Justifying Cafeteria Catholics

[cmotherofpirl]

"Or are we more concerned about making sure those unworthy Catholics aren't receiving Communion than with bringing them back into the fullness of the Faith? "


We need to do BOTH!

[CatherineM]

The problem with them is that they tend to be really set in their beliefs that picking and choosing is okay. It will take something dramatic to change that. We want them back in the full faith, and denying them communion may be what it takes.

[mcts]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1791873' date='Feb 26 2009, 12:07 PM']I initially popped "Cafeteria Catholics" into Google because I was trying to remember an acronym that describes Catholics who only go to Mass on Ash Wednesday, Christmas, and Easter...and there was another Holy Day I just cannot recall. The letters I have so far are A, C, E. "___ Catholics."[/quote]

we call them Chreasters.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1791928' date='Feb 26 2009, 12:41 PM']And as a former Protestant who used to proudly receive the Eucharist at Mass every chance he got,[/quote]

I am a little confused by this statement. It sounds like you are saying you received the Eucharist when you were a Protestant.

[quote]I believe love, grace, and redemption are more powerful than our many sins and points of pride. If you want to open another person to the joy of redemption, seek that same joy yourself. Or are we more concerned about making sure those unworthy Catholics aren't receiving Communion than with bringing them back into the fullness of the Faith?[/quote]

It is about properly catechizing them. A cafeteria Catholic is not someone who is confused and struggling with the faith, a cafeteria Catholics is an individual who knows that the Church opposes X and Y but blatantly ignores the teaching, believing their personal opinion to be in some way above the Church.

[rkwright]

I just want to throw out some questions on topics I've seen around here...

CCC 2267 says the instances for capital punishment are very rare, if not non-existent. Yet I have seen many Catholics go back and forth on this one. Cafeteria Catholics?

There was a thread a while about Eastern Catholics recognizing papal infallibility. Our Eastern brothers were quiet convinced that those councils didn't apply to them. Cafeteria Catholics?

There was a big disagreement over whether the Divine energies were created or uncreated - or the one over the filioque. Cafeteria Catholics?

I hate to keep picking on Eastern Catholics.... but I'm almost positive that at least the Eastern Orthodox don't agree with the philosophy behind transubstantiation. While they would agree that the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, and may even use the term transubstantiation, I don't think they believe in the manner of transubstantiation. Cafeteria Catholics? Or what if one believes more in the Adduction theory rather than Aquinas's Reproduction theory?

What of Augustine's formulation of Original Sin (again rejected by the Eastern Catholics). Cafeteria Catholics?

Edit: I agree that one cannot pick and choose De Fide doctrine and continue to call themselves Catholic. What De Fide doctrine is this author rejecting that has led some to call what he has written heresy?

Edited February 26, 2009 by rkwright

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1792044' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:32 PM']I just want to throw out some questions on topics I've seen around here...

CCC 2267 says the instances for capital punishment are very rare, if not non-existent. Yet I have seen many Catholics go back and forth on this one. Cafeteria Catholics?

[color="#0000FF"]The Church has stated the catholics can disagree over application of the death penalty, so this is not cafeteria catholic.[/color]


There was a thread a while about Eastern Catholics recognizing papal infallibility. Our Eastern brothers were quiet convinced that those councils didn't apply to them. Cafeteria Catholics?
There was a big disagreement over whether the Divine energies were created or uncreated - or the one over the filioque. Cafeteria Catholics?
I hate to keep picking on Eastern Catholics.... but I'm almost positive that at least the Eastern Orthodox don't agree with the philosophy behind transubstantiation. While they would agree that the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, and may even use the term transubstantiation, I don't think they believe in the manner of transubstantiation. Cafeteria Catholics? Or what if one believes more in the Adduction theory rather than Aquinas's Reproduction theory? What of Augustine's formulation of Original Sin (again rejected by the Eastern Catholics). Cafeteria Catholics?

[color="#0000FF"]I am not playing attack a sister church routine, now or ever. Doctrinal differnces between CHURCHES is not the issue here. The Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic. The Eastern Catholic answer to the Holy Father. They also don't have clown masses.[/color]


Edit: I agree that one cannot pick and choose De Fide doctrine and continue to call themselves Catholic. What De Fide doctrine is this author rejecting that has led some to call what he has written heresy?[/quote]

[rkwright]

cmom... I really don't want to get into the details of those things, but my point was this...

