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?



Some people say once a Catholic always a Catholic.

What can they mean?

If they are saying that being Catholic as in believer is not as important as anything else then they are just us and not them kind of creatures.

Are they referring to a label?  The Catholic label?  Do you get stuck with the label?  But too often a label is just a word.  A label may not convey the full truth or the real truth and in that case it amounts to a lie and a social construct and an excuse for an "Us not them, they are not us" kind of structure or thinking.  It is bigoted to just say call somebody of a Catholic background a Catholic if the label is virtually just a word for why that word and not another?

Individuals are labelled and a collection of individuals gets a label too.  Either way the label must be the truth.  If the whole Catholic Church turns to Krishna and not Jesus what then? It would be stupid to call it Catholic.

Giving somebody a label such as a surname means they have the right to change it.  John Jones may become John Brixton when he marries Mable Brixton.  To persist in sticking a label on a person that they don't relate to, don't feel says anything about them and don't think belongs to them is bigotry.

Catholics label people and are notorious for it so it is really about the name.  We may have racists but its a sort of racism to treat perceived label-bearers as having this label when they either reject it or think its invalid.

The Church says it is not just a community set up by God but a faith and worship community.  A label has to be descriptive which means a Catholic is a person who signs up to believing certain things and being part of a community that at least in principle signs up to the beliefs too.

People do see that there is a contradiction between being a Catholic once and always being one. Usually what people mean by the expression is that you can indeed cease to be a Catholic but you are always Catholic in the sense that some of the religious brainwashing will stay with you. An atheist who was Catholic might feel that her reluctance to have sex with her boyfriend is down to her Catholic upbringing so her reluctance is Catholic in a sense.

The Church answers the label question as follows:

Simple answer: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation is an essential and basic doctrine of the Church. It refers principally to those who leave the Church. And secondly to those who are not Catholics but who won't use their chance to check out if the Church is the one true Church. Outside the Church there is no salvation is implied by the creed, "I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church." Once a Catholic always Catholic is against Catholic teaching. Once baptised validly, always baptised is often confused with it. It is not the same.
The Church says that valid baptism brings with it the responsibilities of practicing the entire Catholic Faith. The Council of Trent defined that:

If anyone says that through Baptism, baptized persons become obliged merely to faith alone, and not to keeping the whole law of Christ: let him be anathema.
If anyone says that baptized persons are freed from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless of their own accord they wish to submit themselves to these precepts: let him be anathema.

This says that once you are baptised, you are under duty to obey the Catholic Church, even if you are baptised in a Protestant Church. It does not say that you are always Catholic. The Church says that baptism is Catholic though it is stolen by Protestants.
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14, states that those who disobey and deny Church teaching are only in the Church bodily but not in their hearts.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Pope Pius XI who reigned from 1922 to 1939 wrote: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos).


The idea that baptism changes your DNA of your soul does not necessarily mean that it is God that is doing the changing. It is evil to make a person think their souls DNA has been changed by God when it may not be him who did the changing or if there is no change at all. That is scamming. It is as much an attempted refusal to accept you as you as an attempt to change your physical DNA would be. Religion uses God not accepting you until baptism as an excuse for doing that itself. It evades the blame.

Some talk about spiritual DNA stuff and the Church being a real family in the DNA sense but that is nonsense.  And why this stuff about DNA?  The teaching is that baptism makes us ADOPTED sons and daughters of God!  That means no DNA or anything like it!  The Church says it is made up of the adopted children of God. A child who is adopted can cease to be a member of the family that adopts him. A child that is related to that family can still leave the family - DNA ties are not enough to make a family a family. Love is more important than DNA.  A DNA link does not add up to a membership link.

And where do you draw the line with DNA line of thinking? Why not say that those who drink coffee change their DNA and become a family?

DNA is not enough to make you a member of a family.  Your parent's love child hidden away in the wilds is not a family member.  There is a link but not a membership link.

