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

[Orionthehunter]

From Fix: I argue it may be charitable and possibly uncharitable depending on context.

I have yet to have seen it said where it was charitable or not pejorative.

From Fix: Scrupulosity intends finding sin where there is none. But I do not find the term sinful in the majority of cases.

I have never claimed it was always sinful. Without intent, there is usually not sin.

From Fix: 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.

I never introduced the principle of scurpulosity to the discussion nor charged you with it. I just answered your question with a question that was meant to remove it from the discussion.

From Fix: How are either of those terms identical to cafeteria Catholic?

If a person means no harm by calling a person a Pollack, the person of Polish-American descent may infer that it is pejorative as it is pejorative in many if not most cases of it being used.

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

If I intend to correct with Christian charity, I try my best to use words that aren’t pejorative.

From Fix: As for judging one’s interior life I would think one could make that charge in many cases.

The jugment of the interior life is the exclusive perogative of God and in some cases of the Church. It is never the perogative of the laity.

From Fix: 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.

Thank you for your presumptive assertion that my opposition to the use of the term is a defense mechanism. It proves my case. I challenge you to find a single post of mine that ever denies the Authority of the Church on matters which it holds as articles of faith, dogma’s or doctrines.

From Fix: 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.

Well, I appreciate your honesty that you are willing to similarly brand Catholics who disagree with the Church on abortion and the discipline of eating meat on Fridays. However, it confirms my abhorance of the term as such a lumping together is contrary to my concept of charity.

And more importantly, labeling a person with a term that can be applied to a person who promotes abortion when the infraction is not accepting the church’s teaching on the penitential act of fasting may lead people to make false judgments about the accused (being for abortion when they are eating meat on Friday’s). This my friend is calumny. See below.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[dessert]

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

concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

nice site I printed some from it Just to let you know I couldn’t wait to go see the church I wanted to visit so I did yesterday trinidine mass and the church is very beautifull. I talked with a lady there for two hours and it is only 1 hour away and th priest flys in from mo. It is very much like on tv except this priest hears conf for 1 hour before the mass. If anyone lives in the milwaukee wi area it is very nice

 

[YinYangMom]

How are either of those terms identical to cafeteria Catholic?

The term itself was penned by faithful catholics to pigeon-hole those of whom they take offense.

Those Catholics who are not in full agreement with Rome did not come up with that term to describe themselves.

The term is used by people to emphasize what is wrong about ‘those’ catholics or ‘right’ about us catholics.

That’s what makes the term perjorative. We should just talk about being Catholics - well informed, or not-so-well informed, faithful, or a bit lost, etc.

Polak is not a term polish immigrants used to define themselves and they learned rather quickly it was not a term which commanded respect or dignity when used by those who did come up with it.

Calling a person a ‘drunk’ is not the same as stating a person is intoxicated at the moment. Certainly a drunk did not come up with that word to describe himself. The name ‘drunk’ came into play as a perjorative term to speak to the entire life of the person, the person’s integrity (or lack thereof), their worth, etc.

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.

And yet, that highlights one of the problems with the term. To you it means one thing, to me another, to someone else yet another. But for the person to whom the word is applied - and who does not understand the implications - they only know it’s used to differentiate themselves from those using the term - and that the differentiation is not a good one. So they take offense, of course.

As noted before, a Cafeteria catholic probably, and most likely, does not know picking and choosing is rejecting the authority of the Church. I don’t think they’ve thought the process back that far enough to get that. They honestly believe they are living within the guidelines of the church when they formed their consciences the way they did, that’s why they think they are worthy to receive the sacraments.

Then again, maybe the people I’m thinking fall under the category “Cafeteria” aren’t really. Perhaps you’re right and only those who openly, knowingly reject the teaching of the church are “Cafeteria”. If so, then it appears the term is being applied too loosely.

 

[Penny_Plain]

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.?

That’s a very neat answer. Of course one relies on one’s conscience to come to an understanding of the truth, but one can only determine whether one’s conscience is reliable if it leads one to the correct interpretation of the truth.

Seems a tad circular, doesn’t it? In fact, it seems a lot more honest to say that the conscience plays no role in the matter at all, and the issue is whether one conforms to the Catechism or not.

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?

Where you and I will never agree is what it means to “trust in Christ.” I do. So do you. You equate trusting in Christ with trusting in His Church, and I think that Christ gave us intellect and free will because He wants us hold everything up to His teachings and decide what fits and what doesn’t.

