Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[Jocko_VT]

Originally Posted by Jocko_VT View Post
There’s been a bit of a debate regarding the death penalty and what the Catechism says about it. According to one poster, the Catechism has led some Catholics to be anti-death penalty, whereas, according to him/her, the death penalty is not only allowed, but its use is sometimes the duty of the state.

There’s more to it. I was just giving the example you requested rather than a point-by-point detail. The problem–both the poster and I agree–concerns paragraph 2267 of the CCC.

And one need only look to the Catechism to see what the teaching is,

Yet that poster disagrees on this. S/he claims the most recent CCC has led people to heterodox opinions on the death penalty. Furthermore, I’d disagree with you–as far as the “one need only look at the CCC”–because of paragraph 2267 (i.e., is retribution alone enough justification for the imposition of the death penalty–the poster’s opinion; or must the defense of human lives be the justification for the imposition of the death penalty–paragraph 2267’s position?). But, there’s another thread on this, and we don’t want to mangle this thread!!

 

[Jocko_VT]

Good luck on your journey Jocko

Thanks

 

[Julia_Mae]

The thing to remember is that there CAN be latitude within the orthodox view. …

…
All of this said…I really don’t care for such imprecise terms as “Cafeteria Catholic”. In a very limited sense, used perhaps as a literary devise within an article, it might have use, but as a “label”, used independently of a clean supporting definition, it quickly becomes useless as people put their own spin on it and it becomes an invective and as such totally useless.

It seems to me that rejection of the idea in the first paragraph is what leads to the judgement made by people in the last.

nice post

 

[JRKH]

It seems to me that rejection of the idea in the first paragraph is what leads to the judgement made by people in the last.

nice post

The problems often occur when trying to express the divine in human language…:hypno:

More than once I have found, after much discussion, that I and my debating partner were really trying to describe virtually the same thing…Just using different terms or perhaps expressing a different emphasis…

Peace
James

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Me, too.

However, I return to my previous concept regarding Catholics who, upon examining the Church’s teachings, do not conform to them, but rather attempt to find a church (Catholic or otherwise) that conforms to their views.

That, IMHO, is the essence of creating a god in one’s own image.

If you can’t say that you have changed your views based on something that the Church has proclaimed, then I daresay that you are indeed trying to create a god who is modeled after the almighty self.

For what god is it that has apparently all the same viewpoints as the creature?

Calls to mind a different dialogue I had with pagans on a (now closed) thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8569252#post8569252
in which I noted that it was rather curious that the pagan deities always seemed to have the same moral imperatives as the pagans themselves. Thus, if the pagan was a lesbian, the gods seemed to never proclaim lesbian liasons illicit. A rather curious paradigm indeed!

:clapping:

 

[Jocko_VT]

Me, too.

However, I return to my previous concept regarding Catholics who, upon examining the Church’s teachings, do not conform to them, but rather attempt to find a church (Catholic or otherwise) that conforms to their views.

That, IMHO, is the essence of creating a god in one’s own image.

If you can’t say that you have changed your views based on something that the Church has proclaimed, then I daresay that you are indeed trying to create a god who is modeled after the almighty self.

For what god is it that has apparently all the same viewpoints as the creature?

!

You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

–Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The problems often occur when trying to express the divine in human language…:hypno:

NOW we’re getting somewhere.

Any number of human words is woefully inadequate to describe the divine. Period.

So we can either accept what others, including the Church, tells us or not, but without additional means of contact with the divine, human words aren’t going to suffice. As long as we try to “figure out” what love is, we can write wonderful poetry but still never truly know it experientially. When Jesus was baptized, God spoke to the crowd and said, “This is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him.” Note He didn’t say to figure Him out or pass a test about Him.

Words mean different things to different people, period. Use of additional words can often get alignment at or near 100% but not necessarily. One physicist says a particle behaves like a wave. The other says no, a wave behaves like a particle. They fight and fight because of their dualistic narrow minds. It takes a child without a horse in the race to come up and say, “hey wait a minute you’re saying the same thing. Why are you fighting?”

