The most important parts of this article are highlighted in bold. Although I often mention Catholics in this article, a similar problem affects almost all Christian churches or branches of Christianity.
I am not a Christian, I do not believe in the Christian idea of God, but I am a fan of a moderate form of Christianity. I would be glad if fanatical Christians would switch to moderate Christianity.
Christianity and Islam have a common problem: the negative side always wins. The "orthodox" fanatical interpretation of religions always wins and is professed by a much larger number of followers. However, if fanaticism is cultivated in religion and reason is suppressed, then religion practically turns into a sect. In the current mentality of Catholic Christianity, only fanatics are considered true and full-fledged Christians – this is the mainstream of Christianity. Fanaticism has become the basic pillar of faith.
I wish that radical Christians would become moderate. However, it is not that simple, because the psychological pathology of fanatical Christianity is a vicious circle. It would be best to get rid of Christianity completely, but that is not realistic, that would be too big a change in the thought world of a religious fanatic.
I have long been trying to understand the psychology of Christianity, the psychology of the narrow-mindedness of Christians, and I have come to the conclusion that the root of the problem lies in how Christians react to any critical arguments in the church. A Catholic is not psychologically prepared to listen to even completely cosmetic criticism of the church's affairs, let alone be prepared for critical arguments against Catholic dogmas. A prime example of the bad state of affairs in the church is the controversial priest Marián Kuffa. Using Kuffa as an example, we will get to the heart of the matter and explain the psychological essence of the thought world of a believing Catholic. A passionate Catholic acquaintance of mine can acknowledge that Kuffa has flaws: for understandable reasons, he doesn't like that Kuffa openly advertises for Harabin and Kotleba. On the other hand, the same Catholic told me the following: "Kuffa is an amazing person, he takes care of the homeless, 98% of his qualities are positive. And only those two percent of bad things are criticized by the media." The same Catholic also very harshly criticized the awakened conservative Catholic journalist Jaroslav Daniška, who wrote an article in Postoj criticizing Kuffa.
And here we get to the heart of the matter: a Catholic is more bothered by the fact that Kuffa is criticized in the media than by Kuffa's mistakes themselves. This is the basic attribute of a believer, the basic attribute of the mainstream of the Catholic faith. This is the basis of the faith of Catholic believers. The fact that mistakes in the church are pointed out bothers them more than the mistakes themselves. Whenever you mention a mistake in the church to a Catholic, it hurts them very much, they start to get nervous and irritated, and they try to diminish the seriousness of any mistakes in the church as much as possible with all sorts of arguments (see, for example, that "Kuffa only makes up 2 percent of the negative," which is an extremely uncritical view of him). The basis of a Catholic's faith is to deceive themselves and pretend that everything in the church is actually completely fine – a Catholic sweeps all problems in the church under the rug in their mind.
I ask: "How can a Catholic be prepared for far more serious criticism, whether of the general conditions in the church or of Christian dogmas, when he is not even psychologically prepared for the justified criticism of Kuffa?"
Well, the pathologically sick mind of a Catholic needs no comment. Being a Catholic is a completely different world of thought that a normal person cannot understand.
Catholics would rather erase Kuffa from their memory and try to pretend that no Kuffa exists at all.
I ask Catholics: "Dear Catholics, do you really think that this is love for your church, for your institution, when you lie to yourselves and deny and diminish the existence of Kuffa's problem and hate all the people who point out this problem?"
This sick mentality of Catholics does not only concern Kuffa's problem but also a number of other problems in the church, it applies universally.
The problem can only be solved if it is named. However, for the sick mind of a Catholic, it is very painful to name any problem in the church at all. It is easier to deceive oneself that everything is fine. The biggest phobia of a Catholic is to name problems.
If I were in the place of Catholics, unlike them, I would love my institution, and my love for my institution would also be manifested by calling the mistakes in my church what they are. Because only if they are named can they be solved.
In the secular sphere, it works differently. A journalist does not write about the corruption of state officials and politicians because they hate the state, but because they love their state. However, the Church, with its mentality, resembles various harsh dictatorial regimes where writing articles in the media about corruption is considered hatred towards the state. Through the lens of a Catholic's worldview, pointing out corruption in the media is considered hatred towards the Church, damaging the good name of the Church. Imagine what journalism in the secular sphere would look like if journalists thought with a church mentality: "out of love" for the state, so as not to give it a bad name, they would not write any articles about corruption and would pretend that corruption would somehow resolve itself.
Another huge affair is the controversial beatification of Anna Kolesárová, which was in clear contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Kolesárová's tragedy was misused by the church as a symbol for wars against sexuality. I wrote a fairly detailed article on this topic. It is sad that secular people have more love for the Catholic Church than fanatical believers. While secular people spoke up about Anna Kolesárová and criticized the conditions in the church, none of the Catholic believers themselves spoke up.
Sexual abuse in the church
At one time, I followed the sex abuse scandals in the church quite closely in the media. Rape victims suffer lifelong consequences. Victims encounter the same problem throughout the church. There is the same pattern. Believers do not take the victim seriously at all and do not believe that they were abused. In fact, believers often actively attack the victim for daring to "falsely accuse" our "good" priest. Here, two problems meet: on the one hand, believers blindly believe in the authority of the priest, and on the other hand, the mentality of believers is strongly rooted in fanatical denial and minimization of problems in the church. The basis of faith lies in self-deception. This schizophrenic mentality of believers makes it impossible to solve pedophile scandals. Instead of being a psychological support for the victim, believers will attack or condemn them.Before the era of Pope Francis, no pedophile scandals and no sexual abuse officially existed.
