine or unique divine influence. Man's handprints are all over it. The Church uses a Greek mistranslation of the Old Testament and lies that it is the Bible. The prophecies allegedly about Jesus are like Nostradamus's vague prophecies. They seem convincing if you find an event to fit them but this is not letting the prophecies speak for themselves but imposing the meaning you want to impose on them.


Not a single word of the Bible states that Adam and Eve are symbolic. The notion that they were intended as mythical ignores the fact that believers in the past had stranger ideas than we have now that they regarded as literally true. The DNA evidence is conclusive - there was no Adam and Eve and no sin in the Garden of Eden that forced God to consider sending his son to save us from the results of that sin. Many religious scholars tell lies to cover up the errors in the Bible. The papacy is clear that Adam and Eve are real and is thus a fundamentalist institution.


The Church claims the right to tell science that its discoveries do not refute its doctrines. It is not up to a faith system to tell a system that is based on evidence and self-correction that it cannot contradict it. Scientifically speaking, a pope has no right to say that science and religion can avoid contradicting each other when he is not a scientist. Yet the pope tells that very lie.


God blackmailed Israel under threat of terrible punishment to obey his "word" and kill people, such as those believers who started to adore pagan gods, who committed adultery or homosexuality, by stoning them to death. Jesus never repudiated any of that. He might have changed the law of God in the Bible or updated it but he didn't say it was wrong. He even claimed the law was divinely inspired and that anybody who declares any of its commands absurd would be punished. Read the Sermon on the Mount. If Catholics are to be believed, Jesus is the God who made those laws and who made the blood run in Israel. The New Testament is said to favour mercy over such "justice". But even if it does it still regards it as justice. Mercy is not a repudiation of the executions but only means the criminals are being forgiven. It is not true that the executions were based on Torah civil law - the Torah claims to be a religious law not civil law. The worship of Jesus is the worship of a fanatic.


You would not give any other allegedly inspired revelation that lacks brutality the same status as the Bible. No you give it to the brutal Bible. How can you protest against perjury when you have people acclaiming the Bible the word of God during Mass? Should you not be worried that people revere the Bible because of some kind of conditioning or are they hypocrites?


The rationalisers in the Church argue, "The Bible may err but it contains the core truths." But why then not regard a book with less errors as the word of God as long as it teaches the core truths? And in fact Pius XII and tradition make it clear that the inerrancy of the Bible is a core truth! Such core truths as love your neighbour as yourself are disputed among philosophers so it is it really a core truth? And what about the fact that the majority of philosophers and scientists do not regard the Christian God as plausible?


How can you pore over the Bible looking for texts that supposedly prove Peter was the first Pope, when you ignore the message of Genesis 22 that revelations from God are to be obeyed without question even if it involves sacrificing your only son who God promised to make a great nation of? Genesis 22 is great inspiration for a mentally ill person who thinks he is getting revelations from the Lord. And Genesis 22 is praised in Hebrews 11. Genesis 22 has God lying to Abraham that he must murder Isaac as a sacrifice and Abraham is praised for trusting God despite the lie and praised for being willing to murder for God. Hebrews praises this as an example of faith which it defines in 11:1 as a conviction that God is right always, meaning we must never object even if what he commands seems evil or if he pretends he wants us to do something. Faith is a perception of unseen and spiritual things as facts. You do not dispute facts but embrace them so there is no room for Christians arguing, "We only believe that we are right so in case we are wrong we will keep Church and state separate and avoid forcing our rules on others." In fact, if you disobey the Church you obey some other authority. No religion can have genuine respect for the autonomy of the state. The Bible evidence that Peter was head of the Church is non-existent. If he was the rock then he was only to be the Church's biggest support not necessarily its head. These lies about the papacy being of divine institution have caused much bloodshed and bigotry. Even if Peter were the head it would not follow that he was a Pope. There is a lot more to being Pope than just being leader of the Church - the claim that the office is essential to the Church, the claim that the pope is infallible, that there is no salvation to those who deny papal authority, and so on.


Are you really humble when you say your faith is a gift from God whose Spirit testifies in you that it is true and this faith is not your own creation? You would need to be as clever as God to know that for there are people whose faith is perceived as a divine testimony to them that the Mass is blasphemy. Faith is no good as an epistemology.