I always thought the parable of the talents was incomplete. (You remember: three servants given money by the boss; two double it, and one simply preserves it. The ones who double it get rewarded; the one who preserves it gets a kicking. I always wondered what would have happened to the servant who took a risk with the money and lost all of it.)

 

[setter]

I have yet to have seen it said where it was charitable or not pejorative.

It is always charitable to warn a fellow believer that they have strayed off the straight and narrow way that leads to life.

If I intend to correct with Christian charity, I try my best to use words that aren’t pejorative.

Most often the case with those snagged in sin, dulled of conviction, and on the broad way that leads to destruction, there are no politically correct words/labels to offer correction for the eternal welfare of their souls without offense being taken.

The jugment of the interior life is the exclusive perogative of God and in some cases of the Church. It is never the perogative of the laity.

This is what Jesus instructs:

"So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.“Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7: 17-21

2478 To avoid rash judgment, …

I fail to see anyone judging anyone. Tender egos need check themselves at the door if forthright discussion automatically gets mislabelled and mispercceived as being judgmental.

 

[fix]

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!

Yes, her bishop needs to talk with her, that is a whole new thread. In any event she is not on a desert island. It is almost disingenuous to mount a defense when her public position is so contrary to the faith. These are not arcane theological debates. They are the basics we each are* required *to know.

Yes, remediation is needed. Yes we can’t judge her soul. Yes, we know her words are consistent with material heresy.

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.

It was my attempt to point out the term is not evil.

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).

Well, there are all types of literary styles. If your position is we need to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman educated beyond the doctoral level living in a super advanced society who most likely interacts with Church authorities on many issues regularly and has ample time to study the faith then why not give the same benefit to the journalist who used the term?

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Setter: It is always charitable to warn a fellow believer that they have strayed of the straight and narrow way that leads to life.

Warning is one thing. Differentiating them by a label that is often intended to be perjorative and is even more often percieved as being pejorative is not charitible.

From Setter:Most often the case with those snagged in sin, dulled of conviction, and on the broad way that leads to destruction, there are no politically correct words/labels to offer correction for the eternal welfare of their souls without offense being taken.

Why label? Just confront the matter at hand. It isn’t important to call an alcoholic by a pejorative term to address their problem. You can talk to them about the effects and consequences of the behavior.

From Setter: This is what Jesus instructs:

"So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.“Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7: 17-21

Talk about taking a verse out of context. He is talking about how we recognize false teaching. To use it to justify calling a person by a pejorative term is amazing.

From Setter: I fail to see anyone judging anyone. Tender egos need check themselves at the door if forthright discussion automatically gets mislabelled and mispercceived as being judgmental.

In the following, Fix specifically asserts that in some cases it is appropriate to judge another’s interior life. Such a judgment is the exclusive perogative of God and in some cases the Church. It is never the perogative of the laity.

From Fix: As for judging one’s interior life I would think one could make that charge in many cases.

 

[fix]

I have yet to have seen it said where it was charitable or not pejorative.

Personal opinion. Duly noted.

I have never claimed it was always sinful. Without intent, there is usually not sin.

Great.

I never introduced the principle of scurpulosity to the discussion nor charged you with it. I just answered your question with a question that was meant to remove it from the discussion.

I will move on.

If a person means no harm by calling a person a Pollack, the person of Polish-American descent may infer that it is pejorative as it is pejorative in many if not most cases of it being used.

That term, the P word, has a long history. The same is not true of CC.

If I intend to correct with Christian charity, I try my best to use words that aren’t pejorative.

Good, the point is what is pejorative.

The jugment of the interior life is the exclusive perogative of God and in some cases of the Church. It is never the perogative of the laity.

Who said it was?

Thank you for your presumptive assertion that my opposition to the use of the term is a defense mechanism. It proves my case. I challenge you to find a single post of mine that ever denies the Authority of the Church on matters which it holds as articles of faith, dogma’s or doctrines.

I am not accusing you of being defensive or heterodox. You seem to miss my point. Those who are termed CC may take offense. Does that mean such offense is warranted?

Well, I appreciate your honesty that you are willing to similarly brand Catholics who disagree with the Church on abortion and the discipline of eating meat on Fridays. However, it confirms my abhorance of the term as such a lumping together is contrary to my concept of charity.

Please do not misunderstand me. Either we submit or we do not. If the Church binds us to abstain, and we do, we are not CC. If you abstain, but hope the Church changes her discipline that is not rejecting Her authority. I see no disconnect here. We obey or we disobey. We accept She is the authority or we do not.

