Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?


No Country should welcome the POPE

Pope Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, paid the UK a state visit in 2010. This man as head of the Church is ultimately responsible for all the cover-ups made by the Church of clerical sex offences.

Suppose you believe in responsibility. If you make cars, you are not responsible if people buy cars off you and drink drive and kill pedestrians. If cars were unnecessary you would be. You are making something for people to abuse. People can take care of their own spirituality without religion. Many people live without the Catholic Church. It is not necessary therefore its pope is to blame for the priests abusing children and should be hauled before international law and put on trial. Those who propagate the Church and who give it money are also responsible.

The pope lied (and still lies) about the Vatican being a state. As a result, his visit to the UK was funded by taxpayers as it was disguised as state visit. Two million was taken from the international fund to help pay for his visit. It is not right that Muslim and Mormon and whatever money be used to fund his visit. Many religions condemn the pope as evil or antichrist. It is not right for any country to fund a papal visit with money taken from divorcees and gay people and others who the Catholic system suppresses and persecutes. Worse, the pope is availing of taxes paid by victims of clerical child sexual abuse. The pope is very anxious to pretend that the percentage of abusing priests is low.

The Catholic faith itself desensitised people to the needs of children. It did it before. It can do it again. It is doing it still in many quarters. The Church cares more about evil intentions than harm. It cares about the attitude not the pain. That is why it says its job is to fight sin. It even denies that it is humanitarian. Its charity is about becoming sin-free not helping people.

The Church prescribed mild and ridiculous "penalties" for priestly child abuse in canon law and plotted to prevent crimes being reported to the police. It was condoning the evil and insulting the victims. Condoning evil is more pro-evil than encouraging it. Crimen Solicitationes was a papal document issued by John XXIII to excommunicate anybody who admitted to the legal authorities that a priest molested them in a confessional. The Church evidently wanted clerical paedophilia confined to the confessionals so it could control it better - if a priest molests just anywhere he will get caught more easily.

Ratzinger in 2001 made it law that all reports of clerical sex abuse were to be sent to his desk in the Vatican (page 56, The Case of the Pope). He demanded this under the pontifical secret which blocked bishops from reporting pervert priests to the police (ibid, page 56).

The pope was invited to the UK and welcomed despite his grave derelictions of duty when he was head of the CDF in Rome. He was called, "Your Holiness" by everyone - ugh! He allowed the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable people by clergy to continue and then wilfully shielded and protected the abusers not to mention the conniving bishops he promoted and assisted. All this was carried out with immunity from civil prosecution. The Church worked to make sure this immunity would be kept intact.

It is undeniable that Catholics in general operated a system where if a child made an allegation against a priest that child had to be intimidated or beaten into silence and disbelieved. The clerical sex abuse was not just a clerical problem. Catholic doctors, Catholic parents, nuns, Catholic teachers and Catholic everything created a culture that left priests free to abuse with impunity. Then people started to love the Church less. People tended to have less interest in Church teaching. Then a generation came that was willing to punish the priests through the law for abusing children. The victims began to be listened to.

The Vatican has a bogus international status internationally that it plays on to get away with its crimes. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 helped the Vatican misrepresent itself as a fully fledged state or country. It is thought the Vatican in time came to do this to enjoy the advantages of international participation such as recognition by the United Nations. But it would have been able to get that without being misclassified as a state. The real intention of the Church was to win sovereign immunity from prosecution. That was so important for it had plenty to hide.

Even though the Church uses this trick to keep the pope immune from legal action, there should still be no protection for the pope in the international criminal court.

The Vatican is simply a palace and a few gardens. It is at most a non-governmental organisation. It has stolen the sovereign immunity it has.

The Irish Catholic, page 25 (November 18, 2010) agrees that more than 100,000 children have been victimised by clerical and religious sex abuse in the Church and that the percentage of paedophile clergy is as high as 9 %. It expressly state that there is no reason to doubt these appalling estimates.

Religious beliefs that may disturb others should be kept private. The pope comes with the message that they should not. If he doesn't mention the message, he still promotes it in the sense that he represents it.

