I've never really understood why so many think that Roman Catholic Christians somehow don't acknowledge Jesus.
The Cathechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church says clearly in paragraph 430
"Jesus means in Hebrew: 'God saves.' At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission. Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his people from their sins". In Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men."
But anyway, about the claims that Jack Chick (who is deceased, yes) expresses about Roman Catholicism...
One, these cartoon tracts are effective in getting and keeping people's attention. In my opinion, they are well-designed (although the drawings are often very poor or only mechanically competent).
Two, even when we take into consideration that everything in these tracts is cartoonishly exaggerated, the paranoid worldview they contain is bizarre. It is either dishonest or evidence of an inability to understand the world in a non-childish way.
"Dignity and Duties" is (sort of) cited in several places in the tract called "Papa." But "Dignity and Duties" is not an authoritative statement of any of the teachings of the RCC.
But that's not the worst of it. The tract depicts a child being confirmed in the RCC. The text reads "Anthony is 'sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit' - or is it some other visitor?" The obvious suggestion is that it isn't the Holy Spirit but a demon or something. First, there is no reason to think that (if there is such a reason, why isn't it explained in the tract?). Second, the bit about the Holy Spirit is in quotes, but not cited. Even if we let that slide since the CCC does say "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized]...are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit", we still can note that the words (sort of) of a church publication are quoted...and then replaced by a "suggestion". In other words, the church is responsible for whatever the Chick tract says. Yet in the very same panel, the text below the picture reads "Confirmation is said to 'bind a child into the Church.' In their own words, he is in bondage!"
So in some instances, the tract gets to replace the words of a church publication with others, and the Church is responsible. But in some instances, the words of the publication are to be willfully misinterpreted -- and again the Church is responsible. But since we've established that you get to replace whatever words you want, why not suggest that 'binding' really means 'loosing'? Or whatever?
No. Paranoid worldview aside, the tracts are intellectually dishonest. If there are problems with the RCC or any Christian body, meet them fairly and head-on.