The only thing I can find in that article where the author specifically questions a doctrine is the part about Transubstantiation. My question is this: Why can an Eastern Catholic adopt a different explanation towards transubstantiation, and still be considered Catholic - while this man seems to disagree with the explanation of transubstantiation and is considered a heretic?

The other point I was trying to make is that this author is trying to make the word cafeteria catholic something more positive. Take the death penalty example - the Church ha offered us different choices on the application of death penalty - both of which are acceptable. One could say this is 'cafeteria style'.

Though, just like I said in the feminism thread, the word 'Cafeteria Catholic' has a much different connotation than just picking from a range of acceptable positions. Today it means rejecting all together the acceptable positions.

But honestly I don't see anything in there as heretical? Or am I missing something...

[cmotherofpirl]

This is from the post of the OP: his lines are red, my response is blue.

But the priest wouldn't quit. I kept telling myself that he was having a bad day. All of us do. Smiling I began to think about the times I was preaching and simply couldn't find a way to end, even though I tried several times. Then, he said it again: "Cafeteria Catholics, unless they are willing to submit to church authority blindly, have no place in the church." Using my 12-step spirituality, I repeated a familiar axiom to myself:[color="#FF0000"] take what you like and leave the rest.[/color]

[color="#0000FF"]THis is cafeteria catholic[/color]
Oh my God, I thought, he's talking about me.Taking what I like and leaving the rest makes me a cafeteria Catholic. Unable to listen any longer, especially to what sounded like an angry and harsh tone, [color="#FF0000"]I was doing exactly what he was railing against: picking and choosing what I liked and shutting out the rest.[/color] [color="#0000FF"]THis is cafeteria catholic.[/color] But doesn't everyone do this, I asked myself? Don't Catholics everywhere have [color="#FF0000"]a right to resist abuse in all forms[/color], even when it comes from the pulpit? [color="#0000FF"]This is equating accepting catholic teaching with abusive coersion.[/color] Shouldn't people stop listening to me when I get pompous and judgmental as a presider or a preacher?
Perhaps even more important, it seems to me that the church has been like a cafeteria for 2,000 years. Haven't we always at our best, appreciated our differences without expecting everyone to be the same? We [color="#FF0000"]honor Eastern Rite Catholics, whose liturgy and language are so different from ours, and Japanese Catholics, who enter their churches shoeless.[/color] [color="#0000FF"]Eastern catholicism is a different branch of the church, not an abberation. Japanese Catholics have a different culture and church discipline, it doesn't have anything to do with whether they accept all the church teachings or not. strawman argument.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]We welcome peoples of every culture, race, and political affiliation, and we are even beginning to understand that the sacred stories of the poor are a privileged source of hope and help us understand the Christ who "had no place to lay his head."[/color] [color="#0000FF"]This has nothing to do with being faithful to all Church teaching - strawman again.[/color]
Many adult cafeteria Catholics not only [color="#FF0000"]tolerate diversity in the church, they celebrate it. They choose a variety of paths to personal holiness, are excited by the insights of other religious traditions; they not only appreciate the development of doctrine through the centuries, they expect it to continue.[/color] [color="#0000FF"]We have a diversity of cultures, because we are a universal Church but there is NOT a diversity of Truth.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]Grounded in compassion and never forgetting where they come from, cafeteria Catholics honor other Catholics who can't stand music at Mass, esteem their neighbors who serve on parish councils, and listen politely to poorly crafted homilies because they respect the office of their priests if not their speaking ability. [/color] [color="#0000FF"]This is called good manners and has nothing to do with Church teaching. Is he insinuating faithfulness is rude?[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]They try never to judge others who think differently from them and listen carefully to all with the expectation that there is much to learn about what it means to be Catholic now and in the future. [/color][color="#0000FF"] We are called to judge actions not hearts.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]And together with those with whom they often disagree, they volunteer in soup kitchens and homeless shelters week after week. [/color] [color="#0000FF"]Again this has nothing to do with faithfulness, he is setting up a false dictomy where none exists.[/color]