Before the era of Pope Francis, no pedophile scandals and no sexual abuse officially existed. All Catholic priests and believers would uniformly and unanimously tell you that the media was just making it up, that it was just the evil satanic media attacking the church. Pope Francis is a huge revolutionary in the Catholic Church and has frankly called sexual abuse in the church a big problem and a great evil. The blind faith of Catholics in higher authorities, in priests, bishops, and especially the Pope, also has its advantages – believers have finally stopped lying to themselves. And now, fanatical Catholic believers and priests will actually tell you that some pedophile scandals in the church really exist, although they had fanatically denied it until then. However, if, God forbid, some furious conservative were to succeed Pope Francis, the church could again experience a very harsh denial of the existence of sexual pedophile abuse.Discussion with a Catholic
I have come to the conclusion that discussing critical arguments with Catholics is pointless. The only thing you achieve is that the Catholic is very hurt and irritated by the criticism of the church or Christianity. All Catholics are the same, like perfectly robotic copies. Instead of humbly reflecting on themselves, instead of reflecting on critical arguments, they will look for fault in you, that you have some psychological problems and injuries, "that you always see flaws" in the Catholic Church, or in Christian dogmas.However, orthodox Catholics have a similar approach to far milder critics of the church, such as myself, and to the only thinking Catholic priests, Lajcha and Baláž, who wrote a book on the need to make celibacy voluntary. When I asked a Catholic priest, whom conservative Catholics had previously described to me as "very modern," what he thought of Lajcha, he responded that, on the one hand, celibacy generally needs to be discussed, but he dislikes Lajcha's approach because his book is supposedly just a result of his psychological complexes, that he needs to draw attention to himself, which is, of course, not true. These were very nasty remarks about his former colleague. He did not specify what exactly he disliked about Lajcha's approach. Religious fanatics also have a very distorted perception; he was not a "modern priest" at all.
But beware!! This is not about one Catholic priest. This is about the mentality of all Catholics. Every Catholic who is at least a little awakened or thinking, who deviates from the norm, is considered by mainstream Catholics to be a consequence of their psychological wounds and complexes.
A normal person can never understand the closed world of thought of Catholics – their perception of the world is a severe schizophrenia.
A Catholic will never see a problem in himself – he will always see a problem in you.
What is the difference between a conservative and a liberal Christian?
While the basis of a conservative's faith is to deny all problems in the church and minimize them as much as possible, a liberal Christian names the problems in the church, does not lie to themselves, and does not cover their eyes to them.I greatly appreciate all the representatives from the Progressive Believers political platform who are not afraid to name the problems.
I also appreciate Tomáš Halík and the suspended Archbishop Bezák, who has named a number of problems in the church in recent years.
There is no freedom of opinion or discussion in the church.
In the secular state sphere, the constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. However, the Church is an institution that is the opposite of that. There is no document in the Church that guarantees priests freedom of expression. On the contrary, freedom of opinion is very harshly suppressed in the Church, a prime example being the punished priest Michal Lajcha, even though his book did not violate the official teaching of the Church in any way.Even according to the official internal regulations, a priest is strictly forbidden to preach anything that would in any way deviate from the official teaching of the church, because it would be heresy, apostasy, or delusion.
Christianity is based on dogmas, no one can preach anything that deviates from the dogmas, but despite this, even the official teaching of the church does not prohibit dialogue in the church on at least some topics that do not contradict the dogmas (for example, a discussion about whether the basis of Christian faith should really be a fanatically one-sided focus only on sexual morality, sexual prohibitions, the prohibition of contraception, etc.). However, the entire Catholic mentality is very sick, and self-censorship is strongly rooted in Catholics, functioning 110% perfectly. To solve a problem, it must first be named. Catholics cannot even name the problems.
Bishops also have double standards on freedom of speech: liberal currents in the church, such as Lajcha, are immediately punished, but if Kuffa promotes Harabin, Kotleba, and babbles other psychopathic nonsense, that's fine.
Discussion
For something to move forward in the church, problems must first be named and there must be at least some discussion. However, neither of these exists in the church, nor is there any discussion platform. No discussion is needed: after all, there is only one correct official opinion, one correct path: and that is furious conservatism and fanaticism.False unity that harms the church
There is a very strong unity of opinion in the church. When there is unity, there is nothing to discuss. If there was no unity, there would be a discussion. And the ongoing discussion would force believers to think. If believers thought, they might slowly approach the truth. But that does not happen,But thinking hurts.
False unanimity, the absence of discussion and reflection among believers keeps them in a pleasant ignorance, in a pleasant false peace of mind, that they do not have to solve anything.
Religion vs. mental disorder. A comparison.
• In my opinion, religious fanaticism is a much bigger problem than a mental disorder. A person with a mental disorder is aware that they have it, tries to fight it, and considers it their weakness, and other people try to help them with their mental disorder.• With religious fanaticism, it works exactly the opposite in all aspects. The fanatic considers his madness to be his greatest asset and pride, he thinks of himself as someone more than others, and the group of wretches in their misery encourage each other that this is the only right way.
• While a mental disorder can be treated with medication, there is no one to help a religious person.
In conclusion,
Evil is gaining the upper hand. Fanatical branches of Christianity, especially Christian communities, have more and more members.No one expects Christians to make huge leaps forward in their thinking. However, in the Catholic mentality, defensive mechanisms are very strongly rooted against allowing believers to at least think a little and approach the truth in small, gradual steps.
One should become wiser with age, a person's personality should evolve with age. However, the mainstream Catholic faith has strong protective mechanisms to control the human mind, which do not allow the personality of the believer to grow and approach the truth, or at least common sense, even in tiny steps. It is a sad sight when people do not come to their senses even in old age and remain unchanged.
I am also very sorry for the huge lack of interest of secular people in the fate of stray Catholics, their lack of interest in their faith, their lack of interest in helping these poor people, their lack of interest in awakening them.