"Cafeteria Catholic" need a definition as to what it means

[patg]

Ok So a Cafeteria Catholic is Catholic in name only. I.E. to pick and choose is to deny the Church is the authority. Therefore stop being Catholic in the visible Church sense. right? Can we all agree on this?

It’s not quite that black and white and it depends on who is doing the labeling. For example:

I believe that a lot of the bible is not a description of historical events (using the historical-critical method, for example) and that it is not inerrant in all things. Stories such as the infancy narratives are mostly fiction, etc. Now to some this is being a Cafeteria Catholic while to others it is the simple truth. And the church doesn’t even have an absolute stance.

I believe women should be priests. I don’t do anything about it, I don’t ordain women, and I don’t picket my bishop’s home (or anywhere else) demanding it. I just think the thought and pray that God will get tough with those preventing it. Some will say that even the thought that I have gets me a “cafeteria” rating but I say hogwash!

I’m not a real stickler for going to mass on Sunday - I go plenty of other times, probably more than most and I certainly worship on Sunday. Sure this is disobedient in the strict sense but I see it as a perfectly moral choice (though certainly “cafeteria” to some). I believe Jesus’ statement that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath is pretty clear.

The other problem I have with your definition is that the phrase “pick and choose” can imply a simple process of discarding or ignoring what I happen to find is not to my taste - like selecting dinner from a vast buffet. Most cafeteria types I know, including myself, work long and hard at studying and discussing the issues, attempting to see all sides. I’m not saying that “eat what you are served and you had better like it” catholics don’t do or haven’t done a similar thing but I will say that they are at a different place in their journey than I am.

 

[fix]

No. The term cafeteria catholic sets up some humans in judgement of other human’s spiritual worthiness. This is “not a good thing”.

We do not have the discernment, ability, or the right to decide who is "a real Catholic"tm

I do not think that is a fair reading of this topic. No one claims we can know how another’s soul appears before God. What we can discern is if one’s words contradict Church authority.

What do you say about this?:

To be a Catholic means to have access to the life of Christ, the grace of Christ, the truth of Christ. More precisely, to be a Catholic is to *participate in Christ’s life through communion in and with Christ’s Church. *It is to be a sharer in Christ’s life by sharing in the life of the Church in which Christ lives. It is to belong to a Body that lives with the life of Christ and communicates it to those who are its living members (cf. Eph 5:30).

In words taken directly from sections 14 and 31 of *Lumen gentium, *Book II of the Code of Canon Law begins by defining who are Christ’s Faithful: “those who, since they are incorporated into Christ through baptism, are constituted the people of God” (c. 204). This description applies to all Christians, Protestants and Orthodox as well as Catholics. The next canon defines who are Catholics: baptized persons who are “in full communion with the catholic Church here on earth (and) are joined with Christ in his visible body, through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance”.

Full communion with Christ, therefore, is effected in the Church through:

•        faith: *because in the Church's teaching we meet the TRUTH of Christ;

          the *sacraments: *because in the Church's sacraments we meet the GRACE of Christ;

•        discipline: *because in and behind the Church's laws we see and accept the AUTHORITY of Christ.

Authority and Freedom in the Church

Now, if someone claims that one is in full communion yet rejects the authority of the Church to bind in matters of faith and morals do we conclude that the person is mistaken or do we conclude that the Church is mistaken? Both cannot be correct.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Even if we can’t determine with certainty who is a Cafeteria Catholic, that doesn’t mean the term is useless. After all, we also have the useful term “Christian” even though we cannot with certainty discern whether a particular individual is or is not a Christian.

However, in my limited experience, the term “cafeteria catholic” is used in conjunction with a faint sneer and condescending attitude that individuals who have deeply studied some aspect of Church practice and find fault with it are somehow "less than a True Catholic"tm.

For example: the jubilant attitudes of many people when the latest pope was elected and the joyous cries of “The cafeteria is closed!” Some of these people gleefully anticipated a mass exodus of “cafeteria catholics” from the Church and that somehow the presence of such individuals pollutes the church.

