Religious Consumerism

[Leela]

Hi All,

I sometimes hear the term “cafeteria Catholic” thrown around in this forum. What does this term mean? Is a Cafeteria Catholic one who has Catholicism wrong? or one who knows but doesn’t care that her beliefs are not all consistent with Orthodoxy?

What should Cafeteria Catholics do who are informed about dogma but disagree with the Church? In your complaints about them, are you wishing they would leave the Church if they disagree? wishing that they would become better educated about the correct teachings? wishing they would obey the authority of the Church in spite of their own disagreements?

Given that there are so many ways of being religious available to us (we have options that were not usually available to people for most of he history of religion), is there any way to avoid participating in religious consurmerism? Is there a way for any of us to deny that we ourselves have chosen the particular way of practicing our faith (or lack of faith) that we think suits us best?

For example, even if you agree completely with Catholic Orthodoxy, could it not be said that you chose the Catholic Church or choose to stay in the Catholic Church rather than join a different church based on your own individual purposes and desires?

After all, Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans are all “cafeteria Christians,” aren’t they? Everyone who identifies as one of these has made a personal choice to not be one of the others. So are we all participants in “religious consumerism” whether we like to think so or not?

Best,
Leela

 

[Joe_5859]

Well here’s a can of worms waiting to be opened. I’ll respond early before things get ugly (but I’ll be praying that they don’t!).

Hi All,

I sometimes hear the term “cafeteria Catholic” thrown around in this forum. What does this term mean? Is a Cafeteria Catholic one who has Catholicism wrong? or one who knows but doesn’t care that her beliefs are not all consistent with Orthodoxy?

Obviously, it’s not an official term, so the meaning often varies from person to person. IMO, it most accurately describes those Catholics who know the teaching of the Church but refuse to believe one or more aspects of it. Just as one walks through the line at a cafeteria picking and choosing which foods they like and leaving behind those they don’t, these Catholics adhere to the doctrines they like, and dismiss those they don’t.

If someone just plain doesn’t know what the Church teaches in a particular matter, I don’t think they should be lumped in the same category. I know a great number of Catholics who have held to erroneous beliefs simply because they didn’t know what the Church teaches. Once they learn the correct teaching, they are often happy to adhere to it.

Personally, I avoid using the term altogether. It has accrued a great number of perjorative connotations through the years. It tends to only create barriers to communication.

What should Cafeteria Catholics do who are informed about dogma but disagree with the Church? In your complaints about them, are you wishing they would leave the Church if they disagree? wishing that they would become better educated about the correct teachings? wishing they would obey the authority of the Church in spite of their own disagreements?

That’s the million dollar question. I think it depends. If a Catholic is simply struggling with an issue like artificial contraception (which the outside culture indoctrinates us into believing is just fine), then that’s one thing. On the other hand, if a Catholic is firmly convicted that the Church is wrong and outdated on a whole host of issues (from all-male clergy to contraception and abortion to homosexuality to the Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, etc.) then I have to wonder why they still want to be Catholic.

I’m still formulating my thoughts on all this, so bear with me, but perhaps a lot of it has to do with an individual Catholic’s view of the authority of the Church. Some Catholics disagree with the Church’s stance on contraception or the death penalty, but since they firmly believe in the authority of the Church, they recognize that such disagreements could very well be because of the limits of the human intellect. Thus, they put aside those things and put their faith in the Church. I think such a thing can be quite noble and meritorious. I think that these people should still strive to understand the Church’s teachings more fully, and most of them do.

However, other Catholics disagree with the Church’s teaching on a whole host of issues including the Church’s authority. They don’t believe the Church can teach infallibly, thus they see no problem with disagreeing with the Church. It seems to me that, to be honest with themselves, these people would want to leave the Catholic Church. But many don’t. I certainly don’t possess the authority to tell them to “get out” and I would never presume to do so.

Generally speaking, I think it’s good to ask honest questions rather than bury them in our mind. If people did that more often years ago, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in at the moment where so many Catholics do not know or understand the teachings of the Church.

Given that there are so many ways of being religious available to us (we have options that were not usually available to people for most of he history of religion), is there any way to avoid participating in religious consurmerism? Is there a way for any of us to deny that we ourselves have chosen the particular way of practicing our faith (or lack of faith) that we think suits us best?

For example, even if you agree completely with Catholic Orthodoxy, could it not be said that you chose the Catholic Church or choose to stay in the Catholic Church rather than join a different church based on your own individual purposes and desires?

After all, Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans are all “cafeteria Christians,” aren’t they? Everyone who identifies as one of these has made a personal choice to not be one of the others. So are we all participants in “religious consumerism” whether we like to think so or not?

