I asked this in another thread yesterday, but it seems it got lost in the shuffle:
Am I a cafeteria Catholic if I have doubts about certain teachings, but keep my mouth shut about them, don’t do anything contrary to them myself, and keep my mind open to being brought around to full acceptance?
TIA.
In my opinion, you have not described yourself as a “Cafeteria Catholic”. Was the apostle Thomas a “Cafeteria Catholic” because he had doubts? It would be nice if we never had any doubts; if our faith was unassailable, like a fortress. But we’re human beings, and it’s something to which we are subject.
One of my favorite metaphors for life is this. We all expect somehow to be secure in “castles”. That’s true of health, of finances, of social standing, of everything. Even of faith. But it’s a false expectation because there are no secure “castles” in this life. All there really is, is a swirling, cavalry battle out on an endless steppe. We are sometimes heroes and sometimes we’re cowards. We run here and there and we win some conflcts (with others, situations or ourselves) and we lose some of them. Our heroism, if any there is, is in staying in the battle and doing our best.
I have always liked St. Paul’s statement about his life. Paraphrasing it, it’s “I have fought the fight, I have run the race, I have kept the faith.” Do you not see how his emphasis is actually on trying, not on achieving?
What is faith, after all? It isn’t knowing. It’s trusting. I have “faith” that my wife does not betray me. I have “faith” that if I get sick my NP daughter will come up with something that may help. I have “faith” that God is as we believe He is and that, in the end, He will forgive my numerous sins and allow me into His life.
Sounds to me like you are living a life of faith, not of Cafeteria-ism. The latter is building a false castle for oneself. “Here I stand…against the Church. I’m right and it’s wrong.” That’s Cafeteria-ism. What you are describing is nothing but the doubts and questions nearly all humans have, combined with faith.
Be of good cheer. 
Thank you, Ridgerunner. That’s beautiful.
It’s one thing to have questions about the content of the Faith that the Church teaches with Christ’s authority, but it is against Catholic Faith to doubt a part of that content.
It is good that you are silent about your doubts and try to be faithful to the Church’s teachings, but if a Catholic has doubts such doubts are cause for confession since they are temptations against the Faith.
This was posted some time ago in another thread regarding doubt:
Questioning is grand but it shouldn’t become a lifestyle or thought habit. Doubt is a black hole that should be given a wide berth. Faith, hope and charity are the givens of proper relations with God. Doubt, fear and anger are the antithesis of faith, hope and charity. Doubt, fear and anger constitute diabolical misdirection. There’s a fine line between questioning and doubt. St. Augustine was a fine and discerning scholar, and had some questions about a perceived irregularity with Daniel’s time line foretelling the coming of the Messiah. The years given didn’t add up to Christ’s coming. But St. Augustine didn’t indulge in doubt! That’s the difference. Having known the counterfeit as part of a gnostic cult, St. Augustine was enough of a scholar to know the Bible was otherwise rock-solid; and knowing the Lord in both a mystical and rational way, knew he could trust in God.
Delightfully, the time line was rectified in our era when a retired Scotland Yard detective had the Greenwich Observatory crunch the calendrical numbers using the canonical Jewish year of 360 days, not the 365 day year. Voila! St. Augustine’s question answered. Satan’s first act in approaching the Woman was to instill doubt. “Why did the Creator say you couldn’t eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…” Doubt is satanic.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7261762&postcount=10
Cafeteria Catholic. I am not sure of the definition you apply to here.
But I tend to feel from what you have written that you are in fact a very human Catholic. I am not Roman Catholic myself. Church of England-Anglican.
But I know enough to know that we only get to really question the teachings of the church if we are comfortable enough with the priests who lead us.
Some of our questionings may lead us to uncomfortable answers. Of which if we are not happy about the answers then that is a time to talk and share them with priest and people in order to broaden our understanding. If we are still not happy then we have a few choices to make. We keep quiet. We share appropriately. We move.
For me, I would choose the middle option because its practically impossible to keep that quiet about what we think. We cannot really move because where ever we go which ever denomination or other religion, there isn’t one what we are going to be entirely happy with. So the middle option is the best. We share appropriately so it don’t eat away at us and turn into sin and leave us too confused.
