The Intellectually Honest Cafeteria Catholic

[guanophore]

Thank you for your reply.

Asserting a Catholic identity to me it’s a combination of several things. First and foremost is believing one self to be Catholic.

Does asserting oneself to be Catholic have an real value in determining identity, if one has lost Catholicity while still believing oneself to be Catholic? That seems to be like a recipe for a disintegrated form of existence, at the least a persona empty of inner integrity, and at the worst, hypocrisy.

Secondly there has to be some reason behind that (ie: you were a baptized cradle Catholic or converted to Catholicism). These would be the most important to my mind and the ones that are not negotiable if you say you're asserting a Catholic identity.

So you are saying that a Catholic identity is based, at least in part, upon having participated in rites of initiation?

You obviously won’t be asserting a Catholic identity if you don’t truly believe you’re Catholic (such as say I don’t assert a Catholic identity today), and if you’ve never been baptized Catholic (or are at least in that process of joining the RCC) you really can’t be asserting a Catholic identity.

I used to believe that was true, but after spending some time on these threads, I have come to realize it is not true. I have met many Protestants who state they are part of the “church catholic” or “Evangelical Catholic”, or “Catholic of the Augsburg Confession”.
This is one reason I asked the question.

I think you are right that persons who don’t truly believe they are Catholic do not assert that identity, but my greater concern is with those who have lost (or never had)Catholicity and still believe they are Catholic, or that it is appropriate to identify themselves as Catholic.

Now there are other things I'd argue you would include in general if you were really asserting that Catholic identity, such as attending mass regularly, believing in most key Catholic concepts such as sacramental grace, etc... But that's not to say there are those that assert a Catholic identity more for cultural reasons who don't attend mass and/or who reject core Catholic concepts. Not everyone who asserts a Catholic identity is necessarily a discerning/struggling Cafeteria Catholic.

Yes, I agree. I work in an area that is thick with faithless cultural Catholics.

But in my experience most people who don’t really believe much of what Catholicism teaches, and who aren’t active members, don’t tend to assert a Catholic identity unless for familial reasons or something like running for political office.

Yes. But at this stage, I think asserting such a thing politically would be ill advised.

As for my own reasons for departing, they'd more than likely derail the thread as objections to the RCC teaching/positions so often do, so I won't get into them here. Suffice it to say I fit into that Cafeteria Catholic category for a good long time discerning and struggling before I ultimately departed. And I'm happy to hear that you were able to resolve your struggle as well even if we ended up going in different directions.

I think what matters most to God is that we embrace the struggle, and work to follow our conscience, to grow and deepen in our walk with Him. My sojourn among my Protestant siblings for 20 some years had a very formative effect on my faith.

 

[guanophore]

Goodness, am I the only person here who’s bothered by this?

It sounds like deciding one is more intelligent than God Himself.

I hope you are not the only one, because you are right, one has replaced the revelation by God of Himself with one’s own ego.

 

[Thorolfr]

If a person is sacramentally baptised Catholic then they are Catholic forever. Once a Catholic always a Catholic. There is no such thing as an ex or former Catholic. There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.

It’s like the lyrics to the Eagles’ song “Hotel California”:

"You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "

 

[Padres1969]

Thank you for your reply.

Does asserting oneself to be Catholic have an real value in determining identity, if one has lost Catholicity while still believing oneself to be Catholic? That seems to be like a recipe for a disintegrated form of existence, at the least a persona empty of inner integrity, and at the worst, hypocrisy.

I don’t know if it has any value in a general sense. Only the individual so asserting I’d say would be able to answer that for sure though. But you’re right it can be a recipe for a disintegrated form of existence. I speak from experience in that regard. I’ve often described my last couple of years as a Catholic as years of utter hypocrisy both on my own behalf and on behalf of many Catholics, lay and clergy, whom I was associated with. I and many of them were professing to be Roman Catholic, but in varying ways we were not adhering to Catholicism’s demands on us (be it purposefully or through struggling with precepts). Indeed it was this level of hypocrisy that was one of the final things that spurred me on my way when I came to the realization that I could no longer exist in that disintegrated form of existence as you call it (and which I suspect you also went through during your time as a “Cafeteria Catholic” if I may be so presumptuous).

So you are saying that a Catholic identity is based, at least in part, upon having participated in rites of initiation?

Have participated in, or be preparing to participate in yes.

I used to believe that was true, but after spending some time on these threads, I have come to realize it is not true. I have met many Protestants who state they are part of the “church catholic” or “Evangelical Catholic”, or “Catholic of the Augsburg Confession”.
This is one reason I asked the question.

