Philosophy; Comte's positivism

[Ani_Ibi]

That’s interesting. I can’t say I understand the motive of Cafeteria Catholics, but I can see some similarities between them and Comte. In both, there is a tendency to keep the structures of Catholicism in place while destroying its essence.

But do Caf-Catholics not oppose the structures as well? The Papacy? The Vatican? For more details see Karl Keating’s link in my signature.

 

[Janet_S]

But do Caf-Catholics not oppose the structures as well? The Papacy? The Vatican? For more details see Karl Keating’s link in my signature.

I read that article–“Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing.” Cafeteria Catholicism is something I am concerned about too. I’ve known a few Call-to-Action types. We had one who was the pastoral assistant at my parish. She was intelligent and well educated–had a Master’s in theology. But she wasn’t Catholic as far as I could tell. She finally got fired from our parish. She has moved from job to job afterwards and hasn’t had a stable career since. Unfortunately I heard she’s now teaching at a Catholic College.

When I started thinking about the topic of cafeteria Catholics in relation to Comte’s philosophy, I must admit not all cafeteria Catholics are the same kind. To simplify things, I divided them into two groups: “passive” and “active.” The “passive” generally are so because they are too lazy, too worldly, or too preoccupied to take the time to learn about their faith or to grow in their spiritual life. Generally when they disagree with a Church teaching it is because they don’t know what the Church teaches or they don’t know the reasons behind a Church teaching.

On the other hand, the “active” ones (the Call-to-Action types) are those who have a defined philosophy and are pushing an agenda for the Church to come around to their way of thinking. Of the varieties of cafeteria Catholicism, the “active” are the most dangerous indeed.

And now to get to your question, I don’t believe that the “passive” cafeteria Catholics would want to take over the Church. If any cafeteria Catholics would take it over, it would be the “active” ones. And if they did take it over, they would leave the structures in place–at least the papacy. They would use the papacy to make a statement. They would elect a gay male or a woman Pope to help them spread their gospel of “tolerance.” They would recreate God the “Father” into God the “Mother” (or more likely God the Sacred “Female” as “Mother” might be too traditional or too demeaning of a term for them.)

Who knows what would really happen, and , God willing, we never find out. But I do think they realize, like Comte did, that you destroy that which you replace.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Janet S:

When I started thinking about the topic of cafeteria Catholics in relation to Comte’s philosophy, I must admit not all cafeteria Catholics are the same kind. To simplify things, I divided them into two groups: “passive” and “active.” The “passive” generally are so because they are too lazy, too worldly, or too preoccupied to take the time to learn about their faith or to grow in their spiritual life. Generally when they disagree with a Church teaching it is because they don’t know what the Church teaches or they don’t know the reasons behind a Church teaching.

Thank you for this useful distinction. I have a third category: Catholics who may at one point in time question Magisterial teaching but who are genuinely searching for true answers. This kind of Catholic keeps the Church vibrant.
Janet S:

On the other hand, the “active” ones (the Call-to-Action types) are those who have a defined philosophy and are pushing an agenda for the Church to come around to their way of thinking. Of the varieties of cafeteria Catholicism, the “active” are the most dangerous indeed.

Yes, because reason will not dissuade them.