Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[AlanFromWichita]

I agree with this in terms of “devotions” but this is something different than “teachings”.

Agree. I wasn’t trying to compare it to current usage. I was just trying to come up with a meaning for a term “CC” that would have been positive. Alas, it is negative.

You know, especially after these last 10 years, and even more especially after these past five months, I honestly am beyond the point where I care what people think or what they call me, at least on a spiritual/emotional/mental basis on my own behalf. The main reasons I care are 1) on a spiritual/emotional/mental basis for the person calling me whatever it is they are calling me (positive OR negative), and 2) whatever strategic value there in this person’s impression of me. For example, if a bum thinks poorly of me v if my boss does. In both cases we have a troubled soul who has ill-judged me, of course. But in one case the person’s impression of me also affects the welfare of me and my family. So to those degrees do I care.

I am so happy with life right now, and so grateful to have a mind that operates properly, I’m just kind of be-bopping around from one cloud to the other. Sometimes I’m more like a ball in a pinball machine, since I don’t always call my own shots. And these clouds have very serious issues – matters of life and death even – but I’m OK, and I think almost everyone else would be OK if they just realized it. I have been living in a matrix for much of my 52 years, and it’s clear to me that nearly all of us are, and most of us never escape it before we die. I consider myself among the lucky ones.

You work for a company that makes very high quality products. You are charged with investigating customer complaints and rejections. Generally you don’t have a lot to do due to the company’s high quality standards.
Then comes a rash of complaints on a new product line. Immediately you gather the complaint information and all the pertinent instructions, material requirements etc for the product. A review of all of these shows no problem. Next you go down to the assembly line and there you discover that the supervisor is ignoring parts of the work instructions and has rearranged the order of assembly. This has led to the problems and complaints.

In the above case, “The Company” is perfect in it’s “teachings”. All of the Engineering, the processes the instructions etc. are carefully designed, reviewed and tested. If everything is faithfully executed the end result is a high quality product. However, “The Company” is composed of imperfect humans. If these imperfect humans take a “perfect teaching” (instruction) and either misapplies it, or ignores it altogether, the output is of a lesser quality, which reflects badly on “The company”

Now – substitute “Church” for “Company” and consider the effect of imperfect application on perfect teaching…

I really like the way you set this up, because I have a great deal of experience at engineering design, engineering and manufacturing process development, troubleshooting, and maintenance, and enough corporate politics for three lifetimes. Plus, I have worked very closely with customers’ engineers, management, legal staff, and more. Management likes it when I talk to the customers. They know (both the customers and management) that I will find a mutually beneficial way to proceed on a design.

First of all, companies love to espouse “mission statements.” The mission statement for Boeing, if I recall properly, when I worked there was to provide a return of x% per year to the stockholders. So with a mission like this, without knowing exactly how the company operates internally, there is a way to measure the success of the company, and quantify how well it achieved its stated mission.

If I forget what I think I know about the Church and treat it as a “black box” and look at its (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs, then without knowing the design we can discuss its transfer function. It takes in souls in one condition and releases them in another condition. That is its ongoing function. Also, it protects and preserves the deposit of faith, or whatever that term is. Those are two different functions, although they can be related. In this analogy, I think I’ll use the company rules, processes, and procedures as the counterpart. In essence, the intellectual property of the company.

What I see is that there is a great deal of very visible work on the physical assets of the Church, and the deposit of faith – processes, procedures, etc. Many of us never actually get beyond this part, or even know there is another part of the Church. That is, the spiritual part. People are led to believe that the spiritual part is implied if only you knew and consented to the authority of Church teachings. Joe pew-sitter and even Joe-Catholic-student, never even hear about the “spiritual journey” or the “dark night” or “contemplation” or “mystical theology” or anything else that the Church is EXPERT in, internally, but this is typically not made known to the Joes. Unless the Joes are lucky or go on a hunt to seek and find. It isn’t hard to find good spiritual resources in the Church if you look, but we never think to look because we are so distracted with all the ruckus going on with the non-spiritual aspects of the Church. For example, for this discussion I’d call teachings about morality as part of the non-spiritual side – more on the behavioral side that we all talk about. I’d call writings like “Cloud of the Unknowing” and “Dark night of the soul” as spiritual, while I’d call much of Thomas Aquinas’s work as more intellectual. At least what little I know about their writings – I’m not a scholar of saintly literature.

