Cafeteria Catholism is heresy?

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I don’t want arguments or anything, anything, but I was wondering if cafeteria Catholicism might be heresy. If I remember correctly there is a Greek word from which heretic stems from which means to choose and I am using the term with this connotation not as an insult or anything.

 

[Mtatum1958]

Would you want to use the definition from the catechism?

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.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What is a cafeteria Catholic?

 

[Arwing]

Well, if you’re referring to this, I would think that seems to imply at least material heresy.

 

[Irishmom2]

One who picks and chooses what they believe, like going through a cafeteria line. Taking what they want and leaving what they don’t want.

 

[thomasaquinas2015]

Heresy is more complicated than simply to choose something. Rather it is choosing to teach something or even believe something that is clearly against the Dogmas of the Church. FOR AN EXAMPLE: if I said that Mary the mother of Jesus was a sinner and did not Assumed into Heaven, which obviously I don’t believe because I’m a Faithful Catholic, but that would be Heresy. Now if by Cafeteria Catholicism you are referring to the unfortunate practice of Catholics who claim to be Catholics but yet disagree with one or more teachings of the Church especially when it comes to Moral Teachings. If that is what you mean. Then I would say this although there isn’t an official Catholic response to the unfortunate trend. I would like to quote St. John Paul II and what he had to say on the matter while he was Pope John Paul II:
“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”

This was stated to a bunch of Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Cafeteria Catholic is a colloquialism or an idiom. It is essentially a meaningless term. It’s not even on the radar as a defined term for the Church. It’s sometimes used as a derogatory term. It’s like asking if being a meanie is a heresy.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.

The big question this raises in my mind is just exactly HOW you are “dissenting” or “not adhering” to the moral teaching.

For example, with respect to gay marriage, if you decide to get married to a same-sex partner, it’s pretty clear the Church sees you as seriously dissenting or not adhering to the moral teaching.

It’s less clear, however, how the Church would view these activities:

• being a congressman and supporting a law friendly to gay marriage, which might be part of a bill containing a whole bunch of other provisions and benefits having nothing to do with gay marriage
• being a judge and handing down an opinion friendly to gay marriage, which might be the logical opinion/ conclusion based on whatever laws the secular authority has passed
• attending the same-sex wedding of a close friend or a close family member; for example, your child
• having a gay married couple as your good friends with whom you frequently socialize
• none of the above applies, but you verbally express an opinion disagreeing with the Church position on gay marriage

I doubt that all these forms of “dissent” are considered equal. Also, even when it comes to the opinion, I would guess that if you are somebody like Fr. Martin and you wrote a book and went on a lecture tour, it would be a different situation than Joe Average Catholic expressing his view verbally on a message board or at his neighbor’s barbecue.

 

[pianistclare]

Not heresy, just no bueno.

 

[thomasaquinas2015]

Okay case in point. Pope Francis once stated that he believed that civil unions were acceptable for Gays and lesbians. However civil unions are not the same thing as marriage. However I would like to see a distinction made between Marriage as a state institution and Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament of the Church. So if a Gay couple wants to get married go to the state however you can’t get Holy Matrimony.within the Catholic Chuch Sorry that is not acceptable. The Church has every right underneath The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to not perform Holy Matrimony on any Gay and Lesbian couple. However the Pope would probably never make that distinction, even thought I think it would save everybody a lot of heartache. Now that is what I would like, which is different than saying that I believe that this is “Gospel Truth”, since I don’t know how the Catholic Church should respond whether to keep singing the same song, or to make that distinction.

What do you think?

 

[joeybaggz]

It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."

This was stated to a bunch of Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987.

Certainly I am not going to categorically disagree with the Pontiff, and certainly not one who is a celebrated saint in the Church. I do however think one has to take his statement with a certain understanding. First he is speaking to a group of bishops as a church leader seeking uniformity of thought. And secondly, it would be beyond foolish to state the opposite, that as a matter of principle or practice, the casual and determined opposition to the magisterium is perfectly okay. No leader would say something like that.
One does have the right to follow one’s conscience, but a Catholic must form that conscience with a respectful understanding of the teaching of the bishops.
One may, in conscience, dissent from a teaching of the church on an individual level, one however, can never preach dissent.
Shalom

 

[thomasaquinas2015]

One may, in conscience, dissent from a teaching of the church on an individual level, one however, can never preach dissent.

I fundamentally disagree where does the Catholic Church ever teach that our private opinion is acceptable as long as we don’t preach it. Sure you can dissent from the Teaching of the Church but you would be in error if you did so.

 

[joeybaggz]

I fundamentally disagree where does the Catholic Church ever teach that our private opinion is acceptable as long as we don’t preach it. Sure you can dissent from the Teaching of the Church but you would be in error if you did so.

If you are referring to the Teaching of the Church as the Infallible Teachings set forth all through the ages to the present day, I most certainly agree. But if you are referring to those teachings that are not infallibly proclaimed by synod or from the Chair of Peter, I say one does have the right to follow one’s conscience and privately dissent. The current position on the use of artificial birth control is a case in point. Not all the bishops are in agreement with the doctrine. They certainly were not when Paul VI issued it.
Googling Catholic Church, Conscience gives me the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1776 to 1802 regarding conscience and its attributes.
I stand by my assertion that we cannot preach dissent based on the use of our conscience if it deviates from non-infallible teaching.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

One may, in conscience, dissent from a teaching of the church on an individual level, one however, can never preach dissent.

This is my view also.
I have personal opinions on “moral teachings” that do not always agree with the Church or with whatever faction is shouting loud within the Church at a given moment.
I would not preach that other people should agree with me or that we should all leave the Church if it doesn’t come around to our way of thinking.
I would pray about it instead.

 

[Hereiam]

I was wondering if cafeteria Catholicism might be heresy.

Heresy is such a loaded term…as is cafeteria Catholicism.

The issue usually is lack of understanding and poor catechesis…we are not called to judge others, but rather we are called to go forth and teach all.

Pax et bonum!

 

[christofirst]

I just finished reading a wickedly subversive yet thought provoking book entitled, “Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic,” by Fr. Philip S. Kaufman, O.S.B. It was written over 20 years ago, but the topics it covered, such as divorce and remarriage and Communion, and papal infallibility versus collegiality; and the arguments he proposes from Church history and teaching, such as the role of conscience (as mentioned above), could have easily been written today.

What kept him from the realm of heresy or heterodoxy, to my knowledge, is that he only proposed his disagreements, as many theologians do and have done, without giving some sort of tacit approval that “anything goes.” The author has since died, I checked, and whatever dissention he may or may not have encouraged, he is now buried among his fellow monks, apparently still a priest in good standing at the time of his death. I couldn’t help but thinking as I read the book that had he lived, he would have very much liked Pope Francis and the dialogue and debate he espouses.