Even if Catholicism makes sense, is it accepted because it is the truth? Or are Catholics conditioned? If they are, we must remember that Protestants certainly are. Are Catholics conditioned too then? No truly good person accepts a gospel (Protestantism) that says as long as you ask for the blood of Jesus to atone your sin that your sins will be overlooked and God will blame Jesus for them. It is trivialising evil and making a travesty of justice. But the point is it shows religion is or can be bad for the head. The Church claims to be a hospital for sinners and does nothing about Protestant blasphemies and errors and lies. They need to be told the diagnosis. No hospital functions like that!


I would advise you to read Protestant scholars who say the Bible does teach salvation by grace alone without good works and who have answers to James who seems to say that faith and works justify. Protestantism teaches that faith is a sign that you are saved by grace and faith is not like something you have to do to be saved. You believe and do good because you are saved. Such a horrible doctrine implies that if you go to Hell it is because God wants you there. Do you really want to worship a Jesus and follow scripture mongers and apostles who were the precursors of the Protestant perversion?


If the Catholic Church is really one and holy and Catholic and apostolic it will plainly stand out to anybody with half a brain that it is probably the true religion and hugely superior to any other. It will be a simple matter. A religion that isn't easily seen as the true Church is not really Catholic if there are people who know of it but can't see its truthfulness. It is not meant for them. Why do decent people like the conservative Protestant philosopher, William Lane Craig, not see the truth of the Church and the obligation to unite fully with it as a member and a believer? Are they really acting in bad faith?


If we were all given a fair and real choice between different religions few of us would choose Catholicism. It is taking advantage of babies to baptise them into Catholicism. Church responsibilities and duties are imposed on them. That is to say judgement is required if they neglect them. There is no room for the notion that the child would probably choose the church if able so it is not intended to be a form of taking advantage. It is vindictive to make duties that can be done without or to impose them on a child. Parents who don't know enough about Catholicism to make a truly informed decision for it themselves have no right to try and make their child a member. If parents really believe that the child has a right to choose membership in the Church or reject it then why do they not choose a religion that encourages them to leave if they don't feel it is for them?

If we are all sinners, then it follows that when we do good works we effectively let God know that we will do this good while adhering to some sins. It is like, "I want to do this good thing but keep the sins in my heart. I will do good more because it suits me than you, God." It raises questions about how trustworthy we really are in religion. No wonder people can seem so devout in Church and emerge spouting diabolic gossip. Religion seems to switch on a fantasy mode in the brain - its like a belief or faith simulation. They return to the real world and the real truth about their belief becomes plain. We see Catholics at Mass who become demons when it is over.


The Catholic Church cannot stop religious cherry-pickers (dishonest "Catholics" who think religion is about them and not about truth so they pick and choose what they like from Catholic doctrine) for it cherry-picks itself. Catholicism does not value credibility and thus cannot be a great religion or raising children up in. Religious nonsense is as much to blame for the strident secularism and rampant moral relativism as some atheists are if not more. A religion without credibility is to blame as a whole for the actions of a few clerical child abusers because it promises people efficacious help to change and be good and fails. Also, if it is man-made pretending to be from God or deluded, it is responsible as a whole for the child abuse for it simply should not exist and is only a hindrance to truth.


Cause and effect describes change. Nothing cannot logically change into something for nothing is not a thing. It is bizarre to argue that nothing cannot change into something and then to say, "It can if God works on it!" It is not that nothing needs something to work on it. It is that nothing by definition cannot change into something. Whatever the answer to is why is there something rather than nothing? then God is not the answer. Atheists and theists are in agreement (though the latter wish otherwise) that we all came from something after all. Physics also denies that nothing is possible. There was always something.


Also God's power is boundless or infinite. There is no power but God's. God is his power. Creation implies that God can make something that is not made of his power or anything. So there is power that is not God's power. So God is not infinite after all! If he is then he is the creation.


The main reason Catholics oppose birth control is because they think it leads to sex being abused and treated as a form of recreation. But is it fair to condemn birth control because it is abused? The problem is what people are like inside not birth control. You are part of an apparatus that makes it a sin to use a condom to prevent HIV and thus is guilty of favouring religious principles above people.