Wow, I’m getting distracted by actual responsibilities calling. I’ll check back later on this thread. I’m really starting to like this.

Alan

 

[Jocko_VT]

I am sorry, but I am not understanding the question. Could you re-phrase?

In a nutshell, regarding the example of divorce you provided above, what if we were talking about, say, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception instead of divorce? What’s the difference between wanting to change the notion that second marriages are adultery and wanting to change the notion that Mary was immune from original sin?

This refers to the OP, of course–what makes one a “cafeteria catholic”? If it is enough to concede to the authority of the Church regarding divorce/adultery, is it enough to concede regarding the Immaculate Conception?

but it still remains a Catholic truth

If you’re using “Catholic” and “truth” synonymously, here, that’s fine. But, one needn’t ever hear a word from the Church, nor originating from the Church, to hear and know the Truths which the Church espouses, because those truths are understood elsewhere. Buddhism, for example, has been around for several hundred years longer than the Catholic Church, and Buddhists were well aware of certain Truths since well before Jesus was on Earth, in the flesh. If you’re just referring to those truths as “catholic truths,” just as the Psalms, which predate the Church, contain “catholic truths,” that’s fine. Otherwise, I don’t follow. Perhaps I’m missing the forest…

 

[JRKH]

Alan,
So happy you liked my analogy.
I to have a background in industry…started out in machining, got an A.A.S in Machine Design and wound up in Quality Assurance for about the last 17 years.

I see from you response above that the analogy set-off a number of different thoughts and ideas…Don’t know if we can explore them all within the “Business Model” but that’s OK too.
I think that the “Business Model” works best in describing how something can be “perfect” (or very nearly so) in “teaching” (proper structure, plans procedures etc.) and yet be considerably less than perfect in execution (the human element, training, dedication, maintenance etc.)

In so far as your reference to the more mystical aspects of the Church, I could not agree more. You and I are on the same page here my friend.
For me one of the great draws of the mystical tradition is the “cutting through the undergrowth”, shall we say and trying to get to the root aspects from which all faith grows.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but it strikes me here - especially with “sin” questions that people are often looking at things from the wrong end. It’s like they are looking at this large bosh covered with leaves (rules) and they are trying to understand all of the leaves without looking more deeply into the bush to see the trunk and root that produces all of the leaves.
We need to start with Love, with Christ and with Church (ekklesia) and work our way out. Then these other matters become more clear…

To sort of tie this back into a “Business Model”, we know that not everyone is called to the same position in a business. Some are leaders, others followers. The more interest people take in their tasks and understanding them, the more valuable they are. Some are more naturally “abstract thinkers” and others are not.
The majority are really not really deeply interested in anything other than their little area. Others like to dig and ask questions and offer suggestions…

Same in the Church - We have all types.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

In a nutshell, regarding the example of divorce you provided above, what if we were talking about, say, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception instead of divorce? What’s the difference between wanting to change the notion that second marriages are adultery and wanting to change the notion that Mary was immune from original sin?

I suppose, in an analogous sense, there is no difference.

So if I want to say, “If I were in charge of the world I would not have made Mary immune from Original Sin” then I suppose I could.

But any believer, clearly, acknowledges that she is not in charge, and thus ought to submit to the Church’s teaching on the IC.

This refers to the OP, of course–what makes one a “cafeteria catholic”? If it is enough to concede to the authority of the Church regarding divorce/adultery, is it enough to concede regarding the Immaculate Conception?

Yes.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re using “Catholic” and “truth” synonymously, here, that’s fine. But, one needn’t ever hear a word from the Church, nor originating from the Church, to hear and know the Truths which the Church espouses, because those truths are understood elsewhere.

