Three cheers for "cafeteria" Catholics

[crenfro]

I know a lot of people on CAF complain about so-called “cafeteria” Catholics who disagree with the Church on certain issues. In fact, when I was deciding whether to get baptized or not I was told point-blank by some members here that the church would be better off without me…

Hello. What are these “certain issues” you disagree with? Have you read up on what the Catholic Church teaches about them and why they teach what they teach, with an open mind? Perhaps that would clear up some of the disagreement. I don’t know. And perhaps it’d be better to discuss privately, in person, with a good priest whether or not the Catholic Church would be better off without you. Catholic means universal, and we are all called to be in the one Body of the Church.

Could the Catholic Church as an institution (at least as we know it today) survive if 70% of its members decided to, say, become Episcopalians instead?.

I believe that Jesus said something about “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (it=Catholic Church) when He established it while the apostles were present. There’s also a silly incident I heard about when someone, I think during the Cold War threatened a Bishop or Cardinal or someone in a capacity of that sort with destroying the Catholic Church. The Bishop replied something like this → “well, good luck. We’ve been trying for over 2000 years and haven’t been successful.”

Maybe I’m just in a mood today, but I think we should be applauding people who hang on to this faith by their fingernails instead of complaining about them. .

So, say you were dog sitting. You never petted the dog, just let him out in his yard and fed him. You were supposed to also walk the dog on the leash, pet him and brush him and check his ears once a week. I know it’s a poor analogy, but do you think the dog’s owners would applaud you? And say you didn’t know much about doggies, but didn’t want to know any more because you had other things that mattered more in your life, so you only half-listened to the owners who entrusted the dog to your care? I know for me, I wouldn’t be too excited about a dog sitter like this and would never hire them again.

Sometimes I suspect too, that people reject parts of the church bit by bit, and in that, they aren’t really “hanging on,” as I see it, but distancing themselves little by little, until they are totally distanced from their faith. But that is how I see it. I could be wrong.

There’s a saying that courage isn’t not being afraid, it’s being afraid and going ahead anyway…

I like a similar saying. It goes “courage is fear that has said its prayers.”

Plus the Holy Spirit also has other gifts → wisdom, understanding, knowledge, counsel, fortitude, piety and fear of the Lord.

Something similar could probably be said in this case. It’s easy to do what the church wants if you agree with it…

We need to be willing to take up our cross and follow the Lord. Have you ever looked at a Crucifix and remembered what God did for us out of love?

But three cheers for those who try to stay with and support the church despite personal differences that they can’t reconcile…

I know that there are diverse bunches of people in the Catholic Church, who do have personal differences. I wonder what these personal differences you mention are.

If they are not in line with Catholic teaching perhaps it would be helpful for you to study these issues and keep discussing with the Lord and other good Catholics and be willing to see and possibly accept these things from their point of view.

But this is my opinion. Sorry to ramble on. Please ignore all this if it isn’t helpful. And please keep me in your prayers.

 

[Usige]

So, say you were dog sitting. You never petted the dog, just let him out in his yard and fed him. You were supposed to also walk the dog on the leash, pet him and brush him and check his ears once a week. I know it’s a poor analogy, but do you think the dog’s owners would applaud you? ** And say you didn’t know much about doggies, but didn’t want to know any more because you had other things that mattered more in your life, so you only half-listened to the owners who entrusted the dog to your care**? I know for me, I wouldn’t be too excited about a dog sitter like this and would never hire them again.

In the context of cafeteria Catholicism I would change the above to “You heard what the experts said, but you disagree that feeding dogs is necessary. I mean it just means more doggie doo you have to step over so my own beliefs rule over doing what is right.”

I think there is a difference between ignorant/uncatechised Catholics and those who have heard the teaching, understand it, but still reject it. Not knowing God is very different then turning your back on Him and His Church.

 

[naomily]

Threads like these make me think maybe I’m not in the right religion.

I want to be Catholic, honestly. Believe me when I say I do. I was raised in this religion and would hopefully raise my own children in it. I have had personal experiences with God that have left me unable to doubt His presence in my life.

But I cannot and refuse to shut off my brain. If I have a moral objection to something in the Church that I have researched thoroughly and prayed about, I should not have to shrug and assume the Church is right and I’m wrong. With no room for debate or understanding, how is any institution supposed to flourish?

God gave us logic and critical thinking for a reason. I think oftentimes Catholics want me to use my logic but only if the end result is Catholicism. If my faculties point me to the slightest deviation from the Catechism, then I simply am not thinking about it hard enough or haven’t read enough (God forbid) Aquinas. And if in spite of all that I still don’t see “The Truth” then I ought to give up my will and assume the Church is right.

Maybe this is pride talking, or my ego desperate not to be given up, but these are genuine frustrations that the Church has to response to.