Best,
Leela

Interesting proposition. You are correct, but I think there’s an important distinction to be made. There’s a difference between strolling through and picking one religion among many and picking only parts of one of those religions. The best analogy I can think of offhand is picking a spouse. You are certainly free to “browse” (for lack of a better word) and pick which spouse you would like. But in choosing a spouse, you choose the whole package. You don’t say, I want to marry you, but can you get rid of the freckles and your sense of humor. When you make that decision, you get it all, whether you like it or not.

 

[Magnanimity]

I sometimes hear the term “cafeteria Catholic” thrown around in this forum. What does this term mean? Is a Cafeteria Catholic one who has Catholicism wrong? or one who knows but doesn’t care that her beliefs are not all consistent with Orthodoxy?

What should Cafeteria Catholics do who are informed about dogma but disagree with the Church? In your complaints about them, are you wishing they would leave the Church if they disagree? wishing that they would become better educated about the correct teachings? wishing they would obey the authority of the Church in spite of their own disagreements?

Given that there are so many ways of being religious available to us (we have options that were not usually available to people for most of he history of religion), is there any way to avoid participating in religious consurmerism? Is there a way for any of us to deny that we ourselves have chosen the particular way of practicing our faith (or lack of faith) that we think suits us best?

I like this post Leela. I think you’re making some legitimate criticisms here of an overly-simplistic approach to Catholicism. You’re on the right track in understanding what others mean by cafeteria Catholic–one who picks and chooses what he wants to believe and practice, as you pick and choose what you want to eat in the cafe.

My main criticism with individuals who practice this picking and choosing is when it’s done without enough reflection and engagement of the view which is alternative to your own. For example, suppose Jane, as a Catholic, has already made up her mind that she will have sex with her husband as often and in whatever manner either of them chooses. Jane already believes it’s fine to contracept, as an example, and she also believes in unfettered sexual relations, in terms of numerical quantity, and in terms of the sex acts which are committed, etc.

Now, has Jane come to this decision after a prolonged and serious engagement with the major teachings of the Catholic Church on this issue? If so, then I would not accuse her of being a cafeteria Catholic if she dissents. If not (which is far more likely), then I would. And I think it’s a valid criticism of her in this latter case. Picking and choosing after extensive reading, reflection, and prayer is one thing. Picking and choosing in a Cartman-esque “Whatever, I do what I want!” kind of way is quite another. I think it’s this latter, sort of juvenile, approach to believing and doing as a Catholic that gets under people’s skins.

On the other hand…I know you’ll get other approaches along very different lines, but I’ll leave that for the, shall we say, more conservative members of CAF among us, to reply themselves.

For example, even if you agree completely with Catholic Orthodoxy, could it not be said that you chose the Catholic Church or choose to stay in the Catholic Church rather than join a different church based on your own individual purposes and desires?

After all, Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans are all “cafeteria Christians,” aren’t they? Everyone who identifies as one of these has made a personal choice to not be one of the others. So are we all participants in “religious consumerism” whether we like to think so or not?

This second point you make above is less powerful, I think. Those other groups you mention, besides Catholic, spring from the Protesting movement, which defined itself as anti-Catholic, or not-Catholic in this or that particular. So, this is quite a separate issue, an interesting one, but quite separate.

 

[Havard]

I just want to recommend a good book that deals specifically with how to deal with issues one might have with Church teaching: Knowing Right from Wrong: A Christian Guide to Conscience by Father Thomas D. Williams, LC.

 

[Ferds_Guiang]

Given that there are so many ways of being religious available to us (we have options that were not usually available to people for most of he history of religion), is there any way to avoid participating in religious consurmerism? Is there a way for any of us to deny that we ourselves have chosen the particular way of practicing our faith (or lack of faith) that we think suits us best?

I believe that the varied and multifarious forms of religious expression says something about God’s nature. Man can never exhaust the ways of being spiritual in as much as Spirituality emanates from our Creator who is by nature infinite. This means we can find degrees of beauty and truth in every religious expression. Unfortunately the differences of beliefs has spawned a lot of contradictions, violent or otherwise. But our God cannot be the source of good and evil at the same time. This God of ours only wants the good for us but as Christian Theology teaches, the pure spirits created by God rebelled and they together with the cooperation of some human beings have caused the evil we find in this world. I believe that if one truly seeks for the Good then religion and spirituality won’t be as consumeristic as perceived.