I will always object to that.

I would like to point out that there have been people who kept the rules better than everbody else. A Certain Person called them “whitewashed tombs”.

 

[thistle]

See the link below for what John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger had to say:

concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

 

[Stephen_C]

See the link below for what John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger had to say:

concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

Good site! Thanks for sharing the link with us.

 

[YinYangMom]

However, in my limited experience, the term “cafeteria catholic” is used in conjunction with a faint sneer and condescending attitude that individuals who have deeply studied some aspect of Church practice and find fault with it are somehow "less than a True Catholic"tm.

For example: the jubilant attitudes of many people when the latest pope was elected and the joyous cries of “The cafeteria is closed!” Some of these people gleefully anticipated a mass exodus of “cafeteria catholics” from the Church and that somehow the presence of such individuals pollutes the church.

I will always object to that.

I would like to point out that there have been people who kept the rules better than everbody else. A Certain Person called them “whitewashed tombs”.

The term ‘cafeteria catholic’ is still useful.
Being used uncharitably is never wise.
Those who rejoiced suffered a lapse of charity and compassion, in my opinion, since certainly God never wants to shut His doors on any of His people, while some here can’t wait to boot them out.

As for the ‘whitewashed tombs’, that, too, is an appropriate term which should also be used charitably. It indicates a person who does everything to the letter but doesn’t have an open heart. Jesus spoke of the Pharisees in this manner, but not with that term.

A true Catholic respects the authority of the Church, lives the message of Christ with love and charity, and is quite humble about it all.

The moment you come across a Catholic who comes off stating others aren’t worthy pride enters the picture and the listener should take the rest of the comments with a grain of salt. Again, that’s my opinion.

As for Cafeteria Catholics…there are those who adamantly honestly believe the Church is here to guide but that the final determination of their salvation rests in their personal relationship with God…and that God alone knows their heart, their reasons, and their limitations, therefore, when they choose to disregard one teaching or another they are trusting that God will understand and accept their point of view. It’s a huge gamble, I think.

My standard approach with them is to remind them that, yes, the church is here to guide, however, how many church documents have they read on a particular topic before reaching their conclusion? And therein lies the problem…most of them admit they have not ready any, or they started to read some but didn’t like it so they put it down. Pride. Simple pride. I gently remind them that a properly formed conscience by which we are to be judeged is the key to their logic so they should be certain they’re putting into their minds the right material from which to draw a conclusion. They don’t like that much, but I pray it gnaws at them at the end of each day as they lay down to sleep…enough to move them to pick that material back up to take another look.

 

[fix]

I would like to point out that there have been people who kept the rules better than everbody else. A Certain Person called them “whitewashed tombs”.

He also said to do exactly as they tell you to do, but do not do as they do. They were hypocrites. They had the seat of authority, but did not hold themselves to the same standard.

The problem is not the “law”. The problem is we reject those who have authentic authority.

Did He not say he who hears you hears Me? If Christ is the authority behind the “laws” the Church gives us when we reject those laws who are we really rejecting?

 

[Penny_Plain]

As for Cafeteria Catholics…there are those who adamantly honestly believe the Church is here to guide but that the final determination of their salvation rests in their personal relationship with God…and that God alone knows their heart, their reasons, and their limitations, therefore, when they choose to disregard one teaching or another they are trusting that God will understand and accept their point of view. It’s a huge gamble, I think.

My standard approach with them is to remind them that, yes, the church is here to guide, however, how many church documents have they read on a particular topic before reaching their conclusion? And therein lies the problem…most of them admit they have not ready any, or they started to read some but didn’t like it so they put it down. Pride. Simple pride.

Do you know the comedians’ convention joke?

A reporter goes to a comedians’ convention. The speaker says, “1481.” The audience chuckles politely. “96.” Everyone laughs. “907.” Most of the audience chuckles, except for one man who laughs so hard he falls out of his chair.