Catholics who see baptism as creating a link between one baptised person and another by making them children of the one God must see that this link though necessary for membership cannot suffice!
If once you are baptised Catholic you are Catholic forever, it follows that if you disobey the faith, you are a bad Catholic. You cannot be credible as an amateur or professional teacher of the faith or as a representative. And if you claim to be a good Catholic you only wreck your credibility further. You are claiming to have the right to say that inventing your own version of Catholicism means you are a good Catholic! That is actually an insult to genuine religious freedom for it denies the right of a religion to set doctrines and practices. Its bigoted to say once a Catholic always a Catholic for that implies that a Catholic who becomes say a Muslim or a Methodist has no right to say, "Once a Muslim/Methodist, always a Muslim/Methodist". It is patronisingly claiming special rights as a Catholic. It is implying that nobody has the right to say they have changed from Catholicism to Protestantism or whatever. Their membership in another religion is not taken seriously.
“Once a Catholic always a Catholic” and doctrines about baptism marking you as belonging to God accuse anybody who was baptised a Catholic of neglecting their duty if they want nothing to do with the faith. One would need absolute proof to have the right to say things like that. The Church is forced to admit that it does not have any such proof...
The Catholic Church has three sacraments of initiation. One is baptism. The next is confirmation in which you accept the faith. Then the Eucharist. Baptism does not give full membership. If the baby that is baptised becomes a Catholic it is largely Catholic but not totally. It becomes more Catholic at confirmation and even more again every time it gets communion. The Church says that the sacraments only become channels of holiness if the recipient lets them. The sacraments then only initiate into goodness.

If we are talking about an organisation, you are either a member or you are not.
We see from all that that the Church is not merely an organisation. Being Catholic is not just a label. Being Catholic is being good as the Lord has helped the Church understand it. In this, the good person who repudiates Catholicism is practicing the wrong kind of good. The goodness would pave the way for founding the organisation. The goodness matters more than the organisation and the organisation only exists to implement the good. To say otherwise is to teach sectarianism.
The Roman Catholic Church says that baptism puts a seal on you that makes you belong to that Church forever. Belonging to the Church means it has the right to have you as a member. It does not necessarily mean you are a member. Membership is a two-way thing. To suggest any different is offensive and unkind and too controlling.
Suppose you have a gold watch that you inherited from your uncle who gave it to you on the condition that you would never sell it or give it away. You go and sell it. You are obligated to keep the watch. But once you sell it, it is no longer your watch. In the same way, belonging to the Church by obligation is not the same as being a member.
If the Catholic Church is indeed the one right religion and the one family of God, it follows that baptised or not, God has the right to require you to enter the Church and it has the right to have you as a member. The unbaptised has a duty to belong. Clearly, the notion that baptism makes you obligated to be a member and act like one is strange considering you have the obligation even if you are a heathen and always have been. The Church is using baptism as a manipulation tool.
It is sectarian and patronising to tell anybody that once you are Catholic you are Catholic forever. Why not say, once you are Christian you are Christian forever? Is being labelled Catholic more important than being labelled Christian?
Is it really correct to say that you belong to the Church? The Church means the society united to Jesus Christ. It people being spiritually in union with him. What one should say is that one belongs to Jesus. If there was no original sin, it would follow that all people belong to Jesus from the first moment of their existence. It would follow that all form the Church.
The notion of once Catholic always Catholic emphasises being Catholic over being Christian. Christian means follower of Christ . Theologically, once a Christian always a Christian would be better. The word Catholic simply means universal and reflects the notion that the Church is not confined to any nations or races but membership is open to all. To say once Catholic always Catholic is to emphasise an attribute or quality of the Church. And its emphasised disproportionately. The Catholic Church says it has four marks - its one, its holy, its Catholic and apostolic. The apostolic mark is the most important - it means the Church accepts the teaching of the apostles. This teaching is supposed to be correct and free from error for without correct religious teaching you can't expect the Church to be one, to be holy and capable of doing right or meant for all people. It would not be meant for people who know the truth if its teaching has errors in it.
Church teaching says that your parents decide your membership in the Church for you at baptism as a baby but you can terminate that membership when you mature.
If the Church is a load of hocus pocus then it follows that it only imagines it has the right to have you as a member or to declare you a member - you making yourself a member is a different thing.
The notion espoused by some that your DNA makes you a member of your family thus baptism gives you spiritual DNA making you a member of the Church is absurd. Your DNA makes you share something with your parents and brothers and sisters etc. But a family has to be built independent of that. DNA does not make a family - love does. The Church itself would reject the notion of spiritual DNA as the soul is immaterial - that is it is not made of matter. If baptism really puts a seal on you, the seal indicates, "Obligated to be a member and provisionally a member until he makes up his own mind." Whether you really become a member is up to you.
The DNA argument shows more concern for making it appear that Catholics share DNA in the soul than for the doctrine that God if good, would change our DNA in order to put more good influences in us. It shows no concern for what people believe.
The suggestion that its about making the genes of every Catholic soul related to the other Catholic souls smacks of racism because Catholics claim to form the only holy and one and apostolic and divinely created Church. Its like, "God has given me this DNA and so its a gift and you don't have the gift as you are not baptised so you are not as special as I am at least in so far as I have the right DNA".