Or in business, we say “we are in violent agreement” as each faction wants to explain the same plan using its own jargon.

I love the Zax, by Dr. Seuss.

Alan

 

[emmaberry]

It sounds like you are making every effort to be a faithful Catholic-remember that if you are really making the effort to be obedient to the Church, any doubts that still plague you are definitely from Satan-especially if you are doubting the Eucharist and Marian dogma. I can honestly say that one of the most refreshing aspects of the one true Church is that it is guarded by Jesus against the gates of Hell. (Matthew 16:18) As a former Evangelical, where it is up to YOU to make sure you interpret the Bible correctly and without heresy, it is pure joy to now be in a church that requires only obedience and faithfulness. Keep in mind that it is far more of a burden to work your way through every doctrine of the Catholic Church than it is to surrender to the Church in total obedience.

^That is not to say that any time spent in apologetics is wasted, not at all! 1 Peter 3:15 says that we should always be ready to give an answer to those who question us and our spirituality-but remember that one of Jesus’ greatest gifts to us is a Church that he promises will remain in Him…we do not have to worry ourselves over every little thing…it is so easy and enjoyable to be a Catholic!

Jesus will look upon a Catholic who was obedient to the Church, even to a fault, far better than someone who nitpicked their way through the Missal and second-guessed every Catholic teaching.

All in all, Jesus measures success by obedience. Cautious Catholics don’t make for very good saints! Good luck!

 

[PRmerger]

quote about God hating the same people

'zactly.

And a corollary to that would be, “You know you have made God in your own image, when it turns out that all practices and moral imperatives you like are the same ones God has apparently ‘decreed’ as well.”

(Incidentally, wasn’t that quote already offered by Alan on page 2 of this thread?)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

There isn’t a post on this thread that I disagree with more than this one.

We are called to love God with our entire heart, soul, strength and MIND, Alan.

We do not only attempt to apprehend God if we are the “brain”, and only to love if we are the “heart.”

'nuff said.

OK, I am happy you explained your disagreement because if we looked at things the same way then there would be no growth opportunity from this discussion. That’s why two or more gathered bring God into it. It’s like seeing “stereo” toward the mystery of God, or maybe like having observers in both front or back of a building to ascertain it is safe from robbers. Only when different points of view interact, whether they diverge or merge, learning has occurred.

Please tell me how you love with your mind, other than trying to figure out the teachings of the Church. You are driven to figure them out because that’s one of your roles. And love for God drives you to experience him in any way possible, so that you may be close in all those areas. Love can be modeled as a generic form of closeness. The more you meet with other minds, the more God is able to introduce ideas that help you grow, in a synergistic way. So when we are together, we bring more “Christ consciouness,” for lack of a better term, than either of us by ourselves, or our individual awareness levels added up. At one point you will be ready and the Lord will use that other point of view as the final blow against your ego, aka false self, and it will collapse at the speed of love, and let your Light shine.

We do agree that we all are the Light of the world, right? It’s just that our egos have built a bushel because we were told that we couldn’t let anybody know who we were. Jesus told His followers they were the Light of the world; that applies to followers today as well as then.

Don’t be a mental Martha. Nothing against Martha; without her nobody would eat. But take a break from the rigor of academia and discourse and sit as Mary for a while. Martha is like your mind and Mary is like your heart. They both love God, but in different ways.

If you really want to love Him with your mind, you have to let your heart help you with it because otherwise you’re trying to construct a tower of Babel. Why not just meet Jesus in person and let Him speak to you directly? He has arranged for this in His last will, His written word; you are invited to put your own name on any of the characters in the Bible to get into the role. Just personalize it; it’s OK to put your name in your Book.

Here. Let me help you get started. I actually wrote a web page to do this automatically for anybody, but it’s down so I’ll just do it by hand. This is my New Year’s gift to you:

Blessed is PRmerger when he is poor in spirit, for his is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed is PRmerger when he mourns, for he will be comforted.

Blessed is PRmerger who is meek, for he will inherit the land.