The reporter doesn’t get it. He asks the person sitting next to him to explain. “Listen,” the man says. “We’re professional comedians. We know all the jokes. We’ve told them for years. We’ve assigned each joke a number so when we have these things, we can save time by just saying the number. The guy up there says ‘907,’ I know that’s the joke about the priest, the rabbi, and the minister.”

“What about the guy who fell out of his chair laughing?”

“Guess he never heard that one before.”

Ba-da-boom. Try the veal; it’s fabulous.

The “cafeteria Catholic” threads are the same way. Instead of saying “Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe because they are lazy, proud, and immoral,” wouldn’t it be easier if you could just say “#37”?

And, instead of saying, “Maybe you should give some thought to the fact that some of us CCs have given a great deal of thought, research, and prayer to our beliefs and have concluded that the Church is incorrect,” I could just say “#666.” I could add that you’re never going to understand us or bring us around to your way of thinking if you don’t bother to try to understand us, but it’s easier to say #81.

I make no claims to being a scholar. I am a mother and a wife, and I work in a circus. I have read Humanae Vitae, and I don’t buy all of it. I have heard the teachings and rantings on homosexuality, and I don’t buy them, either. What am I supposed to do?

Answer: Submit (#46).

However, I can’t, in good conscience, assent to something I believe to be wrong. (#402). So I don’t. And, yes, Ying Yang Mom, I trust God enough to believe that it’s all going to work out ok.

Or, as I like to think of it, #286.

 

[fix]

As for Cafeteria Catholics…there are those who adamantly honestly believe the Church is here to guide but that the final determination of their salvation rests in their personal relationship with God…and that God alone knows their heart, their reasons, and their limitations, therefore, when they choose to disregard one teaching or another they are trusting that God will understand and accept their point of view. It’s a huge gamble, I think.

Again I offer this link:

…But what if a person sincerely believes that a Church law or teaching on a fundamental matter is mistaken? Is he to steamroll his conscience and abjectly accept a doctrine or a law that he believes to be wrong?

         If he believes, in conscience, that the law or teaching is wrong, and that it would be *wrong to obey *it, then, as we saw earlier, he should disobey it; he must disobey it.

But, the matter would not stop there. In following this course of action, he has not solved a problem of conscience. He has rather intensified one that already existed… To explain this we must clarify a radical misconception that pervades the whole presentation of the dissenting position…

After all, either one believes, or not, in the divine guarantee behind the Church’s teaching. If one does not, one has not the Catholic faith. If one does, then to take a stand implying doubt or rejection of that divine guarantee, is to allow into one’s mind opinions incompatible with those that are already present there. It is to become a house divided against itself…

cormacburke.or.ke/book/authority_and_freedom_in_the_church/chapter6.html

So, how do those who reject the authority of the Church justfy it? Is there not a conflict and if one claims they experience no conflict is that not in itself a sign of a grave problem? Perhaps I have it all wrong?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Even if we can’t determine with certainty who is a Cafeteria Catholic, that doesn’t mean the term is useless. After all, we also have the useful term “Christian” even though we cannot with certainty discern whether a particular individual is or is not a Christian.

Also, the thing about many Cafeteria Catholics is that they are not in the least shy about the fact that they deny the authority of the Church. When somebody comes out and tells you that they don’t believe X, you are no longer in a position of having to guess whether or not they believe X.

The distinction between calling someone by the useful term Christian and the pejorative term “Cafeteria Catholic” is that Christian is a term they also apply to themself while the other is a label another aspires to place on them. By the use of the term that they deem pejorative*, you have already introduced an obstacle to dialogue.

We have had this discussion many times so I guess we rehash it for those who are new to CAF as it appears that the players continue to be the same ones. I’d like to take a slightly different tact.

The entire point of words,semantics, etc. is to encourage dialogue that is clear to both parties and the use of the word doesn’t have unintended consequences, isn’t percieved as pejorative or otherwise denigrate another, or is said with a lack of charity.

