Proud to be a cafeteria Catholic

[simpleas]

I understand where you are coming from and the feelings that are provoked when labels are thrown around. It’s a very delicate balancing act we are discussing here, and both sides feel labelled and misunderstood.

The ones who have learned their faith well and want the fullness of the teachings to be preserved in the church feel frightened when it seems to be falling away. They are tempted to pride and contempt because they know more and it’s very easy to fall into the sin of looking down on others who are less knowledgeable. They are frustrated that many of the priests are afraid to preach some of the more demanding teachings, many of which came directly from the mouth of Jesus Himself. So they rail about those who are “cafeteria Catholics” and how “those people” are ruining the church and people get offended.

There are a few reasons well meaning, loving Catholics have difficulties with particular precepts of the Church. They may have never been given an adequate explanation for why the Church holds a particularly difficult precept. Jesus said that to whom much is given, much will be expected. This does mean that we may be very surprised who ends up in Heaven, and we cannot judge those who haven’t been adequately taught.

However, sometimes they are too attached to a particular sin they don’t want to give up, or they are afraid of offending someone close to them and it seems the loving thing to do would be to drop the “rules thing” and just love.

But this begs the question of what love is? Truly loving someone is wanting them to spend eternity in Heaven with you. If your child doesn’t want to get his shot at the doctor is it more loving to let them have their way or to insist it’s really in their best interest and then do your best to explain it’s because you don’t want them to die? Of course it’s going to be easier for the child to listen if they are explained to in words they can understand, and this is done with love and not with name calling etc.

No one needs to leave the church because they have struggles with some teachings. You are right that it is a learning process. However, there really are many, many people including some priests and nuns who are standing and shouting and demanding the Church changes to suit their agenda. You will witness this when the Pope comes to the US this fall.

Pope John Paul II explained that those within the Church need to be evangelized now because of so many years of poor catechesis. So yes they are welcome, but it’s difficult because after growing up Catholic all those years they think they know what the Church teaches. Unfortunately they really never learned the fullness of the faith at all. Often they learned only of God’s unfathomable mercy, which is wonderful indeed, but they didn’t learn of God’s justice. That part is uncomfortable to come to terms with and many priests and schools just left it out of sermons or teachings. However, you cannot appreciate God’s mercy if you do not appreciate his justice. Without justice, there is nothing to forgive. Without justice we cannot appreciate what horrors Jesus has saved us from. God is both: All Just and All Merciful

So I think some of these labels have become a kind of short-hand for Catholics who are trying to discuss this current situation. Some are unkind in their intentions, but many are well meaning and not intending to hurt feelings. Of course tact and diplomacy skills can go a long way, and many people are lacking.

Please accept my apology to those of you who have been hurt by this. Please forgive those of us who have not spoken the truth in love. I hope you can forgive and ignore the more uncharitable among us and take this challenge of learning and discovering the *why’s *behind some of the more difficult teachings. All of the Church’s teachings are meant only to lovingly help you and never to harm you.

Peace

Thank you for this. It’s refreshing to be able to hear from people who do not throw out the word “heretic” to explain why we all have different ways of thinking.

 

[porthos11]

Thank you for this. It’s refreshing to be able to hear from people who do not throw out the word “heretic” to explain why we all have different ways of thinking.

While I agree that we should not throw out the label “heretic” lightly, we should also not fall into the other extreme of not admitting one as a heretic if he in fact is. Otherwise, we would not know who is a danger to the faith. There are heretics; that’s a fact and they can be identified, and in certain cases, warned against.

I have no problem calling heretics such groups as the National Catholic Reporter, Catholics for a Free Choice, Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful, Catholic Women Priests. We need to know what they are so that we can steer the faithful from them AND identify them for correction, including through penalties if necessary. They don’t have merely “different” ways of thinking. Thomists and Molinists have different ways of thinking. These are dissenters, obstinately denying truths already declared by the Church to be held. They are heretics.

