POPE IS A BARE-FACED LIAR
 
Catholics say, “The pope is a sincere Catholic who loves us all. If he were a closeted Atheist or hypocrite he would not be pope for you cannot be a Catholic if you deliberately repudiate the Catholic faith. God would not let a false brother sit upon the chair of Peter.”

To make the pope out to be sincere is a detestable claim often made by those who want to presume the pope to be a sweet old man who is simply ignorantly wrong about being head of the Church and infallible. The pope knows that the burden to make sure he is right rests on his shoulders for no one can give orders and love others unless she or he is certain that they have the authority. The pope has theological advisers and is familiar with the complaints against his teaching from liberal theologians and other critics so if he is wrong he knows he is wrong. Everybody does some good. That does not mean they are good. That does not mean that the good was done with caring motives. That does not mean that they are to be trusted.
 
The unbeliever is more of a human being than the pope! It is a disgrace how powerful the awful religion of Catholicism is. Many clerics act as human beings not as Catholics. Then people mistake this behaviour for Catholic behaviour . It is not. True Catholicism is anti-social and malicious. The pope would say we see God allowing a lot of human suffering. He would not say we believe in God in spite of suffering. That is like saying you believe Anthony should be fit to teach children despite having raped one. It sounds unreasonable. It sounds callous - even spiteful. He would say we have to believe in God because of suffering. That would put anybody off believing in him. It would imply that we should not be horrified when we see great suffering and should not wonder if God is looking after people at all.
 
If I needed help with a problem, I would feel I have rapport with the unbeliever and none at all with the pope. I wouldn't find Catholic "help" helpful. Nobody wants to hear about God and sin when they have a problem. If they do, then they have a new problem!
 
The pope advocates self-sacrifice and constant self-denial. The mother who puts her daughter first and before herself may also put her before other children. If there was a choice between her daughter being gunned down and the other children being gunned down she would choose her daughter. She is called selfish if she would do that. She is called unselfish if she sacrifices her beloved daughter. This is arbitrary. It states that even if an action is selfless it can still be selfish. It indicates that just because my action is selfish doesn't mean I do it for me. Selflessness is very improbable and so we should assume that psychological egoism, the doctrine that I can't help being selfish is true.
 
We know that if we do something and seek nothing back that we find we will derive happiness from it. Happiness involves being at peace and you cannot have happiness if you keep wanting it for then you have no peace. If you forget about it, you get it. Forgetting about happiness then to be happy is not selflessness at all. It may be objected that just because you forget about happiness does not mean you are forgetting to be happy. You might be just forgetting. But you would not be forgetting unless you believed you would be okay or if you felt it or both.
 
Forgetting about happiness then to be unhappy would imply that it is reasonable for somebody to ask you to carry them on your back from Edinburgh to London. So would forgetting about happiness to be neither happy or unhappy. You wouldn't want that. So you wouldn't be doing the forgetting unless you believed or felt you were going to be okay. Death does not seem real to the person risking his life who jumps into the water to save you from drowning and that is why he is able to take the risk. He enjoys the forgetting and this enjoyment takes over. It is not the best kind of enjoyment but it is still enjoyment.
 
The pope would say that if you love your father but help him mainly for the money and not exclusively for the money you must be called selfish. He would say you demean the unselfish part of your love so you use it to become selfish. You are selfish for demeaning it.
 
The pope holds that being self-sacrificing in your motives is more important than what you do. He says you are bad if you look after your father simply because he pays you. He says you are good if you look after your father just for your father's sake and if you refuse the money. But is the motive more important than the action? If it is, must we refrain from helping our father if we don't have selfless reasons for doing it? The answer is yes in principle. In practice, we would still have to help him. The person who does grave wrong deserves no kindness at all from others. Deserving the evil implies that. That is what deserving means, what you should get for what you did or didn't do. But the Church says there are other reasons why we can't treat evil persons as they deserve. The help they get is grudging help. By saying that we never deserve to have God with us as the Catholic Church does is just evil. It is better to be a secularist. Any moral laws that are unnecessary are evil. Morality sticks with what you need to believe is bad action and what you believe is good. More or less is immoral. Religion makes extra rules so it is immoral.
 