My question always revolves around four points:

1. There are degrees of rejecting Church Authority. A person who denies the Church’s authority on articles of faith (ie the Immaculate Conception) and one who questions a teaching on discipline (abstaining from meat on Fridays). Or one who rejects the moral teaching with regard to abortion vs capital punishment. Yet, this imprecise term is applied to both. I’m not sure that lumping together of one who believes homosexuality is ok with one who disagrees with the requirement that Deacons who lose their wife to death can never remarry is productive or charitable.
2. Many times expressions of disagreement are related to a lack of understanding to distinguish between an authentic Teaching (abortion kills a baby) and a moral teaching regarding a policy disagreement with their Bishop over illegal immigration. One is not left to prudential judgment while the other is. Why use a term that has a definite pegorative connotation when it is a problem with knowledge and understanding and not one of the heart?
3. Use of labels usually distracts from the issue at hand. Rather than getting in an argument about whether a person is a Catholic with a qualifier, why don’t we just focus on the matter at hand? If they question the Church’s teaching regarding marriage, why use words that include other issues that are not in play (ie the Church’s Teaching on the Eucharist)? The point of dialogue is to spread the Good News and not confuse the issue.
4. A person who recieves a Trinitarian baptism with water is Catholic. While their views or actions may stain the union with the Church, the sacrament is an indelible mark on their soul that will never, ever be removed even if they go to Hell. Out of profound comfort I find in the graces that we are given in baptism, I personally find it denigrating to baptism that it in any way can be qualified. Furthermore, once one becomes confirmed their soul has been given irrevocable additional graces.

• If you don’t believe it is pejorative, I would like a single person who advocates placing it as a descriptor on another to make a case how it is charitable, complimentary, or doesn’t include an aspect of judging another’s interior life.

 

[fix]

• If you don’t believe it is pejorative, I would like a single person who advocates placing it as a descriptor on another to make a case how it is charitable, complimentary, or doesn’t include an aspect of judging another’s interior life.

The debate never ends. We apparently are both drawn to it.

Senator X claims to be a proud Catholic. She also proclaims abortion is a personal choice and the government has no business being involved with it. She says homosexual marriage is a right and to ban it is discrimination. She says condoms help fight AIDS. She says war is worse than stem cell research. She receives communion each Sunday.

Someone writes a column that shows her political positions contradict Church teaching. The title of the article is Senator X embraces cafeteria Catholicism.

Is the use of the term intrinsically evil? Does describing her position in that way contradict charity? Is constantly finding use of a particular descriptor immoral a sign of scrupulosity?

I would say the term is useful. Like many terms in language it can be used in differing styles and folks can perceive things in differing ways.

 

[thistle]

The debate never ends. We apparently are both drawn to it.

Senator X claims to be a proud Catholic. She also proclaims abortion is a personal choice and the government has no business being involved with it. She says homosexual marriage is a right and to ban it is discrimination. She says condoms help fight AIDS. She says war is worse than stem cell research. She receives communion each Sunday.

Someone writes a column that shows her political positions contradict Church teaching. The title of the article is Senator X embraces cafeteria Catholicism.

Is the use of the term intrinsically evil? Does describing her position in that way contradict charity? Is constantly finding use of a particular descriptor immoral a sign of scrupulosity?

I would say the term is useful. Like many terms in language it can be used in differing styles and folks can perceive things in differing ways.

A more appropriate description would probably be heretic!

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

The term ‘cafeteria catholic’ is still useful.

Being used uncharitably is never wise.
Those who rejoiced suffered a lapse of charity and compassion, in my opinion, since certainly God never wants to shut His doors on any of His people, while some here can’t wait to boot them out.

As for the ‘whitewashed tombs’, that, too, is an appropriate term which should also be used charitably. It indicates a person who does everything to the letter but doesn’t have an open heart. Jesus spoke of the Pharisees in this manner, but not with that term.

A true Catholic respects the authority of the Church, lives the message of Christ with love and charity, and is quite humble about it all.