Am most certain you not a cafeteria Catholic, to me that would be the one who calls in (for a coffee/tea etc) chat and leaves. By asking whether you are also suggests to me tht you are not.
As an atheist in RCIA, I’m glad to see this question asked. It’s a tough one to get an answer to, as it’s so much more nuanced than a distinction between “questioning” and “doubting.” We’re dealing with pretty complex material, here, after all, and a God who, according to the Catechism, is quite mysterious.
If you have phrased that as “I have questions about , or I’m still learning about…” would you feel you were a cafeteria Catholic? The faith is a vast, deep ocean and as ordinary laity with families and day jobs, we may not immediately understand and assent to everything the church teaches.
St Bernadette know nothing about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception when she had her visitations from Our Lady, theologians had just recently understood it all themselves, we would not describe her or the theologians of the time as cafeteria Catholics!
If you are open to learning and understanding Church teachings better, if you ask questions to help you learn and not to dissaude others, you are not choosing to leave some teachings behind (cafeteria Catholics), you may simply just have not yet gotten to that part of the line yet! 
I think whether you are “cafeteria Catholic” is entirely subjective.
I like to go beyond the labels and get into specifics. I’m not impressed with labels.
By what I’ve read in this thread, I would probably qualify as “cafeteria Catholic.”
I think CC should mean, “there is a veritable cafeteria of devotions to be chosen from – just use the ones you like.”
I doubt things, and don’t feel ashamed or afraid for doing so. I’m not afraid to investigate other points of view than even the ones I hold most dearly – whether they be with church, science, whatever. I’ve been in enough different states of awareness in the past 10 years that I know that my very existence is subject to interpretation by me, based on what I absolutely know and don’t know.
The thing that astounds me is that in almost every example I see that gets into calling another person cafeteria Catholic, the one doing the labeling is living in a glass house. It isn’t whether we pick and choose, it’s more that we don’t pick and choose the same teachings to ignore. That is to say, “the subset of Church teachings you go along with don’t include all of the ones in my own subset; you are thereby a cafeteria Catholic.”
Alan
Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful responses, everyone.
You bring up a good point and one that deserves attention.
Too often I’m afraid that, in matters of this kind, the options are presented as two…Accept or Reject. Yet we all know that within and between these two pole positions are many other words, positions and ideas etc that are neither full acceptance or full rejection.
This fundamental idea can be expressed like this.
A person might say, “I don’t believe (this or that) teaching”. They might even say, “On (this or that) I believe the Church is wrong”.
Another person might say, “I don’t understand (this or that) teaching.” They might even say that, “I just don’t see how this can be right”.
In the first case the person is rejecting and defying the Spirit Led Church. In the second case the person is expressing their own limitations and their efforts and desires to understand further.
Each of these come from something more fundamental than simply looking at various teachings. It comes from the basic acceptance or rejection of the Church as Authority and in this there can be no middle ground. You either accept the Church as authoritative or you do not.
If you accept Church authority then then any variation begins from a position of acceptance of what Christ, through the Church, teaches.
If you reject Church authority, even by simply rejecting one teaching that you are required to accept, then you become a church unto yourself…in effect, a protestant…
So - to the OP, having doubts, concerns etc do not make you a “Cafeteria Catholic” so long as you start from the position of accepting because you Trust the Church. From that trust you can then delve deeper into the troublesome teachings and learn the whys and wherefores of why the Church teaches as she does.
Peace
James
I think this is typical of the ubiquitous dualistic thinking that causes so many divisions.
It comes from the basic acceptance or rejection of the Church as Authority and in this there can be no middle ground. You either accept the Church as authoritative or you do not.
I guess I have a problem here. I don’t know if it’s a middle ground issue, or a point of interpretation issue, but I don’t see the Church as being perfect, and I don’t see that the statement “the gates of hell will never prevail against it,” contradicts it. It doesn’t make sense to me to say the Church is perfect but is run by imperfect humans. The Church is designed and operated by humans. Inspired is one thing; detailed design is another.
If you accept Church authority then then any variation begins from a position of acceptance of what Christ, through the Church, teaches.
