Are cafeteria Catholics a different religion since they hold to a different definition of what it means to be Catholic?

[Linux]

In another thread a poster criticized this administration for number of goals not being accomplished, because it had a ‘super’ majority in the house and senate for 2 years. I saw hypocrisy in that criticism because the previous administration enjoyed at least 2 years of the same ‘super’ majority, yet no reversals were made in the issues some place above all other issues. Not only does it draw suspicion to the politicians inaction, it places suspicion to partisans who use the important issues in the interest of advancing other issues. It demeans an issue’s importance, if it is truly misused for political interests.

In addition to seeking acceptable legislation, we have to work on changing hearts and minds, as Christ commissioned His Apostles to do. He gave no instructions to seek political advantages, or take over governments of this world. Changing hearts and minds requires respect, and compassion towards one another.

We cannot change hearts and minds if we put up walls, such as condemnations, or questioning another person’s faith. According to Pope Francis, we can get closer to truth, through dialogue. That’s why he calls us to build bridges to establish dialogue, even with those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways. There is no condoning of any wrongs in his instructions, but there a call to enrich one another with truth derived from dialogue. There is a point that some communication is no longer dialogue, and is the same as building walls. Public condemnations, and generalizations, with a tone of separation, are that way, in my opinion.

-Pope Francis: Lower defences and open doors

I can’t reconcile the tone of this thread with the Pope’s message. If we are to build bridges with even those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways, we certainly should maintain, and build, bridges with those in the Church whose actions we might question. With that said, we cannot assume to know the intents of another person’s heart, and shouldn’t make rash judgments against what we perceive to be obvious sins. Our sins may not be as obvious, but they are sins none the less, and we don’t know the limitations of another person’s faith. If we are right, we are blessed, and cannot hold another equal to our own understandings against theirs.

Just remember, was it not the same desire to enforce religion through the courts that led to the crucifixion of Christ?

The Roman Governor of the time Pontius Pilate agreed to the demands of the Jewish religious leaders to have Jesus crucified.

I don’t trust the Pro-life movement. I’m sure that most of them have good intentions, but ultimately I see it doing more harm to the Catholic faith than good. All I see is Blind anger and not enough wisdom.

I know how the devil works. He comes as an angel of light. A wolf in sheep’s clothing; that’s how I see the pro-life movement.

 

[livingwordunity]

Catholics should spend more time trying to change the hearts and minds of people through expressing the faith instead of trying to impose their beliefs on people through legalism. Anybody who thinks that by voting for somebody who holds the personal belief of pro-life will change pro-choice laws is fooling themselves and really doesn’t understand politics. You are being hoodwinked by a party that is using your Catholic guilt to further their own corrupt agenda under the false promise of change.

Voting for somebody merely because they’re are personally pro-life is ridiculous since it has no relevance in terms of whether or not pro-life can be legally applied.

Insofar as that is true, it is not a sin for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Your opinion is foreign to the teachings of the Catholic Church which teaches that abortion is murder.

Since, as Catholics, we should know that abortion is murder it’s ridiculous for any Catholic to say that they support a politician who supports murder because of something else they think can make up for it. Abortion is a sin which cries to God, the source and defender of life.

We are supposed to do all that we can to end abortion. And if we can’t end it right away, we can at least support politicians or policies that promise to limit it as opposed to supporting a party that consistently calls for absolutely no limits on abortion. Here’s what Pope John Paul II says about the matter:

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder…A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. **In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. **

John Paul II, Encycl. Evangelium Vitae
​

 

[polytropos]

In that case don’t you see how it nevertheless appears and causes confusion when you and Fr Serpa and others therefore say, No. Someone can not be pro choice and Catholic. But at the same time then say they do not cease to be Catholic. It can’t be both ways.

I might tend to agree with you and Fr Serpa and others if the question had been, Can someone be pro choice and a fully faithful Catholic?". But that was not the question.

This is an issue of semantics. Once baptized, always baptized. In that sense, one does not cease to be a Catholic if one’s opinions are not formed to those of the Catholic Church. But in another sense, my older brother, who is baptized and confirmed but does not go to Church or believe in God, is practically speaking “not a Catholic.”

So whatever terminology you want to use is up to you. The distinction exists on a continuum. A pro-choice Catholic has been baptized. They might go to mass regularly and hold many Catholic beliefs. But they are holding other beliefs that are antithetical to Catholicism.

So can someone be pro choice and Catholic? Yes. Can someone be pro choice and faithfully Catholic? No.