Defenders of the Vatican state that international law can recognise an entity as a state simply out of tradition and custom. If the entity has been treated as a state before international law came along, it will treat it as such. So in this view, the legal principles determining what is a state or not were not rigidly applied and international law sometimes allows for that. But other entities have been rejected as states in the eyes of international law. Why should the Vatican get an exemption? Most of the blame lies with lapsed Catholics ticking the Roman Catholic box in censuses. The membership statistics are overblown. The Vatican is not entitled to an exemption on those grounds. It fully recognises that people who have ceased to be Catholics in their belief are in reality no longer Catholics.

Though there is room for a liberal interpretation of international law that can allow a state to be recognised as a state though it does not fulfil all the legal criteria, this is no help to the Vatican. The Vatican does not have ANY of the characteristics of a state. It doesn't even have a territory or a population. If the laws are that liberal they are good for nothing. The Church itself teaches that laws that are not laws at all are immoral. Yet it conveniently forgets this teaching when it comes to the Vatican's status.

The Vatican says it is accepted by other nations as a state and that is all it needs to be accepted as a state!

The popes faith is based on dark doctrines such as original sin which accuses babies of needing pardon for it in baptism, everlasting punishment, God having the right to let grave evil befall us and to make vicious viruses, the blood of Jesus Christ sacrificed for our sins and many many more. The most dangerous aspect of such doctrines is how the Church says they are mysteries we cannot fully understand for God is smarter than us. With such an outlook, any evil doctrine could be condoned.

Such doctrines are disturbing. But even the more seemingly benign doctrines of the Church such as that Jesus was the founder of the Catholic Church are offensive to Muslims. Many Muslims will not be offended. However, they should be if they believe Islam is the one right religion. The Muslim who is not bothered is less of a Muslim.

The Church doctrine that God works to change people from within means it should tell depressives that God loves them. Telling them that is alleged to be intended to help them. It is not unless the Church has proof that God can change people. It will only make them feel worse. They will feel that they are letting God down by being unable to feel happy with him.

The Protestants in Northern Ireland were right that the Republic was ruled by Rome and the priesthood manipulated the government to take away civil rights such as the right to contraception from the people. The priesthood is ultimately to blame for all the trouble in the North. They caused division with their church rules. Catholic children were taught separately from Protestants. Nobody was allowed to go to Protestant worship or to take Protestant communion. To teach that it is a serious sin for a Catholic to believe Protestant doctrine is just a hate doctrine. The priests implemented the evil rules of the pope. Ireland should not welcome the pope.

The pope refused to make it Church law for a bishop to report his priests who are abusing children to the civil authorities. A guidance appeared on the Vatican website saying they should do this if the law of the nation so requires it, but this was not a church law. It was merely a cynical face-saving exercise. The guidance soon disappeared. No apologies and no meetings with victims mean a thing until the pope makes it church law. Why should we believe in this sudden "compassion" for victims when the Church made no effort to appear compassionate until people starting standing up to it for a change?

The pope plans to beatify and canonise Pope John Paul II. John Paul was cold and unhelpful towards the victims of clerical sexual abuse. If Benedict cared for the victims he would not make a saint of such a monster.

We know religion should exist for people and not people for religion. The Catholic teachings such as that God and the faith come first before all things are misanthropic. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all ones powers and heart. The people we see come before a God we cannot see. If God comes first then hurting another person is not so bad as offending God. A religion with such teachings should not be encouraged. Show your disapproval when someone reveals they want to become a priest. Do not contribute to Church collections. Do not attend Church.

We should be looking for a beggar to give money to instead of looking for a Church to light a candle in. There are no such things as innocuous religious practices. The person who prays for the sick instead of doing something for them is really trying to get God to do the work so that they can relax. Such prayer is a crafty form of selfishness. In Christianity, it is common for selfishness to appear in the guise of virtue and holiness. If we are mostly selfish or if our main motive behind all that we do is selfish or if all our motives are selfish, then perhaps the selfish nature needs the Christian religion to indulge itself? Christianity promises a reward for belief and good deeds. It promises that sinners who die unreconciled to God will suffer for it. That appeals to the vindictive side of human nature.

For the atheist, there may be good results from doing good but they are not rewards. For the atheist, bad people can and do get away with the evil they do. The atheist is not encouraged by his belief to look forward to seeing evil people get their just deserts.

Who then is the most likely to be selfish? The atheist or the Christian? The Christian no doubt.