The moment you come across a Catholic who comes off stating others aren’t worthy pride enters the picture and the listener should take the rest of the comments with a grain of salt. Again, that’s my opinion.

As for Cafeteria Catholics…there are those who adamantly honestly believe the Church is here to guide but that the final determination of their salvation rests in their personal relationship with God…and that God alone knows their heart, their reasons, and their limitations, therefore, when they choose to disregard one teaching or another they are trusting that God will understand and accept their point of view. It’s a huge gamble, I think.

My standard approach with them is to remind them that, yes, the church is here to guide, however, how many church documents have they read on a particular topic before reaching their conclusion? And therein lies the problem…most of them admit they have not ready any, or they started to read some but didn’t like it so they put it down. Pride. Simple pride. I gently remind them that a properly formed conscience by which we are to be judeged is the key to their logic so they should be certain they’re putting into their minds the right material from which to draw a conclusion. They don’t like that much, but I pray it gnaws at them at the end of each day as they lay down to sleep…enough to move them to pick that material back up to take another look.

Very Well Said.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The debate never ends. We apparently are both drawn to it.

Senator X claims to be a proud Catholic. She also proclaims abortion is a personal choice and the government has no business being involved with it. She says homosexual marriage is a right and to ban it is discrimination. She says condoms help fight AIDS. She says war is worse than stem cell research. She receives communion each Sunday.

Someone writes a column that shows her political positions contradict Church teaching. The title of the article is Senator X embraces cafeteria Catholicism.

Is the use of the term intrinsically evil? Does describing her position in that way contradict charity? Is constantly finding use of a particular descriptor immoral a sign of scrupulosity?

I would say the term is useful. Like many terms in language it can be used in differing styles and folks can perceive things in differing ways.

It is not intrinsically evil. But it belies a lack of charity as does the headline (but headlines are notoriously presumptive). HMMM Is constantly arguing that it is charitable to ascribe another Catholic with a pejorative term a sign of scrupulosity?

We all know that referring to a person with polish descent as a Pollack is pejorative and lacks charity while referring to them as a Polish-American is descriptive of a fact. Calling a person a drunk is pejorative while it is not to say “it appears they have a problem with alcohol”.

As a regular proponent of this term, is it charitable, is it complimentary, does it contain an element of judging the “interior life” in addition to being descriptive of an act or thought, and can it be used to describe a multitude of wrongs of varying degrees of gravity?

 

[fix]

It is not intrinsically evil. But it belies a lack of charity as does the headline (but headlines are notoriously presumptive). HMMM Is constantly arguing that it is charitable to ascribe another Catholic with a pejorative term a sign of scrupulosity?

I argue it may be charitable and possibly uncharitable depending on context. Scrupulosity intends finding sin where there is none. I do not find the term sinful in the majority of cases.

I would think the opposite of scrupulosity is laxity. You want to ask if I am a laxist in this matter. I would say I am not.

We all know that referring to a person with polish descent as a Pollack is pejorative and lacks charity while referring to them as a Polish-American is descriptive of a fact. Calling a person a drunk is pejorative while it is not to say “it appears they have a problem with alcohol”.

How are either of those terms identical to cafeteria Catholic?

As a regular proponent of this term, is it charitable, is it complimentary, does it contain an element of judging the “interior life” in addition to being descriptive of an act or thought, and can it be used to describe a multitude of wrongs of varying degrees of gravity?

Charitable as in the sense calling another to correction, yes.

As for judging one’s interior life I would think one could make that charge in many cases. The problem is it is mostly a false charge in that the one claiming it simply is being defensive as they are called on their errors. Such a charge may well be a type of defense mechanism.

As for the precision of the term I have always held it means one rejects the authority of the Church. Be it a big matter or a small matter.

 

[YinYangMom]

Do you know the comedians’ convention joke?

Good one. However, the eternal state of one’s soul is no joke and, in my opinion, should never be reduced to something that trivial. Still, I get why you used the example…it was a good use of it.