And more importantly, labeling a person with a term that can be applied to a person who promotes abortion when the infraction is not accepting the church’s teaching on the penitential act of fasting may lead people to make false judgments about the accused (being for abortion when they are eating meat on Friday’s). This my friend is calumny. See below.

You seem confused on this point. A CC is one who would claim the Church cannot bind one to abstain. Again, either She is the authority or she is not.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
  2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Nice try, but it will not stick simply because you wish it were that way. In fact, accusing one rashly of rash judgement is a grave sin.

 

[setter]

Warning is one thing. Differentiating them by a label that is often perjorative is not charitible.

Again, the one snagged and blinded by sin most often will take any fraternal correction as offensive.

Why label? Just confront the matter at hand. It isn’t important to call an alcoholic by a pejorative term to address their problem. You can talk to them about the effects and consequences of the behavior.

Labelling is simply a semantic efficiency to package and wrap a cluster of symptoms for the sake of discussion. Try calling an alcoholic who is actively drinking and in denial that he/she is an “alcohlic” and see if they are not offended by your presumption.

Talk about taking a verse out of context. He is talking about how we recognize false teaching. To use it to justify calling a person by a pejorative term is amazing.

Totally in context and relevent to the discussion at hand. Read NAB footnote pertaining to Matthew 7, verses 13-28:

Footnote: 7 [13-28] The final section of the discourse is composed of a series of antitheses, contrasting two kinds of life within the Christian community, that of those who obey the words of Jesus and that of those who do not. Most of the sayings are from Q and are found also in Luke.

In the following, Fix specifically asserts that in some cases it is appropriate to judge another’s interior life. Such a judgment is the exclusive perogative of God and in some cases the Church. It is never the perogative of the laity.

You are asserting that judging one’s interior life is the same as judging the person? Not my intention, I follow the instruction and boundaries of knowing another from Jesus - “Thus you will know them by their fruits.” I hopefully will always be counted on to call a spade a spade, and have had more than a few folks come around in time to thank me for risking such candor.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Penny Plain: Where you and I will never agree is what it means to “trust in Christ.” I do. So do you. You equate trusting in Christ with trusting in His Church, and I think that Christ gave us intellect and free will because He wants us hold everything up to His teachings and decide what fits and what doesn’t.

Penny, you are a smart person. Read what you wrote. It can’t be what you meant. Do you really believe that Christ have us intellect and free will for us to determine which of His teachings “fits”?

From Penny Plain: I always thought the parable of the talents was incomplete. (You remember: three servants given money by the boss; two double it, and one simply preserves it. The ones who double it get rewarded; the one who preserves it gets a kicking. I always wondered what would have happened to the servant who took a risk with the money and lost all of it.)

Now, this is a first. Usually the debate is about what Scripture means. Do you really mean to assert that it is about what isn’t included?

The point of the parable of talents is that we are to multiply our gifts for the glory of the Father. Notice how what wasn’t mentioned was what they specifically did to multiply and there wasn’t a distinction between the two who used their abilities to multiply their gifts. Both were given equal praise “Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.” Only the one who failed to use his abilities as God desired was punished.

 

[YinYangMom]

That’s a very neat answer. Of course one relies on one’s conscience to come to an understanding of the truth, but one can only determine whether one’s conscience is reliable if it leads one to the correct interpretation of the truth. Seems a tad circular, doesn’t it?

It would appear such, if there were no Truth, but there is and God deposited that Truth with the Apostles on Pentecost (and there it is faithfully guarded and disseminated by the Pope and bishops through His Church).

IF/WHEN one accepts there is but ONE Truth then the circle is broken for all roads would lead to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

What this means is when the teachings of the Church (particularly the non-negotiable issues which the Church has addressed clearly and extensively for the past 5 years) are one’s guide to one’s conscience then whether or not one understands the why of God’s Truth on the matter, one cannot err if he/she adheres to the teaching.

The blind is not leading the blind on these matters. There is a clear path on which one can bank his soul to be correct. The Church has the promise of Christ not to err on these matters, remember? That is our source of confidence in the teachings.

In fact, it seems a lot more honest to say that the conscience plays no role in the matter at all, and the issue is whether one conforms to the Catechism or not.