The basic doctrine of Catholicism is that doubt is a sin and calling God a liar for he set up and revealed the Catholic faith. If you can doubt and not sin then there is no point in the pope claiming to have authority. Authority is the right to give commands that people are obligated to obey. But if you doubt that God really revealed you are not calling him a liar. So there can be no sin in that. You could doubt for that reason thus escaping the possibility that you might be accusing God of lying. Thus this religion is opposed to you trying to find out if it is wrong. It commands love but makes it impossible with its manipulations. Like the worship of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned as being in vain, the love of the Catholics is in vain.

The pope knows that one of his major doctrines, loving the sinner and hating the sin, is ridiculous. Trust is a part of love. Love will do you no good if you are not trusted at all. Trust the sinner and don't trust the sin is a hidden teaching and it is in love the sinner and hate the sin. It makes no sense at all. The rule is just a way of ordering people to hate others on religious grounds while helping them to pretend that they don't hate the persons.
 
The Catholic trash, The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, page 127, says that you cannot hate the sin without becoming a Pharisee, or a self-righteous prig. It says too that we cannot hate sin without hating the sinner. It makes a final point that to hate at all makes you hard and negative and that hating evil and sin makes us haters or vindictive.
 
It says that to love evil and sin is to succumb to them. I will call this option one.
 
It says that to hate evil and sin is still giving in to the evil of hate. I will call this option two.
 
I would add that to do neither is really to do both. It is still giving in to evil. If you don't care about evil and sin then you succumb to them. If you don't care about the hating of evil and sin then you are agreeing with the evil of hate. I will call this option three.
 
To do neither which means to do both is worse than picking one or the other. The second option, the option of hating sin and evil is the only one that can be taken. Thus the doctrine of hate the sin and love the sinner incites to hatred.
 
The pope would say that the solution is forgiveness but even if you forgive a sin that does not mean you are supposed to stop hating the sin. If you love your husband, you will hate his alcoholism that nearly killed him years ago even though he has never touched a drink since. So it is a hypocritical solution. But we can glad he admits that loving the sinner and hating the sin is impossible though he argues that a miracle can make it possible.

The Church of Rome teaches that it is never right to let others err and be confused about religious truth. Catholicism condemns saying nothing while others err as mortal sin (sin that puts God out of your soul and heart and if you die unrepentant you will burn in Hell forever without hope) for the promotion of heresy is mortally sinful. To let others do evil is to will that evil and carry the same guilt as they carry or the same guilt they would carry if they knew it was evil. It is a kind of deception to let others err. Catholicism strongly insists that the truth of God should be told even if it upsets others for then he will take care of things and Jesus said the truth will set you free. It says that if man is upset by God’s truth man is the one with the problem. The Bible says the Lord Jesus and his apostles told the truth even though it meant great trials for themselves and for those they hit between the eyes with it.
 
Preaching the truth of the gospel is God’s law.
 
Jesus said that if you are popular then you are doing something wrong (Luke 6:26; Matthew 5:11,12). He said that the one trusted with a lot can be trusted with little and the one that cannot be trusted in little cannot be trusted in bigger things (Luke 16:10). The true follower of Jesus then is very strict and methodical. Jesus said that you should hate sin so much that you would rather lose a limb than commit it.
 
There is no person in this world who can avoid being talked about and despised by uncharitable people. It is certain that Jesus meant that you have to be unusually hated and exceptionally smeared to be a good person. His words were spoken to ordinary people most of whom considered themselves good. They were spoken to Jews and at that time Jesus hadn’t even claimed to be Christ publicly. He was saying anybody good Christian or not must be persecuted. He expected a high standard of goodness.