 

[sablouwho]

Now, has Jane come to this decision after a prolonged and serious engagement with the major teachings of the Catholic Church on this issue? If so, then I would not accuse her of being a cafeteria Catholic if she dissents. If not (which is far more likely), then I would. And I think it’s a valid criticism of her in this latter case. Picking and choosing after extensive reading, reflection, and prayer is one thing. Picking and choosing in a Cartman-esque “Whatever, I do what I want!” kind of way is quite another. I think it’s this latter, sort of juvenile, approach to believing and doing as a Catholic that gets under people’s skins.

Is what you refer to above, the example in which Jane has seriously engaged the issues but still dissents, an instance of personal conscience?

This is kinda important to me. Because I’m very much like the praying. studying and reading version of Jane.

There are things that are hard for me to agree with (though I will study them more), yet I want to be a Catholic despite these areas of non-agreement.

(Boy, I hope no one starts throwing tomatoes at me or starts sending me wacky PMs!)

 

[Leela]

This second point you make above is less powerful, I think. Those other groups you mention, besides Catholic, spring from the Protesting movement, which defined itself as anti-Catholic, or not-Catholic in this or that particular. So, this is quite a separate issue, an interesting one, but quite separate.

I don’t see the problem with the point I made. No matter how the modern manifestations of Christianity came about, modern religious consumers are in a position to choose from among them. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only one that claims to be the true Church. The Protestant movement happened because the Catholic Church was seen to have either never been or strayed from being the true Church. And modern evangelical churches in America do not consider themselves Protestant. They see themselves as part of the oldest Christian tradition–as part of the Church. They take their point of departure as the early Christians breaking from Judaism rather than as the Protestant Reformation.

Presumably you chose Catholicism and continue to choose it because you think it is more true than other denominations. If so, then you are a participant in the marketplace of religious ideas–in religious consumerism.

Perhaps the issue that you want to get to with “religious consumerism” is that people choose religions on the wrong basis. On what criteriia should one choose her religion? Can you think of examples of people who have chosen on the wrong criteria?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Is what you refer to above, the example in which Jane has seriously engaged the issues but still dissents, an instance of personal conscience?

This is kinda important to me. Because I’m very much like the praying. studying and reading version of Jane.

There are things that are hard for me to agree with (though I will study them more), yet I want to be a Catholic despite these areas of non-agreement.

(Boy, I hope no one starts throwing tomatoes at me or starts sending me wacky PMs!)

Unfortunately, I think there are many including this Catholic Cardinal who would say that you are not really Catholic at all:

edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=102515

 

[sablouwho]

Unfortunately, I think there are many including this Catholic Cardinal who would say that you are not really Catholic at all:

edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=102515

Yeah, I would indeed say that it is unfortunate. Probably, from their POV they would think it’s too bad that they can’t do anything about it.! But they can’t…I shall soon be a card carrying Catholic.

BTW, I enjoyed your original post. I thought you made some very good points! I had a supernatural conversion to faith in Jesus 4 years ago, but that experience didn’t include any kind of pointing to a specific church. I had to church shop. So yeah, I’m a consumer in that sense.

 

[sablouwho]

For example, even if you agree completely with Catholic Orthodoxy, could it not be said that you chose the Catholic Church or choose to stay in the Catholic Church rather than join a different church based on your own individual purposes and desires?

I think that the answer to this is YES.

After all, Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans are all “cafeteria Christians,” aren’t they? Everyone who identifies as one of these has made a personal choice to not be one of the others. So are we all participants in “religious consumerism” whether we like to think so or not?

Yes to this too, definitely.

IMO, even a person who has an acceptance of all the teachings of any given church body is still making a choice. So is sticking with the faith that one was raised with despite the existence of other options.

 

[Betterave]

Why ‘consumerism’? What do you mean by this term?

Religion is always about ‘ultimate concern.’ Picking food at the cafeteria is the polar opposite, it is a choice that is utterly trivial. The natural significance of such a comparison would seem to be to trivialize religious belief. (Is that what you were after, Leela?) That’s why the term ‘cafeteria Catholic’ is derogatory - it indicates that the cafeteria Catholic has reduced religion to a matter of what makes her feel good or whatever she has decided works for her. Certainly it indicates that she has not accepted that her own authority is not ultimate, is not divinely instituted, and must therefore be subordinate to the divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church (if, that is, her calling herself Catholic is to make any kind of sense, if it is to involve any kind of integrity). Without understanding this it doesn’t matter what card a person carries, she is not Catholic in her faith and her calling herself Catholic is based on a deficient understanding of what the Catholic faith is.

 

[Leela]

Why ‘consumerism’? What do you mean by this term?

“Religious consumerism” and “cafeteria Catholic” are not my terms. They are terms that I have heard used on this forum. Your question is my question. I’m wonderring what these terms can mean.