The Church is homophobic in its own way. To suggest for example that two virgin homosexuals who have sex the once are guilty of an extremely serious sin and will suffer in Hell forever unless they repent is brutal for they do no real harm. Smoking is worse and its not a sin. Nobody in their right mind - even those who think homosexual are bad - will think that gay sex always has to be as bad as the Church says. You need 100% proof to accuse people of being capable of such sin. There is none. Psychology says we are not completely free. Mortal sin is near impossible (you need full consent to commit it) if not impossible. Gödel's Theorem proves that mortal sin cannot happen for the sinner must have full knowledge - it shows that when we think we know something we actually have being bringing more assumptions into the equation than we realise. Mortal sin doctrines are just hate speech. What does it say about you that you would worship a God who takes non-sins so seriously as sins? Jesus rather vindictively threatened to use the same measure against you that you use to judge others.


The doctrine that the saints influence God by interceding for us implies that God is imperfect for a perfect being cannot be influenced and certainly not by his inferior creatures!


Perhaps God just wants us to ask favours of him through the saints and it is not about influence? That could be a mask for idolatry. And it is Catholic doctrine that the saints do not just pray for people but intercede for them.


People could argue that the closer you become to the saints the more you please God for that is the way he wants to be pleased. But would you really be honouring the doctor if you asked for medication through his mother when he wants you to and doesn't need you to? You would be honouring his eccentricity not him. Even if he says it is about honouring his mother is it really? Would the mother really feel and be honoured?


Catholics pray for one another and say that is all they are asking the saints to do. If that is true then why do Catholics make out the saints seem to know all things like God does? How can the saints influence God unless they have more knowledge of what is best than he does?


Asking the saints to pray for you to God is one thing. But the Church goes further than that. The saints are treated as if they can read our hearts and all creation just like God can. These are gods not saints. Idolatry is simply praying to what cannot hear or see you - simple. That is why the rationalisation about the Mass, "If the wafer is not Jesus at least Jesus will still get the worship for it is meant for him", does not work. The Bible God stressed that if something cannot protect itself then it is not a god or God.


Some heretics in the early Church thought that since an idol is really nothing and a false god is a fiction there is no harm in pretending to worship them. They failed to see that that is exactly why such worship is so terrible! Better to worship Satan if he exists! Better to worship something rather than nothing. The heretics were condemned in the Bible. Paul in his letters is clear that idolatry is the ultimate sin though it can look good and the problem with it is that the idol is really nothing. If you worship what is not God while thinking that it is then you degrade yourself by worshipping nothing and you are disconnected from God. The problem with idolatry is that in a sense you are worshipping nothing but that still means you are worshipping! If you mistake the blind and savage works of nature as those of God then you are in effect condoning the random evil done by nature to little babies for example. You are seeing what is wholly unjustifiable as God working out his good plan.


Idolaters were partly excused by their ignorance of God. Catholics teach the "correct" view of God but mock it by saying God needs to be prompted to do the right thing and help. The idolatry is far more malicious than that of the pagans.


While there is controversy if the Bible teaches that it alone is the word of God, it certainly does claim to give the essential doctrines.


The Bible claims to be verbally inspired in several places. Here is the main text. As scripture is entirely inspired it follows that the words are inspired.
2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.  New American Standard Bible (NASB) - literally it says that all scripture is breathed out by God. Breathing out is a metaphor for verbal inspiration.
The Bible claims that every word in it is a word from God.


So the Bible states that all of scripture is breathed out by God and enough for the average person to please God. Not a word of the Bible teaches the major and fundamental Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine become the RISEN body of Christ. Indeed Jesus said the bread was his body which will be given up on the cross. The Church lies that the words of consecration are literal for it does not really take them literally itself.


The Mass is really black magic.


Plus if it is divine grace that feeds us then the body and blood of Jesus cannot feed us. It is blasphemy to indicate that we need to top up on grace by attending Mass and communion as if God's grace is not effective for long.