Yes, this is quite consonant with Catholic teaching, Jocko.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan,
So happy you liked my analogy.
I to have a background in industry…started out in machining, got an A.A.S in Machine Design and wound up in Quality Assurance for about the last 17 years.

Very nice. I have a great deal of passion for design and quality issues. I’m one of those engineers who looks at QA as a potential partner in delivering a quality product to the customer with optimized cost and schedule impact. I acknowledge and have direct experience the other way, the QA that is the roadblock to progress or quality – which could be caused by any number of factors including the attitudes of those directly involved to the corporate culture.

I see from you response above that the analogy set-off a number of different thoughts and ideas…Don’t know if we can explore them all within the “Business Model” but that’s OK too.

Yeah. I think it’s a good tool to use to develop and describe thoughts and ideas I’ve been working on for years, but thus far have not put into words.

I think that the “Business Model” works best in describing how something can be “perfect” (or very nearly so) in “teaching” (proper structure, plans procedures etc.) and yet be considerably less than perfect in execution (the human element, training, dedication, maintenance etc.)

Right. Problem is, the processes are never completely right. They either say wrong things because of human error in their design, documentation, and implementation, or any number of other factors. This is one of the reasons I’m not going to sign off any time soon that I agree in the veracity of however many tons of documents over the years and all over the world I’m supposedly in agreement with each and every one. Inspired or not, human beings hashed out all that stuff among hundreds of thousands of committees over thousands of years – sorry I’m not going to sign over my eternal life as a guarantor that every jot and tittle is correct. People want to call me a relativist? When it comes to giving my own personal endorsements, those people don’t know what “absolutism” is.

That said, I see absolutely no reason the Church has to be perfect. She doesn’t have to be, neither can she be IMO. But she should be effective at her mission, and I’d like to think actually wants to fulfill the mission, whatever she states as her mission. My wife is absolutely right for me, but I don’t say she’s perfect. Flawless in my eyes, but that’s because my eyes don’t judge irregularities as flaws. Church can be same way but the leadership at all levels IMO is not ready enough for my taste at this time to see her that way. As my “marriage” with the Church goes on I hope we will both grow better.

Oops, gotta go again for a while.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

Very nice. I have a great deal of passion for design and quality issues. I’m one of those engineers who looks at QA as a potential partner in delivering a quality product to the customer with optimized cost and schedule impact. I acknowledge and have direct experience the other way, the QA that is the roadblock to progress or quality – which could be caused by any number of factors including the attitudes of those directly involved to the corporate culture.[/qoute]
Boy can I identify with this…
From the QA perspective I’ve seen the same thing…Those who are easy to partner with and those who fight you all the way. Nothing like personality issues and politics to keep things interesting eh?

Yeah. I think it’s a good tool to use to develop and describe thoughts and ideas I’ve been working on for years, but thus far have not put into words.

 

[Jocko_VT]

If it is enough to concede to the authority of the Church regarding divorce/adultery, is it enough to concede regarding the Immaculate Conception?

I’m curious how far this can be taken.

In theory, given the impression that can be made on an individual by the persistence of an institution for 2,000 years, and the obvious intellectual heft that’s gone into it, and the numerous examples of excellent Catholics (i.e., lots of saints who are obviously not mere legend), and the obvious moral superiority of at least certain aspects of its teaching, and the billion or so current members, it seems possible that an individual could just concede on everything. Thus, the answer to any question (e.g., do you *really *believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?) could be yes for no other reason than “Because the Church says so.” Not because the evidence has convinced the individual. Not because of some “religious experience.” But just because the Church says so.

 

[FCEGM]

I’m curious how far this can be taken.

In theory, given the impression that can be made on an individual by the persistence of an institution for 2,000 years, and the obvious intellectual heft that’s gone into it, and the numerous examples of excellent Catholics (i.e., lots of saints who are obviously not mere legend), and the obvious moral superiority of at least certain aspects of its teaching, and the billion or so current members, it seems possible that an individual could just concede on everything. Thus, the answer to any question (e.g., do you *really *believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?) could be yes for no other reason than “Because the Church says so.” Not because the evidence has convinced the individual. Not because of some “religious experience.” But just because the Church says so.