The “cafeteria Catholic” threads are the same way. Instead of saying “Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe because they are lazy, proud, and immoral,” wouldn’t it be easier if you could just say “#37”?

Easier, yes. Effective, no. And of course, the entire reason we are here to explain the faith is to bring people home to the Kingdom. We aren’t to take that job lightly.

I make no claims to being a scholar. I am a mother and a wife, and I work in a circus. I have read Humanae Vitae, and I don’t buy all of it. I have heard the teachings and rantings on homosexuality, and I don’t buy them, either. What am I supposed to do?

I am confused…is this you you’re referring to or another example of what one woman might say to which we could respond “Submit (#46)”?

What one is supposed to do is pray for the Holy Spirit to open one’s heart and mind to accept the Truth revealed to the Church through these documents, which our limited, human, and fallen minds struggle to accept. In the meantime, we obey the teachings.

However, I can’t, in good conscience, assent to something I believe to be wrong. (#402). So I don’t. And, yes, Ying Yang Mom, I trust God enough to believe that it’s all going to work out ok.

Except you don’t have a ‘good’ conscience if you are not able to see the Truth in the teachings of the church and come to embrace them. You have a ‘formed’ conscience which is struggling with Truth, therefore, I would not rely on your definition of ‘good’ in that instance, but entrust your heart, will and mind to that of Jesus.

Even while you do not assent, you obey. That is your obligation out of respect for the Christ who suffered, died, and rose from the dead only to reserve a seat at His table for YOU. He does not ask much of us…only to trust in Him and obey Him. He knows how difficult that is for those of us who value our intellect and free will, why do you think he appreciates the gift we give of ourselves when we do submit?

 

[YinYangMom]

So, how do those who reject the authority of the Church justfy it?

I only know how I used to justify it for years, how those around me justify it, and why I was mislead for most of my life.

For the most part, we don’t know we are rejecting the authority of the Church. We don’t even know the Church has ‘supreme’ authority over all Truth. We are either taught, or we picked up through observation, that the Pope and bishops speak for all Catholics but not for the entire world.

If we aren’t aware we are rejecting the authority of the Church, what is there to justify?

Somehow we got the message Rome is established to guide the faithful. But as guides we, personally, are accountable for our actions. We got the message that we must be clear in our thinking when we make decisions in life. But we didn’t get the message that Church teaching was to be the source for our research. We ate up what the secular media put out…and of course, that’s all tainted with distorted summaries of what the Church teaches…except that’s the only exposure most of us got about Church teaching. Didn’t get it in the Catholic schools. Didn’t get it from the pulpit at Mass. Didn’t have Catholic radio or forums.

That’s why, now that I’ve seen the light, I gently point out to those still by the wayside the wealth of information not available to them to help them understand the Truth about Catholicism. I trust the Holy Spirit will move them have a change of heart, but my job, it seems is to point them in the right direction.

Is there not a conflict and if one claims they experience no conflict is that not in itself a sign of a grave problem? Perhaps I have it all wrong?

Nope. You have it right. It is a sign of a grave problem. Grave indeed. All problems have solutions. You and I are part of that solution. Be patient, be charitable, have faith and remain open to where God places you in life. Be actively aware of the people God places in your path at every moment of every day, and speak always the Truth with love and kindness. Pray unceasingly. The Spirit will do the rest.

 

[YinYangMom]

The entire point of words,semantics, etc. is to encourage dialogue that is clear to both parties and the use of the word doesn’t have unintended consequences, isn’t percieved as pejorative or otherwise denigrate another, or is said with a lack of charity.

My question always revolves around four points:…

Very nicely stated!

 

[fix]

I only know how I used to justify it for years, how those around me justify it, and why I was mislead for most of my life.

For the most part, we don’t know we are rejecting the authority of the Church. We don’t even know the Church has ‘supreme’ authority over all Truth. We are either taught, or we picked up through observation, that the Pope and bishops speak for all Catholics but not for the entire world.