The Bible says that God does not live in temples made by human hands and that we have full bold access to God. What it is trying to convey is that God is as present in a toilet as he is in a temple and that we do not need rites to become closest to him. He wants a relationship with us without limitations. In that light, the Mass where you receive Jesus bodily for a few minutes is blasphemy and degrading to those who participate in it even if they can't feel that it is. The issue is so serious that if the Bible teaches the Mass the books that teach it need to be dropped from the canon.


The Church teaches that the Mass is at the centre of Christian life. In other words, it is the Jesus present in the Eucharist that matters. Jesus is to be contemplated and approached only through the Eucharist. The prayers and sacraments are ultimate preparation for the Eucharist. When we pray to him, we must pray to the Eucharist. All things are done through the Eucharist. If this worship is idolatry, it follows then that the Catholic religion is wholly superficially Christian. It honours something it calls Jesus but which is not Jesus. There is far too much staked on such a philosophically and scripturally unconvincing doctrine. The bigger the claim the better the evidence you need.


The Mass really has importance among Catholics for they think God is present more fully in his body and blood at Mass than he is at any other time. This is nonsense. It is really about attachment to the human nature of God more than to the nature of God.


The teaching that there is a hell of eternal punishment where there is depression and despair forever only sends out the message that people can deserve depression. In fact nobody does for it paralyses them. Even the Devil has the right to be given the chance to do some good. It is great to see people happy even if they have been "bad" for at least they can devote themselves to others even if they don't.


The trendy doctrine of Hell that people there won't leave though God wants them to is a pack of lies. Church teaching is clear that you go to Hell for committing mortal sins and not just because you won't repent them. The trendy doctrine is actually a denial that Hell is eternal punishment or any kind of punishment. Jesus vindictively said it was. Jail is not punishment if the gate is left open. Punishment is about paying for doing wrong and you do that by enduring it without your consent. Loss of freedom is the real suffering.


If you are to separate the sinner from the sin by loving the sinner and hating the sin then how can you say God is right to keep sinners out of Heaven? You may reply that the sinner judges himself as antagonistic to God and won't go to Heaven so it is his own choice. But that is potentially accusing everybody of being capable of doing that on religious grounds. You need proof before you can say that people suffer in Hell forever and that it is entirely their own doing.


It is true that you can love a person and hate the damage they do to themselves. But it does not follow that you really can love the sinner and hate the sin. Sin is a judgemental term and implies that the person should pay for some crime. Judging is saying a person is bad in the sight of the law. Love the sinner and hating the sin is a foundational doctrine of Catholicism and if it is wrong the whole religious system is nonsense. The Church admits that the doctrine is dangerous for the person teeters on the edge of condemning the sinner while telling himself that it is the sin he hates.


Only you have the right to judge yourself. If God judges you and you can't see that he is right then what use is that? You will only dislike or hate him more. True punishment requires that the person being punished agrees with it and accepts it as his due. Without that, there is only revenge and violence. The doctrine of the General Judgement is vindictive.


As regards abortion - what if during IVF or the use of fertility drugs too many embryos implant in the womb? Do we want to deprive the woman of the right to have one or more embryos removed by termination? Is it better to remove them at an early stage than to be faced with the huge risk that the babies will have to be delivered non-viable later and die? Do not dismiss this as a minor problem for surely human life is as important as God?