It does play a role, because the point of reading the Catechism and all the other documents of the Church pertaining to matters of faith and morals is to help one form one’s conscience - not only in order to live by Truth, but to be able to lead others into that Truth. It is not enough for us faithful to follow the rules, we must teach them as well. How can we do so if we do not understand?

I think that Christ gave us intellect and free will because He wants us hold everything up to His teachings and decide what fits and what doesn’t.

You think. That’s a good starting point. Now substantiate your hypothesis with Scripture and Tradition. From there we can engage in fruitful discussions. Open the door to dialogue by citing the scripture references where Jesus taught his follower to decide what fits His teachings and what doesn’t? Many of here can cite several of Jesus’ talks to his followers which would contradict that understanding, but perhaps we’ve missed something.

I always thought the parable of the talents was incomplete. (You remember: three servants given money by the boss; two double it, and one simply preserves it. The ones who double it get rewarded; the one who preserves it gets a kicking. I always wondered what would have happened to the servant who took a risk with the money and lost all of it.)

According to the other parables, apparently the one who risked the money and lost it would still be welcomed because he didn’t throw it away or hoard it. He sincerely invested it in something he believed would produce fruit, but sadly, the investment tanked. I suspect it goes to the intention behind the ‘losing’ of the money. What if he took it and tossed it into the street? What if he intentionally gambled it away because he wanted to hurt his boss? Then, I think, he would have gotten more that a swift kick. But who knows?

The point of the parable, however, was not to show what punishments/rewards lie ahead for us, but to get us to understand that we are not given the blessings we have only for ourselves. We are given them to go out and share them with others, bringing more souls to God in the process.

Now, as a Catholic, you read Humanae Vitae. You don’t accept all of the teaching, but you do know that Rome considers the teachings binding on all Catholics.

You were given a gift of knowledge of Truth on a very, very significant issue facing the world today - the sanctity of life. What do you do with that gift? You reject it, disobey it for your own life, and, possibly, encourage others to do the same. Is that taking God’s talents and doubling them?

Let’s say you reject it personally, but don’t encourage others to follow your lead. Wouldn’t that put you in the position of the one who got kicked - given a gift but just sat on it until the Master returns so you can face Him and say, “here’s your teaching, it’s in my brain just where you left it, of course, I couldn’t follow it, but I know you understand why”?

The guy who buried the money gave a perfectly good reason, in my opinion. “I knew you would want it back so I guarded it”. God didn’t want it back. He wanted more, that’s why the guy got kicked. God isn’t exposing you to His teachings being explained to you on these boards for you to dismiss or just take in then do nothing with it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Setter: Again, the one snagged and blinded by sin most often will take any fraternal correction as offensive.

I agree. So why introduce an impediment to them hearing the fraternal correction with the charity intended by using a pejorative term?

From Setter: Labelling is simply a semantic efficiency to package and wrap a cluster of symptoms for the sake of discussion. Try calling an alcoholic who is actively drinking and in denial that he/she is an “alcohlic” and see if they are not offended by your presumption.

Calling them an alcoholic is certainly not as pejorative as calling the a drunk.

From Setter: Totally in context and relevent to the discussion at hand. Read NAB footnote pertaining to Matthew 7, verses 13-28:

Footnote: 7 [13-28] The final section of the discourse is composed of a series of antitheses, contrasting two kinds of life within the Christian community, that of those who obey the words of Jesus and that of those who do not. Most of the sayings are from Q and are found also in Luke.

Well, they why didn’t you quote the section to which the footnote refers (Mathew 7:24-27)?

“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

But even so, it still doesn’t justify using a term that is pejorative.

From Setter: You are asserting that judging one’s interior life is the same as judging the person? Not my intention,

Words and phrases mean something. One’s “interior life” is a very specific phrase that means a person’s relationship with God that is only known by God. No matter what we see on the outside, we never have the knowledge or insight to their interior life.

In response to this statement of mine: "And more importantly, labeling a person with a term that can be applied to a person who promotes abortion when the infraction is not accepting the church’s teaching on the penitential act of fasting may lead people to make false judgments about the accused (being for abortion when they are eating meat on Friday’s). This my friend is calumny. Fix responded as follows:"You seem confused on this point. A CC is one who would claim the Church cannot bind one to abstain. Again, either She is the authority or she is not. "

I don’t think I’m confused. I believe that you believe that the definition of a CC is one who rejects a major Teaching (abortion is wrong) or a matter of discipline (the requirement to abstain from meat on Friday’s). My point is that the use of a term to describe a person who rejects a major Teaching and a relatively less critical Discipline can lead to calumny. It is the broadness of the term to cover very grave matters and less grave matters that is the problem with the term.