Sure, don’t throw out the term “heretic” lightly. But at the same time, don’t be afraid to use it when it’s actually called for.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Lol … “Pride” is one of the seven deadly sins … Therefore, being prideful to not fully following the Churches teachings is deeper due to the effects of pride … Lol … It took me awhile to figure that one out.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Thank you for this. It’s refreshing to be able to hear from people who do not throw out the word “heretic” to explain why we all have different ways of thinking.

“Different ways of thinking”: yet one more euphemism for heresy. You cannot sugarcoat the fact that if one willingly deviates or denies authoritative Church teaching, such a person of objectively a heretic. As much as that may sting, it is the truth. Personally, I believe it is much more profitable to shed euphemism and address problems as they really are, especially in such grave situations as those pertaining to potential heresy. Euphemism will not hold up on the Last Day.

 

[DaveBj]

Can I ask you if you are devout or completely observant everyday of your life? I mean not just towards the church, but in the world around you? (loving neighbour as yourself)

I think you may say no, because you know you are not perfect in every area of your life.

Isn’t that why we go to church, because we sin. We might sometimes think I’ve sinned, but I don’t do xy and z like some other people do, but the fact remains we all sin. Hence why I believe any Catholic is just as welcome to come before God, in whatever state their soul maybe in…That’s how I’ve learnt from my experience of the Bible, Our Church etc.

BTW I’m not attacking you by asking this, I’m curious as to how you view yourself and others?

First of all, I did not perceive this post as an attack, so rest easy.

No, I am not perfect. If I were to say that I am, I could hear the laughter from here.

But this thread is not about people who are not perfect. It is about people who publicly reject certain teachings that must be accepted, believed, and practiced in order for a person to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Not just a Catholic, period; everyone who has been baptized carries that label. But people who reject the church’s teaching on abortion, on homosexual marriage, on divorce and remarriage without a decree of nullity, etc., cannot be thought of as “Catholics in good standing.”

The word “heretic” has been bandied around. My preference is for the term “cafeteria Catholic.” It fits the situation – a Catholic, baptized and confirmed, who erroneously believes that he has the right to reject specific aspects of the Church’s teaching.

 

[CatholicFireman]

First of all, I did not perceive this post as an attack, so rest easy.

No, I am not perfect. If I were to say that I am, I could hear the laughter from here.

But this thread is not about people who are not perfect. It is about people who publicly reject certain teachings that must be accepted, believed, and practiced in order for a person to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Not just a Catholic, period; everyone who has been baptized carries that label. But people who reject the church’s teaching on abortion, on homosexual marriage, on divorce and remarriage without a decree of nullity, etc., cannot be thought of as “Catholics in good standing.”

The word “heretic” has been bandied around. My preference is for the term “cafeteria Catholic.” It fits the situation – a Catholic, baptized and confirmed, who erroneously believes that he has the right to reject specific aspects of the Church’s teaching.

I couldn’t have said it more perfectly. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

The love God and others statement came from Jesus himself as we know. You may have a point about the idea that we love God and others without the need to reconcile with God. I don’t know if it’s entirely impossible to love God and neighbour all the time and therefore there would be no need to reconcile and part take in the Eucharist.
So as it may not be obvious to people of other faiths, it is clearly obvious to the child or adult that confession needs to be practiced along side, practicing loving God and neighbour.

So I don’t think it deliberately ignores that Catholic doctrine. You may see it differently.

There is a bit of confusion here about the sentence that I put in bold above –
"You may have a point about the idea that we love God and others without the need to reconcile with God. "
– that point is not in post 47.

 

[Sy_Noe]

First of all, I did not perceive this post as an attack, so rest easy.

No, I am not perfect. If I were to say that I am, I could hear the laughter from here.

But this thread is not about people who are not perfect. It is about people who publicly reject certain teachings that must be accepted, believed, and practiced in order for a person to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Not just a Catholic, period; everyone who has been baptized carries that label. But people who reject the church’s teaching on abortion, on homosexual marriage, on divorce and remarriage without a decree of nullity, etc., cannot be thought of as “Catholics in good standing.”

The word “heretic” has been bandied around. My preference is for the term “cafeteria Catholic.” It fits the situation – a Catholic, baptized and confirmed, who erroneously believes that he has the right to reject specific aspects of the Church’s teaching.

