The word Catholic means universal which implies whole which means that it is the whole truth and makes you whole.  It is about a commitment to living Catholic rather than a label.  It means the faith has content that is right for every person on earth. 

There is no such thing as a religious or Catholic cherry picker. It is just cherry picker. A thief born Catholic is not a Catholic thief. He or she is just a thief.  So to call yourself a progressive Catholic - a euphemism for lying about your loyalty when you treat the religion as a restaurant - is making yourself a liar as well.  A Catholic liar is not a Catholic liar but just a liar.

The truth sets one free and gives one responsibility to declare the truth and live by it and to be an example for others. Those Catholics who refuse to live up to the standards make scandal and give bad example to others and seduce them into everlasting condemnation of Hell in the eyes of the genuine Catholics. They do not respect the feelings of the true believers. They say they uphold freedom of religion. Their actions speak louder than their words. They uphold their own freedom to defy religion and claim that their faith is Catholic. They undermine truth which is necessary for religious freedom to flourish. Anybody can pick and choose from a religion and call the result Catholic faith. They have no right to call it Catholic when they do not respect the standards set for determining what is really Catholic doctrine. Jesus called the Jews who wanted a miracle from him faithless. Surely a person who claims to be Catholic and a believer and who cherrypicks is far worse?
You are part of a religious community or religious labelling and religion or labelling cause division. This can only be excused if the religion is the one true one or you have reasonable grounds for saying it is.
The religion teaches that certain sinners go to Hell forever that is a very serious claim and it would be vicious to take man’s word for that not God’s. The religion would need to be truly from God.
Catholics who disagree with Church doctrine are refusing to admit that they are Protestants. Protestants claim to be Catholic too. In the creed they say, “We believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.” What makes them Protestants is their doctrine that each person can be their own pope or that conscience matters most.
Most people who are members of religion tend to be uncomfortable or disapproving of those who are more religious than they are and/or members of other religions. They have suspicions about very religious people and people outside their religion. That shows how they feel about their own deep down. They do not really think it’s a good thing. It is that climate that cherry-picking becomes rife.
A la carte religion is an amoral crutch and can only lead to fear of other religions or of those who will not cherry-pick or who see through cherry-pickers.
If you know Catholicism is not from God then walk out of it. Catholics who oppose Church doctrine may be popular but they are dishonest. They often barely know theology. There are rebels and stubborn contrarians in every field. The religious rebels and contrarians cannot be taken seriously. People will say, "Their religion must be right after all when they are so attached to it though they say they disagree with it. They are probably wrong. They are just arrogant. There will always be dissenters who think they know what they are talking about." Human nature is notoriously inconsistent. We expect it and therefore dissenters in the Church are an advertisement for the Church perhaps as much as the loyal and obedient sheep in the Church are. Dissenters are not so much a sign that the Church may be wrong as a sign of human inconsistency.
The Church says that God does not create the Church with physical bonds but with the bonds of hearts and wills united in love. If you discard doctrines of the Church then you break the bonds.
In relation to man-made religious systems or anything resembling a religion that is man-made Jesus said, "Do not join them". See Luke 21.
You have an obligation to divorce unreal or fictitious obligations and religion is the major source of those! Do it for yourself and for the sake of real obligations.
Religious error and refusal to see the truth gets validation from the public presence of religion and seeing others congregating in its name. Letting your name stay on a religion's membership books and attending its worship as a worshipper (attending as a spectator is fine) is taking a pro-error stance. Society has prejudices against religious freedom. Step out of line and assert and use your right of freedom. Do not be tainted with the hypocrisy of society and the hypocrisy of people who want religion to be about what they want and not the truth.

Even if Catholics are wonderful as neighbours and friends, the fact remains that their religion is bad in principle and is to be discarded for that reason. A belief or religious faith may be inherently bad. It is wrong to follow it no matter how the supporters of that faith or religion live their lives.
Some Catholics do not feel they are enabling the evils done by the Church system - such as the denial of diaphragms to women in danger of being raped. They feel okay about being in the Church because the parish seems lukewarm or disinterested in promoting the worst of Catholicism. But if the parish does not believe it should not be trying to act so Catholic. It is pretending. Also, if the parish does not speak out against the human rights that Church teaching bans, is this out of conviction or cowardice? If it is cowardice you are in fact enabling the evil of the Church by being part of the parish.

Austin Cline wrote, "There's a lot of criticism of what churches and religious organizations do, but maybe not quite so much of what they are. This is only natural since it's easier to point out flaws or problems in behaviour than it is to argue that there is something inherently or intrinsically wrong in something's very nature. It's an issue that's worth approaching, though, because such an argument, if successful, will be much more devastating."
The good deeds of a few individual priests or nuns cannot be cited as overall evidence that the Church is benign and good as a Church or system. Is it any wonder parents let their children be molested on the grounds that the abuser is sometimes kind?
The core doctrine of a real religion is that God has given infallible truth.  Nothing changes the fact that man has no right to speak for God unless God authorises him.  Religion when it claims to be revealed by God, necessarily gets its power and authority from a heavenly or divine source and it answers to no one on earth. It is a dictatorship based on God even if it is a seemingly benevolent one. Nevertheless it is intrinsically evil if this claim is NOT TRUE. Cherry pickers in the religion are not in it as regards their intentions for their intention is not to accept this authority. They oppose the very core of their religion.  People talk about rejecting some doctrines but not core ones but if this rejecting involves contradicting God then they are throwing out the biggest core of all.  And what is core is not always clear but that is clear.
The Bible - the Word of God for Christians, 1 Corinthians 1:10 "And so, I beg you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that every one of you speak in the same way, and that there be no schisms among you. So may you become perfect, with the same mind and with the same judgment."
This speaks of religious conformity in the required teachings of the faith not conformity of opinion. Schism is when believers split up into different Churches. Tacit schism is when schism is not like this but is merely understood or implied without being stated. It is when you have a faith of your own for example that differs from Catholic though you act like a Catholic.
Red letter Christians are crowd of cherry-pickers who use the excuse, "The Bible has many horrible teachings but I am only bound to accept the teaching of Jesus." Gay "Christians" use that for an excuse for saying, "Jesus never condemned homosexuality so I can be gay and be a good Christian though the Bible condemns it." That is irrational for why pick out Jesus' sayings and taking only those seriously? And Jesus did make it clear that the Old Testament was the word of God as much as anything he said . His apostle Paul wrote that all scripture is inspired and breathed out by God and fit for teaching people. The sayings of Moses banning homosexuality are as much the word of God as the sayings of Jesus. If Christianity is irrational in the absence of cherry-picking, it would be expected to lead to the irrational practice of cherry-picking.
The Epistle of James states that religious faith or trust in the doctrines revealed by God is dead and useless unless one acts out what one says one believes. A la carte religion then according to the Bible is utterly useless and it is probably safer to be an outright unbeliever instead of one who deceives himself that he is a believer. James also said that whoever breaks God's law in one point breaks all of it in the sense that he denies the importance of law. God's law is based on faith and demands faith in many doctrines so to deny one doctrine is to deny all.

Cherry-picking happens most among religionists who know or suspect that the religion is man-made. For example, they give themselves away when they say something like, "Our Church leaders have used religion to condemn homosexuality." In other words, Church teaching is sincere and purely human.

If it is okay to cherry pick a religion that is the one true one then why not cherry pick morality as well? Why not let Amy's baby starve and lavish food on Joan's baby?

The implicit and explicit side of cherry-picking is as disgusting as it is dishonest.


No Copyright