Is the term cafeteria Catholic offensive?

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry, PRMerger, you have not convinced me that saying someone is a “Cafeteria Catholic” is a “true term.”

You are saying that there is no such thing as a Cafeteria Catholic, that is, someone who says he’s Catholic but decides that the Church is right on this teaching and wrong on this teaching?

In the reality of the religious world, there’s no such thing as this entity?

This is your position?

Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s also true my mother is an obsessive, compulsive, borderline abusive, controlling personality but I wouldn’t tell her that because it would be hurtful.

Hah. Some things ARE true… but we must have prudence. Knowing when to speak truth and when to keep our mouths shut is something that isn’t easy to learn.

Right.

So, we are agreed that there are some people who are Cafe Caths, but it’s probably prudent not to call them that to their face?

Are we all on the same page here now?

 

[nickybr38]

Right.

So, we are agreed that there are some people who are Cafe Caths, but it’s probably prudent not to call them that to their face?

Are we all on the same page here now?

I am but I can’t speak for everyone else. I think most people don’t even know they’re Cafeteria Catholics, in all honesty.

It’s just a term that means someone picks and chooses what to believe… so I think it’s obvious such people exist and the term can be applied truthfully to anyone who openly proclaims they know what the church teaches but choose not to believe it themselves.

But I think some people don’t KNOW what the Church teaches so they’re not aware they are acting in opposition.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Or they could actually be well familiar with Church teaching, adhere to it, and are just being called Cafeteria Catholic because they are defending what some more extreme traditionalists decry as ‘modernist heresies’ (even though it’s really just common sense).

I haven’t been called the term per se but had someone ever implied? Yes. Plenty.

i was referring to those who take offense at the term itself, not those who are directly called it, although even some cafeteria Catholics, who know what they are, aren’t offended by the term…so maybe it just depends on the person.
but yeah, you’re right, it’s not always a justified term either.

 

[fred_conty]

In answer to the question, I don’t think the cafeteria would mind.

 

[divinefaith]

I would like to know the history of that term. Did the ‘cafeteria Catholics’ create that term to show their disagreements? or was it the more tradititional and conservative Catholics who began using that term to single out those who dont conform to some Catholic teachings?

 

[cjmclark]

I would like to know the history of that term. Did the ‘cafeteria Catholics’ create that term to show their disagreements? or was it the more tradititional and conservative Catholics who began using that term to single out those who dont conform to some Catholic teachings?

There isn’t a very clear timeline regarding the development of the term, though a search on it seems to indicate that the label is generally imposed by those who see themselves as being in full agreement with the Church’s teachings on those who are not. As such, I’d be inclined to say that it was not a label chosen by those to whom it is usually applied. Some examples below:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Catholicism - general definition and background

religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/1810/conservative_%27cafeteria_catholics%27_favor_opposition_to_gay_marriage_over_health_care - used (in this case) by politically liberal Catholics against politically conservative Catholics

ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/sermon-mount-first-gathering-cafeteria-catholics - condemnation of the term, or perhaps the intent of its use.

Conversely, here we have acceptance and even defense of the label and its meaning:

uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/cafeteria-catholics?page=4

shestories.com/2011/11/

It looks like the term was initially conceived and applied by “the more tradititional and conservative Catholics who began using that term to single out those who dont conform to some Catholic teachings” (note that most dictionaries/encyclopedias identify it as “pejorative”), but perception of it has since split. It has been adopted by some and remains offensive to others, as I think we can observe in this forum alone.

 

[cjmclark]

Conversely, here we have acceptance and even defense of the label and its meaning:

uscatholic.org/church/2008/07/cafeteria-catholics?page=4

shestories.com/2011/11/

It looks like the term was initially conceived and applied by “the more tradititional and conservative Catholics who began using that term to single out those who dont conform to some Catholic teachings” (note that most dictionaries/encyclopedias identify it as “pejorative”), but perception of it has since split. It has been adopted by some and remains offensive to others, as I think we can observe in this forum alone.