As the Church intends baptism to erase original sin and the power of evil it follows that if you ensure only a particular race is baptised that race can declare itself superior to other races. A doctrine that could be used to implement racism is evil. It is an insult to those who work against racism. It is racism by implication. Racism in any for is intolerable.

Here are the reasons a baby cannot become a Catholic by baptism:
Even if a baby needs to be something, it does not follow that it really is a Catholic baby. It is only a baby who has got the Catholic label for the sake of giving it a label.
Catholic doctrine is serious stuff. Therefore you cannot make a valid decision to enter Catholicism knowing some of this stuff but not all. But babies know nothing at all.
If the baby has original sin, it is inclined to choose sin rather than choose God. Thus it can only become a member of the Church if forced. If it had a say it would refuse. Original sin means a refusing of God so infant baptism is forced conversion or pretended conversion.
A choice made for you is not as binding as a choice you make for yourself. If you were baptised a Catholic as a baby without your consent, then that is less important than the decision you make as an adult to stay in or leave the Church. A choice made for you is not a choice made by you and so it cannot be called a choice at all. Those who say you are Catholic and even if you join the Hindus this is only a pretence and you are still a Catholic and a liar.
Forced conversion does not mean just forcing people to join your religion but keeping them in it. You are forcing them to renew their conversion every day.
Those who believe in once a Catholic always a Catholic take their children for baptism. Clearly they are attempting the forcing of religion on children whether its wanted or not for no matter what he or she does when he or she grows up he or she cannot stop being a Catholic! Its a mark of arrogance and intolerance to do that. It implies that it is not enough to be a good person. One needs a splash in the Catholic baptismal font as well. If you say that being good is not enough then you are criticising goodness itself! You are setting out to warp.
Baptism insults the dignity of the child as a human person. It does that naturally. It is its essence. But it is far worse when commissioned by families and priests that think in terms of once a Catholic always a Catholic. If you are a Catholic and not living it then you are sinner. That is what the thought infers. It seeks to expose the child to the judgement of the fictitious god of the Church and the Church itself and society and judgemental Catholics who love to criticise and condemn if the child grows up to neglect the Church and even leave it.
If you believe that it is wrong to proselytise or to pressure people to join your religion, then by adopting ideas such as once a Catholic always a Catholic, you are depriving people of one important reason for believing such proselytism is wrong. You are eliminating the idea: "Nobody is obliged to join your religion or worship your God. Your religion or God doesn't own anybody. Everybody owns herself or himself" as a reason for condemning it. You are lessening the reasons for condemning it. An Atheist would say that a Church cannot think of you or treat you like you have a duty to become its member like you were its property etc. Thus his opposition and perception that it is bad would be stronger than that of a Catholic. The Catholic, even if he or she opposes proselytism, will have weaker opposition to it. If it were the only reason for forbidding proselytism, the Church would reject it. To teach doctrines that even slightly make opposition to proselytism weaker is reprehensible. It is a crack even if the Catholic would never proselytise. Its diminishing respect for others in the name of religion.
Priests intend to force a duty - to live as a true member of the Church and believe all the Church teaches and to obey it - on every baby they baptise.
To impose a duty to belong to a particular religion on a child is evil. The Church says that to refuse to go to Mass without a real reason such as sickness or having to look after a sick relative is a mortal sin. The baby is obligated to go to Mass when he grows up. Is it right to force such an obligation on the child when it makes him a bad person if he does not go?
If there is a duty, you will be able to provide proof that there is a duty. Nature writes the proof that we must look after our ailing parents or see that they are provided for. It writes that duty on our nature. But to say there is a duty to follow Catholicism is ridiculous. You may as well say there is a duty to say magic words over your car every morning. Once a Catholic always a Catholic implies you have a duty to call yourself Roman Catholic even though you have gone through a process of conversion to Presbyterianism and don't believe in Catholicism. It is harassment to tell somebody they have a duty unless you can prove the existence of the duty.


