The Perils of Dissent

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Alan,

You know that the term cafeteria Catholic refers to those who reject the faith and only accept some of Christ’s teachings. Practicing one devotion as to opposed to another is not a cafeteria.

Dear fix,

Perhaps you are right, but I don’t know where you would get proof. I looked in one secular dictionary and in the Catholic Encyclopedia and didn’t see it defined. Does the Church teach, infallibly or not, that your definition of cafeteria Catholic is what you say it is, or is it only your opinion?

I admit that on these forums, I have seen the term “cafeteria Catholic” applied most often to those who do not believe all the Church teaches. In fact, I may have used it that way myself. But then again, for me to assume that because it looks to me to be the most popular belief it must be true, then we have to rethink a lot of things. A recently published survey in Catholic Digest showed that 52% of Catholics call themselves “pro-choice,” and if restricted to cases of rape or incest, over 80% think abortion is not immoral. If you suggest that the term “cafeteria Catholic” has one absolute meaning assigned to it by its popular usage, you are setting an interesting precedent of discovering truth by democratic process. By that same process, would you not also have to conclude that “pro-choice” attitudes and the morality of abortion in the case of rape or incest are similarly valid?

I’m not disagreeing with you about the popular and accepted usage of the term “cafeteria Catholic.” I’m just trying to get you to think a little more before you tell me what “I know.” I was offering a positive message to a Church newcomer, but I suspect your desire to refute anything I say that disagrees with you is so great that you couldn’t accept it. Therefore, I offer you this logical challenge to find out if you can see your style of arguing the way I see it. BTW, I already have a way to refute the argument I made above, but I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student to come up with one.

Alan

 

[RBushlow]

AlanFromWichita:

I looked in one secular dictionary and in the Catholic Encyclopedia and didn’t see it defined. . . . that your definition of cafeteria Catholic is what you say it is, or is it only your opinion?

Alan, what Fix gave is the common understanding of the term “Cafeteria Catholic”. And, no, you won’t find it in the dictionary.

Peace be with you.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear fix,

Perhaps you are right, but I don’t know where you would get proof. I looked in one secular dictionary and in the Catholic Encyclopedia and didn’t see it defined. Does the Church teach, infallibly or not, that your definition of cafeteria Catholic is what you say it is, or is it only your opinion?

It is common knowledge. Why intentionally use a word that is so associated with people who do not take the faith seriously?

A recently published survey in Catholic Digest showed that 52% of Catholics call themselves “pro-choice,” and if restricted to cases of rape or incest, over 80% think abortion is not immoral. If you suggest that the term “cafeteria Catholic” has one absolute meaning assigned to it by its popular usage, you are setting an interesting precedent of discovering truth by democratic process. By that same process, would you not also have to conclude that “pro-choice” attitudes and the morality of abortion in the case of rape or incest are similarly valid?

Catholic digest is a book by and for “cafeteria” Catholics. It is hardly orthodox. The rest of your statement tends toward the straw man argument.

I’m not disagreeing with you about the popular and accepted usage of the term “cafeteria Catholic.” I’m just trying to get you to think a little more before you tell me what “I know.”

If you agree with my stance, then you do know as I said.

I was offering a positive message to a Church newcomer, but I suspect your desire to refute anything I say that disagrees with you is so great that you couldn’t accept it.

I was offering you a positive message, too.

Therefore, I offer you this logical challenge to find out if you can see your style of arguing the way I see it. BTW, I already have a way to refute the argument I made above, but I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student to come up with one.

Oh Alan, you are much to clever for me. I call 'em as I see 'em.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

RBushlow:

Alan, what Fix gave is the common understanding of the term “Cafeteria Catholic”. And, no, you won’t find it in the dictionary.

Peace be with you.

Dear RBushlow,

I do not disagree with you about its common understanding or its not being in the dictionary, but I thought I’d check at least two sources before I ran off at the mouth.

Certainly you don’t object to my offering a different usage of a term that is not defined? If so, then I hope you’re not suggesting that we are bound to believe whatever is most commonly thought on any given issue?

…and also with you,
Alan

 

[csr]

Someone mentioned Hebrews 13:17 which states “obey your prelates”. I think it is important to observe that theologians such as the Angelic doctor have indicated that obedience can be incorrect, or indiscreet. Take special note of Galatians 1:8-10 where it is expressly and firmly indicated that we must resist novel teachings. In that case Paul had to resist the Judaizing tendency of St. Peter at one point, and require St. Peter to avoid accommodating error. So we have the ‘perils of dissent’, but we also have the ‘perils of excessive and slavish obedience’. Faith is not blind.

 

[fix]

Theodora:

I don’t remember where it says in the Bible that if one breaks one of the 10 Commandments, one has broken all 10.

Can this principle be applied to cafeteria Catholics? In name you’re catholic, but in reality you’re not. Or is this type of thinking incorrect? Can someone sort this out for me?