Worth mentioning here is that the folks who accepted the label didn’t self-identify as “cafeteria Catholics”…they were initially labeled (offensively, they felt) and then came to acceptance through reflection, though their acceptance of the label was not in keeping with its original intent. In other words, they didn’t say “yes, I pick and choose and that’s wrong”…they said, “Yes, I’m a cafeteria Catholic because I believe that’s the right way to be.”

 

[superamazingman]

I throw this term around a lot and was recently called out on it by somebody who found it offensive. I was kind of shocked, I’ve never really thought it was offensive, but I guess if you are talking to someone who is “cafeteria” it might be offensive. What’s everybody think, is this an offensive term??

As a result I’ve started watching what I say a bit more…

Yes, it might offend some. That’s what you get when you tell the truth. Don’t be offended yourself. Keep using it. As Newt G has said, “I’m sorry that it’s not politically correct to use facts that make people uncomfortable.”

 

[Debora123]

Yes, it might offend some. That’s what you get when you tell the truth. Don’t be offended yourself. Keep using it. As Newt G has said, “I’m sorry that it’s not politically correct to use facts that make people uncomfortable.”

In that case I’ll keep calling retarded folks “retards,” radical traditionalists “rad trads,” and people who have looked at another and lusted “adulterers.” (oops! hope that doesn’t apply to any of us here!)

… Because Newt G says it’s good.

Who cares if it’s offensive, right? God doesn’t care who we offend. God doesn’t care if how we treat others brings them closer to Him, or if that treatment just offends them and pushes them farther away. Nope! Keep name callin’ people whatever it is they deserve to be name called… it is just the truth, after all.

(PS: sarcasm = to get my point across)

 

[superamazingman]

… Because Newt G says it’s good.

I was simply attributing the quote, not saying I necessarily agree with everything he says. But I do agree with that quote.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

In that case I’ll keep calling retarded folks “retards,” radical traditionalists “rad trads,” and people who have looked at another and lusted “adulterers.” (oops! hope that doesn’t apply to any of us here!)

… Because Newt G says it’s good.

Who cares if it’s offensive, right? God doesn’t care who we offend. God doesn’t care if how we treat others brings them closer to Him, or if that treatment just offends them and pushes them farther away. Nope! Keep name callin’ people whatever it is they deserve to be name called… it is just the truth, after all.

(PS: sarcasm = to get my point across)

A non-sarcastic

Words matter. But tone matters too. Little drives me more insane than folks not understanding that tone communicates as much as the words themselves. The tone of calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic in most discussions is: “You’re not a real Catholic like I am. You’re not a good Catholic like I.” To grab that tone and be proud of it seems to me to be a failing in humility, no offense at all, because it holds yourself out as lacking these flaws you see in other people. I guess I rarely actually see someone using the term Cafeteria Catholic in a way that isn’t meant to hold themselves out as a better Catholic, and it seems like an enormous error in humility to feel that way. But I don’t know what’s in people’s hearts. Maybe they actually are trying to be helpful by using a prejorative, but somehow . . . I think it’s more about holding themselves out as Catholicism Perfected.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

Yes, it might offend some. That’s what you get when you tell the truth. Don’t be offended yourself. Keep using it. As Newt G has said, “I’m sorry that it’s not politically correct to use facts that make people uncomfortable.”

For those who are unequivocally against the use, consider this - the term was used on me, and it played a roll in my acceptance of Church authority. Had I not been offended, I wouldn’t have been sparked to debate. Had I not debated, I wouldn’t have realized my error. Had I not realized my error…

Perhaps the difference is that with me, the term was used to make an important point, and it was followed up by a large amount of instruction. It was also not used as a specific label for me, but as a general term of description (which I very quickly figured out applied to me perfectly). Calling a person that name and then walking away is not going to spark discussion or understanding. Using a surprising term, might invite more discussion and be more thought provoking than only using “polite” words. At least in some situations.