Reading thru all of the recent posts that I hadn’t seen yet I was about to ask… What about the many Catholics who do understand the “whys” but do not have the faith necessary to believe what they are told? They can leave the faith, sure, and many of do. But the Church does not allow them to officially leave the Church. We are back to that OCAC at Baptism teaching. But in that sense, Catholic not in good standing I guess sounds better than Cafeteria. So maybe go with that. Or how about simply non practicing?

 

[DaveBj]

Reading thru all of the recent posts that I hadn’t seen yet I was about to ask… What about the many Catholics who do understand the “whys” but do not have the faith necessary to believe what they are told? They can leave the faith, sure, and many of do. But the Church does not allow them to officially leave the Church. We are back to that OCAC at Baptism teaching. But in that sense, Catholic not in good standing I guess sounds better than Cafeteria. So maybe go with that. Or how about simply non practicing?

There is a difference between how the Church as an institution sees them (OCAC) and how they appear to those who look at them. Some people look like they’re Catholic(“practicing”), but they publicly reject parts of Catholic teaching. These are the ones to whom the label “cafeteria Catholic” would apply. As for those who have left the Church, I would use whatever labels they apply to themselves – Baptist, atheist, whatever – regardless of how the Church “officially” regards them.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There is a difference between how the Church as an institution sees them (OCAC) and how they appear to those who look at them. Some people look like they’re Catholic(“practicing”), but they publicly reject parts of Catholic teaching. These are the ones to whom the label “cafeteria Catholic” would apply. As for those who have left the Church, I would use whatever labels they apply to themselves – Baptist, atheist, whatever – regardless of how the Church “officially” regards them.

Lots of interesting things in there. I think you meant “left the faith” but yes I too apply whatever labels they apply to themselves. For instance a Catholic who has joined TEC and calls himself/herself Episcopalian is what I too would call them. For right now then since you have trouble with simply Catholic, you can call me non practicing or I’m actually fine too with not in good standing because I’m not according to the Catholic Church. But, so rejecting how the Church regards them, what would that make you?

 

[Sy_Noe]

" For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" Jas. Ch. 2, vs. 26

Yes. But I’m not certain of your point? I’m guessing your point may be that you believe following Catholic Church teaching is part of works and love. And I understand as a faithful Catholic that you would believe that. So are you saying someone who has faith, but not the Catholic faith, that they can not have faith with works too? What about all the many good people of non Catholic faiths who serve Christ and show their love by doing His work to serve the poor and the needy, the hungry, the thirsty, those in need of clothing, the sick and the prisoner. And the so many more works that they do. You judge these people as dead?

 

[simpleas]

First of all, I did not perceive this post as an attack, so rest easy.

No, I am not perfect. If I were to say that I am, I could hear the laughter from here.

But this thread is not about people who are not perfect. It is about people who publicly reject certain teachings that must be accepted, believed, and practiced in order for a person to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Not just a Catholic, period; everyone who has been baptized carries that label. But people who reject the church’s teaching on abortion, on homosexual marriage, on divorce and remarriage without a decree of nullity, etc., cannot be thought of as “Catholics in good standing.”

The word “heretic” has been bandied around. My preference is for the term “cafeteria Catholic.” It fits the situation – a Catholic, baptized and confirmed, who erroneously believes that he has the right to reject specific aspects of the Church’s teaching.

Good good, I’m glad you didn’t regard it as an attack. The purpose of this thread is for me to listen to others views on what they think about the term cafeteria catholic and maybe to include what has been happening in the church since V2.
From my side, I’m not speaking of people who have left the church and started their own catholic groups or whatever, I speaking more of the everyday catholic person, who attends church, but has many different views on subjects which this website pretty much covers.

 

[DaveBj]

Lots of interesting things in there. I think you meant “left the faith” but yes I too apply whatever labels they apply to themselves. For instance a Catholic who has joined TEC and calls himself/herself Episcopalian is what I too would call them. For right now then since you have trouble with simply Catholic, you can call me non practicing or I’m actually fine too with not in good standing because I’m not according to the Catholic Church. But, so rejecting how the Church regards them, what would that make you?