Blessed is PRmerger who hungers and thirsts for righteousness, for he will be satisfied.

Blessed is PRmerger who is merciful, for he will be shown mercy.

Blessed is PRmerger who is clean of heart, for he will see God.

Blessed is PRmerger when he makes peace, for he will be called a child of God.

Blessed is PRmerger when he is persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for his is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you. [See, I’ve been on your side all along. ]

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Please tell me how you love with your mind, other than trying to figure out the teachings of the Church.

Firstly, you’ll have to explain to me why you’ve put this phrase “other than trying to figure out the teachings of the Church” as an exemptible clause on the command.

It’s like saying, “Please tell me how you celebrate the Divine Liturgy, other than by going to Mass.”

Or, “Please tell me how you honor your parents, other than by giving them respect.”

Why the “other than”?

We do agree that we all are the Light of the world, right?

Indeed.

Don’t be a mental Martha. Nothing against Martha; without her nobody would eat. But take a break from the rigor of academia and discourse and sit as Mary for a while. Martha is like your mind and Mary is like your heart. They both love God, but in different ways.

That’s quite contrary to your original premise though, in which you put very clear job descriptors on Christians, yes?

Originally Posted by **AlanFromWichita **
That’s a very good point.

It depends on what part of the Body you are.

If you’re the brain, you need to understand these things.

:nope:

If you really want to love Him with your mind, you have to let your heart help you with it because otherwise you’re trying to construct a tower of Babel.

'zactly.

And again, that’s quite contrary to your original premise.

Originally Posted by AlanFromWichita
If you’re the tibia, then you don’t need to know any more than a wooden plank does

.

:nope:

Why not just meet Jesus in person and let Him speak to you directly? He has arranged for this in His last will, His written word; you are invited to put your own name on any of the characters in the Bible to get into the role. Just personalize it; it’s OK to put your name in your Book

Blessed is PRmerger when he is poor in spirit, for his is the kingdom of heaven.
​

Blessed is PRmerger when he mourns, for he will be comforted.

Blessed is PRmerger who is meek, for he will inherit the land.

Blessed is PRmerger who hungers and thirsts for righteousness, for he will be satisfied.

Blessed is PRmerger who is merciful, for he will be shown mercy.

Blessed is PRmerger who is clean of heart, for he will see God.

Blessed is PRmerger when he makes peace, for he will be called a child of God.

Blessed is PRmerger when he is persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for his is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.

Beautiful.

BTW, I’m a “she” not a “he”.

See, I’ve been on your side all along.

Not sure what this means, Alan. “On my side”, like trying to promote my POV? Or “on my side” like you wish me the best and pray for me?

If the latter, of that I have no doubt. If the former, not so much. If something else, could you please 'splain?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Firstly, you’ll have to explain to me why you’ve put this phrase “other than trying to figure out the teachings of the Church” as an exemptible clause on the command.

Because no amount of studying the teachings is going to bring you to God. You can memorize every document the Church has ever produced, and that’s not going to make you holy. We’ve established that you can do this and still be nothing. So how do you use your mind in such a way that God regards your effort as other than “nothing?”

This is really a pretty abstract question. If it still doesn’t make sense, then you have my permission to ignore it.

That’s quite contrary to your original premise though, in which you put very clear job descriptors on Christians, yes?

Honestly I forgot because I’ve been all over the place these last few days. I’m not sure what job descriptors you mean, but I’m going to move on and if there is some issue with what I wrote in the past, you may either ask more about it, or forget it … or none of the above, of course.

:nope:

Nope? As in, “I’ve never seen this brilliant way to look at it before?”

And again, that’s quite contrary to your original premise.

Any more of this and I’m going to be curious enough to see what my original premise was.
.

:nope:

Another nope? Lemme guess this one: “nope, a tibia doesn’t have to know any more than a wooden plank.” Right?

BTW, I’m a “she” not a “he”.

Sorry. For some reason I thought I knew … too bad I don’t have my site up or you just plug in the name and pronoun gender and it does the substitutions.

Not sure what this means, Alan. “On my side”, like trying to promote my POV? Or “on my side” like you wish me the best and pray for me?

