Proud to be a cafeteria Catholic

[simpleas]

A very interesting article.

*Today, the accusation of being a “cafeteria Catholic” is flung around with the same zealousness as the term “heretic” was at one time. Passionate traditionalists troll online discussion boards and blogs seeking to attack women and men who do not give their full assent to each and every teaching of the Catholic Church.

These self-appointed gatekeepers of orthodoxy believe it is for the glory of God and the good of the church that all questioners be denounced and told if they don’t like it they can—and should—leave.

I have no desire to be part of the smaller, purer church envisioned by these doctrinal police. The church must keep its doors open for all of us who are on an imperfect, bumpy, and often messy journey toward holiness.*

uscatholic.org/articles/201507/proud-be-cafeteria-catholic-30253

 

[Stephen_says]

Hi! I know you didn’t write the article, and I don’t know if you agree with it or not, but here is my though:

I don’t condemn questioning, and I think the “traditionalists” who do are mistaken, because honest questioning should lead to study, which will lead to a deeper understanding.

I think the issue with “cafeteria Catholics” is that, when taken to the extreme, sin is diminished or ignored, and that is a dangerous road to go down. Doesn’t it say somewhere in the bible to be perfect, just as your father is perfect?

God sets a high bar for us, and it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than one who is rich to reach heaven, so cafeteria Catholics need to ask themselves if they are making themselves poor in spirit, or are they collecting worldly riches and pleasures.

Are they really only questioning in order to find the truth of Jesus, or have they found worldly riches outside of the church that they are not willing to sell to follow him?

 

[roseofshannon]

While I absolutely hate when people are rude and haughty about the rules of the faith (clanging gongs!) I have to wonder why cafeteria Catholics want to stay if the Church teaches things they don’t agree with.

It just seems to me that with over 20,000 other denominations there is something that would be more fitting to your needs and if there isn’t, you can start a new one.

But if someone wants to be a member of the Catholic Church, why wouldn’t they follow the rules? Everyone is welcome and no one is turned away who desires to follow the faith, but if they don’t want to, why on earth would they want to stay?

 

[commenter]

Suggestion: read the book “Orthodoxy” by G. K. Chesterton. Written over 100 years ago, while he was an Anglican, it is free of some of the controversies of our own moment. I’m not saying everyone will agree with it, but I think any intelligent Christian will have to address the concerns he raises, one way or the other. Whatever your position, you will better better informed.

 

[DaveBj]

The thing about one’s being a cafeteria Catholic and thinking that one can pick and choose at the table of Catholic doctrine – one might find oneself shut out of heaven because one hasn’t eaten his spinach.

 

[CB_Catholic]

A very interesting article.

*Today, the accusation of being a “cafeteria Catholic” is flung around with the same zealousness as the term “heretic” was at one time. Passionate traditionalists troll online discussion boards and blogs seeking to attack women and men who do not give their full assent to each and every teaching of the Catholic Church.

These self-appointed gatekeepers of orthodoxy believe it is for the glory of God and the good of the church that all questioners be denounced and told if they don’t like it they can—and should—leave.

I have no desire to be part of the smaller, purer church envisioned by these doctrinal police. The church must keep its doors open for all of us who are on an imperfect, bumpy, and often messy journey toward holiness.*

uscatholic.org/articles/201507/proud-be-cafeteria-catholic-30253

I think if these people are trolling online discussion boards and blogs for the purpose of attacking men and women whom they call “cafeteria” Catholics, they are in worse shape than the people they are attacking, for that type of behavior is judgmental and lacks true Charity. God is NOT glorified in this type of behavior.

I am with you about not being part of a church these “doctrinal police” envision, but fortunately, the Catholic Church is not that Church. That is a church they have formed in their own minds. The Church does not insist people should leave. They want people to repent and remain in the flock. The Church is made up of sinners. Only God can truly judge the understanding and culpability and intent of people who question some doctrines, but the Church expects people to inform and form their consciences about these matters. That does not mean they are given a pass on stubborn refusal to believe what the Church teaches, but for that, they have to answer to God, not people.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

While I absolutely hate when people are rude and haughty about the rules of the faith (clanging gongs!) I have to wonder why cafeteria Catholics want to stay if the Church teaches things they don’t agree with.

It just seems to me that with over 20,000 other denominations there is something that would be more fitting to your needs and if there isn’t, you can start a new one.

But if someone wants to be a member of the Catholic Church, why wouldn’t they follow the rules? Everyone is welcome and no one is turned away who desires to follow the faith, but if they don’t want to, why on earth would they want to stay?