The gift of Faith is precisely that: a Gift. We accept from God this gift to believe all that His Church presents for its members adherence on matters of faith (what we believe) and morals (how that belief is lived in our relationship with God and neighbor). So, yes, just because the Church says so (Christ speaking to us through His Bride who has the authority to do so) is Faith in operation.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6513453&postcount=23

 

[PRmerger]

INot because of some “religious experience.” But just because the Church says so.

Well, Jocko, as with most Catholic answers, it’s not either/or. It’s usually a both/and kind of thing.

So it’s not “because the Church says so” OR “I have come to an understanding that is true”. It’s both.

Faith and reason. Fides et Ratio.

That’s one reason Catholics are so good at providing apologia. We have “both wings” with which to contemplate the numinous.

Both/And. For many arguments.

We avail ourselves of Scripture AND Tradition.
Faith AND Works.
Mercy AND Justice.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m curious how far this can be taken.

It always gives me pause when Christians discuss that which we “have to” believe.

Apologist Mark Shea rather cheekily calls it the “Minimum Daily Requirement” question.

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.

I view it similarly to the way my children might ask me, “Am I bound to pick up all my socks, or just the ones under my bed?”

Or perhaps, more aptly, I view it in the same way I would if my husband were to say, “How much of you do I have to like for me to still stay your husband?” That would be the absolute WRONG question to ask a wife, don’t you think?

 

[Jocko_VT]

It always gives me pause when Christians discuss that which we “have to” believe.

Or perhaps, more aptly, I view it in the same way I would if my husband were to say, “How much of you do I have to like for me to still stay your husband?” That would be the absolute WRONG question to ask a wife, don’t you think?

If the wife had a pretty lengthy list of things about herself set out before the husband, and she said, seemingly demandingly, “You *need *to *love *these things in order to be my husband,” then it *would *be a reasonable question–most wives don’t do this, though! Marriages don’t typically require such clearly defined criteria–it’s “I love you as a whole being, though not everything single thing about you is necessarily ‘perfect,’” rather than “I love this, this, that, this, that other thing, those things, too, and yes, that one thing only we know about; thus, I love you enough to be your husband.”

If the husband were filled with doubt about his worthiness, then such a question would constantly be on his mind–but it wouldn’t be, “how much of you do I have to like,” but, “there are things about you that I do not understand, and some that even trouble me, but I love you anyway, and I’ll continue to love you as best I can, and I will do my very best to be a devout and faithful husband–is that enough for you to be my wife?”

This isn’t about getting by with as little effort as possible. It’s not about the “minimum daily requirement.” A better analogy, I think, for what I’m getting at (and what I interpret the OP as getting at): How much overlap in the job description and my actual skills is necessary for the employer to actually offer me the job? Perhaps the employer wants someone who can type 80 words per minute, has expertise in MS Access and Excel, and has a flexible schedule. But I only type 70 words per minute (and can’t guarantee that I can get faster), am only pretty good with Access (though expert in Excel), and have to be off a 5 PM on weekdays to pick up the kids from practice. Would you hire me? Should I even bother applying?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If the husband were filled with doubt about his worthiness, then such a question would constantly be on his mind–but it wouldn’t be, “how much of you do I have to like,” but, “there are things about you that I do not understand, and some that even trouble me, but I love you anyway, and I’ll continue to love you as best I can, and I will do my very best to be a devout and faithful husband–is that enough for you to be my wife?”

So are you saying that one does not have to resolve all of the issues one may have with a loved one, in order to have a fruitful relationship? You are willing to stay together even knowing there are a couple perceived imperfections?

But I only type 70 words per minute (and can’t guarantee that I can get faster), am only pretty good with Access (though expert in Excel), and have to be off a 5 PM on weekdays to pick up the kids from practice. Would you hire me? Should I even bother applying?