Religion is always about ‘ultimate concern.’ Picking food at the cafeteria is the polar opposite, it is a choice that is utterly trivial. The natural significance of such a comparison would seem to be to trivialize religious belief. (Is that what you were after, Leela?)

Again, it is not my analogy.

You seem to be concerned about my motive here. I would prefer that people stop criticizing one another for their religious practices or lack of religious practices. If religious people stop accusing one another of “religious consumerism” they are more likely to also stop criticzing nonbleievers like myself.

That’s why the term ‘cafeteria Catholic’ is derogatory - it indicates that the cafeteria Catholic has reduced religion to a matter of what makes her feel good or whatever she has decided works for her. Certainly it indicates that she has not accepted that her own authority is not ultimate, is not divinely instituted, and must therefore be subordinate to the divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church (if, that is, her calling herself Catholic is to make any kind of sense, if it is to involve any kind of integrity). Without understanding this it doesn’t matter what card a person carries, she is not Catholic in her faith and her calling herself Catholic is based on a deficient understanding of what the Catholic faith is.

The term seem to suggest a false dictomy between those who make choices about what religion to practice and those who don’t. We all make choices. I think to make this derogatory term coherent, it must be made clear what are the proper criteria for making such choices. Then you can criticize someone for not making their choices based on the proper criteria.

“What feels good” or “what works for her” do not work to distinguish people’s criteria because these criteria include such criteria as “what seems true to me.” Doesn’'t everyone believe what seems most true to them? Can someone believe something that does not “feel good”–that does not “work” in the way that beliefs are supposed to work?

Perhaps the issue is best resolved around subordinating one’s self to the teaching of the Church. “Religious consumerism” then seems like the wrong term since there are many choices for which religious authority to subordinate one’s self to. How would one choose which one to submit to without participating in a sort of consumerism?

“Cafeteria Catholic” makes some sense since it is a misunderstanding about what it means to be Catholic. You can’t pick and choose among Catholic beliefs and still be a Catholic, but all Catholics still do participate in religious consumerism (it seems to me, unless this term can be made useful for drawing distinctions) since Catholics, like everyone else, have picked and chosen from among the available religious ideas that are available to us today. Presumably for them, Catholicism is the best fit based on whatever criteria get applied in deciding on a religion.

One problem with the term “cafeteria Catholic,” however, is that the vast majority of Catholics seem to fit this discription. Most Catholics seem to disagree with at least teaching about, say, personal birth control use, legal abortion rights, forbidding condom use in AIDS stricken countries and discouraging birth control in impoversished countries, woman in the priesthood, papal infallibility, or some other doctrine. “Cafeteria Catholicism” may best be viewed as a problem facing Catholicism rather than as a pejorative for those members of your parishes who annoy you.

See catholicsforchoice.org/ for example.

I assume that “Catholics for Choice” are in naming themselves as supporting choice also declaring themselves to not really be Catholics. What percent of people who identify as Catholics are really Catholics?

Best,
Leela

 

[manygift1spirit]

You seem to be confusing religious freedom and dissention. Choosing a religion is a process of following one’s conscience in an honest and (hopefully) informed way. The Church recognizes this freedom as a fundamental consequence of the dignity of the human person.

However, this is not the same as dissent, and in all likelihood your confusion comes from the notion that Catholicism is an arbitrary list of rules subject to change on the whim of whomever is in the Vatican at any given time. That notion is most certainly not correct. Catholicism is a gift from Christ himself. Once one sees that, one sees the manifestation of that gift, including the Chair of Peter, Apostolic Succession, and the Magisterium. So when one says one wants to be Catholic, they are saying they want to accept Christ’ gift, whose parts have as logical consequences the body of doctrine of the Church itself.

As a rough analogy, when one professes to believe in the law of gravity, this implies one believes in all of its consequences. So when one says “I believe in the LoG, but I also believe that when I drop this rock, it will fall up, not down”, they in some sense are not a “gravity believer” at all. Please don’t look for special pleadings about helium, centfrifugal force, etc.

The doctrine of the Church is not something subject to the whim of men. It is protected from error by the Holy Spirit itself. This is why the Church takes pains to distinguish doctrine from practice. The latter is subject to prudential judgement of men, and thus subject to influence from historical and cultural artifacts and other arbitrary things.

As to your other question, once one is baptized a Catholic, they are always a Catholic, except under the most strict of circumstances (involving something like voluntary and explicit renouncing of one’s faith, but I don’t know the details so don’t quote me). However, one can be not in a state of full communion with the Church (this is what excommunication is simply an acknowledgement of).

