Catholic guilt?

With respect Alan, this post shows you do not have a firm foundation on these topics. Lots of basic errors here.

You need to better understand:

-what is the Christian Church

• the relationship between the old and new testament
• the place of the Bible vs the teaching authority of the Church, which significantly predates it. Ppl seem to view the Bible as a big magic rule book and often think it is the supreme authority, a protestant error.

For example, you mention 'gay sex'.

The Churchs opposition to homosexual acts isnt based on Leviticus from the old testament.

Leviticus was a code for the ancient levites, a jewish tribe. Why would Christians today adhere to it?

The Church's opposition is actually based on natural law, that is in this case, biological science. Ie what our bodies sexual functions are for and how they work.

Its not a surprise that the Levites agreed, but basing any stance purely on what it says in a book is not a convincing argument.

Things will be a lot clearer if you get the foundational concepts correct. 👍

What God did what God do 2k years ago ?

If you mean some some fella said he was the son of a God, well, that's not evidence of any God is it ?

Confession is still very important, but a lot of mainstream catholics today are very superficial.

In fact God did do exactly this, 2000 yrs ago.

He could do it again just to please you Alan, but then in another 2000 years another Alan would be on here saying he doesnt believe it 😆

Something about this post doesnt seem to ring true, I was at a Catholic school and this is very different to my experience. Tho I appreciate we all have our own experiences.

Are you in the UK, op?

The idea that Catholic schools seek to burden infants with guilt or scare them about hell, is frankly nonsense.

The schools are very diverse, accepting ppl of all faiths and none. The faith manifests not as a list of rules to be followed, but more in the inclusive environment and the standards expected of pupils (in terms of behaviour, respect for others, doing your best etc).

This is why the schools are so popular with non Catholics.

Its absolutely not about brainwashing anyone (secular society has that covered). Practicing a faith should be a positive choice, not a fearful one or as a result of programming.

Most ppl who go to Catholic schools probably do not go on to practice that faith, nor display any psychological issues as claimed by op.

I would be tempted to file the incident of a vomiting child being refused help in the category of things which didnt happen 😆

Give it a rest ?

Sure thing. When the Churches stop preaching and stop trying to enforce their rules on everyone, I will lean back and sup a nice cold beer in celebration.

Well if only they would!

If they would stop indoctrinating children and forcing the inhabitants of poor countries into constant reproduction and poverty then I guess we would all be more than happy to leave them alone ....

Give it a rest, Alan! Get outside and enjoy the weather. Let the Catholics look after themselves. 🌞

I know the Bible pretty well. And you can't use the Bible as proof for the Bible being true.

And of course God popping in to say hello does not negate faith.

If God proves He exists then faith becomes redundant. Maybe read what Jesus said to Thomas. Doesn't suit you? Fine move on.

Dredged up ? It's a catholic church website.

Here is the official Vatican website on the subject different kiou nds of sin:

Part Three Section One Man's Vocation Life In The Spirit Chapter One The Dignity Of The Human Person Article 8 Sin III. The Different Kinds Of Sins (vatican.va)

Are you telling me the Catholic church is wrong about what they say about what they call sin?

If that makes sense ?

That actual Catholic Church publications lie about what the Church says ?

Well the Catholics who wrote it seem to think it currently applies.

Who's to know though? According to you there are no eternal truths - it's just what happens to be in vogue at the time. Used to be that crucifixion and torture were necessary paths to enlightenment, now you can get there by singing along to some fruitbat with a guitar. The only constant is that everyone wears sandals.

I don't know how you manage to dredge these things up, Alan. I think you need to visit a local RC Church in 2026 and find out what it's actually about.
You can find anything you want on the internet but I do think you're wasting your time.That thing you've posted has no relationship to everyday Catholicism as its practised in churches.
You've disappeared down a rabbit hole.

Indeed so .... state organisations should be religion free. State funded faith schools should be banned.

I’d gladly see the back of faith schools, and bishops in the lords. Would help integration too.

Just to add to my reply above. I just checked this site. I posted the link to their main site above. But is the list of science paper/articles/ books that the intelligent design folk say proves their point.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design | Intelligent Design

I enjoy flat earth discussions/ debates. Debunking flat earther claims and so on. And in the debunking "community", there are " Toon's Laws of Flerth. It's a light hearted thing really, but at the same time, flat earthers really can mess folk up with their anti science.

Toon’s Laws of Flerf | MCToon

Toon's first law of flerth:

1. Flerf citations always contradict the flerf’s claim. No exceptions.

With this in mind, I went through the list of papers etc given on that Intelligent design site, and yes, Toons first law of flerth does appear to apply.

I see no title in that list that says what they claim. I mean this looks promising. This entry in their list.

Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

But clink on the link to the article, and this is the very first line is : "I shall present three arguments for the proposition that intelligent life is very rare in the universe."

I would say that is downright dishonest of the Intelligent design folk. Would you not agree ?

In fact, dishonesty in Christian Apologetics is something I started a thread about a while back. The thread was really about creationism . But a quick dive into the IT site, and it looks as if they are just as dishonest.

Does Christian apologetics encourage people to be dishonest ? | Mumsnet

So really, there is no reason to feel any religious guilt.