I think you are right that persons who don’t truly believe they are Catholic do not assert that identity, but my greater concern is with those who have lost (or never had)Catholicity and still believe they are Catholic, or that it is appropriate to identify themselves as Catholic.

Well just to be clear when I say, Catholic Identity, I mean Catholic in the “Big C” Catholic sense, ie: Roman Catholic (or one of the Eastern Churches). I too come across all sorts on this board and in real life who assert a catholic identity (“small c”, ie: universal church) or even in my own church who assert an “Anglo-Catholic” identity (such as myself). But these assertions are not typically meant to be confused with asserting a Roman Catholic or “Big C” Catholic identity. For example while asserting that I am an Anglo-Catholic within Anglicanism and member of the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”, I’m in no way asserting I’m a member of the Roman Catholic Church any longer (the RCC’s view on what I am not withstanding of course). I hope that made sense.

Yes, I agree. I work in an area that is thick with faithless cultural Catholics.

They may be faithless, but they’re still asserting some form of Roman Catholic identity, be it for familial, cultural or some other reasons if faith is not one of them.

Yes. But at this stage, I think asserting such a thing politically would be ill advised.

You’d think so, but politicians in particular these days still fall over themselves to profess membership in some church or religious body, rightly or not. Atheism or Agnosticism are still seen as being abhorrent for a political figure (at least for now).

I think what matters most to God is that we embrace the struggle, and work to follow our conscience, to grow and deepen in our walk with Him.

On this we can agree.

 

[clem456]

If a person is sacramentally baptised Catholic then they are Catholic forever. Once a Catholic always a Catholic. There is no such thing as an ex or former Catholic. There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.

This is true.
It is also used as justification for minimalist Christianity. “Catholic In Name Only”.
Grace is given at Baptism. But the grace must be responded to.

 

[carefullytread]

I don’t know if it has any value in a general sense. Only the individual so asserting I’d say would be able to answer that for sure though. But you’re right it can be a recipe for a disintegrated form of existence. I speak from experience in that regard. I’ve often described my last couple of years as a Catholic as years of utter hypocrisy both on my own behalf and on behalf of many Catholics, lay and clergy, whom I was associated with. I and many of them were professing to be Roman Catholic, but in varying ways we were not adhering to Catholicism’s demands on us (be it purposefully or through struggling with precepts). Indeed it was this level of hypocrisy that was one of the final things that spurred me on my way when I came to the realization that I could no longer exist in that disintegrated form of existence as you call it (and which I suspect you also went through during your time as a “Cafeteria Catholic” if I may be so presumptuous).

This is hitting pretty close to what I was wondering, if one can be that state of belief and not be deeply hypocritical. It seems that, as an empirical matter, it’s not a place where people stay if they are actively engaging their faith. They tend to float either towards or away, or just stop worrying about it. That seems like a pretty strong evidence against it be a worldview you can hold for long.

Glad to hear that you ended up in a place with solid foundation. Walking this ground is like twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious conclusion.

 

[Padres1969]

This is hitting pretty close to what I was wondering, if one can be that state of belief and not be deeply hypocritical. It seems that, as an empirical matter,** it’s not a place where people stay if they are actively engaging their faith. **They tend to float either towards or away, or just stop worrying about it. That seems like a pretty strong evidence against it be a worldview you can hold for long.

Glad to hear that you ended up in a place with solid foundation. Walking this ground is like twisting yourself in knots to avoid the obvious conclusion.

You’d think so, and for most I’d say this is true. But I ran into more than a few Cafeteria Catholics (some of them clergy mind you) over the years who saw absolutely no issue with existing in that, as I called it, hypocritical state. I couldn’t do it, but somehow they were able to live with the hypocricy or cognitive dissonance (whatever your preferred term would be). I often wonder if they were able to maintain it after I left as I lost touch with many of them. Or if they eventually moved one way or the other. I suspect many did move in one direction or the other, however I suspect some did not as they’d been in that state FAR longer than I was and amazingly seemed to have no issue with it.

 

[Padres1969]

It’s like the lyrics to the Eagles’ song “Hotel California”:

"You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "

I always like “Tequila Sunrise” better myself.