Sorry again. … I’m on a roll here, eh?

That was an attempt at humor, which evidently was a failed attempt. Strange whenever I’m not trying to be funny, people think I’m a riot.

OK it was supposed to mean that since you and I were arguing, it might feel to you that I’m insulting you etc. for your opinions on Christ … and thus scoring you a blessing for putting up with me. Oh well, just trying to keep it light; hopefully at least that’s happening.

If the latter, of that I have no doubt. If the former, not so much. If something else, could you please 'splain?

Certainly for the latter. For the former, I am also on your side in that I want to help you make your case to me if I don’t understand it or appreciate it, and then carefully consider it, and if I have any different ways of looking at it I will let you know. For me, the real winner of an argument is the person who humbly learns something, not the person who ends up prevailing over the resolution to the argument. The former incurs spiritual growth, while the latter may or may not, and even may grow more worldly as a result. What would you rather be, right or loving? You tell me which one wins the real debate.

Peace and joy,
Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Because no amount of studying the teachings is going to bring you to God. You can memorize every document the Church has ever produced, and that’s not going to make you holy. We’ve established that you can do this and still be nothing. So how do you use your mind in such a way that God regards your effort as other than “nothing?”

In the same way as knowing one’s spouse with our minds. We cannot love our spouse unless we know him, yes? Knowing our spouse with our “mind” is understanding in a reasoned way how our spouse thinks, believes and acts.

Any more of this and I’m going to be curious enough to see what my original premise was.

It would be ever so helpful if you did. I absolutely disagree, categorically and without reservation, with that premise, and if you can’t even remember what it is, it’s curious that you would attempt to refute my objection to it

That was an attempt at humor, which evidently was a failed attempt. Strange whenever I’m not trying to be funny, people think I’m a riot.

Funny is good. Levity is our friend. It absolutely has a place in religious dialogue.

What would you rather be, right or loving? You tell me which one wins the real debate.

Peace and joy,
Alan

Not sure why you believe there’s a dichotomy between being right and loving, at least in as it applies here on the CAFs.

I might be able to see your point in other situations–such as in discussions with family members about, say, whether it’s better to let underage teenagers drink at home with adult supervision or not. I’d rather have peace than be right on this, so I opt for saying nothing when this discussion occurs over Christmas dinners.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In the same way as knowing one’s spouse with our minds. We cannot love our spouse unless we know him, yes? Knowing our spouse with our “mind” is understanding in a reasoned way how our spouse thinks, believes and acts.

You learn about your spouse by sharing time, not by reading hundreds of books and manuals about How To Love Your Spouse. The early Christians had none of this and were illiterate, and yet they were strong enough as Catholics that they got the message handed down and across to others by their mere demeanor.

It would be ever so helpful if you did. I absolutely disagree, categorically and without reservation, with that premise, and if you can’t even remember what it is, it’s curious that you would attempt to refute my objection to it

You know what? If you dislike it so much, then I’m pleased to agree with you. Whatever it was, I’ll hereby retract it … psssssssstt! Gone.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

You know what? If you dislike it so much, then I’m pleased to agree with you. Whatever it was, I’ll hereby retract it … psssssssstt! Gone.

Alan

Fair enough.

We are all allowed to retract statements and admit our post was in error. Heck, I did just that only a few pages back.

However, it does seem curious that in the same breath you retract AND uphold your objection. The very same post in which you say, “Hey, I’ll admit I was wrong” you start out by saying, “Here’s why I’m right”.

You learn about your spouse by sharing time, not by reading hundreds of books and manuals about How To Love Your Spouse. The early Christians had none of this and were illiterate, and yet they were strong enough as Catholics that they got the message handed down and across to others by their mere demeanor

 

[AlanFromWichita]

However, it does seem curious that in the same breath you retract AND uphold your objection. The very same post in which you say, “Hey, I’ll admit I was wrong” you start out by saying, “Here’s why I’m right”.

