A person objected to Tim Stanley's statement that it's a sin to deny Catholic doctrine. The person said it was not the teaching of the Church.

My response was, If Catholic dogma is to be believed, Stanley is right to say, "One of the greatest sins in the world is to participate in the Church and not really believe in its teachings. That's a sure way to get to Hell."

The Church has always taught that to hear Church teaching and disbelieve it is calling God a liar for the Church is his voice.

"That faith thus understood is necessary to salvation no man can reasonably doubt, particularly since it is written: "without faith it is impossible to please God." For as the end proposed to man as his ultimate happiness is far above the reach of human understanding, it was therefore necessary that it should be made known to him by God. This knowledge, however, is nothing else than faith, by which we yield our unhesitating assent to whatever the authority of our Holy Mother the Church teaches us to have been revealed by God." (Catechism of the Council of Trent). The religious cherry picker does not really have faith but is inventing a faith of her or his own. And it is intellectually dishonest to claim to be a believing Catholic and do that. And if God's word can be doubted in some things then why trust him in anything?
However, we must remind ourselves that people who say without proof that we will be punished by God forever in Hell for not believing x and y and z have hatred in their hearts even if they won't let themselves see it.

Ireland closed down the Vatican Embassy. Response to "it was unwise to close an embassy that provided access to the Vatican’s unique global diplomatic network ” . The Irish Government, Eamonn Gilmore Tanaiste in particular, in 2013 expressed having no regrets about closing the Vatican Embassy.

But surely that access can be got in other ways? The point is that the Vatican is only regarded as a state because it is treated like one and not because it is one. That is unfair. Fair play to Gilmore for standing by the principle. And we must remember that the Vatican uses its role to try and stop the poor from having access to condoms even when the intention is to reduce the spread of HIV. And it is about undermining how the state should be neutral in religion.

The Vatican wants rights as a religion not as individuals.

Religious freedom has to start with all freedoms. That is, individuals first. And individuals, whether singularly or in groups, should be empowered to decide for themselves. But only for themselves. The Catholic Church looks to use conscience as an excuse for refusing rights to individuals. It argues that it must not be forced to provide contraception as if religious rights trump individual rights!

Re: The Telegraph reporting a surge in older children getting baptised seemingly because their parents want to get them into Catholic schools

Baptism in Catholicism imposes religious membership and the obligation to obey Church law on the baby. This is not right in itself. A baby is the best of humankind and does not need religion or religious membership for the alleged forgiveness of original sin in baptism. Also it is not right considering few parents know enough about religion and its controversies to make an informed decision. Interesting that parents don't reason, "The Church doesn't approve if we baptise our child ourselves but it will recognise the baptism as real. Maybe we should just tell the priest a fib that we did the baptism to get it into the school?"

The Christians today tend to say that God does not punish people in Hell but people make their own hell for they refuse forever to go near God and be happy. This is as bigoted as the bible doctrine that God DOES punish in Hell and the New Testament doctrine that God said that vengeance was his and he would repay. Why is it bigoted? You need absolute proof before you can accuse anybody of being sinful enough or possibly sinful enough to make their own Hell. Also Christian philosophy today says we have free will because of God and not in spite of him meaning he is ultimately responsible for what we choose. It proves that God and the rancid doctrine of predestination to good and evil or heaven or hell go together.

Is that the kind of God you want your child dedicated to?

2014 Tim Stanley preaches that people should become Catholics and not liberals in the Telegraph 

It is an appalling abuse of one's position when a journalist uses his column in a secular paper to proselytise. And even worse when he promotes a faith despite the evidence that this faith is incorrect and man-made. If Catholicism is just another error-ridden religion and not really all God's creation, then Stanley has the internet and should know this. Even most of its own followers are sceptical and have a faith so weak that they might as well become atheist out and out. I find that people that ignore truth to promote faith, are taking advantage of the fact that lots of people do the same thing or they think that people are too stupid or lazy to search for truth anyway so you can tell them a load of religious or superstitious tripe. If you are looked up to as a religious authority, you will never feel as powerful or honoured as when people believe your nonsense just because you tell them to. Priests and ministers of religion are really after the ego boost.

It is obvious that religious denialism, where people turn a blind eye when their religion is proven wrong or dubious or insane, is a huge problem. And Catholics no doubt would see Mormonism as an example of religious denialism (the RC Church says all religions are man-made and prone to error and nonsense except itself) where the truth has no impact on Mormons for they only care about what they want to believe. But why are Catholics so sure that they have any right to think they are not in denial themselves??


No Copyright