Theodora

I believe Aquinas taught, as did the Baltimore Catechism, That if one rejects even one teaching, one rejects the entire faith. The reason being that the teachings one accept are not accepted because one gives assent to the Church, but of one’s own authority. One would become their own authority, placing oneself above the Church.

That does not mean one is excommunicated. It means one does not accept the authority of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In that case Paul had to resist the Judaizing tendency of St. Peter at one point

Rubbish. St. Peter never taught judaising. Paul chastized his actions. He ate with the Gentiles, but in the presence of Jewish Christians, he didn’t. Paul saw this as hypocritical. This shows us that Peter was not impeccable. Show me the chapter and verse that Peter taught judaizing?!?

 

[Exporter]

Alan of Wichita & Augustinian,

When Catholics start getting mixed up in “policy”( you said that) and deal with nonclergy you will be dealing with a group that may act Catholic but they will NOT be Catholic. No wonder you got frustrated. When laity try to do the Work of the Church - it doesn’t work!

I ignore the laity. I ignore the changes to the litergy ( especially all the singing). I Pray and take the Eucharist, make an offering and that’s it. I have little respect of laity attempting to do the Priest’s job. Lets stop trying to act like Protestants!!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas allows for two exceptions to obedience to superiors:

1. If the superior commands something not within his authority.
2. If the superior commands something contrary to his superior.

According to St. Thomas,

… there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power… Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. (ST, IIb, 104, 5)

With regard to the pope, there’s no higher authority save God himself. One cannot merely say, “my interpretation of Scripture differs, so I believe I can divorce and remarry, cuz that’s God’s command and it trumps the pope.” That’s not obedience to God, but obedience to your own fallible interpretation of Scripture.

Furthermore, the apostles left successors, they themselves ordaining them with the authority given to them by Jesus Christ. It is to these successors that Christ says: “he who hears you, hears me.” Consequently, we are subject to the pope and the bishops in communion with him in matters of faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline.

Thus, St. Thomas speaks of three types of obedience: "one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.

Themost “obedient” of the three is called “indiscreet.” This is blind obedience and is certainly to be avoided.

We ought to strive for “perfect obedience” which is “obedience in all things lawful.”

The least “obedient” of the three is called “sufficient for salvation” which is “obeying when one is bound to obey.”

What is binding upon all Catholics?

1. Civil Law, insofar as it does not oblige you to disobey Eccesiastical law and …
2. Ecclesiastical Law, insofar as it does not oblige you to disobey Divine Law, and …
3. Divine Law, which includes Natural Law, and can never be intentionally disobeyed.

What is Ecclesiastical Law? For Latin Rite Catholics, it can be read here: ourladyswarriors.org/canon/

What is Divine Law? The natural and supernatural revelation of God.

 

[hermit]

The perils of not dissenting far outweigh those of dissension.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

hermit:

The perils of not dissenting far outweigh those of dissension.

Really? What would that peril be? Let’s look at an example, say, choosing to use the pill rather than natural family planning (NFP)?

What are the perils of using the pill? Compare that to the perils of sexual abstinence as is practiced with NFP. Statistically speaking, they have about the same high “success” rate with regard to avoiding conception, however, NFP does not have medical side effects, such as does the pill (eg. cancer).

(That’s not even considering the risk to one’s immortal soul).

 

[RBushlow]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear RBushlow,

I do not disagree with you about its common understanding or its not being in the dictionary, but I thought I’d check at least two sources before I ran off at the mouth.

Certainly you don’t object to my offering a different usage of a term that is not defined? If so, then I hope you’re not suggesting that we are bound to believe whatever is most commonly thought on any given issue?

No, but we do need to have a common understanding of the meaning of words, otherwise we cannot communicate. I suggest that we stick to the common understanding of terms unless a new definition is previously proposed and accepted by all in the conversation. If we don’t do that we won’t be able to hold a sensible conversation.

The Lord be with you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

RBushlow:

No, but we do need to have a common understanding of the meaning of words, otherwise we cannot communicate. I suggest that we stick to the common understanding of terms unless a new definition is previously proposed and accepted by all in the conversation. If we don’t do that we won’t be able to hold a sensible conversation.

The Lord be with you.

OK, then I will propose a new definition of “cafeteria Catholic” for future use.

Whereas the term “cafeteria Catholic” is not officially defined by the Church, is most often used in a judgmental and pejorative manner, as commonly used in the past has lent itself to division and exclusion rather than unity, I do hereby propose the following usage for the term “cafeteria Catholic” for all who agree to use it that way, which will tend to obfuscate its nefarious connotations and be less equipped to be used as a weapon of one Catholic against another.

The proposal is to use “cafeteria Catholic” as a term to describe how each of us has an immense number of different ways to show devotion, that is we can pick and choose from a veritable smorgasbord of possible ways, most fitting with our own personal preferences and point on the spiritual journey. It can also be used for Catholics who have adopted some or even most of the teachings of the Catholic Church but have difficulty believing others, believe but do not follow due to personal weakness and/or pride.