I got a job doing hardware and software design and maintenance and upgrading on machinery that was really cool – like one that tested 15,000 capacitors per hour and sealed them in tape for machines to use to build electronic things. It required knowledge of multitasking kernels, which I didn’t know anything about but the previous engineer came back evenings for a few weeks and taught it to me and explained it to me. It required knowledge and experience at Z80 assembler language, but I got that as on the job training – helped also by previous engineer.

A few months into my employment they said they knew I didn’t have the skills, but they could tell I would pick up on it quickly. I asked a lot of questions at first, which made them a bit nervous, but after a few weeks my boss noticed that once I had an answer I didn’t ask the same question again.

Alan

 

[Jocko_VT]

So are you saying that one does not have to resolve all of the issues one may have with a loved one, in order to have a fruitful relationship? You are willing to stay together even knowing there are a couple perceived imperfections?

“Perceived” perhaps being a key word. Another essential aspect of the analogy–it’s certainly fruitful for me, but I can’t answer for the wife if it’s fruitful for her.

I asked a lot of questions at first, which made them a bit nervous, but after a few weeks my boss noticed that once I had an answer I didn’t ask the same question again.

But you got the job first. That’s a big part for me–how far along need I be to get baptized? Is the point at which I will feel comfortable with it (which I haven’t quite reached yet) good enough for the Church? And that’s for the Church to answer, but it’s a lot more complex than typing speed, or Z80 assembler language, even (whatever that is!! ). I can sit down and provide empirical evidence of typing speed, or even whether I can properly test for invariance in the parameters of some latent construct between various populations. But what’s the empirical test that shows I won’t be a heretic the day after baptism, rather than just someone filled with the acceptable, reasonable levels of doubt, questions, and befuddlement over baffling concepts like the Trinity, or bodily resurrection?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“Perceived” perhaps being a key word. Another essential aspect of the analogy–it’s certainly fruitful for me, but I can’t answer for the wife if it’s fruitful for her.

Yes, perceived is important to me. I have chosen to perceive my wife as being perfect “for me” exactly as she is. Doesn’t mean we can’t get closer – just means that we can. As long as I’m doing the judging, I’m going to decree my wife, “excellent.”

Ps 128:3
Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your home, your children like young olive plants around your table.

But you got the job first. That’s a big part for me–how far along need I be to get baptized? Is the point at which I will feel comfortable with it (which I haven’t quite reached yet) good enough for the Church? And that’s for the Church to answer, but it’s a lot more complex than typing speed, or Z80 assembler language, even (whatever that is!! ). I can sit down and provide empirical evidence of typing speed, or even whether I can properly test for invariance in the parameters of some latent construct between various populations. But what’s the empirical test that shows I won’t be a heretic the day after baptism, rather than just someone filled with the acceptable, reasonable levels of doubt, questions, and befuddlement over baffling concepts like the Trinity, or bodily resurrection?

Here’s where I had the advantage. I couldn’t consent to anything when I was baptized because I was an infant. Seems odd that if you are adult you have to agree with stuff personally, but when you are an infant you don’t – and either way you’re good to go.

It’s kind of like married priests. At one point in my life after I was married I had a strong desire to look into priesthood. Can’t, and in our diocese we have only transitional deacons. But if I became a minister in another religion and was married, then I can become a priest and stay married.

I know there are good reasons for all of this, but to this non-scholar, these things have a strange way of binding the Holy Spirit IMO. Why should the Church shut herself off to married priests if there is obviously nothing intrinsically wrong with being one? Not saying she should change, but nobody has been able to explain this in layman terms. When rules have exceptions, and the exceptions have exceptions, and on down for a couple more levels, that is when I suspect we haven’t optimized the rules. Like it or not the RCC is Big Business, and these are symptoms of what many other big businesses do. This is the kind of thing I have a problem with, much more than telling me what a Bible passage means in Catholic tradition.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough.

I have a question for you though, Alan. Is there some belief/moral imperative/practice that you have changed because God, through His Church, (which is, incidentally, really the only way you can know what God has decreed) has commanded it?