 

[setter]

I agree. So why introduce an impediment to them hearing the fraternal correction with the charity intended by using a pejorative term?

A subjective determination, by the one receiving, delivering,and those observing. Can you agree in diffeent strokes for differenbt folks, and not all artists use the same tool or techniques to accomplish the works of God?

Calling them an alcoholic is certainly not as pejorative as calling the a drunk.

Say that to the alcoholic drinker who punches you for being so rude as to label their drinking habits and behavior as “alcoholic”.

Well, they why didn’t you quote the section to which the footnote refers (Mathew 7:24-27)?

I did. The footnote was inclusive for verses for verses 13-28.

But even so, it still doesn’t justify using a term that is pejorative.

The fact is, the cafeteria is open and many Catholics are freely choosing to indulge, so why not point out the obvious, feelings aside?

Words and phrases mean something. One’s “interior life” is a very specific phrase that means a person’s relationship with God that is only known by God. ** No matter what we see on the outside, we never have the knowledge or insight to their interior life.**

This would seem to contradict the words of Jesus “Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

 

[mikew262]

I’m not a Catholic, so my opinion doesn’t count (though one of the reasons I’m not a Catholic is that I don’t want to be a “Cafeteria Catholic,” so perhaps my views are relevant!). But I think the concept is very dubious. I think it’s yet another way in which Catholics indulge in “invisible Church” thinking without admitting it. It gives conservative American Catholics the same “inner ring” thrill that evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants get, without the guilt of schism. In my view the habit of writing off vast numbers of fellow Catholics as “Catholic in name only” is itself a radically un-Catholic attitude. But that’s just one Anglican’s opinion. . . .

As with Protestant debates over the authority of Scripture, there’s a fine line between denying the authority of the Church and questioning just what the Church teaches. Clearly the latest statement from the Vatican can’t simply be equated with binding Church teaching, because such statements have said widely different things over the centuries. Most of the liberal Catholics I know would not say that they are questioning the authority of the Church–they would say that they have a more honest, nuanced, and realistic understanding of how that authority works than the folks on this board. Many of my Catholic friends in the academic world don’t understand why I enjoy talking to the folks who hang out here–they regard these guys as “fundamentalist Catholics” and basically don’t think their views represent mainstream, orthodox Catholicism. I think there’s a lot of liberal snobbery in this attitude. But I’m not sure the attitude of the folks on this board is any better.

Edwin

There is much wisdom in your words (and probably alot of truth too).

 

[fix]

Say that to the alcoholic drinker who punches you for being so rude as to label their drinking habits and behavior as “alcoholic”.

Subtle, I like the analogy. There has to be an objective and subjective element to this issue. Not all will agree the term cafeteria Catholic is a fighting term. It simply does not have the universal understanding as a racial slur or ethnic insult.

It is a descriptive, rather short hand, way of indicating a mind-set or of characterizing objective words from speakers. It does not indicate anyone’s eternal destination.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Penny, you are a smart person. Read what you wrote. It can’t be what you meant. Do you really believe that Christ have us intellect and free will for us to determine which of His teachings “fits”?

Uh … if I were smart, I would be able to say what I meant. What I meant was that we are to hold things up to the teachings of Christ to determine what fits with the teachings and what doesn’t. Pay no attention to what I actually said…

Now, this is a first. Usually the debate is about what Scripture means. Do you really mean to assert that it is about what isn’t included?

No, and I don’t think I did. I was always curious what the boss would have said to the guy who invested his 10 talents in something that seemed like a good idea at the time – maybe the Judean equivalent of an emu farm – and ended up with 2 talents and a lot of emus that nobody wants and taste like high-grade sawdust. Does he get a “Well done, good and faithful servant” based on the effort, or does he get a kick in the behind for failing?

It seems to matter to me.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Calling them an alcoholic is certainly not as pejorative as calling the a drunk.

Isn’t it a medical diagnosis? Probably means different things depending on whether it’s made by your doctor or your obnoxious Aunt Sally.

 

[YinYangMom]

What I meant was that we are to hold things up to the teachings of Christ to determine what fits with the teachings and what doesn’t.

Ah, I see the difference! Thanks for the clarification.
Ok then…you say you don’t agree with Christ’s teachings on homosexuality and artificial birth control (humanae vitae)…

Does that mean you read all of humanae vitae, held it up to the teachings of Christ and determined yourself that it doesn’t fit?