While cafeteria Catholics have received very bad press in recent years, often being condemned for actions they never even contemplated, they continue—[color="#FF0000"]struggling to understand and appreciate the most important and foundational teachings of the church.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]We all struggle to understand various aspects of the faith, it is STILL no excuse to pick a nd choose what we obey.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]My experience tells me they are a community of searchers who are proud to call themselves Catholic while freely admitting they are sifting through the vast array of church teaching, trying to discern what most helps them on their own faith journeys. Humbled by their honesty and empowered by their passion, I am proud to join them in the search.[/color]

[color="#0000FF"]So he is proud of his choice to sin and encourage people to sin and accept only the parts they like , why am I not surprised?[/color]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1792053' date='Feb 26 2009, 05:58 PM']The other point I was trying to make is that this author is trying to make the word cafeteria catholic something more positive. Take the death penalty example - the Church ha offered us different choices on the application of death penalty - both of which are acceptable. One could say this is 'cafeteria style'.[/quote]

The death penalty example does not apply because the Church approves of either (a) supporting the death penalty only when absolutely necessary (b) not supporting the death penalty at all because there cannot possibly be any time the end to a human life is "absolutely necessary." [b]Both[/b] are acceptable options. Just because there are two choices does not mean choice = "cafeteria style."

The way a cafeteria Catholic would respond to the death penalty is the following: Believing that the death penalty should be used more often for cases that do not fall under "absolutely necessary" and looking down upon the Church for taking an indifferent stance.

The whole point of calling it [b]cafeteria[/b] is that the individual picks what suits HIM or HER best, what he or she LIKES or PREFERS over other selections (in this instance, doctrines). The options the Church offers regarding the death penalty suit THE CHURCH, they both agree with the Church.

[rkwright]

cmom... your text is so pretty and colorful but its hard to reply to

I'll admit its hard to understand what the author means by cafeteria catholic. But the examples the author gives are all legitimate opinions within the Church. He mentions the death penalty, limbo, and transubstiation. Most of the things you wrote about are things we can have a difference of opinion in.

You don't call that cafeteria catholicism - the author does.

I think this is even more clear when you go to the actual website and theres a cartoon of a cafeteria line with a sign that says Kneeling or standing during mass...

I think the author is talking about Catholic forcing their opinions on other Catholics where the Church allows various opinions.

[rkwright]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1792057' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:14 PM']The death penalty example does not apply because the Church approves of either (a) supporting the death penalty only when absolutely necessary (b) not supporting the death penalty at all because there cannot possibly be any time the end to a human life is "absolutely necessary." [b]Both[/b] are acceptable options. [i][b]Just because there are two choices does not mean choice = "cafeteria style." [/b][/i][/quote]

I think thats the whole point of this article.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1792072' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:43 PM']I think the author is talking about Catholic forcing their opinions on other Catholics where the Church allows various opinions.[/quote]

Sorry, but what article were [i]you[/i] reading?

[rkwright]

Now just to be totally honest...

The website you got that article from has many other opinions which are not allowed under the Church. There was an article about gay priests and one about condoms in africa.

So maybe the author is saying we can have a diversity of opinion about women ordination or gay marriage. But thats not really evident from the article itself.

[rkwright]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1792075' date='Feb 26 2009, 06:53 PM']Sorry, but what article were [i]you[/i] reading? [/quote]

Seriously? Fine I'm done here

[HisChildForever]

[b] Then he began to preach about "cafeteria Catholics," people who pick and choose what and how they will believe—as they do in cafeteria lines. He suggested real Catholics take it all. They listen to the pope and bishops with the same reverence children offer their parents and accept Rome's authority as binding in matters great and small.[/b]

The author blatantly defined “cafeteria Catholic” as subjective Catholicism, so there is no reason to try and interpret this article as the author slapping the wrists of Catholics who “force opinions” on other Catholics. This is an author trying to justify the “pick and choose for yourself” ideology, which is heresy.

[b] we are grateful to share faith and worship with one another despite the realization that [u]we will have differences of opinions about many significant religious matters.[/u] More important, our collective humanity never tries to reduce the mystery of our shared faith to rigid formulas but celebrates the wonder of our unity in the midst of our differences.[/b]

Do you think the death penalty is a SIGNIFICANT religious matter? “Significant” here implies abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc. This is fluff talk for thinking such as “If you believe that abortion should be permitted in extreme cases, then good for you, we are united in our differences!”