Retribution is alleged to be about evening the scales, if a person hurts another they must suffer for it in return - the debt they owe for the wrong they did involves suffering.

Even if there is a lot of evidence that something is the case there is still no obligation on a person to believe. Catholics say the whole world is obligated to belong to the Catholic Church. Catholicism then is opposed to the right to ignore evidence or regard it as insufficient. Nobody has the right to ask you to believe anything no matter what it is. Real belief is caused by the evidence. It is perceiving that based on the evidence you have, something is probably true. Thus belief is personal. It is your own business.

Jesus asked for faith and belief. In many places he did more than ask but he also commanded. This showed his true colours. It shows what his Church is really like too. You can't ask people to believe - they either do or they don't.

If belief is not just your own business, then it must be the Church's business. It is this idea that was and is behind Church campaigns in favour of censorship. It is in favour of the Church's attempts to condition children which are a form of censorship. It is in favour of the Church baptising babies into Church membership. If you have no right to ask anybody to believe, you have even less right to try and make Catholics of your children.

Freud said that all belief is anti-intellectual. It must have been Catholicism gave him that impression! Even if your belief is based on reasoning and evidence, you could still be anti-thinking. For example, if you decide that the evidence shows there is a God and you refuse to reconsider that evidence you are being anti-intellectual. To use the intellect a bit does not make you pro-intellectual. It is what you want to believe that matters to you not the evidence that got you to believe.  Belief even if not always anti-intellectual and anti-truth risks being those things which is why evidence and careful thought is necessary when forming beliefs.

In a democracy, if most of the people want things done a certain way that is the way they should be done. If a state is made up of mostly conservative Catholics, then they have the right to see to it that the state outlaws homosexuality for example on pain of incarceration in jail. Whoever does anything that encourages religious belief is helping the religion to get power. That was how religion got into a position to take away civil liberties before - and it can and will again.

Catholic doctrine is so serious that nobody should be allowed to enter the Church as a member without being informed of it. The Church for example teaches that an accident that destroys the universe is better than a single little sin. The teaching that sin is the greatest evil of all implies that having the intention to do wrong is worse than any disaster that happens as a result of chance no matter how horrific it is. Nearly all Catholics have been manipulated.

Some people might say that it is a sin to prefer that the world will perish in a nuclear holocaust by accident than that someone commit any deliberate sin. But that contradicts the notion of sin being the worst evil of all. It is not a sin. It means that if the Catholic had the power to cause the holocaust without sin and if it was allowed by God he or she would. This shows that Catholics have beliefs that are so serious and important that absolute proof would be necessary to justify believing them. They don't have them so they are mere fanatics.

Catholicism is fundamentalist though it pretends to oppose religious extremism.

Catholicism desensitises one to the awfulness of hurting another person by putting so much focus on God. Its teaching that loving God is the greatest commandment implies that if you have only a little love to give then give it to God and let your neighbour do without it because there isn't enough to share. No wonder Mother Teresa despite hoarding millions didn't make much of an effort to make sure the sick she helped were getting disinfected needles.

The best definition of a fundamentalist is somebody who makes an extraordinary claim though unable to back it up with hard evidence though it plainly needs it. If I make a big claim, I should have evidence for it that is just as big. Catholics cannot prove their extraordinary doctrines.

Even if the Church has extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims, the vast majority of the people don't have it or know of it and its no good to children. The Church would still be thriving on fundamentalism.

Religion would still be a bad thing.

Promoting superstition to children is child-abuse because superstition cannot "take" without fear.

To say a gay man should go to Hell forever for a once-off sexual act is hatred not to mention harsh. The Church will retort that it does not say he should go to Hell for he should repent and thereby avoid Hell. But if he doesn't get the chance it is saying he should go. It is saying he should go as long as he hasn't repented.

To say a man in Africa who has sex will go to Hell for using a condom to protect his girlfriend from AIDS is hatred.

The Vatican believes that love and morality and law are three different things.

Love is working for God's happiness by caring for him and looking after people.

Morality is about doing the action that causes the least possible damage.