Do you believe the Catholic Church is the church Jesus established at the last supper and enlightened at Pentecost?

Do you believe his promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church and that He will remain with Her for all time?

If so, then how do you believe that on matters as serious as life and the salvations of souls, the magesterium of the Church could possibly (even if it wanted to) come up with a teaching contrary to Christ’s? If you think about it…can you really imagine a situation where that might be possible?

I guess that’s what finally led me to give up any intellectual struggles remaining for me…when it came down to it I had to weigh my intelligence against that of the entire body of bishops/cardinals who wrote the papers.

Have you looked at their academic backgrounds?
Have you seen the studies they reviewed?
I actually googled a couple of them and began reading the summaries, and right away I knew the cardinals could process the information much better than I ever could. It’s just way beyond my realm.

So these men did precisely what you expect: they gathered the latest scientific/psychological studies, read them, analyzed them and then they held those results up against the teachings of Christ. When all was said and done the result was Humanae Vitae.

Keep in mind, these are not just ordinary men…these are men hand-selected by Christ, just as the original apostles. They were called into the vocation of the priesthood to carry out God’s work and they responded. At the time they gathered to review/discuss/compose Humanae Vitae it was one of those official gatherings which is protected by the Holy Spirit. So while, yes, they are at most times “just” ordinary men, on this particular occassion they had the protection of infallibilty and the guidance of the Spirit, as Jesus promised. You and I never get that guarantee as we try to make sense of Christ’s teachings and world views.

Now, consider that just as the cardinals were much better prepared to read/understand/analyze the technical materials than I was, they are that much more able to interpret Christ’s teachings than I am. Heck they’ve been studying those for years and I only have my limited exposure through homilies, my own bible reading, and prayers.

Nope. When it came down to it I was able to not only faithfully trust in their spiritual guidance on the matter, but I could intellectually trust in their scientific guidance as well. I think that’s when I really appreciated how Jesus set the structure up. It was the first time I understood how complicated life could get and how Jesus continues to work with us to get through the muck.

I was always curious what the boss would have said to the guy who invested his 10 talents in something that seemed like a good idea at the time – maybe the Judean equivalent of an emu farm – and ended up with 2 talents and a lot of emus that nobody wants and taste like high-grade sawdust. Does he get a “Well done, good and faithful servant” based on the effort, or does he get a kick in the behind for failing?

I think he’d get the 'Well done, good and faithful servant" based on the effort, since you indicate he made the investment in good faith and with the intent to multiply the master’s account. Consider those of us here who are trying in good faith and with all charity to guide people to God’s truth yet for whatever reason we fail to reach those people…they continue to turn away from God or remain estranged from Him. Surely we would not get kicked for our efforts just because they did not turn out the way we were hoping. But for those of us blessed into the family of Christ who take those blessings and keep them only for ourselves, we know we’ll get a swift kick on the other end of the road.

 

[cheese_sdc]

In my life and in my experience, I realized that, what it all comes down to is this: the person ultimately responsible for my beliefs and actions is me.

For example, I believe that the current political witchhunt against homosexuals is wrong. And I disagree with the bishops who are actively campaigning to limit the freedoms of a segment of the population. Politically, I cannot support the “defense of marriage” acts that are being voted on in many states (my state has already passed such an unjust law - which I voted against despite the advice of the bishop and archbishop of my area).

Please notice that I am not commenting on the morality of homosexual acts.

So, in this area, I exercise my informed conscience, in opposition to the leadership of the Church.

I also know that the bishops and the entire leadership of the Church are just men. Men who can err. Men who have erred. And men who will err again.

I am responsible for doing the right as I understand it, to the best of my ability. And I use all the tools of the Church to guide me.

 

[YinYangMom]

I also know that the bishops and the entire leadership of the Church are just men. Men who can err. Men who have erred. And men who will err again.

Individually, yes.
When assembled as a body to review matters on faith and morals, no. At such time the Holy Spirit protects the body of work which goes on during the deliberations of such matters. Yes, Satan will most certainly attempt to sabotauge the process by twisting the minds of a few of the men in the room, but the Spirit is promised to prevail, and to date there has been no instance where this was not the case.

So, yes, inform your conscience by Church teaching, just remember that Humanae Vitae and other such documents have the seal of infallibility. If your mind cannot assent to the teachings, then you must use your will to obey until such time as the Spirit allows you to fully comprehend.