And if modern medicine really makes abortion unnecessary as the Church says, it certainly does not stop it from being necessary in the developing world! A religion that thinks if hypothetically a foetus that is only say 7 weeks old should not be aborted even if it is guaranteed to save the mother's life is totally irrational and hypocritical.
Jesus is a religious role model not a humanitarian one. A religious role model does miracles that help people while a humanitarian one gives away all he has for the poor and he lives among lepers to wash and feed and tend them. Jesus did none of that. Jesus if he did miracles that help people, did not do them to help them. It was about promoting religious doctrine. His doctrines were religious and he didn't try to combine religion and social activism like some priests do. He was too heavenly to be of earthly use.
Many Christians are shocked at the thought that Jesus could have done miracles as displays of power. They feel his ultimate and main purpose would be to show how to love and to attract people to love. The message matters to them and not displays of power. But you do not raise the dead to show people how to love. That is plainly about power. If it is about love, you will devote your time to the sick and dying. You will have an inexplicable influence even over evil people that makes them turn into heroes of charity. That will be your miracle. You may say that Jesus did that miracle but if he did how can we be sure? The tales about Jesus doing magical things are a catastrophe and frankly are nonsense. No wonder Jesus' alleged miracles did not always produce faith. The lepers didn't have faith. By their fruits you shall know them.
A miracle of a man coming back from the dead after three days is as much magic as him turning princes into frogs. Miracle believers and witches both say that the purpose of such wonders is to console us that we are not at the mercy of nature and that there is a greater power and the powers can help us become better people. So don't say the difference between magic and miracle is that miracle is about influencing us spiritually for our benefit. If there is a God, he can change hearts quietly from within and does not need to do obvious miracles. And if God exists he could have made a world of witches and wizards and dragons. The rationality of the Church is a deliberately created illusion. And if the Church is humble she will not see herself as great spiritually. To say miracles happen to help people be in tip-top spiritual shape is to say you know what this means and have experienced it.
It is bizarre to argue that there is sufficient evidence for the resurrection of Jesus even without miracles such as the appearances of Medjugorje (soon to be dismissed as non-supernatural by the Church). The fact is that the latter are more convincing for there are more testimonies to that form of the supernatural than there are for the resurrection. Reading between the lines, the Church only pays hypocritical lip-service to the notion that you need evidence that miracle testimonies are probably true. Nobody is interested if a brick starts miraculously talking to people. People decide what they want to believe and then look for miracles to confirm them in their concern for feeling good at the expense of truth-seeking.
Belief in miracles is based not on belief in the power of God but on belief in the reliability of the men who say God did this and that. Miracles unavoidably lead to idolatry. Man speaking God's message is not the same as God giving the message for it puts all the stress on believing in the man.
Jesus told a distraught woman that he was reluctant to help her for it was not right to take food from the table to throw it to dogs. That the Church even tries to excuse this is terrible.
Jesus told the Jews that his exorcisms were real miracles for Satan will not cast out Satan. That is nonsense. Satan would care more about tempting people to sin than about possessing people. Jesus even tried to intimidate the Jews into agreeing with him by telling them that they would be committing an unforgiveable sin if they think his exorcisms are not from the Holy Spirit.
Jesus said he would give the world no sign but that of Jonah which seems to be referring to his bodily resurrection from the dead - the implication being that it is the only miracle we really need to consider as evidence for the truth of his claim to be the Son of God. It is agreed by all that mere apparitions of Jesus would not be enough to establish the resurrection and so you need the body to be miraculously missing from the tomb presumably because it has been raised and glorified. But all we are told is that the tomb was found open and was unattended when open. Nobody knows if the body went before the tomb was opened or after. The gospels do not say. Did some nut come along and steal the body? The risen Jesus also lied on the way to Emmaus that the scriptures predicted the resurrection of the Messiah. There is no verse that clearly indicates a resurrection from the dead for the Messiah.
Pius XII condemning and anathemising and cursing people who deny that Mary is bodily in Heaven is just sheer dogmatic bigotry. Though the Catholic style has stopped the cursing, it has not repudiated the practice as wrong in principle. Stopping does not necessarily mean repudiating. This change is manipulative as there is and never will be an apology for the countless attempts by Church councils and popes to stifle freedom of thought by threatening anathemas on people. Anathemas were uttered in the Bible as well (Paul in Galatians) and Jesus once said that if you say his exorcisms are from the Devil you are guilty of an eternal sin. Get real and see these people for the bigots they were. Stop pretending that they loved sinners and hated sins.
The practice of making it hard for some sinners to be forgiven is simply vile. Priests cannot forgive all sins according to the Church. There are reserved sins. It is very judgemental to argue that it does a person good to keep them cut off from God. Jesus said if you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven and if you retain sins they are retained. Retaining sins means doing something to them to keep them in their sins. It does not simply mean that if you don't absolve they are still in their sins. It implies the right to say, "I retain you in your sins." To rule that any priest can absolve retained sins when the person is in real danger of death is really to say that avoiding Hellfire matters more than holiness. The whole sacrament of reconciliation is an insult when it requires such base beliefs. Consider the effect such doctrines should have on people and can have.