 

[Della]

You’d think so, and for most I’d say this is true. But I ran into more than a few Cafeteria Catholics (some of them clergy mind you) over the years who saw absolutely no issue with existing in that, as I called it, hypocritical state. I couldn’t do it, but somehow they were able to live with the hypocricy or cognitive dissonance (whatever your preferred term would be). I often wonder if they were able to maintain it after I left as I lost touch with many of them. Or if they eventually moved one way or the other. I suspect many did move in one direction or the other, however I suspect some did not as they’d been in that state FAR longer than I was and amazingly seemed to have no issue with it.

There are people who don’t see this as hypocrisy, although it is. They see it as being “open-minded” and in sync with the zeitgeist around them–as wiser than the average Catholic who honestly means it when they profess the faith or tell their beads. It’s a form of egoism for them. Jesus had a few choice words for such as they. If we see it in our ordained we need to pray for them. Those in God’s service are more likely to fall into this mental and spiritual trap. I pray daily for all who serve us in the Church. I wouldn’t want their responsibilities nor would I want to answer to God for how they shepherd their people. All that’s above my pay grade, but I can pray and I can be faithful myself, if nothing else.

 

[carefullytread]

You’d think so, and for most I’d say this is true. But I ran into more than a few Cafeteria Catholics (some of them clergy mind you) over the years who saw absolutely no issue with existing in that, as I called it, hypocritical state. I couldn’t do it, but somehow they were able to live with the hypocricy or cognitive dissonance (whatever your preferred term would be). I often wonder if they were able to maintain it after I left as I lost touch with many of them. Or if they eventually moved one way or the other. I suspect many did move in one direction or the other, however I suspect some did not as they’d been in that state FAR longer than I was and amazingly seemed to have no issue with it.

If you are clergy, it’s a more complicated problem. To let your beliefs go in one direction doesn’t just mean losing your world view, it means losing your profession. That’s a strong incentive to avoid making certain choices.

I enjoyed reading the book Caught in the Pulpit which surveyed many clergy caught in a state of disbelief (mostly Protestant, but a few priests and monks). If you find the question of what clergy who lose their faith do interesting, it might be worth getting from your library. It’s coauthored by Daniel Dennett who can be obnoxiously anti-religion, but luckily every chapter is labelled by which of the authors wrote it. You can safely skip his chapters without missing anything.

 

[Padres1969]

If you are clergy, it’s a more complicated problem. To let your beliefs go in one direction doesn’t just mean losing your world view, it means losing your profession. That’s a strong incentive to avoid making certain choices.

I enjoyed reading the book Caught in the Pulpit which surveyed many clergy caught in a state of disbelief (mostly Protestant, but a few priests and monks). If you find the question of what clergy who lose their faith do interesting, it might be worth getting from your library. It’s coauthored by Daniel Dennett who can be obnoxiously anti-religion, but luckily every chapter is labelled by which of the authors wrote it. You can safely skip his chapters without missing anything.

I’ll have to check it out. It is however an obviously more nuanced and difficult situation for a clergyman of any faith, but I’d suspect Catholic more than any other, to be stuck in that state of Cafeteria Catholicism. As you say, to go one way is as you say to give up what is their life. And in many ways I’m sure it can seem as though they’re giving up their faith as well seeing as clergy, and again Catholic clergy more than most, are so immersed in their faith even if they do exist in a state where they don’t believe all of it. The parts they do believe are still their life both spiritually and temporally.

 

[Thorolfr]

First I don’t think all Cafeteria Catholics outright reject the notion that Catholicism is the infallible carrier of tradition. Do they struggle with it, absolutely. But I think it’s too narrow of a view to say that all who are in the process of struggling or discerning outright reject it. Do those like myself who leave typically reject it, I’d say that’s a fair generalization.

I’ve never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses. If every claim and doctrine of the Church is infallible, it’s like saying, “If you don’t believe in every claim and doctrine of the Church 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them.” There’s no room for believing in only 99% or 98% of the doctrines or claims of the Church.

So if a Catholic believer finds even one important claim or doctrine out of a great many that he/she finds unpersuasive, that person’s faith in the Church becomes like a dam that gets a tiny crack in it. It starts out small and at first only a small amount of water escapes, but then the hole gets bigger and bigger until the whole dam collapses. Or it might be like a building where only one brick gets removed and eventually the whole structure collapses. This to me is because with the doctrine of infallibility (a very absolute claim), you can’t have a faith in all that the Church teaches that is like a building with even one brick missing. And if someone doesn’t believe that one thing, whatever it is (something over which they might not have any control), why should they believe in the infallibility of all the other claims and doctrines?