I let you have it because you wanted to argue about something you didn’t want to quote, even given a second chance. So I figured, why not? Why should I defend against something that I have to go figure out what it is? Better to let you have it. If I had a post number or a quote, then it might have enticed me to jump into the muck, but on a thread of this length, my original premise? It’s like getting an email that says “I bet you never saw anything like this” and then a web link. I’m not biting just because someone acts mysteriously about facts that aren’t there. I have plenty of mysteries waiting to be appreciated, so it has to at least be enticing.

But now let me learn you something about anal-retentive types like me. If you want to talk accuracy and correctness, I’m pleased to “fight” this on those grounds.

You said I admitted wrong, but I didn’t. I agreed with you. If you don’t like it, then I agree you don’t like it and since I don’t care to defend it then I might as well withdraw.

But now that I see how this is going to go, I retract my retraction. I’m quite sure I would have been right all along, so I declare that I was. Concede!!! :knight2:

I’m glad that’s settled. Once I thought I made an error, but it turns out I was mistaken.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

I let you have it because you wanted to argue about something you didn’t want to quote, even given a second chance. So I figured, why not? Why should I defend against something that I have to go figure out what it is? Better to let you have it. If I had a post number or a quote, then it might have enticed me to jump into the muck, but on a thread of this length, my original premise? It’s like getting an email that says “I bet you never saw anything like this” and then a web link. I’m not biting just because someone acts mysteriously about facts that aren’t there. I have plenty of mysteries waiting to be appreciated, so it has to at least be enticing.

But now let me learn you something about anal-retentive types like me. If you want to talk accuracy and correctness, I’m pleased to “fight” this on those grounds.

You said I admitted wrong, but I didn’t. I agreed with you. If you don’t like it, then I agree you don’t like it and since I don’t care to defend it then I might as well withdraw.

But now that I see how this is going to go, I retract my retraction. I’m quite sure I would have been right all along, so I declare that I was. Concede!!! :knight2:

I’m glad that’s settled. Once I thought I made an error, but it turns out I was mistaken.

Alan

This post is simply crazy.

 

[Jocko_VT]

You learn about your spouse by sharing time, not by reading hundreds of books and manuals about How To Love Your Spouse. The early Christians had none of this and were illiterate, and yet they were strong enough as Catholics that they got the message handed down and across to others by their mere demeanor.

Alan

This is a really interesting contrast.

The irony, of course, is that there really are so many books and manuals about how to love your spouse (self-help type books), and marriage counseling is big business. And, looking at changes in the family over the past few hundred years–during which period we’ve gone from virtually no how-to-love-your-spouse books and no marital counseling to a flooded market–we, on average, spend dreadfully little time with our spouses compared with 100, 200, 300 years ago. Only nowadays do we find ourselves trying to love our spouses with our minds–our hearts are made painfully irrelevant in a daily life where most things march to the beat of the market.

Interesting to contrast this with the church. 1,000 years ago, stained-glass windows and carvings of wood and stone and the examples provided by others served as the only “books and manuals” about “how to love” God, in part because of illiteracy, but also the lack of printed material. Furthermore, daily life was spent more in the company of God than it is now, since the pre-modern landscape and time were so deeply sacralized (no watches and clocks and cities to get in the way, and church bells and spires and holy days marked the passage of time and space). And, nowadays, so many of us find ourselves trying to love God with our minds–we read, read, read from another flooded segment of the market, and we read, read, read the Catechism and encyclicals, etc., and we come on CAF to “debate” and discuss.

And we’re concerned with being “cafeteria catholics”’ because we’ve forgotten how to, or have been impeded from, loving God with our hearts, and we resort to the modern human’s most celebrated asset–the mind–as an inadequate replacement.

Certainly, we’ve gained some things over the medieval marriage, but we’ve lost some things that we’ve yet to compensate for.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This post is simply crazy.

Thank you. Thank you veddy mush. :tiphat:

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And we’re concerned with being “cafeteria catholics”’ because we’ve forgotten how to, or have been impeded from, loving God with our hearts, and we resort to the modern human’s most celebrated asset–the mind–as an inadequate replacement.