But even here, it is not necessary to understand the rationale for all Church teachings to be in communion with it, rather only that one accept them. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a good teaching moment. The Church teaches that the Trinity is a mystery not fully comprehensible by humanity. Thus anyone who claims to fully understand it cannot be in full communion with the Church! But all that is required is that one assents to it, accepts it, even if it is not fully understood.

What puts one out of communion with the Church is when one says not only do I not understand doctrine X, I will refuse to assent to it, to choose to believe it. In many cases of what you are calling ‘Cafeteria Catholicism’, this is what is happening.

I agree the term is used disparagingly sometimes. But there is another side to this. When used to mean not in communion with the Church, it also has the implication that the person wishes to be seen in communion with the Church, even if they are not. While this can be (and has been) a great occasion of scandal, it is also a backhanded compliment to the Church itself.

 

[Leela]

However, this is not the same as dissent, and in all likelihood your confusion comes from the notion that Catholicism is an arbitrary list of rules subject to change on the whim of whomever is in the Vatican at any given time.

Never thought that.

That notion is most certainly not correct. Catholicism is a gift from Christ himself. Once one sees that, one sees the manifestation of that gift, including the Chair of Peter, Apostolic Succession, and the Magisterium. So when one says one wants to be Catholic, they are saying they want to accept Christ’ gift, whose parts have as logical consequences the body of doctrine of the Church itself.

The doctrine of the Church is not something subject to the whim of men. It is protected from error by the Holy Spirit itself. This is why the Church takes pains to distinguish doctrine from practice. The latter is subject to prudential judgement of men, and thus subject to influence from historical and cultural artifacts and other arbitrary things.

That is my understandind of Catholicism’s understanding of itself (as well as how Episcopalianism and other religions understand themselves.)

As to your other question, once one is baptized a Catholic, they are always a Catholic, except under the most strict of circumstances (involving something like voluntary and explicit renouncing of one’s faith, but I don’t know the details so don’t quote me). However, one can be not in a state of full communion with the Church (this is what excommunication is simply an acknowledgement of).

It is my understanding that there is only one baptism. There is not Catholic, Lutheran, and UCC baptism. Are you saying that Lutherans are Catholics who are not in communion? I think Lutherans would agree that they are not in communion with Catholics but not that they are Catholics. (Muslims happen to believe that we are all born Muslim and cannot convert but can only revert to Islam.)

But even here, it is not necessary to understand the rationale for all Church teachings to be in communion with it, rather only that one accept them. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a good teaching moment. The Church teaches that the Trinity is a mystery not fully comprehensible by humanity. Thus anyone who claims to fully understand it cannot be in full communion with the Church! But all that is required is that one assents to it, accepts it, even if it is not fully understood.

What puts one out of communion with the Church is when one says not only do I not understand doctrine X, I will refuse to assent to it, to choose to believe it. In many cases of what you are calling ‘Cafeteria Catholicism’, this is what is happening.

I don’t see how someone could ever choose to believe something. Either one is convinced that an assertion is true or not. One can’t by force of will believe the Church’s teaching that Jesus had no earthly biological father unless one believes that it is actually true. There is no possibility of asserting “I’m not convinced that this is actually true but I will go ahead and will myself to believe it anyway.” To believe something is to believe that it is true.

I agree the term is used disparagingly sometimes. But there is another side to this. When used to mean not in communion with the Church, it also has the implication that the person wishes to be seen in communion with the Church, even if they are not. While this can be (and has been) a great occasion of scandal, it is also a backhanded compliment to the Church itself.

Yes, it is sad for someone to be in the position of dissenting and out of communion with the church they want to commune with. Apparently (based on polls) the vast majority of Catholics are in this sad state of dissent. I wonder how many Catholics are actually in communion with the Catholic Church.

Can you help clarify your distinction between accepting a teaching and understanding it and believing that the teaching is actually true? Most Catholics, for example and according to polls, believe in the use of modern birth control methods. Is it possible to believe that the Church should not forbid birth control, but still accept this teaching by refraining from using birth control? Or is believing that the Church is wrong enought o put one out of communion with the Catholic Church? If so, it would seem that there are few Catholics who are in communion with their own church.

Best,
Leela

 

[manygift1spirit]

It is my understanding that there is only one baptism. There is not Catholic, Lutheran, and UCC baptism. Are you saying that Lutherans are Catholics who are not in communion? I think Lutherans would agree that they are not in communion with Catholics but not that they are Catholics.