 

[guanophore]

I've never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses. If every claim and doctrine of the Church is infallible, it's like saying, "If you don't believe in every claim and doctrine of the Church 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them." There's no room for believing in only 99% or 98% of the doctrines or claims of the Church.

This might make more sense when one considers that Catholics believe Jesus is One with His Holy Bride, the Church. He is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is the divine elements of the Church that make her infallible, not the human. See how this reads differently from that Catholic point of view:

“I’ve never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of Jesus that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses. If every claim and doctrine of Jesus is infallible, it’s like saying, “If you don’t believe in every claim and doctrine of Jesus 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them.” There’s no room for believing in only 99% or 98% of the doctrines or claims of Jesus.”

This is how we understand HIm to mean “he who hears you, hears me”.

 So if a Catholic believer finds even one important claim or doctrine out of a great many that he/she finds unpersuasive, that person's faith in the Church becomes like a dam that gets a tiny crack in it. It starts out small and at first only a small amount of water escapes, but then the hole gets bigger and bigger until the whole dam collapses. Or it might be like a building where only one brick gets removed and eventually the whole structure collapses. This to me is because with the doctrine of infallibility (a very absolute claim), you can't have a faith in all that the Church teaches that is like a building with even one brick missing. And if someone doesn't believe that one thing, whatever it is (something over which they might not have any control), why should they believe in the infallibility of all the other claims and doctrines?

You are right that it all or nothing. But consider how Jesus’ teaching must have been for those listening. Surely many who heard Him were not pursuaded 100% immediatly! Even the Apostles were not, and questioned him all the time. Finally, they wanted to leave, and His words made no sense to them, and they could not think of anywhere to go! They stayed because they knew He had the words of eternal life, and they trusted HIm, that He would one day make it all clear. This is what one must do with the doctrines of the faith. Trust HIm, study, pray, and believe that one day, all of it will become clear.

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #52
I’ve never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses.

Then it must be a weakness of the Christ for you.

It is none other than Jesus of Nazareth who proclaimed:
You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]]

If every claim and doctrine of the Church is infallible, it’s like saying, “If you don’t believe in every claim and doctrine of the Church 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them.”

No mere “claims” are involved, but only the dogmas and doctrines proclaimed by Christ’s Magisterium (that teaching authority established by Him), the same God the Son who, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 18-20).

Jesus is not supporting the multitudinous errors of others, here, but guaranteeing His truths in His Church for all time.

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

It is only to His Catholic Church that God the Son gave His power to teach His Truths until the end of time.

 

[ericc]

I’ve never been Catholic,but the claim of infallibility is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that seems to me to be one of its greatest weaknesses. If every claim and doctrine of the Church is infallible, it’s like saying, “If you don’t believe in every claim and doctrine of the Church 100%, you might as well not believe in any of them.” There’s no room for believing in only 99% or 98% of the doctrines or claims of the Church.

So if a Catholic believer finds even one important claim or doctrine out of a great many that he/she finds unpersuasive, that person’s faith in the Church becomes like a dam that gets a tiny crack in it. It starts out small and at first only a small amount of water escapes, but then the hole gets bigger and bigger until the whole dam collapses. Or it might be like a building where only one brick gets removed and eventually the whole structure collapses. This to me is because with the doctrine of infallibility (a very absolute claim), you can’t have a faith in all that the Church teaches that is like a building with even one brick missing. And if someone doesn’t believe that one thing, whatever it is (something over which they might not have any control), why should they believe in the infallibility of all the other claims and doctrines?

Would you also accept the statement since I couldn’t be sinless, I might as well sin? Using the parable of the Rich Young Man Mat 19:16 as an example, for those who couldn’t do everything of what Christ asked, should he abandon all the other good things that he can do? Perhaps this rich young man after some time/years and intense prayer may decide to follow Christ all the way.

There are those who may currently unable to accept all of Church teachings. But that is a poor excuse to leave. At a later stage, with greater maturity, wisdom, experience, or just mellowing out, one may yet come to realize that Church Teaching, whether one feels comfortable with it or not, is true. If it is true, it should be obeyed. It is not if I feel right, then I obey. Everyone’s understanding of one’s faith evolve over time. Every now and then, we get this “enlightenment”. But this is not an instant thing. Some get it fast, some get it slow.

If one is humble, one must realize that one’s reasoning is limited by education, exposure and time. Where as Church Teachings sit on the shoulders of thousands and thousands of Saints and holy people who have gone before us. These Saints may be smarter, holier, touched by God. I am just one person who think that I am right and they are wrong.