Unless you have adequate evidence that Catholicism with its doctrines is not a man-made system you should not be going forward to the priesthood. How can you say you believe in one holy Catholic Church when there are heroes of goodness in other religions and even among agnostics? There is nothing special about Catholic holiness.


Catholicism says that it is the one true faith community. It claims to be the only united, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. It says that if the Protestants suspect/believe/know their religion is wrong and Catholicism is right then they will go to Hell forever unless they join her. Outside the Church there is no salvation. The reason they will be damned is because by staying outside of the Church they are complicit in false religion, error or sin or both. To be in a religion God does not want you to be in is sinful. They are saying they are okay with error or sin or both. The only excuse is if they are forced to stay out of the Church by dangerous psycho relatives or whatever. So if they are complicit and indirectly responsible for error or sin by refusing to join Catholicism, then it follows that if you are Catholic and you find out that the Church is not the religion set up by God to alone teach authorised doctrine and truth and stay in it you are guilty of grave evil. Religion encourages society to imagine it is not complicit in evil when it fails to divorce itself from that evil or any implied and wilful tolerance of it. It does that for its own ends. It is no wonder that people who let others look at child porn tell themselves they are not part of the evil of child porn. They make a market for it merely by standing by and thereby permitting the evil. In the same way, the Catholic who won't dump the Church though free to do so, is to blame for the problems caused by and the lies told by the Church.
The view that Catholicism provides the best way to God forces believers to feel superior to non-Roman Catholics. It is not right.
The Church is not infallible having defined that God created the papacy when it is a historical fact that it is a human creation - read Hans Kung's Can We Save the Catholic Church? And at the Council of Trent it defined infallibly that if you go to confession purely because you fear the punishments of Hell it is enough to gain forgiveness! Imagine the likes of Hitler getting forgiveness when it is not the sin they regret but the punishment they fear! That is not forgiving but condoning.
It is awful that a religion can have the right to break child protection procedures and laws in regard to confessing sins. The Church blackmails children to confess at least once a year or if they think they have committed a sin that can land them in Hell forever - and masturbation is an example of such so called sin. It is a grave sin in that faith not to go to confession. The child is alone with a priest and nobody is supervising what is being said between them though there is the chance that sexual matters may come up. Disgraceful.
Do the right thing for yourself and everybody else and walk. Do not take the people's money to keep them in religious and factual ignorance and when you have no proof that you really do supernatural services for them. Many people will see you for the fraud you are if you do.
You are not an honest person or a servant of truth for if you had checked the Church out online you would know that Catholicism is not a believable religion. It should have the best hard evidence (we are not expecting proof) if God wants us to accept it. But it doesn't.
Do the right thing and abandon your plan to be ordained.
Here is why you need to rethink becoming a Catholic priest.

Remember innocent until proven guilty.

What right have you to say a baby does not have God in her until she is baptised?

What right do you have to accuse a girl who uses an abortion pill of murder? And especially when you will not really see the "child" as the same or as important as a fully grown adult.

What right have you to accuse some human beings of being evil enough to turn their back on their loved ones for all eternity preferring to suffer in Hell instead?

The treatment of women by Christ and the Church violates the reasonable rule, "Faith should enhance and risk offending and harming nobody unnecessarily. If the faith is nonsense, there should be no harm done."

Science is based on the work of self-correcting scientists and experimenters. It is not based on what they say but on what the tests show. There is no way that God can be that important when it is not testable. The testable takes priority - period. And if you are putting God first and there is no God then that is cruel and you are passing on that cruelty to others.
The Church claims the right to tell science that its discoveries do not refute its doctrines. It is not up to a faith system to tell a system that is based on evidence and self-correction that it cannot contradict it. Scientifically speaking, a pope has no right to say that science and religion can avoid contradicting each other when he is not a scientist. Yet the pope tells that very lie.
What right have you to undermine secularism by joining an organisation that battles it? Secularism is a fundamental human right.
The secular state needs to see religion not as a possible revelation from God but something man says is a revelation. God's role in revelation is irrelevant for you are still taking man's word for it. Religious claims are not testable which gives the religious man an advantage if he can bring his faith to the public square. How can you refute a man who says God told him he wants the rule he gave in the Bible for an allegedly adulterous woman to be given a potion that will catch her out by poisoning her if she is guilty reinstated? If you want to base your life on untestable notions then you cannot object if somebody else does the same but with totally different notions.