Masturbation. Gay sex. Abortion.

Here is a handy list. UK, And current.

S9 Commandments and Concepts of Sin.pdf (stjosephs.org.uk)

And here is an odd thing. Something I find odd anyway. The 10 commandments being applied. That is Mosaic law. They are just part of the 615 or so Mosaic laws in the Pentateuch. But there is this new covenant thing, where loads of these laws the God gave, apparently, do not apply any more. Eating bacon, circumcision, stoning gay people, pro slavery laws, laws re menstruating women. Christian Churches do pick and choose what laws they want to apply. Yet all of these laws allegedly came direct from their never changing God.

Quote : "Theism (an intellectual designer) is the best explanation for what we observe with one example being fine tuning of the fundamental laws of the universe."

No it's not. And I can test you on that. Name one fundamental law and how Intelligent design is the only answer. Intelligent design is basically a "god of the gaps" argument. Here is one of their websites:

Intelligent Design | The Definitive Source on ID

Pick one of their papers. And let's see if there is a debunking paper that goes along with it.

Quote:" Therefore atheism requires faith that all scientific discoveries are all a result of unguided, undirected processes including the origin of the universe and human consciousness among other examples of which I posted earlier."

No It does not. Saying "I don't know", as I often say, requires no faith at all.

For example. Because of my trade I have a good understanding of Newtonian physics. I have studied the subject and use it. I can explain it. I don't claim to know and understand Einstein physics. So I can explain the Newtonian physics of getting a GPS satellite into space, but I can't explain how Einsteins relativity is applied to the signal from that GPS satellite. But plenty of people can. And as evidence that they understand it, we have GPS.

Individually, we do not need to know everything to function.

Quote :"Atheism as a world view fundamentally requires faith that these aspects rely solely on these unguided and undirected processes and since their is no proof that naturalistic explanations are true, atheism requires faith."

No. There is proof all over that science is true. The device you are reading this on for example. For loads of people that is enough. It is people of faith who need a god to be involved somehow. People who do not have/need/have not been indoctrinated in any religion do not

There is zero proof that any god is true.

Do you still consider yourself a believer, or have you moved away from Christianity altogether? I’m asking because it probably changes what leaving the guilt behind would look like for you.

Yes but that’s guilt from the past.
Society was more authoritarian then, so the Church had more authoritarian rules reflecting and originating in that society.
Yes, of course the church changes over time as society changes. That’s the human part of the Church which interprets the gospels in the light of contemporary scholarship and state of the world.
It ‘s certainly not ‘interesting’ in the sense you mean. It just a basic fact.
The sacrament of Confession was previously an important part of Catholic faith; now it’s rarely practiced in many parts of RC church . Times change . The Church itself doesn’t change in its fundamentals.

Recognising that we simply do not know requires no faith at all.

Humans seek patterns and explanations and it is not easy to accept the not knowing.

There are quite a few potshots here against the RC church. This may have been true in the past when life was completely different and society was more authoritarian.
There seems to be a general theory that this is true still in 2026 and I just can’t believe this is so.

I do not share that optimistic view .... we would not have a member starting a thread about her catholic guilt if that were so. But it is interesting that you acknowledge that religious teachings reflect their societies rather than representing universal truths.

I have a friend who hails from South America ... catholic toxic authoritarianism is alive and well she tells me. Hence the large poor families.

Theism (an intellectual designer) is the best explanation for what we observe with one example being fine tuning of the fundamental laws of the universe. No scientific paper, by their very nature, is going to conclude by saying 'we cannot explain this observation so there must be a God' as that would be a theological argument not a scientific inference. Therefore atheism requires faith that all scientific discoveries are all a result of unguided, undirected processes including the origin of the universe and human consciousness among other examples of which I posted earlier. Nobody has proved how the universe started from nothing, how consciousness developed etc. Atheism as a world view fundamentally requires faith that these aspects rely solely on these unguided and undirected processes and since their is no proof that naturalistic explanations are true, atheism requires faith.

‘dictate to others, inculcate guilt, make people's lives miserable and exercise power. None of this is necessary.’

But where is this happening today?
There are quite a few potshots here against the RC church. This may have been true in the past when life was completely different and society was more authoritarian.
There seems to be a general theory that this is true still in 2026 and I just can’t believe this is so.
The church does reflect contemporary society and society doesn’t work like that any more.
I would be interested if anyone can give me contemporary example from the UK of this type of practice.

I do not infer that there is no deity ... I infer that no-one knows.

The important thing is this: that this presence or absence of knowledge should not be used as a reason to dictate to others, inculcate guilt, make people's lives miserable and exercise power. None of this is necessary.

My stance is that I simply embrace the not knowing as a reality of the human condition and proceed to live my life with as much kindness as I am able.

Yes you understood me correctly. Multiple lines of scientific evidence suggest God / theistic belief is the best inference of what we can observe, so the best explanation is that an intelligent designer exists. Scientific theories by their very definition will be naturalistic by their nature based upon modern scientific methodology which itself isn't an issue but in my opinion if you infer from the evidence that there is no God then that is a weaker interpretation of the data. If you're interested in further reading I'd suggest starting with the writings of Lee Strobel and the book 'Is God Real?'.