Furthermore, as an earlier poster mentioned, it doesn’t always make sense to talk for 3 minutes in great detail about the nuances of Nancy Pelosi’s lack of obedience to Church Authorities. Sometimes it is simply more effective to describe her with a label that everyone is going to understand. Since Pelosi is an outspoken public figure, it is important to look critically at her in this way - knowing that she is a “Cafeteria Catholic” or that she “regularly ignores Church teaching” or that she is a “Dissenting Catholic” or that she is “not obedient to Church authority” can be very helpful for a Catholic trying to figure out how much to believe of what Pelosi says. This is true of others who have influence over Catholics. I am not nearly as likely to use the term “Cafeteria” as “Dissenting” or “not obedient to Church authority” but either way, the person I am talking about is likely to be offended. Therefore, it should be used when necessary - either because a 3rd party deserves to know the truth before they are scandalized, or because the person in question might actually be provoked to reconsider their point of view, or in a respectful way if one is debating with the person in question.

Labels do not need to be thrown at every person who fits them, all the time. But they do have value in certain situations.

 

[Joe_5859]

For those who are unequivocally against the use, consider this - the term was used on me, and it played a roll in my acceptance of Church authority. Had I not been offended, I wouldn’t have been sparked to debate. Had I not debated, I wouldn’t have realized my error. Had I not realized my error…

Perhaps the difference is that with me, the term was used to make an important point, and it was followed up by a large amount of instruction. It was also not used as a specific label for me, but as a general term of description (which I very quickly figured out applied to me perfectly). Calling a person that name and then walking away is not going to spark discussion or understanding. Using a surprising term, might invite more discussion and be more thought provoking than only using “polite” words. At least in some situations.

Furthermore, as an earlier poster mentioned, it doesn’t always make sense to talk for 3 minutes in great detail about the nuances of Nancy Pelosi’s lack of obedience to Church Authorities. Sometimes it is simply more effective to describe her with a label that everyone is going to understand. Since Pelosi is an outspoken public figure, it is important to look critically at her in this way - knowing that she is a “Cafeteria Catholic” or that she “regularly ignores Church teaching” or that she is a “Dissenting Catholic” or that she is “not obedient to Church authority” can be very helpful for a Catholic trying to figure out how much to believe of what Pelosi says. This is true of others who have influence over Catholics. I am not nearly as likely to use the term “Cafeteria” as “Dissenting” or “not obedient to Church authority” but either way, the person I am talking about is likely to be offended. Therefore, it should be used when necessary - either because a 3rd party deserves to know the truth before they are scandalized, or because the person in question might actually be provoked to reconsider their point of view, or in a respectful way if one is debating with the person in question.

Labels do not need to be thrown at every person who fits them, all the time. But they do have value in certain situations.

Thank you for that added perspective.

I think that’s a good point about using a surprising term as a descriptor in certain situations. That’s part of the art of persuasive writing/speaking. So long as we’re not hurling labels in people’s faces and walking away, as you said.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it might offend some. That’s what you get when you tell the truth. Don’t be offended yourself. Keep using it. As Newt G has said, “I’m sorry that it’s not politically correct to use facts that make people uncomfortable.”

For those who are unequivocally against the use, consider this - the term was used on me, and it played a roll in my acceptance of Church authority. Had I not been offended, I wouldn’t have been sparked to debate. Had I not debated, I wouldn’t have realized my error. Had I not realized my error…

Thank you for that added perspective.

I think that’s a good point about using a surprising term as a descriptor in certain situations. That’s part of the art of persuasive writing/speaking. So long as we’re not hurling labels in people’s faces and walking away, as you said.

Yep. I think the post below, from another thread is a perfect example of how, sometimes, being “offended” assists in one’s journey towards Truth, provided, of course, one is humble enough to receive the “offensive” term.

On my journey to Rome, I found CAF to be very offensive and frustrating. Not that it was mean, but because it challenged me to back up my beliefs. All of the sudden, my opinion wasn’t enough in debates. It was a needed push to investigate the Truth.