By leaving, one is deprived of the Sacraments that can nurture one’s faith and belief. Which makes coming home all the more difficult. So if one can not be 100% sure here, what makes this person feel that the other offering is 100% correct? Does it make the other offering true if the other church/religion agrees with everything that I feel? What happens if there are also areas of disagreement over there? Do more shopping?

 

[guanophore]

If one is humble, one must realize that one’s reasoning is limited by education, exposure and time. Where as Church Teachings sit on the shoulders of thousands and thousands of Saints and holy people who have gone before us. These Saints may be smarter, holier, touched by God. I am just one person who think that I am right and they are wrong.

I loved your post ericc and I think you hit this one on the head. Can a person truly be “intellectually honest” if they are also lacking in this humility?

Does not intellectual honesty require that we recognize ourselves in relation to God? How can we put our own perceptions, limited as they are, beyond all those who have come before us?

 

[Della]

I’ll have to check it out. It is however an obviously more nuanced and difficult situation for a clergyman of any faith, but I’d suspect Catholic more than any other, to be stuck in that state of Cafeteria Catholicism. As you say, to go one way is as you say to give up what is their life. And in many ways I’m sure it can seem as though they’re giving up their faith as well seeing as clergy, and again Catholic clergy more than most, are so immersed in their faith even if they do exist in a state where they don’t believe all of it. The parts they do believe are still their life both spiritually and temporally.

A Catholic priest isn’t a mere minister–he’s another Christ in the order of Melchizedek. At his ordination he becomes “a priest forever.” It’s now not just his beliefs, it’s his identity.

The 60’s and 70’s were a rough time for many ordained and consecrated persons. Their whole existence came into question with the dissent that was rife at the time. I applaud those who hung in there in the teeth of the pressures that were brought to bear on them from inside the Church (by those who wanted them to denounce their special calling for mere pottage of being “professionals”) and from outside the Church that was questioning everything from everywhere.

We cannot be too quick to decide who had real faith and who didn’t based on their struggles and their attitudes at the time. I dare say that many came through it just fine. The latest “batch” of priests and consecrated men and women speak to that. Oftentimes great temptations create great saints. For those who believed they had to go on without belief, I pray they find peace in God’s love and mercy, as I pray we all do.

Christ founded his Church and knew that it would hard. He never promised that it wouldn’t be hard in the face of the blandishments of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Prayer is what is needed not resignation to unbelief and just living with it. We always have recourse to our loving God. Things are never hopeless. The devil wants us to think so–to destroy what faith we may have, but it’s not true. Indeed, it’s a great lie from hell itself.

 

[carefullytread]

A Catholic priest isn’t a mere minister–he’s another Christ in the order of Melchizedek. At his ordination he becomes “a priest forever.” It’s now not just his beliefs, it’s his identity.

The 60’s and 70’s were a rough time for many ordained and consecrated persons. Their whole existence came into question with the dissent that was rife at the time. I applaud those who hung in there in the teeth of the pressures that were brought to bear on them from inside the Church (by those who wanted them to denounce their special calling for mere pottage of being “professionals”) and from outside the Church that was questioning everything from everywhere.

We cannot be too quick to decide who had real faith and who didn’t based on their struggles and their attitudes at the time. I dare say that many came through it just fine. The latest “batch” of priests and consecrated men and women speak to that. Oftentimes great temptations create great saints. For those who believed they had to go on without belief, I pray they find peace in God’s love and mercy, as I pray we all do.

Christ founded his Church and knew that it would hard. He never promised that it wouldn’t be hard in the face of the blandishments of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Prayer is what is needed not resignation to unbelief and just living with it. We always have recourse to our loving God. Things are never hopeless. The devil wants us to think so–to destroy what faith we may have, but it’s not true. Indeed, it’s a great lie from hell itself.

I sometimes even wonder how you should think of the word ‘belief’. Our psychologies are much richer than just the rational layer who sits on top and has a voice.

It’s common to meet people who are Catholic, or ex-Catholic, who will say things like they don’t believe in the Real Presence, but still feel reverence for the Eucharist. There’s a book, Belief or Nonbelief?, that is a series of letters exchanged by the late Umberto Eco and late Cardinal Martini. In one of them, Eco mentions that even decades after losing his faith, he felt the horror of sacrilege when he saw people whom he knew to be non-believers taking the Eucharist. To me, that says at some level he still believed.