Perhaps the people you call ‘cafeteria Catholics’ are just as devout and committed to the Church as those who are ‘rude and haughty about the rules of the faith.’ Where rules are important to some members, being a part of a community that loves and worships Christ is just as important.

I know many who who are born and raised in the Church, studied at Catholic schools, and now work towards bringing Christ’s teachings into our lives. They will tell you upfront that they support women’s ordination, women’s health, inclusion of our gay brothers and sisters, and all the other progressive ideals. I see them pray every day, and offer their time and talent to the Church.

The Church for them IS the Roman Catholic Church. They are not about to leave it. My guess is that they are concerned less about rules and more about walking with Christ. (And if you were to say, but the rules ARE what Christ asks us to follow, they would shake their heads and say something very different. You should take a moment and listen to their answers. Really.)

 

[Murmurs]

The thing about one’s being a cafeteria Catholic and thinking that one can pick and choose at the table of Catholic doctrine – one might find oneself shut out of heaven because one hasn’t eaten his spinach.

It’s funny to me, the phrase, because the when at university we had ‘cafeteria’ style dining, there was only one thing on the menu (plus veggie option, naturally) - take it or leave it… Spinach is ok with me but celery is the Devil’s Own Vegetable. (I understand it to have been the active ingredient in Dr Jekyll’s potion).

More seriously, speaking as a former cafeteria catholic in the more usual sense (picking and choosing), on reflection I think my haphazard approach to doctrine stemmed more from not understanding why the Church teaches particular things, than because I was when more fully understanding, unwilling to live by them. I think a good deal of cafeterial attitudes could be solved by more effective (often more patient and gentle) explanations of teaching. I think when one actually properly recognises that the sacrifices we might be called to make now (like committing to chastity outside of the obvious context), are actually pretty worth it, suddenly the “I don’t like that I can’t do X” feels a pretty petty reaction.

It’s very telling that one doesn’t find many ‘cafeteria’ catholics on purely doctrinal issues - it’s primarily about morals. How many people pick and choose which Marian doctrines they fancy, for instance? It’s an issue with not quite grappling with how Catholicism and modern life and lifestyles fit together.

All that said - while the Church has to be (and will be) consistent in its teaching, there is nothing to stop the encouragement of a much for forgiving and liberal pastoral attitude towards those who don’t quite understand. I think trying a change of style, rather than of substance, would go a very long way (which is I think, from all I’ve observed, broadly the Holy Father’s opinion as well).

 

[JurisPrudens]

Curious - why are they called “cafeteria” Catholics? Why do cafeterias have to do with faith?

 

[marymary1975]

While I absolutely hate when people are rude and haughty about the rules of the faith (clanging gongs!) I have to wonder why cafeteria Catholics want to stay if the Church teaches things they don’t agree with.

It just seems to me that with over 20,000 other denominations there is something that would be more fitting to your needs and if there isn’t, you can start a new one.

But if someone wants to be a member of the Catholic Church, why wouldn’t they follow the rules? Everyone is welcome and no one is turned away who desires to follow the faith, but if they don’t want to, why on earth would they want to stay?

These are exacrly my thoughts on the subject

 

[marymary1975]

Perhaps the people you call ‘cafeteria Catholics’ are just as devout and committed to the Church as those who are ‘rude and haughty about the rules of the faith.’ Where rules are important to some members, being a part of a community that loves and worships Christ is just as important.

I know many who who are born and raised in the Church, studied at Catholic schools, and now work towards bringing Christ’s teachings into our lives. They will tell you upfront that they support women’s ordination, women’s health, inclusion of our gay brothers and sisters, and all the other progressive ideals. I see them pray every day, and offer their time and talent to the Church.

The Church for them IS the Roman Catholic Church. They are not about to leave it. My guess is that they are concerned less about rules and more about walking with Christ. (And if you were to say, but the rules ARE what Christ asks us to follow, they would shake their heads and say something very different. You should take a moment and listen to their answers. Really.)

By cafeteria catholic we don’t mean someone who simply has questions on the faith. A cafeteria catholic is someone who completely rejects the doctrine of the church and deems it as wrong. Hence a cafeteria catholic cannot be a devout Catholic. How exactly someone is going to bring Christ into people’s lives by going completely against Christ’s teaching? If you think that the catholic church is plain wrong but you as an individual is the person who holds the truth, not the church how that makes Catholicism the church for you? Unless you want to push your own belief into the church so the church will change it (which I think it is often the case not that they are less concerned about rules) it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[R_H_Benson]