Every religion has to have rules about who is a member. The Catholic Church regards the Catholic who repudiates transubstantion as a Protestant - ie a Christian who has declared independence from the Roman Church. The person who knows a teaching is essential for being a Catholic and rejects it should look for another Church. He should not be pretending to be a Roman Catholic. To go through the motions of staying when he can join his local Anglican Church smacks of sectarianism. If he is to be considered a Roman Catholic then the word hypocrite becomes meaningless. You cannot be a genuine member of any community if you reject its ideals. Any Catholic who does not believe but who is trying to can be a Catholic. The one who is not trying is not. Morever, an individual Catholic who acts as if he can pick and choose what to believe is not recognising the Pope as the head teacher of the Church who stands in the place of Jesus Christ.

You may have a parent, son, daughter, sister or brother who are so manipulative and toxic that you are better not to have a relationship with them. A relationship would not be a relationship at all. All you are left with is realising that they are still your family and seeing that that link is important. A connection and a relationship are not the same thing.  So if an ex-Catholic has a link with the Church it is a minor one.  It is not enough to keep her or him a member.

The Church seems to think at times that being Catholic is a grey thing. So if you are sectarian or an abortionist just for the money you are Catholic but not Catholic doing those things. You are Catholic but also contradicting it. Of such Vatican II says that the Catholic who “does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart” (Lumen Gentium 14). He becomes a mere outward Catholic. This is saying he or she is only one on the outside not the outside. So you can stop being a Catholic one way but in the bodily way you are still Catholic. The Church is clear that the obligation to obey Church law and to drop heresy is still there. But that only means, “You have a duty to obey the truth. We are the truth. So obey.” There is no real obligation if Catholicism is a false religion. The Church does say that you have a right not to identify as Catholic but as you are wrong the obligations to return to the Church remain.

The Church reasons that very immoral and heretical Catholics are still Catholics and that only makes their sins and the penalties before God far worse. So we should wish that the Church is not true for their sake instead of wishing that they could still be Catholic!

If there is no right or privilege to leave religion then there is no right to protest by leaving. There cannot be a right to leave if you cannot leave for rights are about reality.

The Church protects its faith and faith witness by excommunication. So excommunication is about protecting the faith and those authorised by God to preach it.  Treating everybody who is baptised as a Catholic regardless of their heresies is to make the religion totally about a superficial label.  It is not really a religion at all for it has no faith standards. 

A cherry picker has an internalised faith of their own construction and preference. He or she is not a proper religionist but a play religionist. To follow truth just because it suits is not following truth at all. In addition to that the cherry picker rejects that the religion presents as the truth.  A religion that is a home for cherry-pickers also has an internalised faith.  If a religion is dangerous imagine how much worse it will be if you are the religion and you have no like-minded cult to be in to talk you out of anything?   Group religion is bad but individual religion is no better and you would expect it to be worse for there is no bigger authority than you.