 

[cjmclark]

Yes, it might offend some. That’s what you get when you tell the truth. Don’t be offended yourself. Keep using it. As Newt G has said, “I’m sorry that it’s not politically correct to use facts that make people uncomfortable.”

There are two issues here.

The first is that it is all too common for people to take the “I’m giving you the hard truth/I tell it like it is/I just call 'em as I see 'em” tack as an excuse for simply being unkind to people. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to ask ourselves, “Am I doing this out of a genuine desire to help someone, or am I just doing it to make me feel better about myself?” That’s a question of individual motive that we can only answer for ourselves.

The second issue is a matter of likelihood. Out of all the people who have been called a “cafeteria Catholic,” how many of them were fortunate to enjoy the outcome that ThyKingdomCome had? How many of them turned away from the Church entirely because they saw “real Catholics” as sanctimonious, and how many of them proudly and obstinately adopted the label and reinforced their idea that being in disagreement with the Church’s teaching was a right-thinking way to be?

In other words, do the people whose minds are opened and embrace the Church justify the ones whose minds are closed and hearts are hardened? Is there perhaps a better way of doing this?

 

[superamazingman]

Yep. I think the post below, from another thread is a perfect example of how, sometimes, being “offended” assists in one’s journey towards Truth, provided, of course, one is humble enough to receive the “offensive” term.

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

There are two issues here.

The first is that it is all too common for people to take the “I’m giving you the hard truth/I tell it like it is/I just call 'em as I see 'em” tack as an excuse for simply being unkind to people. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to ask ourselves, “Am I doing this out of a genuine desire to help someone, or am I just doing it to make me feel better about myself?” That’s a question of individual motive that we can only answer for ourselves.

Very true.

The second issue is a matter of likelihood. Out of all the people who have been called a “cafeteria Catholic,” how many of them were fortunate to enjoy the outcome that ThyKingdomCome had? How many of them turned away from the Church entirely because they saw “real Catholics” as sanctimonious, and how many of them proudly and obstinately adopted the label and reinforced their idea that being in disagreement with the Church’s teaching was a right-thinking way to be?

I will speak to my situation. I believe that the Holy Spirit was working that day. I think also that those hard words needed to be said to me - “cafeteria catholic” was not the only thing that hit my ears that day that offended me. I was offended by much of what the speakers at this conference/retreat said, but the term was not used in passing. It was a main point of the talks that precipitated my “conversion.” I strongly suspect that the speakers prepared for their talks very carefully, and with much prayer. I suspect that they asked the Holy Spirit to guide them in reaching out to people. I don’t think my situation was a lucky accident, but rather the result of the Holy Spirit working through these people to shock me into a change of heart.

In a sense, I would almost say the rule should be “don’t try this at home,kids - let the professionals do it” but that’s not exactly what I mean. What I mean is that before someone uses a tough approach that is likely to offend, it makes sense to have prayerfully discerned that this is what God wants of you, and it makes sense to be using that language prayerfully, having asked the Holy Spirit to be with you as you are speaking. I do think that such conversations can be had by average non-professionals. But I also think that a tough/blunt approach (or for that matter, any approach) ought to be taken at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, not out of desire to say what feels good to say.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It boggles my mind we’re still discussing this … after how many years? :whacky:

Is it offensive? Yes. … Or no, if the receiver is self-confident. If all I had going wrong with me was that someone called me (on Internet or in person) an “X” Catholic, where X denotes some inferior form, then I’m in pretty good shape indeed. I choose never to be offended by another poster on the Internet where there are no tangible damages to me.

Is it intended to be offensive? Yes. … Or no, if a person is just trying to be descriptive.

Is it a loaded word that is highly likely, if not nearly certain, to divide the Body of Christ into parts which are ready to do combat? Yes. Period. No exceptions. :slapfight:

I mean, how hard is this? The only way I see it being a question is for a person to see it used for the first time. And IMO there should never be a first time. :nope:

Alan