Nobody wants a religious label just for an ornament.  They want others to classify them.  There is nothing wrong with telling others that you won't be put in a box and for them not to do that.

The Roman Catholic faith is really self-deception - self-deception is the most dangerous evil of them all and the fertiliser for further lies, further errors and further evil. Faith peppered with self-deception is the reason suicide bombers are blowing up planes because it is based on the notion that God is speaking to you in your heart and he knows what is right in the circumstances even if it feels wrong to us. If you lie to yourself to make yourself imagine that you are a believer, you are also lying to everybody else. A faith of lies is responsible for all the damaging activities done in its name - even if its official teaching disapproves of these activities. Catholic condemnations of Inquisitions and clerical paedophilia ring hollow. Lies lead to more lies and very harmful ones.
The Church has refused to correct its teachings even when they have been conclusively refuted. It knowingly teaches doctrines as true that have been disproven or for which there is no evidence or for which the evidence is inadequate.
Roman Catholicism teaches harmful doctrine. It encourages people to put their own spiritual pleasures before those who are tormented by its doctrines so that they will uphold the doctrines regardless of the suffering that is caused to others.
Catholicism teaches that God whose existence cannot be proven has to be loved with all our hearts while our family and neighbours are not to be loved as much as God but merely as ourselves! Clearly, doctrine comes before people and the real motive in helping others has to be to keep God happy. It is obvious that if you love your wife so much that you would be happy for God to just disappear into non-existence just so that she could live that somebody telling you to stop that and love her less than God is not much of a person.
The Church says God made the universe out of nothing. Nothing contributed to the universe. Not even God's power. The Church says God is his power and denies he made the universe from himself. The universe is not God. So if the universe came from nothing that is not making. God did not make the universe after all. Thus the universe popped into existence whether he wanted it to or not. Nothing becoming something means it popped because there is no real becoming. Period. Creation is a core Catholic doctrine so if it is wrong the whole religion is in error. The creation doctrine is even behind the Church notion that bread and wine can be turned into the body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Creation is an evil doctrine for to worship a God who does what cannot be done is dangerous and deranged. He would not be intrinsically good for he can do any evil and still be good though it is impossible.
Catholicism teaches that the Church represents God on earth and has his authority to condemn sin and discipline sinners. In fact it is none of God's business (and therefore not the Church's either) what we do. Rights are based on need. Sin cannot harm an almighty and all-good God who is perfectly happy. He does not need to hate sin or oppose it - he has no need for our obedience. Our disobedience does him no harm. Therefore he has no right to command us. And it is evil then to say that he commands and that we should obey.
Is good good whether God commands it or not? If it is good merely because he says so then clearly the believer is admitting that he will regard murdering prostitutes as holy and good if God says so. If God has to consult a standard of right and wrong that is independent of him and autonomous then we have the right to disagree with his interpretation and doing good would matter not God or religion. The standard matters above all things not him and he is not really the only thing that matters though he says he is. God either makes good good or he doesn't. Those who say there is a third option are clearly lying. They say that God's goodness is his nature and that is the solution. So God did not cause himself to be good but he just is good which is why it really is wrong not to be good like him. But a God who is good without being responsible for it is even worse than one that makes good up out of thin air. And what standard says that God's goodness is really good though he had nothing to do with being naturally good?
They simply rephrase the notion that good is only what God wants it to be and is not really good. They rephrase it thus as, something is good only when God's character wants it to be. And God does not make his own goodness so how do we know by what standard it really is goodness. That is really rewording the two problems and pretending that a solution has been found. This deception is what they offer you as the third option. There is no third option.
Imagine you are forced to make a choice between doing good for person because it makes God happy and doing it only for the person. It has to be one or the other. A baby is sick and needs help. Do you give it the medicine because it will help? Or because God wants you to? Choose the first. Thus you see what matters. God is not God for God cannot matter. Christianity commits an extreme evil as regards principle in standing by Jesus' teaching that we must give all to God 100%.
We do not need God's forgiveness for our sins are none of his business. We just need to forgive ourselves and to ask forgiveness of others. Going to God for forgiveness in the Catholic confessional where sins are whispered to the priest is considered more important than going to those who you hurt. A horrible teaching like that is only appealing to people who need it to feel good about themselves. That can only happen if they have less sorrow for hurting people than displeasing God! The confessional is a violation of the privacy of the conscience. And even more so when the Church warns that telling lies to the priest in confession is a very serious sin and needs to be repented before death or the person will rot in Hell forever.
It urges people to imagine that their power to believe all the Church teaches is unnatural and is actually miraculous - that is God gives you light to show you that his gospel is true. This leads to a disturbing arrogance - often dressed in the robes of humility - and a detestation of anybody who says there are errors in the faith. It is a delusion and an illness to convince yourself that the faith you build yourself is not your work but merely looks as if it is.
It is more concerned about its religious teachings such as the sinless life of Jesus' mother being believed than in people doing good. Canon Law says you leave the Church if you contradict its clear teaching on religion but those who break or disbelieve most ethical precepts of the Church are still considered members.
It claims to be infallible. That is a dangerous example for other religions many of which are openly vicious.
It keeps many worrying doctrines away from the people.
