Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is one group. However, the Archbishop did indeed say “groups” as in the plural. And while he named SSPX in the NCR quote he did not name which “groups on the opposite side” he was referring to, neither LCWR or others. Here is the original quote from the NCR review again: “The SSPX is not the only breakaway group in the Church. There are worse ones on the opposite side, too. These movements are worse because they are often denying essentials of Christianity.” Note that he uses the term “movements” in plural as well.
Since he does use the terms “groups” and “movements” however, perhaps he is indeed referring to LCWR in this quote, and other “groups” or “movements” unnamed. He doesn’t seem to be referring to the individual cafeteria Catholics who vote for same sex “marriage” or pro-abortion candidates, although perhaps as voters they might be considered a “group.”
Are the cafeterianists now a “movement?” Perhaps they should be.
The CDF is very careful about using such terms as “Cafeteria Catholics.” It can easily trigger the Holy Father’s anger. Many people: lay, religious and clergy have been erroneously telling Catholics that it is contrary to Catholicism to vote for a pro-choice or a pro-abortion candidate when that is not true. Cardinal Ratzinger made it very clear that one can vote for such a candidate in the case that one seeks to achieve another good. In other words, you may vote for the candidate as long as you’re not voting to support his position on abortion, same sex marriage or contraception.
For example, you may have a situation where a candidate who is pro-choice is also pro services to the elderly and the homeless. You cast your vote in the hope of improving said services for the poor, while at the same time you can challenge the same candidate when he or she speaks in favor of that which is contrary to morality. That would not be a Cafeteria Catholic. Such a vote would be acceptable under moral law. The person is being morally consistent. He is promoting the good and denouncing evil.
One directly violates the moral law if one votes for a candidate in order to protect the alleged right to abortion as many people do, but not if one votes for the same candidate to achieve another good that the opposition fails to support.
In some way or another, we all remotely support some of these positions. It’s almost unavoidable. A simple example would be banking. Unless you keep your money under your mattress, it is very difficult to find a bank that does not contribute to Planned Parenthood. Unless you walk, it’s very difficult to find a commercial airline that does not provide insurance to its employees that does not cover contraception or abortion. There is a line of reason that one has to observe before one goes around labeling people.
I do not deny that there are Cafeteria Catholics. However, I refuse to call anyone by such a label or to allow anyone under my jurisdiction to do so. Only God and the person’s spiritual director know for sure who’s who among men.
My usual stance is to encourage people to promote the culture of life, to speak for the voiceless, to bring the Gospel of Life to those who do not know it or do not understand it and to denounce all forms of injustice against human life and dignity, while at the same time promoting and encouraging all efforts to serve the material and spiritual needs of every human being with equity.
This has been one of the criticism that the more orthodox religious orders, societies of apostolic life, bishops and lay movements have made of the SSPX. While it is very strong in its condemnation of abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, divorce and remarriage, etc it is very weak in its support and promotion of human rights, human dignity and the pro-life movement. When invited to join us in on such occasions as the March for Life around the country, the SSPX in the USA has always declined.
Maybe they attend on their own. But they do not want to march alongside the rest of us. They seem to have a very difficult time recognizing that one cannot be against abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and contraception and indifferent to racial discrimination, poverty among women, hunger among children and other evils. The truth is that we must put our money where our mouth is.
This is what makes the Franciscans of Life, Sisters of Life, Missionaries of the Poor, Missionaries of Charity, Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of Peace, and many Catholic lay organizations very special. While we endeavor to rid the world of the culture of death, we also provide people with the material means to bring their children into the world with the promise that we will meet their basic needs of health, education, housing, employment and when possible, marital stability. The Margaret Sangers of today cannot say that contraception and abortion is are necessary means to eradicate poverty. This is Planned Parenthood’s mantra, when in reality it was founded to eradicate the black people of this country.
The SSPX has to come around and see reason on this. It’s easy to condemn a sin and turn your back on the reasons that often lead to sin. That too can be a form of selective Catholicism.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
You feelin’ okay?
But given the climate around here after the 2012 election, you might want to have your asbestos suit ready. 