If we aren’t aware we are rejecting the authority of the Church, what is there to justify?

I guess I was referring specifically to folks who go to mass each week, yet still claim the Church is “wrong” on this issue or that issue.

Somehow we got the message Rome is established to guide the faithful. But as guides we, personally, are accountable for our actions. We got the message that we must be clear in our thinking when we make decisions in life. But we didn’t get the message that Church teaching was to be the source for our research. We ate up what the secular media put out…and of course, that’s all tainted with distorted summaries of what the Church teaches…except that’s the only exposure most of us got about Church teaching. Didn’t get it in the Catholic schools. Didn’t get it from the pulpit at Mass. Didn’t have Catholic radio or forums.

Yes, I think that is quite true. I was thinking of folks like that, and I was one of them once, but when confronted with information CCC, Church documents, ect., they still persist including doing mental gymnastics to justify what amounts to moral relativism. I think it is one thing to never have encountered specific information, or sought it out, but another to see it and refuse to accept it.

That’s why, now that I’ve seen the light, I gently point out to those still by the wayside the wealth of information not available to them to help them understand the Truth about Catholicism. I trust the Holy Spirit will move them have a change of heart, but my job, it seems is to point them in the right direction.

Agreed fully.

Nope. You have it right. It is a sign of a grave problem. Grave indeed. All problems have solutions. You and I are part of that solution. Be patient, be charitable, have faith and remain open to where God places you in life. Be actively aware of the people God places in your path at every moment of every day, and speak always the Truth with love and kindness. Pray unceasingly. The Spirit will do the rest.

Yes, very good. I was getting at the notion, no one here, that not sensing guilt in these issues may point to a dull conscience. We cannot know that, but failure to perceive guilt seems common today and it is quite startling.

Before someone accuses me of “judging” another’s interior life I am not speaking of any particular human. This seems very much like the notion of objective mortal sin. As an example we may see another kill a person, yet have no idea of how their soul appears before God, yet that does not change our knowledge of the grave act the person committed.

 

[YinYangMom]

Senator X claims to be a proud Catholic. She also proclaims abortion is a personal choice and the government has no business being involved with it. She says homosexual marriage is a right and to ban it is discrimination. She says condoms help fight AIDS. She says war is worse than stem cell research. She receives communion each Sunday.

Interestingly enough, the way you wrote that up does not refute her clam to being a proud Catholic.

She is Catholic, despite the error in her choices.
She is proud.
She is a proud Catholic.

She receives communion because she truly, honestly believes it is her right, as she received the sacrament back in 2nd grade, and because she does not know about the authority of the church over her personal choices. Either she doesn’t know, or she rejects it. If she rejects it, she certainly doesn’t know that is grounds for excommunication…

unless, of course, her priest sits her down and explains everything to her…have any of us ever heard of that taking place??? Maybe that’s what we need!

Someone writes a column that shows her political positions contradict Church teaching. The title of the article is Senator X embraces cafeteria Catholicism.

Is the use of the term intrinsically evil? Does describing her position in that way contradict charity?

Boy, I wish some journalist would be brave enough to accurately reflect Church teaching so that others reading the article could be educated.

Use of the term “intrinsically evil”?? Where did that come from. Prudent, no, and that’s what has been discussed…not whether or not the term is applicable, but whether or not using it benefits or detracts from open dialogue.

If the author writes the column in a charitable manner, giving the senator the benefit of the doubt of being ignorant and not disobedient, then seems ok. Still, why use the term ‘cafeteria’ at all, though, if the author could make the point without resorting to it (keep in mind that many readers would stop reading after they first come across that term - deducing correctly or incorrectly - that whatever the author writes beyond that point is biased and against the senator).

Is constantly finding use of a particular descriptor immoral a sign of scrupulosity

Lost me on that one.

I would say the term is useful. Like many terms in language it can be used in differing styles and folks can perceive things in differing ways.

I think we all agree on that.