How am I rejecting how the Church regards them? In one sense the Church regards them as Catholic (OCAC), and I have no problem with that. In another sense the Church regards them as heretics. I can understand that, but I prefer a milder term. I’m not sure where you’re coming from with that question. Could you be a little clearer?

 

[simpleas]

There is a bit of confusion here about the sentence that I put in bold above –
"You may have a point about the idea that we love God and others without the need to reconcile with God. "
– that point is not in post 47.

Ok, maybe I assumed I knew what you meant. I’ll ask what I was going to before I thought I knew

Which doctrines are being side stepped with the statement “Love God and others”?

Thanks.

 

[roseofshannon]

Or how about simply non practicing?

The only problem here is that they actually are “practicing” as in going to mass and receiving Holy Communion, often while in a state of mortal sin or perhaps while they publicly denounce Catholic teachings. So they appear to be practicing when they really aren’t.

What about the many Catholics who do understand the “whys” but do not have the faith necessary to believe what they are told? They can leave the faith, sure, and many of do. But the Church does not allow them to officially leave the Church. We are back to that OCAC at Baptism teaching.

I’m not sure I understand. So are you saying you want to renounce the Catholic faith in some way that the Church no longer considers you one?

You cannot sugarcoat the fact that if one willingly deviates or denies authoritative Church teaching, such a person of objectively a heretic. As much as that may sting, it is the truth.

Yes, heresy is real. Yet, there is a time and a place for everything and while we may never compromise the faith, for that would actually be uncharitable, we can also be sure to explain it in an empathetic and charitable way. Heretic is a loaded term with powerful historical connotations which have essentially changed it’s simple and true meaning. It’s now taken as, “So you wish me to be burned at the stake!?” Which of course you don’t…right?

I have no problem calling heretics such groups as the National Catholic Reporter, Catholics for a Free Choice, Call to Action, Voice of the Faithful, Catholic Women Priests. We need to know what they are so that we can steer the faithful from them AND identify them for correction, including through penalties if necessary. They don’t have merely “different” ways of thinking.

True. I would just suggest you consider your audience and nuance your tone accordingly. So if you are talking to someone who has not been adequately informed on these groups you might make a statement to them such as, “While I’m sure many people in those groups are well intended, they are unfortunately committing heresy by persisting in disobedience. That may sound harsh, but here is why I say that…” In contrast, if you are talking to a like-minded, well informed, faithful Catholic you might say, “They’re heretics and I hope it’s addressed at the synod.” It’s not meant to be a put-down (hopefully) but simply a descriptive term such as saying they are communist or socialist.

The problem is that at Catholic Answers Forums you have both types of discussions going on with people from varying points in their faith journey. Feelings get hurt and people’s intentions are misunderstood. Add to that the lack of vocal tone or facial expression, and Satan’s desire to create conflict and you have a real powder keg. (Plus some people are just plain 'ol jerks! npatrol

Therefore, being prideful to not fully following the Churches teachings is deeper due to the effects of pride

Yes, you are correct. I think there is plenty of pride on both sides of the issue to go around. Those who are not humble enough to admit to their sins and seek a fuller understanding of the real reasons the faith teaches certain things, and those who are prideful Pharisees. We really have to ask the Holy Spirit to protect us from these pitfalls and keep us humble and always seeking ways to improve.

 

[porthos11]

How am I rejecting how the Church regards them? In one sense the Church regards them as Catholic (OCAC), and I have no problem with that. In another sense the Church regards them as heretics. I can understand that, but I prefer a milder term. I’m not sure where you’re coming from with that question. Could you be a little clearer?

And also, for one to be a (formal) heretic, one first has to be Catholic. Becoming a formal heretic does not un-Catholicize anyone.

Of course, this is necessary because the Church still claims jurisdiction over the formal heretic so that she can reconcile him upon repentance.

 

[Sy_Noe]

How am I rejecting how the Church regards them? In one sense the Church regards them as Catholic (OCAC), and I have no problem with that. In another sense the Church regards them as heretics. I can understand that, but I prefer a milder term. I’m not sure where you’re coming from with that question. Could you be a little clearer?