You have a point about one Baptism. Your question about (say) Lutherans being out-of-Communion Catholics is not one I can answer with any certainty, although I suspect the answer is (technically) “yes”. But the point remains. For a Catholic to become “not Catholic” requires an extraordinary amount of effort. Things like opening an abortion clinic or blowing up a school, by themselves, do not make one “not Catholic”

I don’t see how someone could ever choose to believe something. Either one is convinced that an assertion is true or not. One can’t by force of will believe the Church’s teaching that Jesus had no earthly biological father unless one believes that it is actually true. There is no possibility of asserting “I’m not convinced that this is actually true but I will go ahead and will myself to believe it anyway.” To believe something is to believe that it is true.

I understand, I think this comes from connotations of the word “believe”. The operative idea is “assent of the will” (not “force”), or perhaps “acceptance” or “affirmation”. We do this about assertions we cannot have logical proof for all the time, e.g.. that Charon is a moon of Pluto. I doubt you (or I) could ever prove this, although we both accept strong appeals to authority that it is true.

Can you help clarify your distinction between accepting a teaching and understanding it and believing that the teaching is actually true? Most Catholics, for example and according to polls, believe in the use of modern birth control methods. Is it possible to believe that the Church should not forbid birth control, but still accept this teaching by refraining from using birth control? Or is believing that the Church is wrong enought o put one out of communion with the Catholic Church? If so, it would seem that there are few Catholics who are in communion with their own church.

Best,
Leela

There is a fine line there which from your question I am not sure I have made clear. “believe that the Church should not forbid [artificial] birth control” is manifestly different than “cannot understand the prohibition, except only as the logical consequence of the teaching authority of the Church granted to it by Christ”. The former requires either the premise that the Holy Spirit can err, or the ignorance of the fact it cannot. To believe that it cannot err, but then to “believe that the Church should not forbid [it]”, is logically inconsistent. The latter, however, simply means one’s own human and mortal brain cannot fully understand divine truths through only their own facilities. (This is the old “absence of evidence =!= evidence of absence” distinction.) But fortunately one doesn’t need to rely on only one’s facilities in this regard. Once one has accepted Christ (who is beyond, but not contradictory to, any finite understanding), everything else follows in a logical way from His revelation of His gifts.

I do not know about the numbers but surely they are tragic. We remember that Adam and Eve’s sin was that they wanted to be like God, to know what was right and wrong for themselves. But God already told them, and they simply rejected it. We are seeing the same thing now, people wanting to know what is right and wrong for themselves, even to the point of purportedly accepting the source of all the distinguishes Right from Wrong, but then rejecting the actual distinctions and rather coming up with their own. It truly is sad, you are right.

 

[St_Francis]

Hi All,
I sometimes hear the term “cafeteria Catholic” thrown around in this forum. What does this term mean? Is a Cafeteria Catholic one who has Catholicism wrong? or one who knows but doesn’t care that her beliefs are not all consistent with Orthodoxy?
Best,
Leela

ManyGift1Spirit has answered some of your questions very well, but I wanted to address this question, as I myself was curious about it and tried to find out. I cannot include *all *those Catholics who reject parts of Church teachings while continuing to consider themselves Catholic, but those whose thinking seems to run along the following lines.

It seems from what they themselves say, things like, This church is *my *church too!, and The Church needs to be more… responsive, in touch with reality, up-to-date… that these people believe in some set of ideas *other than *Catholicism. They seem to believe that the Church is only an arbitrary set of rules, subject to change at the whom of the Pope or hierarchy (as manyGift1Spirit put it), not that the Church teaches those Truths revealed by Jesus Christ, which are not arbitrary or changing.

And these people also seem to think that by their involvement in the Church that they will be able to change the Church to be more like what they want their church to be like, in the same way that they could change a club or other human institution.

These people tend to be very “modern” and relativistic in their thinking, and actually view people who believe in what the Church teaches as being uneducated simpletons (kind of like the way Fundamentalists are portrayed), and tend also to want to make radical changes to pretty much everything around them to be the way *they *think is best.

I wanted to point this out, because for some dissenting Catholics, the issue runs very deep to a fundamental difference in worldviews.

 

[Magnanimity]

I don’t see the problem with the point I made. No matter how the modern manifestations of Christianity came about, modern religious consumers are in a position to choose from among them. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only one that claims to be the true Church. The Protestant movement happened because the Catholic Church was seen to have either never been or strayed from being the true Church. And modern evangelical churches in America do not consider themselves Protestant. They see themselves as part of the oldest Christian tradition–as part of the Church. They take their point of departure as the early Christians breaking from Judaism rather than as the Protestant Reformation.

Presumably you chose Catholicism and continue to choose it because you think it is more true than other denominations. If so, then you are a participant in the marketplace of religious ideas–in religious consumerism.