I am and I have to presume there are others like me, who are informed of what the Catholic Church teaches. But as hard as we have struggled and struggled and struggled to try forcing our consciences to conform, say on choice or SS union rights, we simply can not.

The Church provides reasons for its positions. Those who cannot internalize those reasons are called to submit to the magisterium of the Church. As GK Chesterton said, “I don’t need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I already know I’m wrong; I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right.”

In any case whether someone is Catholic by virtue of the Sacraments they have received as apparently the Catholic Church teaches they are, or not Catholic by virtue of an internet forum, I really think Linux and Portofino have made some good observations in their posts. And perhaps since Christ said wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, there He is and He would turn no one away, I shall just leave it at that and move on to an ecclesial community where all are welcomed. In the end one thing I do believe is He knows my heart.

It’s not about being “Catholic by virtue of an internet forum.” No one is excluding anyone based on an arbitrary standard. It’s just necessary to be clear about what we mean by “not a Catholic.” The sacraments are central to Catholic practice, and those who receive them are Catholic. Those who disagree with the Church on certain points are welcome to be Catholic but will have to reform their conscience where it is in error. This may be a difficult process. If one cannot apprehend the basis for a belief, then one might have to trust the Church’s judgment.

Christ turns no one away. The Catholic Church turns no one away. All are welcomed, although not all opinions are welcomed, particularly not those that are in opposition to Church teaching.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is an issue of semantics. Once baptized, always baptized. In that sense, one does not cease to be a Catholic if one’s opinions are not formed to those of the Catholic Church. But in another sense, my older brother, who is baptized and confirmed but does not go to Church or believe in God, is practically speaking “not a Catholic.”

So whatever terminology you want to use is up to you. The distinction exists on a continuum. A pro-choice Catholic has been baptized. They might go to mass regularly and hold many Catholic beliefs. But they are holding other beliefs that are antithetical to Catholicism.

So can someone be pro choice and Catholic? Yes. Can someone be pro choice and faithfully Catholic? No.

The Church provides reasons for its positions. Those who cannot internalize those reasons are called to submit to the magisterium of the Church. As GK Chesterton said, “I don’t need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I already know I’m wrong; I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right.”

It’s not about being “Catholic by virtue of an internet forum.” No one is excluding anyone based on an arbitrary standard. It’s just necessary to be clear about what we mean by “not a Catholic.” The sacraments are central to Catholic practice, and those who receive them are Catholic. Those who disagree with the Church on certain points are welcome to be Catholic but will have to reform their conscience where it is in error. This may be a difficult process. If one cannot apprehend the basis for a belief, then one might have to trust the Church’s judgment.

Christ turns no one away. The Catholic Church turns no one away. All are welcomed, although not all opinions are welcomed, particularly not those that are in opposition to Church teaching.

 

[marimagi]

I’ve seen a ‘few’ of these type threads, that seems to have tones of division. Now, it’s been asked what about the creeds? The creeds are the basic tenants of belief, in the Christian faith. It’s not a statement of promising never to sin, which all of us fail in if it were. The Church is the place of correction, and there are authoritative men over it. All of us, who are in the SAME religion, go there for correction for our sins, that we understand, and don’t always recognize; hence the teaching of invincible ignorance. It is only through our growth in faith that we have possibility to understand the need of correction in our own lives. NONE of us are perfect, and able to start judging other people’s imperfections. Even with our imperfections, it’s possible to recite, and believe, fully in the creeds. Those creeds state, " For us men and for our salvation…," and “For our sake…” That’s everyone one of us, in our state of sinfulness. In our belief, if He but say the word, we shall be healed…of all iniquities, even those others think are sins greater than their own.

We are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Pushing people away with tones of self righteous with condemnations runs a risk of pushing people away. It is not displaying love, in my honest opinion.

In the Gospels we find a formula for fraternal correction. First it requires a one on one, and certainly with love towards your fellow man. No where is it taught, to anonymously post divisive language to estrange others in their sins. That is against ‘taking them to the Church’ as the Gospels actually teach.

Christ admonished those who thought themselves righteous, along with those who lived in sin. Yet the admonishments seemed to be stronger, for those who saw themselves as righteous, than the correction of those who were in sin. There’s a difference in being called ‘hypocrites’ and told to ‘sin no more.’

Love in all things, even corrections. Without it, we run the risk of culpability if we push someone into obstinately into remaining in a sinful condition.

Bravo! Bravo!