Law is about regulating and protecting a society. Law is about implementing the will of the people expressed during referendums (they don't happen much) but principally about allowing a political and judicial elite to force their beliefs on the people. Laws can be bad or good but the Church says they have to be obeyed except when they contradict the Catholic faith. The Church says you must pay unfair taxes to obey the law but you must not obey if the Law forbids you to be in communion with the pope. Law is about rules we may not fully understand or even agree with. But normally we have to obey.

The same is said to be true of God's law. The Church teaches that as God knows the future consequences of making laws and knows everything, nobody is in a better position to make laws than he is. This idea has led to much religious extremism.

The concept of sin implies approval for retribution. The two ideas go together.

To say you are bound to do something makes no sense unless you will have to face punishment for doing something different. Without the punishment you are not bound at all. And the fact that a threat is made is still nasty.

The Catholic teaching that we must try to bring good out of evil suggests that evil is to be condoned and praised but only when it is coupled with the idea that we need people to help so that we can grow. In other words, you wish evil on people so that you can help them!

There is nothing about Catholicism that entitles people to welcome its pope anywhere. The Church does not correct people who think its good works are humanitarian. They are not. The Church does them to please God not to help. It hides its real nature and steals prestige and has stolen the honour it has of the Holy See being recognised as a state.


A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books, New York, 1979
A HANDBOOK ON THE PAPACY, William Shaw Kerr, Marshall Morgan & Scott, London, 1962
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt Harvest House Eugene Oregon 1994
ALL ONE BODY Ė WHY DONíT WE AGREE? Erwin W Lutzer, Tyndale, Illinois, 1989
ANTICHRIST IS HE HERE OR IS HE TO COME? Protestant Truth Society, London
APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA, John Henry Newman (Cardinal), Everymanís Library, London/New York, 1955
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Millington Books in Association with Wolfhound, Dublin, 1995
BURNING TRUTHS, Basil Morahan, Western People Printing, Ballina, 1993
CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
CHRISTIAN ORDER Number 12 Vol 35 Fr Paul Crane 53 Penerley Road, Catford, London, SE6 2LH
DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1958
ENCOUNTERS OF THE FOURTH KIND, Dr RJ Hymers, Bible Voice, Inc, Van Nuys, CA, 1976
ETHICS: THE FUNDAMENTALS, Julia Driver, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2007
FROM ROME TO CHRIST, J Ward, Irish Church Missions, Dublin
FUTURIST OR HISTORICIST? Basil C Mowll, Protestant Truth Society, London
HANDBOOK TO THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME, Karl Von Hase, Vols 1 and 2, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
HANS KUNG HIS WORK AND HIS WAY, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel, Fount-Collins, London, 1979
HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS? Colin Badger, Wayside Press, Canada
INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS, London, 1982
INFALLIBLE? Hans Kung, Collins, London, 1980
IS THE PAPACY PREDICTED BY ST PAUL? Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, The Harrison Trust, Kent, 1985
LECTURES AND REPLIES, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, Melbourne, 1907
NO LIONS IN THE HIERARCHY, Fr Joseph Dunn, Columba Press, Dublin, 1994
PETER AND THE OTHERS, Rev FH Kinch MA, Nelson & Knox Ltd, Townhall Street, Belfast
POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press, San Diego California 1999
PUTTING AWAY CHILDISH THINGS, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994
RADIO REPLIES, 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1974
REASONS FOR HOPE, Editor Jeffrey A Mirus, Christendom College Press, Virginia, 1982
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans, London, 1894
ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Lorraine Boettner, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1962
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
ST PETER AND ROME, J B S, Irish Church Missions, Dublin
THE CASE OF THE POPE, Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Penguin Special, London, 2010
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, B C Butler, The Catholic Book Club, London, undated
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH, Hal Lindsay, Lakeland, London, 1974
THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY! Christadelphian Press, West Beach S A, 1986
THE PAPACY ITS HISTORY AND DOGMAS, Leopold D E Smith, Protestant Truth Society, London
THE PETRINE CLAIMS OF ROME, Canon JE Oulton DD, John T Drought Ltd, Dublin
THE POWER AND THE GLORY, Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican, David Yallop, Constable, London, 2007
THE SHE-POPE, Peter Stanford, William Hienemann, Random House, London, 1998
THE VATICAN PAPERS, Nino Lo Bello, New English Library, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1982
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1993
WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE? J Bredin, Evangelical Protestant Society, Belfast
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN?, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1988