Perhaps the issue that you want to get to with “religious consumerism” is that people choose religions on the wrong basis. On what criteriia should one choose her religion? Can you think of examples of people who have chosen on the wrong criteria?

Leela,

I didn’t say that there’s a “problem” with your second point, just that it’s a second point altogether separate from the first. It shouldn’t be treated as if it’s the flip side of the same coin. It isn’t.

As one who came out of American Evangelicalism I don’t need a lesson on its distinctions from mainline Protestantism. You are unlikely to be in a better position than myself of knowing the similarities and differences between Catholic, mainline Protestant, and contemporary Evangelical, from what you’ve admitted in other threads.

No one within Christianity would agree with you if you were to maintain that dissenting from various (let us say) moral teachings and yet holding to all other distinctively Catholic teachings and practices is tantamount to being a Protestant or an Evangelical. So, being a “cafeteria Catholic” is not the same as being a Protestant, for example. So, the two points are importantly separate.

I doubt there is any meaning to the phrase you use above of “more true.” However, there could certainly be a quantitative aspect here, as in a religion containing more truth than any others, and I would certainly maintain that’s the case with Catholicism.

But, your second paragraph above doesn’t seem very meaningful either. You’ve basically asserted that one who chooses a religion is a religious consumer. Is there anyone who would disagree with this very obvious statement?

But, you end your reply above with a very interesting question. And, yes, I think that the best religion in the “marketplace” will be that religion which imbibes and spreads more truth, goodness and beauty than any other religion. There are not a few arguments that Catholicism does this more than any rival religion.

 

[Betterave]

“Religious consumerism” and “cafeteria Catholic” are not my terms. They are terms that I have heard used on this forum. Your question is my question. I’m wonderring what these terms can mean.

Oh come now! You wrote (in part):
“Given that there are so many ways of being religious available to us (we have options that were not usually available to people for most of he history of religion), is there any way to avoid participating in religious consurmerism? Is there a way for any of us to deny that we ourselves have chosen the particular way of practicing our faith (or lack of faith) that we think suits us best?”
“For example, even if you agree completely with Catholic Orthodoxy, could it not be said that you chose the Catholic Church or choose to stay in the Catholic Church rather than join a different church based on your own individual purposes and desires?”
(A desire for the truth is not intelligible as an ‘individual purpose and desire’ - truth doesn’t work like that!)

If you didn’t intend this to be interpreted as your view about ‘religious consumerism,’ you should have stated up front that you were just wondering what people meant when they talked about it. Your actual comments are not consistent with your claim here.

You seem to be concerned about my motive here. I would prefer that people stop criticizing one another for their religious practices or lack of religious practices. If religious people stop accusing one another of “religious consumerism” they are more likely to also stop criticzing nonbleievers like myself.

If we’re after the truth, criticism may be crucial - it is not something that we should simply want to put a stop to. Unless, perhaps, we’re already sure we’ve found the truth (and probably not then either) - are you in that position?

The term seem to suggest a false dictomy between those who make choices about what religion to practice and those who don’t. We all make choices. I think to make this derogatory term coherent, it must be made clear what are the proper criteria for making such choices. Then you can criticize someone for not making their choices based on the proper criteria.

“What feels good” or “what works for her” do not work to distinguish people’s criteria because these criteria include such criteria as “what seems true to me.” Doesn’'t everyone believe what seems most true to them? Can someone believe something that does not “feel good”–that does not “work” in the way that beliefs are supposed to work?

Which means what? ‘Truth’ is supposed to be a function of “my own individual purposes and desires”? Uh…no! It looks like we’re back to problems with that old bugbear of a question: What is truth?

Perhaps the issue is best resolved around subordinating one’s self to the teaching of the Church. “Religious consumerism” then seems like the wrong term since there are many choices for which religious authority to subordinate one’s self to. How would one choose which one to submit to without participating in a sort of consumerism?

One does not ‘choose to subordinate oneself’ any more than one ‘chooses to believe.’

“Cafeteria Catholic” makes some sense since it is a misunderstanding about what it means to be Catholic. You can’t pick and choose among Catholic beliefs and still be a Catholic, but all Catholics still do participate in religious consumerism (it seems to me, unless this term can be made useful for drawing distinctions) since Catholics, like everyone else, have picked and chosen from among the available religious ideas that are available to us today. Presumably for them, Catholicism is the best fit based on whatever criteria get applied in deciding on a religion.

My original point stands: why ‘consumerism’? We don’t shop for religion. Evangelicals shop for a church community, some Catholics do too. But they don’t shop for their religion. Why not just say the truth: people have reasons for believing whatever they believe. A ‘consumerism’ analogy cheapens that and imho has not contributed anything to what you have tried to say. I think it has just misled you. To the extent that someone can truly be said to go shopping for beliefs, they are walking a fine line to avoid nihilism. This may be a genuine post-modern phenomenon, but I highly doubt it is as prevalent as you imagine.

