What has the Catholic Church always taught and still does, despite bad popes?
You should know, having left it.
It’s irrelevant what the RCC teaches when its adherents don’t follow it and vote liberal and espouse contrary beliefs.
And *religion* that does not affect a change in a person's life so as to change them from vile, unrepentant sinners, is worthless.
And any church which elects and allows to continue, bad leaders such as many of your popes have been, is likewise worthless. It's hypocritical to the core, to teach one thing and not even enforce its own dictates about such behavior.
Why anyone would want to or be willing to follow such leaders is beyond me.
No man whose life does not reflect the message of the cross in Christ like living, deserves to even be listened to, much less followed and obeyed.
That is not a valid argument as what the Catholic Church has always taught is itself subject to interpretations, resulting in sects such as what you represent. You have a limited, infallible class of teachings on paper, while both what these all consist on and their meanings, as well as those of the rest can be subject to divisive interpretations. Meanwhile what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one really believes.
Regarding interpretation, among other things , Vatican 2 interpreted extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - an infallible teaching according to most - differently than what is most plainly conveyed and was historically held in past times.
Moreover, V2 itself is subject to variant interpretations, and as a result of what some understandably see as changes, then the schismatic SSPV and SSPX sects, and those who informally belong to them, interpret parts of V2 as not binding. Likewise the nature and meanings of encyclicals and bulls etc, are also subject to interpretation.
In addition, Rome shows what she really believes by what she does and effects, which partly is shown by treating even proabortion, prohomo, promuslim pols are members in life and in death, as well as their known supporters, which speaks louder than some paper statements, which thus fosters more RC supporters of such.
For souls look for the meaning of what is preached by how the preachers translated it into action, to which Rome directs the faithful to look, not that of examining evidences in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching.
RCs are told that
"the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” (Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org /Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ;
To do as your sect does, that of determining obedience based upon your interpretation of which RC teaching is authentic and its meaning, is to do what RCs censure evangelicals for doing in the light of Scripture.
Finally, comparing one particular church with a variety of churches loosely defines under one name is not a valid comparison, while comparing then according to their fundamental distinctive basis for determining Truth would be.
And it remains that evangelicals, which hold most strongly to the Prot distinctive of Scripture being emphasized as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, are the most unified large religious group in conservative moral values and many basic beliefs. While liberal Prots are closer to RCs overall, which their churches also tend to be in doctrine.
You should know, having left it.
Indeed.