I came from “regardless of how the Church “officially” regards them”.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
So are you saying someone who has faith, but not the Catholic faith, that they can not have faith with works too? What about all the many good people of non Catholic faiths who serve Christ and show their love by doing His work to serve the poor and the needy, the hungry, the thirsty, those in need of clothing, the sick and the prisoner. And the so many more works that they do. You judge these people as dead?

Sy Noe, I can only speak for myself-- but I would see them as very much alive in their faith and the core of loving God, and that they truly love Him by seeing Him in our neighbors and assisting them in His honor.

I might see their faith as incomplete but on the right track. Christ’s account of the judgment focuses on condemnation for sins of Omission. All the opportunities we had to assist others and didn’t.

I think the title captures part of the connotation of cafeteria Catholic. ‘Proud to…’ … reject the authority of the Catholic Church. I became reinvigorated in the faith when I started wondering if I was only Catholic as an accident of birth. Did I really believe, or just Catholic out of circumstance.

For me, it came down to coming to grips with Christ being real not mythical, that He existed and did establish a Church, did give it the authority to teach and guide in His name with the assurance He would guide it in all truth.

We’re all sinners, I fall short and struggle. I see ‘cafeteria’ Catholics main struggle being like that of the Jews in the Old Testament-- a struggle with the authority of God. These are a stiff necked people, a stiff necked people whom He loved and were His chosen people. We’re all tempted by different things— but if I present false teachings as consistent with Catholic teaching I endanger others. If the Church is in fact teaching the truth, and Christ commissioned it to spread that truth, then I’m obligated to attest to the truth as well.

I’m excited by Pope Francis, I think he’s misquoted and mistranslated in the media but I think his core message is a reminder-- we want everyone in the Church. All of us with our different struggles and sins, adulterers, liars, active homosexuals, thieves, divorced and remarried without annulment, the corrupt. All of us morally sick people to receive the guidance and medicine we need. How can the truth be taught to someone if they’re not in the Church to listen and hear? I don’t judge them by their sins, I hope they don’t judge me by mine- either by commission or omission. But I won’t represent things I do that violate the Church’s teaching as being consistent with Christ’s guidance; since if I contradict the Church, I’m contradicting the institution Christ assured as He would guide in all truth.

Hope this ramble makes some sense to you…

 

[DaveBj]

I came from “regardless of how the Church “officially” regards them”.

Ah, you’re talking about #68.

The labels that get applied to people who leave the Church are not part of the teaching on faith and morals. Therefore, your question is irrelevant.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The only problem here is that they actually are “practicing” as in going to mass and receiving Holy Communion, often while in a state of mortal sin or perhaps while they publicly denounce Catholic teachings. So they appear to be practicing when they really aren’t.

I’m not sure I understand. So are you saying you want to renounce the Catholic faith in some way that the Church no longer considers you one?

I think you may have combined quotes from more than 1 poster in your post so I will just quote and reply to the first 2 paragraphs which I think may have been the ones addressed to me.

Well yes. I used to be one of those who attended Mass for worship, received Holy Communion in those times when I sensed God saying the Word and felt healed even though I knew according to the Catholic Church I was in a state of mortal sin and unworthy to approach Jesus to receive. I haven’t set foot in a church though for nearly a year and a half. But even back in those times I didn’t consider myself practicing. I knew I did not believe enough to be a faithful Catholic.

I’m not saying what I want. I haven’t quite figured that out yet. Honestly at the moment I am fine with being called a non practicing Roman Catholic even if I were to attend another Christian faith community for worship which reflects my faith more so than Catholicism and where I am fully welcomed at the table as I come, as I am. I am as my Creator created me. And it is only thru the grace of God that any of us are where we are.

That said, I do think the Catholic Church retains a hold onto people by not allowing them to escape completely. That may even be why you have so many Catholics whom people here object to. If they weren’t told there was no way out, they might not bother calling themselves any kind of Catholic and you wouldn’t even see them at Christmas and Easter and the faithful could have that smaller purer Church that was talked about so much under Benedict.