One problem with the term ?] “cafeteria Catholic,” however, is that the vast majority of Catholics seem to fit this discription. Most Catholics seem to disagree with at least teaching about, say, personal birth control use, legal abortion rights, forbidding condom use in AIDS stricken countries and discouraging birth control in impoversished countries, woman in the priesthood, papal infallibility, or some other doctrine. “Cafeteria Catholicism” may best be viewed as a problem facing Catholicism rather than as a pejorative for those members of your parishes who annoy you.

Why is this a problem with the term? Other than that I think you’re right. Just remember that ignorance, in certain circumstances, is an excuse in Catholicism, so most of these people who dissent are probably best seen mainly as ignorant dupes of a hostile culture. And indeed, that is a problem for Catholicism, it’s a difficult task that is always before those of us who are relatively well-informed about what our own faith teaches.

See catholicsforchoice.org/ for example.

I assume that “Catholics for Choice” are in naming themselves as supporting choice also declaring themselves to not really be Catholics. What percent of people who identify as Catholics are really Catholics?

Beats me!

 

[Leela]

Oh come now! You wrote (in part):
“Given that there are so many ways of being religious available to us (we have options that were not usually available to people for most of he history of religion), is there any way to avoid participating in religious consurmerism? Is there a way for any of us to deny that we ourselves have chosen the particular way of practicing our faith (or lack of faith) that we think suits us best?”
“For example, even if you agree completely with Catholic Orthodoxy, could it not be said that you chose the Catholic Church or choose to stay in the Catholic Church rather than join a different church based on your own individual purposes and desires?”
(A desire for the truth is not intelligible as an ‘individual purpose and desire’ - truth doesn’t work like that!)

If you didn’t intend this to be interpreted as your view about ‘religious consumerism,’ you should have stated up front that you were just wondering what people meant when they talked about it. Your actual comments are not consistent with your claim here.

I don’t understand what you are criticizing me for. You said that you think the notion of consumerism applied to religion is belittling to religion. I am also trying to criticize the the notion of religious consumerism as something to complain about.

If we’re after the truth, criticism may be crucial - it is not something that we should simply want to put a stop to. Unless, perhaps, we’re already sure we’ve found the truth (and probably not then either) - are you in that position?

I never said that we ought to stop all criticism of anything. But I do think that the term Religious Consumerism doesn’t help in distinguishing what ought to be criticized from any other sort of way of being religious unless it is made more clear what this practice is and whether anyone actually does it.

Which means what? ‘Truth’ is supposed to be a function of “my own individual purposes and desires”? Uh…no! It looks like we’re back to problems with that old bugbear of a question: What is truth?

Truth is one of your personal desires, isn’t it? I don’t see how we can distinguish between those who act on personal desires and those who do not in the name of Religious Consumerism.

One does not ‘choose to subordinate oneself’ any more than one ‘chooses to believe.’

If subordinating one’s self is not a matter of will, then I guess I don’t understand what this term means. Can you explain it to me? I suppose maybe you would view it as recognizing the fact of the authority of a particular church? If so, then I suppose you are right that subordination also doesn’t shed any light on what Religious Consumerism is supposed to mean.

I have no idea how prevalent it is. All I know is that it seems to be a big concern among certain Catholics here. I can’t make out how a person who participates in this supposedly bad practice behaves, is different from anyone else, or even whether anyone or everyone does this.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Why is this a problem with the term [Cafeteria Catholic]? Other than that I think you’re right. Just remember that ignorance, in certain circumstances, is an excuse in Catholicism, so most of these people who dissent are probably best seen mainly as ignorant dupes of a hostile culture. And indeed, that is a problem for Catholicism, it’s a difficult task that is always before those of us who are relatively well-informed about what our own faith teaches.

I wonder how much the Church actually tries to combat such ignorance. I suspect that it would lose many members if priests frequently explained at mass that dissenters on such issues aspersonal birth control use, legal abortion rights, forbidding condom use in AIDS stricken countries and discouraging birth control in impoversished countries, women in the priesthood, papal infallibility, or some other doctrines that I’m not aware of are not in Communion with the Catholic Church. Considering that according to polls the vast majority of people identifying as Catholic are not in communion with the Church I would think that the Church needs to tread lightly on such matters to maintain its membership.

Do I have it right that such dissenters should not participate in the Eucharist until they recognize the authority of the Church on such matters?

Best,
Leela