One of the saddest parts of the book I mentioned was when one of the ex-priests (ex in the sense that he had been laicized; the mark on the soul remains) talks about the moment he knew his faith was gone forever. A piece of Eucharist fell on the ground and he said some one went to eat it. He felt horror that a person would want to eat a piece of bread of the floor, given that it was dirty. That’s when he knew he had completely lost his faith.

Certainly, those priests who struggle deserve our prayers. Though I would broaden it, and say clergymen in general in such situations deserve them. Very few entered the ministry for reasons other than sincere desires to do what they thought was best. Reading this book showed how hard that decision can be. Sincere, honest people who struggle because they tried to do right deserve our prayers regardless of their religion.

 

[guanophore]

I sometimes even wonder how you should think of the word ‘belief’. Our psychologies are much richer than just the rational layer who sits on top and has a voice.

This is true.

It’s common to meet people who are Catholic, or ex-Catholic, who will say things like they don’t believe in the Real Presence, but still feel reverence for the Eucharist. There’s a book, Belief or Nonbelief?, that is a series of letters exchanged by the late Umberto Eco and late Cardinal Martini. In one of them, Eco mentions that even decades after losing his faith, he felt the horror of sacrilege when he saw people whom he knew to be non-believers taking the Eucharist. To me, that says at some level he still believed.

I don’t think this can be assumed. Some people go because everyone is going and they don’t want to stick out. Some go because it is a habit and they have always done it, though they don’t have faith in it. Some go because it is expected of them. Some are in a state of mortal sin and go anyway because they convince themselves it is not a problem.

A person who still has faith would refrain from receiving under t hese conditions.

One of the saddest parts of the book I mentioned was when one of the ex-priests (ex in the sense that he had been laicized; the mark on the soul remains) talks about the moment he knew his faith was gone forever. A piece of Eucharist fell on the ground and he said some one went to eat it. He felt horror that a person would want to eat a piece of bread of the floor, given that it was dirty. That’s when he knew he had completely lost his faith.

This is sad, partly because of the sheer hubris of thinking that any moment should have “forever” effects.

Sincere, honest people who struggle because they tried to do right deserve our prayers regardless of their religion.

Yes, but I would never refer to an honest person struggling as “cafeteria”. I reserve that for those who refuse to honestly struggle.

 

[Della]

I sometimes even wonder how you should think of the word ‘belief’. Our psychologies are much richer than just the rational layer who sits on top and has a voice.

If by this you mean the Magisterium isn’t psychologically rich enough to grasp the needs of people, that is simply not true. There is nothing more psychologically rich than the teachings of Christ. The Magisterium is merely the guardian of Christ’s teachings. It does not create teachings to impose them on humanity.

It’s common to meet people who are Catholic, or ex-Catholic, who will say things like they don’t believe in the Real Presence, but still feel reverence for the Eucharist. There’s a book, Belief or Nonbelief?, that is a series of letters exchanged by the late Umberto Eco and late Cardinal Martini. In one of them, Eco mentions that even decades after losing his faith, he felt the horror of sacrilege when he saw people whom he knew to be non-believers taking the Eucharist. To me, that says at some level he still believed.

Of course they believe. Even the devil believes. What they haven’t done, and don’t seem to understand that believing isn’t enough. It’s our response to Christ’s call on our lives that matters.

One of the saddest parts of the book I mentioned was when one of the ex-priests (ex in the sense that he had been laicized; the mark on the soul remains) talks about the moment he knew his faith was gone forever. A piece of Eucharist fell on the ground and he said some one went to eat it. He felt horror that a person would want to eat a piece of bread of the floor, given that it was dirty. That’s when he knew he had completely lost his faith.

Sad indeed. The poor priest equated being burned out with belief. Many people in ministry try to do it all on their own. They neglect their prayer lives, Scripture reading, taking time to replenish themselves mentally, physically, spiritually, etc. and then suddenly find they “can’t do this any more.” He needed good counseling not to give up the faith.

Certainly, those priests who struggle deserve our prayers. Though I would broaden it, and say clergymen in general in such situations deserve them. Very few entered the ministry for reasons other than sincere desires to do what they thought was best. Reading this book showed how hard that decision can be. Sincere, honest people who struggle because they tried to do right deserve our prayers regardless of their religion.

Of course all in ministry need our prayers. I pray daily for all who minister to us, lay and ordained alike. Still, priests have a special mark upon their hearts and souls that others, not even consecrated religious, have. Satan hates them most of all because they bring Christ to us in the Eucharist and healing to hearts, minds, souls and bodies in all the sacraments. Something he can’t stand.