A “cafeteria Catholic” declares that the Church is simply wrong about certain issues and decides that he/she will not submit to the Church’s authority regarding the issues in question. Quite frankly, the term is nothing more than a modern euphemism for “heretic”. In my opinion, the heresy of many cafeteria Catholics is of the “material” variety. That is - they do not have a sufficient understanding of their Catechism to make a truly informed decision/they are making their decisions based on a flawed premise. The culpability of each cafeteria Catholic individual would of course vary based on their subjective conditions (for example, one’s level of catechesis, one’s upbringing, etc.). Even so, it is an absurdity that one could, in good conscience, be “proud” to be a cafeteria Catholic. People can call out the “doctrinal police” all they like, but the truth of the matter remains the “doctrinal police” are guilty of nothing more than pastoral failures and perhaps, at times, a lack in charity of speech. While by no means perfect, such remain in the fold of Christ’s Church without anything significantly hindering their spiritual well-being, if they avail themselves of the Sacraments often and worthily. Cafeteria Catholics, on the other hand, reject truths which the Church has deemed authoritative and definitive. This is gravely dangerous. Let’s be VERY clear about this: it is far more spiritually dangerous to be a “cafeteria Catholic” than to be a “doctrinal policemen” because the former** is a rejection of the Divine Authority of the Roman Catholic Church **which, objectively speaking, is heresy - a grave sin against the supernatural virtue of Faith, while the latter is a pastoral short coming.

 

[Polycarp1]

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

 

[7_Sorrows]

While I absolutely hate when people are rude and haughty about the rules of the faith (clanging gongs!) I have to wonder why cafeteria Catholics want to stay if the Church teaches things they don’t agree with.

It just seems to me that with over 20,000 other denominations there is something that would be more fitting to your needs and if there isn’t, you can start a new one.

But if someone wants to be a member of the Catholic Church, why wouldn’t they follow the rules? Everyone is welcome and no one is turned away who desires to follow the faith, but if they don’t want to, why on earth would they want to stay?

I ask myself the same question many times. I don’t get it either.

 

[Dorothy]

Curious - why are they called “cafeteria” Catholics? Why do cafeterias have to do with faith?

I believe it means that they pick and choose what doctrines and moral directives they are okay with, and don’t bother at all believing or practicing the ones they disagree with.

 

[Hans_W]

By cafeteria catholic we don’t mean someone who simply has questions on the faith. A cafeteria catholic is someone who completely rejects the doctrine of the church and deems it as wrong. Hence a cafeteria catholic cannot be a devout Catholic. How exactly someone is going to bring Christ into people’s lives by going completely against Christ’s teaching? If you think that the catholic church is plain wrong but you as an individual is the person who holds the truth, not the church how that makes Catholicism the church for you? Unless you want to push your own belief into the church so the church will change it (which I think it is often the case not that they are less concerned about rules) it makes absolutely no sense.

[my emphasis]

I think that there is a vast field between a militant conservative and “someone who completely rejects the doctrines of the church”.

The latter wouldn’t be a Catholic anyway. The former is often what we would call a fundamentalist - a picture better associated with some radical Protestant sects.

 

[grannymh]

Curious - why are they called “cafeteria” Catholics? Why do cafeterias have to do with faith?

The phrase “Cafeteria Catholics” has been replaced
by the various terms signifying emerging Christianity or the progressive Christian, etc., all residing in perfect harmony in the Big Tent principle. Precious Divine Revelation, as taught by the Catholic Church, is being watered down to meet personal preferences. Sometimes, the errors are hard to detect because of the honey coated language. In subtle ways, some, not all, prominent public authors and speakers are inviting Catholics into the Big Tent principle where Catholic doctrines take a back seat. No more standing in a cafeteria line.

 

[DaveBj]

It’s funny to me, the phrase, because the when at university we had ‘cafeteria’ style dining, there was only one thing on the menu (plus veggie option, naturally) - take it or leave it… Spinach is ok with me but celery is the Devil’s Own Vegetable. (I understand it to have been the active ingredient in Dr Jekyll’s potion).

snip

That’s funny – I almost wrote “spinach and celery.”

The term “cafeteria Catholic” has already been defined well enough that those who were asking should have it clear. Speaking only for myself, there are things that I have questions about, but I’m not about to start publicly rejecting things, just because I don’t understand them.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We all go through periods where we have troubles. Some people at some point might have difficulty with one particular concept, perhaps, “Oh why MUST we ‘go to Mass every Sunday’, how can that be so terrible for a ‘good person’ to sleep in?”

Some have difficulty with one concept that affects a lot of teaching --mainly it’s the ‘authority’ concept. "HOW can a flawed institution PRESUME to tell ME how to live my life in the bedroom, participate in politics, raise my children, live my life, etc?’