If you reject Church authority, even by simply rejecting one teaching that you are required to accept, then you become a church unto yourself…in effect, a protestant…
This is not sounding good for me in this terminology discussion…
Alan
Alan
Agreed. It is interesting that in the Gospels Jesus says two - somewhat - opposite things. On the one hand we have the very dualistic:
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Mt 12:30)
and on the other hand we have:
For he that is not against us is for us.(Mk 9:40)
Of course these are not really opposites so it is important to understand the differences - but certainly it speaks less to a strict dualism than some might wish to impose.
I guess I have a problem here. I don’t know if it’s a middle ground issue, or a point of interpretation issue, but I don’t see the Church as being perfect, and I don’t see that the statement “the gates of hell will never prevail against it,” contradicts it. It doesn’t make sense to me to say the Church is perfect but is run by imperfect humans. The Church is designed and operated by humans. Inspired is one thing; detailed design is another.
There are levels of teaching and practice that cover a pretty large range. So there can be room for both “perfection” in teaching and imperfection in application (the human element). Consider:
The Church is set-up, designed, and operated by humans under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This must be accepted first of all or we can put no trust in the Church at all.
The Church (Ekklesia) is a group - not a ruling individual or even small group of ruling individuals. As such it is not (in teaching) susceptible to the errors of the human elements. Especially so long as those humans remain humble and prayerfully seek God’s Will in teaching and understanding.
Now - Since we accept and believe Christ, and because of that we accept the Church as founded and guided by Christ (through the Holy Spirit), it follows that we need to accept the teachings of the Church as we would the teachings of Christ…I don’t see really any wiggle room here…
This is not sounding good for me in this terminology discussion…
I am open to changes in terminology…It’s more about a proper understanding than a specific terminology.
Peace
James
Alan
no u are not a cafeteria catholic. But i have a problem with the word ‘doubt’. I have questions about some church teachings (maybe u can help me, i have fogotten how to start a thread) but not doubt 'cos i trust the church teaching authority. It is said ‘a thousand difficulty does not make a doubt’ the fact that these are difficulties make me look beyond the surface, besides God is a mystery i dont think it wil be easy to understamd all that he has revealed but the fact that u donot disobey, sit on your hand, spread your own version of God or close your heart, that makes all d difference. I’ll advise u to share your ‘doubts’ with informed catholics, like on CAF instead of just ‘keeping your minds open’
ubenedictus
The term cafeteria Catholic is banned from these forums, but I would say yes to your questions.
i like the terminology if u have a problem with the church been ‘holy’ despite the presence of sinners then look it up in the CCC but if u have a problem with the perfection of church teaching despite the imperfection of her member check infalliability and indefectibility.
Ubenedictus.
The Code of Canon Law:
Can. 750 A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Ha. I guess it sounded like that. I’m a legitimate inquirer, though–the intention is to be baptised, if that’s where I feel led. Everyone’s welcome in RCIA, I believe–no intent to convert necessary.
I do have trouble giving up the “atheist” moniker, though. It’s not that I’m less an atheist than I’ve been for the last 25 years, but that I’ve stumbled upon a God who–it seems so far–exists outside my atheism. I still don’t believe in the god Jerry Falwell or the Westboro Baptists talk about. But, despite having known lots of Catholics, I’d never heard of the God I read about in the Catechism.
I would like to understand the practical import of these provisions. Are there any sources offering that?
OK. I guess this clinches it. The problem might be beyond what I believe. I can’t get past the first four words, "a person must believe … " I sincerely do not believe that my beliefs are an act of will, so based on definitions alone I cannot promise in advance that I will believe in something just because the Church says so. I can promise not to cause scandal, or even never to speak of a particular issue (which I’m not promising now btw) but I can’t promise to believe something I haven’t even heard yet. If that’s a sign of clinging to worldly ego, then that shows where I am.
Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Embraced, retained, and rejects. These are externals, so I could potentially agree to this. As a leader or practitioner in an organization I understand that means I will embrace, retain, and fail to reject in a way that anybody finds out about, whether I agree with them or not. That’s part of the job.
But when it comes to somebody saying, "you MUST believe this … or else … " then I take three giant steps back.
Alan
Well Alan - I can understand this to a point, but I suggest that you have a look at Matthew 18:15-18 and see who we are to listen to and what sort of penalty might be expected for not listening…And this from Jesus own lips.
Just food for thought.
Peace
James