 

[livingwordunity]

In another thread a poster criticized this administration for number of goals not being accomplished, because it had a ‘super’ majority in the house and senate for 2 years. I saw hypocrisy in that criticism because the previous administration enjoyed at least 2 years of the same ‘super’ majority, yet no reversals were made in the issues some place above all other issues.

Strange how you give a vague criticism with no specifics.

 

[Portofino]

“I don’t need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I already know I’m wrong; I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right.”

This is precisely what the church cannot promise to do in all instances, though I understand what Chesterton was saying. What I mean is that if the church is telling you, pointedly, that something is wrong, you are to take it as wrong. However, just because the church doesn’t tell you something is wrong, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong.

Two cases in point are capital punishment and a nation’s involvement in a war. I believe Pope Benedict, a few years ago, had said that there can be legitimate differences of conscience on these questions. Thus, one can have two Catholics – one who supports the execution of a particular criminal, due to the heinousness of the crime; the other who does not, either because he believes the criminal is clinically insane, or mentally handicapped, or because he is against the death penalty in all cases. The church will not simply state which of the two is morally right in his stance, which morally blameworthy; that is between their conscience and God.

Or there is the case of the Iraq war, during the Bush years. The church appeared to believe that a diplomatic solution was still possible, and that the administration had not exhausted its diplomatic options. However, they did not come out and say, “no American Catholic can support this war, or – in good conscience – serve in this war.” This doesn’t mean that Catholics didn’t believe this war was morally wrong, and didn’t act on that conviction. A Catholic would have been betraying his own conscience, if he said, “well, the church didn’t tell me that it was wrong, so I just didn’t think it was a moral issue at all. It it was morally wrong, they would have told me! So I guess I’m safe in assuming that it’s not morally wrong to support this war.”

The condemnation of homosexual behavior is unequivocal in Catholic teaching; however, when it comes to politics and legislation, there is more ambiguity. To say that one agrees with the church’s teaching on homosexuality, but that it is not the place of Christians to legislate civil marriage, is not the same as saying that one disagrees with the church’s teaching on homosexuality.

With abortion, the condemnation is stronger – unlike with capital punishment and war (even though a war could be grossly unjust), it is not up to an individual Catholic’s conscience to decide whether an abortion is morally wrong or not. Nonetheless, once again, there is ambiguity in whether it is a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate, in a society where abortion is legal and will not be made illegal anytime soon. There is also debate as to whether a Catholic is permitted to vote for neither a pro-choice *nor *a pro-life candidate, having moral reservations about both (for example, the Democrat may be pro-choice and the Republican pro-death penalty, both of which go against that particular Catholic’s conscience). I could see Catholics disagreeing with each other, as to whether one has the moral prerogative to abstain from voting altogether, or whether one has the moral duty to vote for a pro-life candidate, as opposed to refraining from lending him one’s support and thus “hurting” his chances, indirectly (even though one may be appalled by his stance on immigration, or health care reform). The Church cannot remove moral dilemmas from an individual Catholic’s life entirely, nor can it always act as a surrogate for an individual Catholic’s conscience.

So much of this has to do with the intersection of politics and religions, politics and morality. The church generally does not tell people who to vote for; those few bishops who said, “it would be a mortal sin to vote for Obama” were not backed by the Vatican, in that statement, because the Vatican does not officially endorse a political candidate from another nation. They retain a certain neutrality. There are Catholics who are vehemently convinced that the moral implications are clear, yet there is inevitably going to be dialogue and debate; but when there is, an honest distinction needs to be made from Catholic teaching itself, and what one believes to be the political implications of that teaching, in a given context.

postscript: I did find this article, but I don’t believe it qualifies as being part of the “Magisterium.” In any case, the author does not cite any ecclesiastical documents in support of his position.

ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

 

[polytropos]

There are Catholics who are vehemently convinced that the moral implications are clear, yet there is inevitably going to be dialogue and debate; but when there is, an honest distinction needs to be made from Catholic teaching itself, and what one believes to be the political implications of that teaching, in a given context.

I agree, but the following clarification has to be made: one can be concerned with the political implications, but a Catholic cannot identify as pro choice. One can vote pro choice, I think, because American elections are not single-issue, and I would expect most Catholics to face a moral dilemma in that no candidate upholds fully Catholic values (and there might come a time when, for instance, both major parties support abortion - who knows?). What one should not state is that abortion is morally wrong but ought to be legally permissible. One can acknowledge that it is currently permitted and would be difficult to phase out, but adhering to a pro choice position is not acceptable.