Until each nation treats religious opinions as merely human opinions, the door to blasphemy laws coming in will always be open. Blasphemy is really about refusing to let people realise it if a religion is man-made nonsense.

If there is no God, we are telling ourselves that the suffering of others is part of his plan and somehow justified. That is a very serious thing to get wrong. It is not a trivial matter – it is suffering we are talking about.

The better person finds meaning in bringing good about in spite of evil instead of thinking that evil is part of a plan and ultimately for the best. You have no right to condone the horrendous suffering of others so that you can feel it has a purpose. You have no right to condone divine cruelty. Doing that is really just about how you feel. It is selfish.
If there is a choice between good and God then choose good. This principle is insulted by the very concept of God. God does not come first and is a contradiction in terms for God by definition is what comes first or alone matters. Christians are not really any better than anybody else so what is the point of emphasising God? The notion that God and morality are inseparable is nonsense and is an immoral notion. What kind of person is more worried about how hurting a baby offends God than about the agony the baby suffers?

And if Christ is not God the Catholic is worshiping a false God.

And if the bread and wine at communion are not Jesus then they are idols.

Catholic belief is that the Eucharist is the risen Jesus - not a single Bible text supports this view. An unbiased reading is that if the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus then it is the dead flesh and blood. This is black magic. Jesus was another do-gooder false prophet and the Jews were right that his ministry was heretical. You don't seem to care that he called a vulnerable woman a dog just because she was Gentile and wanted help for her daughter.

The papacy has caused untold persecution of Catholics by holding on to the papal states and to this day refuses to admit that papal infallibility was unheard of in the early Church.

There is extremism in attitude and extremism in outlook. Christianity is extremist the latter way.

The Bible believer today does not stone homosexuals but he approves of the fact that it was done in the past at God's behest in the Bible. Jesus upheld Old Testament doctrine. He never apologised for the killings. He even said that killing the adulteress by stoning her is fine if you are without sin. If you praise violent scriptures as God's word, you take responsibility for the contents and the consequences. If somebody thinks the rules about stoning are in force today you need to take responsibility for that and the results. If you say a baby should be allowed to suffer by God and that God should not intervene you take responsibility in the sense that you are saying that if there is a God you would tell him not to intervene. You would do the same thing if you were God. You are willing to say that what absolutely should not happen should happen. You are willing to take the chance. What does it all say about you? Never mind God. This is about you.

When a holy book commands murder or violence, and/or agrees with murder and violence in the past, it should be dismissed as unholy - no ifs or buts. It should be discarded immediately. There are certain evils you must not look for excuses or reasons for. And holy books that honour a God who commands violence are top of the list. Even justified violence should not be made glorious by being put into a scripture. Go and find a faith with real scriptures of peace.

The Catholic who stones homosexuals to death will not be excommunicated but the one who says the pope is a pretender and not the real head of the Church will be. This is still a religion that in a sense allows murder.

What kind of person honours a book that contains all that violence as the word of God and to be respected above all books?

What right have you to join a dogmatic organisation when the story of Jesus is so controversial in the scholarly world? The Church knows no more about Jesus than anybody else and is dogmatic and refuses to change its mind when new evidence arises that contradicts its beliefs. It still goes on about Adam and Eve though their existence has been disproved. It lies that the story in the Bible about them is symbolic though there is no evidence and such stories were meant literally in the context of the times.

Remember by joining the Church and if it is unnecessarily harmful or in error and if it is putting forward man's doctrines as those of God then you are guilty by association. Man cannot claim to be God for he will be caught out so it is less pressure and more effective if he pretends to have the word of God.

I do not admire your ignorant decision to stay Catholic or become a priest and there is simply no excuse. Religious people are famous for being told the truth and ignoring it. Whoever stays in a religion that cannot show it is the truth is guilty of hindering the truth or enabling lies to be told.