If these uses of “cafeteria Catholic” come into popular usage, then calling somebody one will not be an automatic insult, but an invitation to engage in further and deeper discussion, beyond the mere application of labels.

For those who don’t think words should have opposite connotations, how about a word that has opposite meanings? Cleave, for example, can either mean to cut apart or to put together (as in a man will cleave unto his wife).

Alan

 

[twf]

Disclaimer: In my last posts, I said that while we are obliged to submit, disciplines may not necessarily be right…now I’m a little unclear on that…so don’t hold me to it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

twf:

Disclaimer: In my last posts, I said that while we are obliged to submit, disciplines may not necessarily be right…now I’m a little unclear on that…so don’t hold me to it.

Dear twf,

Could you please expand on that? I read a few of your last posts and I’m not sure I know what you mean. What new thought have you had, or new question you’re grappling with on the issue that prompted you to make the disclaimer? Were you saying before that disciplines may not be considered infallible but we are still bound to them because of the authority of your Church?

Alan

 

[trogiah]

sherilo:

Hi,

I find that the Catholic church worships God and Jesus more fully than any other church that I have attended. It is where I want to be. However, I almost feel afraid to go to Mass because I feel like I will be harboring a secret in my heart as my feeling about Mary is not what everyone else’s seems to be. I certainly don’t want to be in dissent. I don’t even think that I will be able to go through the instruction, thus never able to take Communion, etc. I have posted about this before, but apparently, my issues with Mary are not to be resolved so easily. My next step will be to talk with a priest, I guess.

Sherilo

Mary said:
"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior."And with regard to Jesus she said:“Do whatever he tells you.”

If you feel comfortable with those statements, and from what you have written it would seem you would be, then you have no issue with Mary.

Feel free to partake of full communion with the church. Mary would not have it be otherwise.

-Jim

 

[SocaliCatholic]

I resent the term “Cafeteria Catholic”. I enjoy the cafeteria at Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral.

 

[RBushlow]

AlanFromWichita:

OK, then I will propose a new definition of “cafeteria Catholic” for future use.
The proposal is to use “cafeteria Catholic” as a term to describe how each of us has an immense number of different ways to show devotion,. . . .For those who don’t think words should have opposite connotations, how about a word that has opposite meanings? Alan

Sorry Alan, when using the term “cafeteria catholic”, the discussion has never been about different ways of showing devotion. It is rather about whether or not people are adhering to the teachings of the Church or deciding to pick and choose those beliefs and practices that they agree and disagree with.
I propose the the use of the term “cafeteria catholic” keep the commonly used meaning. That is, one who wants to to pick and choose those beliefs and practices that they agree and disagree with from the authentic teachings of the Church.

What do you say folks, can we have a vote on this?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

RBushlow:

Sorry Alan, when using the term “cafeteria catholic”, the discussion has never been about different ways of showing devotion. It is rather about whether or not people are adhering to the teachings of the Church or deciding to pick and choose those beliefs and practices that they agree and disagree with.

I know it has in the past, and typically as a pejorative term. Why do we need a special term to single out those we judge to be less obedient than others? If we remove some of the judgmental words from our vocabulary perhaps we might remove some of our judgmental thinking.:tsktsk:

I propose the the use of the term “cafeteria catholic” keep the commonly used meaning. That is, one who wants to to pick and choose those beliefs and practices that they agree and disagree with from the authentic teachings of the Church.

What do you say folks, can we have a vote on this?

I abstain because I have am obviously biased.

Alan

 

[twf]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread…I forgot about it . Anyway. Yes, in my earlier posts I was saying that the Church could err in matters of discipline, but we’d still be obliged to follow. When I posted my disclaimer, I had come across the notion on another thread that the Spirit will not permit the Church to impose a discipline contrary to natural nor divine law. I was not sure if this was true or not when I posted my disclaimer, but after reading a papal quote (sorry I don’t remember which pope) that another member posted, and consulting with my pastor, I now realize that it is held by the Church that Holy Mother Church can NOT err in the imposition of disciplines. Now on a local level mistakes can be made (for example, within a single dioecese or parish), or disciplines can be applied in an improper matter, but actual official discplines of the Church, imposed for the greater good of the faithful, can not be contrary to the natural nor divine law. Does that mean that all discplines are perfect? I don’t believe so, and they can change as circumstances change…but the point is that they can not be contrary to Catholic teaching.

For example, you may not believe it is proper nor beneficial to impose upon the faithful that they must again abstain from meat on Fridays…and you could very well be right, as far as I understand it, but it is not contrary to the natural nor divine law to impose such a discipline. On the other hand, if the Church imposed a discipline upon the faithful that we must kill our firstborn child to supplement the Mass, that would be against the God’s law without a doubt, and thus the Church would not be able to impose such a discipline.