It has one doctrine contradicting the other.
It pretends that absurd doctrines are true and without error!
It condemns its critics and the faith it seeks to put in us is intrinsically bigoted. Supernatural claims naturally require exceptionally good evidence and the Church urges people to obey its will without providing this evidence. It is cheating the people. If we start making very serious religious claims on flimsy evidence then why should we restrict ourselves to religious claims?
It claims to know what is best for people.
The religion says that some actions are objectively wrong. That means that even if you mean well by them they are still bad - you are still doing bad. The loving gay couple next door are still doing bad and are possibly worse than people who deliberately do bad.
Sin by definition is doing an act against God's will that should be punished and which deserves ill-feeling and condemnation. The Church says we must hate and detest sins but love the doer of the sins. This is a thinly disguised cover for hating the guts of those who disobey the Church or who stay in other religions instead of abjuring them and joining the Church. To hate sin is to have a personal ill-feeling for the sinner. You can't really hate sin if you see it as a thing. Hating it would be as much a sign of mental illness was would wanting to murder a chandelier that fell on top of you. It feels personal and no amount of self-deception will hide that from you. You can only camouflage it with hypocrisy. The teaching of the Church implies that we can be ungrateful to our benefactor but grateful to their good deeds. It is self-deception, delusion and hypocrisy. Believers pretend that God loves them and hates their sins - this is impossible so it follows their whole religion is a trick.
The Church gets away with its lie for a lot of people confuse wanting a person to stop doing things that harm them with hating sin. Sin means a crime against God and the Church accuses you of sin when it is enough to accuse you of wrongdoing and when in fact nobody has the right to be accused of sin when there is a chance that there is no God to sin against. You have to assume a person is innocent of a crime until proven guilty. And religion says that sin is a grave insult to the perfect love of God. That doctrine adds insult to injury.
It claims that its faith is not a form of belief but a form of knowledge. It is a way of knowing. Thus they end up saying they know Jesus was God himself and that priests turn bread into Jesus on the altar. Again, this is fundamentalism and the arrogance is a lethal example for other religions.
It accuses people of having the potential to be evil enough to choose to spend all eternity cursing God and love and everybody else there is in Hell. That is a very serious allegation and where is the proof? Without proof their assertion that people have gone to Hell and can go and that we need the Church and God to keep us out of this danger is mere slander.
A miracle is a supernatural event and distinguished from a paranormal one. Only a power outside nature can do the supernatural. A power within nature can do the paranormal. The Church says only God is truly outside nature. Satan may be able to do paranormal things but he will be within nature in the sense that God made him. The Church's miracles are hostile to science. Only God can create (assuming creation is possible which it is not) thus you cannot be sure a miracle is from God unless it involves creation. A miracle such as a communion wafer bleeding cannot be verified because you cannot show that the blood was created from nothing there and then. What if some paranormal force did some trick and the blood was not miraculously created? If you have to assume the blood was created then the miracle is is not about giving evidence for God. It is no good and it is insulting to God to say he does miracles to show off. The advantage of limiting miracles to acts of creation is that it weeds out a lot of fraudulent and ignorant claims. However, only God can know if an example of a creation miracle really happened. It is no good to us.
It is no trouble to the Church to approve of different apparitions of Jesus and Mary though they are clearly dubious. For example, they don't have tests done on the messages to show that it must have been the same entity giving the messages. It doesn't bother them that Jesus and Mary never look the same when they appear to someone new. Every vision of Mary seems to have its own personality and habits. Every apparition report is accompanied by a different description. The Church may use science to show that the visionaries are not mad but that is only a cover to make the Church look professional. The most important science - checking that it is really the same Jesus for example who has appeared to different people in different places - is left out. Plus the apostles made no effort to be verified sane or truthful after they reported the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They all expected people just to take their word for it. What if a visionary says Jesus told him the resurrection was a mistake or hoax? Why not just take his word for it?
It claims that babies are not the children of God but need to be turned into the children of God by baptism which takes away original sin, reduces their desire to sin when they get bigger and makes them members of the Church and obligated to obey the Church and believe what it believes. To say that one baby is better or even potentially better than another just because of a splash of water is to imply that racism isn't wrong. What's the difference? Racists could take encouragement and consolation from the Church. Society needs to react with revulsion towards infant baptism. And the Church needs to be forced to change its racist teaching. And it is racism. The whites were usually Christians and in the past treated blacks like rubbish because the blacks usually were not baptised.
Catholicism takes unfair advantage of children to indoctrinate them to program them to believe in Roman Catholicism and need it. Education should be about teaching a child verified material not religious fantasy. Children should be informed about religion in a neutral way and be left free to decide and to choose only what is relevant to them forming healthy relationships with others. If they want to choose any religious teachings they like let them but don't try to make sure it is just Catholic teachings they have. No belief or religion can be right for everybody. Schooling has to be about the child and her friends not God. A child needs to be motivated to be kind to other children. Stuff like prayers to Mary and Holy Communion only waste time that should be spent on helping a child to use psychological techniques to become a happy child who benefits all who he or she meets. 
If people raised in religion were really free, conversions from one religion to another would be a lot more common.  That they are not is a warning to you.