“Cafeteria Catholic” was a popular term once because it seemed to express the idea of a person who ‘picked and chose’ from a menu. But since again one person might only have an issue with “Sunday obligation” and another might question everything from women “priests” to ‘gay marriage’ to the Immaculate Conception, and in fact, proudly proclaim one’s “Catholicity credentials of being a tenth generation Catholic who is 'proudly prochoice”, for example. . . well, the idea that both these people would be considered ‘equivalent’ as "Cafeteria Catholics’ is something that most find difficult to accept.

So like a lot of labels, it may have been useful at some point, but considering today’s climate and all the twisting and turning and attempts to redefine words, it’s useless, because you’ll find all the pettifogging pseudowordsmiths out there pulling the old, “how can you POSSIBLY equate one ‘itty thing like Sunday obligation’ to somebody who outright rejects almost all Catholic teaching?”

Fair question, of course.

It’s a variant on the ‘mortal sin equivalence argument’ whereby one hears, “how can missing a Sunday Mass be compared to killing a person?”

And the answer is the same: It is NOT a comparison.

If you are offered the option of being killed by taking poison, being shot, being drowned, being hung, or being fed to the point of suffocation with cherry bonbons. . .hey the last seems a lot less painful than the others, but in the end. . .

you are JUST AS DEAD.

Meaning, the end result of a deadly sin --any deadly sin–is death. Whether that sin felt ‘good’ in the doing or not doesn’t have any effect on the ‘result’ of that sin, does it? If you wanted to kill yourself and you only took your own life, you’re still dead. If you decided to do a suicide bombing, you took your life and many others – but your own death is still evil. You’ve COMPOUNDED the evil, you haven’t made your own suicide seem LESS evil or ‘not so bad’.

If you ‘pick and choose’ Catholic teaching that is doctrine or dogma, and you stubbornly refuse to abide by the Church’s teachings, you may feel you are justified, you may indeed (through invincible ignorance) not be held as responsible for the sin of such --but that doesn’t mean that the whole concept of accepting only what you ‘like’ or rejecting what you don’t like is something GOOD or praiseworthy in itself.

If you’re having trouble accepting, you need to pray for the grace of acceptance instead of celebrating that wonderful you is still going to warm that pew on Sunday --when you feel like it–despite not accepting all those things in Catholicism that ‘offend you’.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Curious - why are they called “cafeteria” Catholics? Why do cafeterias have to do with faith?

Keep coming back - work your way steadily through the menu even if it’s not all at one sitting. Insist on a range of decent items being served and not just “spam, spam, spam, spam and spam” *.

Murmurs has also made interesting points.

I’m glad we were very marginal to the Church - I am the most “into” the faith the family has ever got except an uncle many miles off who was an organist. Although confirmed at age 9 with hardly any catechesis, I am still on the edge of it but much more interested now than 3 weeks ago thanks to all you kind folks at this board.

I’m glad I was not saddled with what is conventionally understood as “Catholic identity” - we are definitely of the wrong ethnic background.

Just when I started getting interested in religion as an adolescent they dumbed the whole thing down.

Dad was seriously side tracked by Teilhard in retrospect. I am a second generation Teilhard victim.

Our youth group (after I moved to another part of the country) is one that did have drunken parties and there were no ructions. The only time the church authorities took action was years later when it was found the youth coordinator had cooked his account books. Then the youth had no youth service at all for many years.

There was the pilgrimage dogged by a fake priest who tried to recruit us for his vague “work” but contented himself with running off with some money in the end.

There were the house meetings that weren’t in the church bulletin. (I have fond memories of those and the people involved.) It was infiltrated by weird sects but we thought it was hilarious!

There were huge tragedies that I am not going to allude to because there being few Catholics in this country it is a goldfish bowl and the worst affected victims got the most blame in public from one of the many factions.

There was the Legion of Mary meeting that could never get a priest to attend.

Various kinds of “evangelicals” inside and outside the C of E have included me in some of my life’s highlights including some super camps. My latest bunch are tragically off beam but likeable when they don’t blunder or bungle too much.

Have been to a couple of seemingly goodish Catholic conferences also (outside my diocese) all on my own. At one of these was the Hale-Bopp comet and at another a solar eclipse. My presence was obviously momentous!

The deacon reads out Scriptures in a “conversational” tone totally mauling them.

Catholics don’t relate - relationships are nuclear only. As a family of one I don’t exist, officially. I am barred from RCIA because I was confirmed over half a century ago.

What a gallimaufrey, a charivari! A pageant, even! Now you are all going to write in and say the dioceses I have known are all normal and standard

(( * I approve of the real thing which is another matter ))