In fairness, I will offer you one of mine: I have conformed my belief to Christ’s in which he says that “if you divorce and marry another, you commit adultery.” How I would LOVE it if I could attend my many, many friends’ 2nd weddings and say, “Congratulations! Best wishes on your 2nd chance at love!”. However, sadly, I cannot do that. I cannot edit God’s words, no matter how much I would love to be able to celebrate my friends’ second marriages.

If I were ruler of the world, that’s one of the things I would proclaim: “All 2nd marriages are NOT adultery!”

So is there something that you’ve changed your position on, that if you were “ruler of the world” you’d have it one way, but because you know God has said otherwise, you say, “As you wish, Lord.”

Hi, Alan,

Just wondering if you might be able to answer my post above?

IOW: If you were theological ruler of the world, what moral imperatives would you proclaim/prohibit that’s different from what God has actually decreed? And does your current theology reflect this–“I don’t believe that God really wants us to _____”, or have you deferred to the actual Theological Ruler of the World on this particular issue?

 

[PRmerger]

If the wife had a pretty lengthy list of things about herself set out before the husband, and she said, seemingly demandingly, “You *need *to *love *these things in order to be my husband,” then it *would *be a reasonable question–most wives don’t do this, though!

I see your point.

However, it could be argued that marriages actually do make these demands. It’s part of the Covenant Theology that apologist Scott Hahn is so fond of addressing. The Scriptures are filled with this Covenant Theology, which is, essentially, “I give myself to you, and you give yourself to me. ** All** of you. All of me.”

Christ does indeed demand that of us. And if we’re not willing to give everything, then, sadly, we are like the spouse who approaches the wedding altar with the idea, “I’ll commit, but not to everything.”

Those vows are the vows of a union that will be annulled.

 

[PRmerger]

IA better analogy, I think, for what I’m getting at (and what I interpret the OP as getting at): How much overlap in the job description and my actual skills is necessary for the employer to actually offer me the job? Perhaps the employer wants someone who can type 80 words per minute, has expertise in MS Access and Excel, and has a flexible schedule. But I only type 70 words per minute (and can’t guarantee that I can get faster), am only pretty good with Access (though expert in Excel), and have to be off a 5 PM on weekdays to pick up the kids from practice. Would you hire me? Should I even bother applying?

While it is true that there are a few metaphors in Scripture for God being an employer, the image that by far exceeds all others of God and His Creatures is that of a Bride and Bridegroom.

So while I can see your metaphor, it limps for me. God is not really 'hiring" you as much as “courting” you for marriage. He wants YOU, Jocko. ALL of you. Your liberty, your memory, your understanding, your entire will. In return, He will give you “only” His love and His grace. (paraphrasing St. Ignatius).

 

[Jocko_VT]

I see your point.

However, it could be argued that marriages actually do make these demands. It’s part of the Covenant Theology that apologist Scott Hahn is so fond of addressing. The Scriptures are filled with this Covenant Theology, which is, essentially, “I give myself to you, and you give yourself to me. ** All** of you. All of me.”

Christ does indeed demand that of us. And if we’re not willing to give everything, then, sadly, we are like the spouse who approaches the wedding altar with the idea, “I’ll commit, but not to everything.”

Those vows are the vows of a union that will be annulled.

I can give all of myself to my wife while recognizing that there are many aspect about her that are something short of perfect, or at least they are, in my perception, something short of perfect.

The question is still, what is enough for the wife? It’s not about what I’m willing to do, but about what my spouse finds acceptable, given my own substantial shortcomings.

 

[Jocko_VT]

So while I can see your metaphor, it limps for me. God is not really 'hiring" you as much as “courting” you for marriage. He wants YOU, Jocko. ALL of you. Your liberty, your memory, your understanding, your entire will. In return, He will give you “only” His love and His grace. (paraphrasing St. Ignatius).

But, the question is whether God will accept me as I am at the moment (i.e., whether it would be right for me to go through the sacraments of initiation). It’s not whether I’ll accept God, despite my doubts and questioning–my weak faith.

My wife accepted me as a husband even though I wish she wouldn’t lock her keys in the car on occasion. If she demanded that I love the fact that she sometimes locks her keys in the car, she and I would not be married.