 

[spunjalebi]

Threads like these make me think maybe I’m not in the right religion.

I want to be Catholic, honestly. Believe me when I say I do. I was raised in this religion and would hopefully raise my own children in it. I have had personal experiences with God that have left me unable to doubt His presence in my life.

But I cannot and refuse to shut off my brain. If I have a moral objection to something in the Church that I have researched thoroughly and prayed about, I should not have to shrug and assume the Church is right and I’m wrong. With no room for debate or understanding, how is any institution supposed to flourish?

God gave us logic and critical thinking for a reason. I think oftentimes Catholics want me to use my logic but only if the end result is Catholicism. If my faculties point me to the slightest deviation from the Catechism, then I simply am not thinking about it hard enough or haven’t read enough (God forbid) Aquinas. And if in spite of all that I still don’t see “The Truth” then I ought to give up my will and assume the Church is right.

Maybe this is pride talking, or my ego desperate not to be given up, but these are genuine frustrations that the Church has to response to.

I think it’s because you find yourself at odds with your sexuality and your beliefs. The Church doesn’t condemn people for having an attraction to the same sex. However, the Church does teach homosexual acts are a sin. I understand you find celibacy something that makes you unhappy. However, we’re called to discipline ourselves in ways which may make us unhappy and believe we have a lot of rules imposed upon us, but those things are what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church is not alone in its thinking regarding a lot of issues, such as homosexuality, contraceptive use, abortion, marriage, etc.

 

[Petaro]

Well here’s one account: washingtonpost.com/national/pope-francis-faces-church-divided-over-doctrine-global-poll-of-catholics-finds/2014/02/08/e90ecef4-8f89-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

I’ve seen others. I mean obvious it’s hard to get a bead on a group as diverse and widespread as all Catholics worldwide. But 12,000 across 12 countries seems like a good start. Granted, I didn’t see much in the article about the methodology. But I haven’t seen anything to the effect of “Catholics are all on the same page! Yay!” anywhere lately. lol

Do you have a survey that shows less division?

!2000 across a billion is poor statistics. Such a “population” is a statistical joke. However your point is taken that the church in America is under crisis. Indeed there are many across the globe that question the justice of innocents in a divorce being barred from communion. This is one such area where the Church may change.
However to suggest that there is value in holding opinions on abortion that automatically excommunicate you, whilst living under the pretense of being a catholic is just self-delusional, thus one sandwich short. There is no value in the lukewarm as they will be spewed from the mouth of the Lord. Given the choice of spittle or saint I choose the hard road, not the road kill remains of those that take the unjustifiable luxury of picking their own truths.
If you continue to have a foot in both camps you may find you have split more than your pants, but also fractured your soul in the compromises you accept.

 

[crenfro]

Thank you Usige.

Very helpful clarification.

I think there is a difference between ignorant/uncatechised Catholics and those who have heard the teaching, understand it, but still reject it. Not knowing God is very different then turning your back on Him and His Church.

 

[St_Francis]

At the risk of going off topic on my own thread, I’ve heard people say this before and I don’t understand this idea that the church can’t change without contradicting itself.

It seems to me in reading the Bible that God’s whole MO is to keep changing the script. First it was just “get circumcised.” Then it was “hey, here’s 10 commandments and some very very specific rules about how to do absolutely everything.” Then we get Jesus and a whole new bunch of information and ways of doing things. And then Peter has a dream about a bunch of food spread out on a blanket and decides all the Kosher rules no longer apply. And somewhere in there we decided circumcision – which was like the original thing God asked of anyone – was no longer necessary either.

I’m not saying the church necessarily should change. But given this history of different rules for different eras sort of, why wouldn’t it be possible for the holy spirit to tell the pope that the rules have changed again?

There s a difference between the Jews and the Catholics: the Jews were under a different covenant than the Catholics. That is why there are differences between the “rules” of the OT and the NT. Under the Old Covenant, the Israelites showed their connection to God by circumcision; under the New Covenant, by baptism.

God revealed some truths to the Israelites; Christ (God) became incarnate and walked among us, revealing *more *truths, the rest of them.

Consider it like this: we have different rules for children than we do for adults. That doesn’t invalidate any of the rules, the need for rules, nor does it provide a justification for changing the law.

The fact is that Church teachings are truths even more fully than scientific rules. It’s not that the Church can’t change them; it’s that they are unchangeable. Can we change the law of gravity? Can we change the three laws of thermodynamics? No to both.

In the same way, we can’t change what is wrong and what is right. We can’t change the fact that artificial birth control is wrong. It just *is *wrong. We can’t change the fact that only men can be ordained; only men *can *be ordained.

Those who are called Cafeteria Catholics aren’t in disagreement, like some people might disagree over the best way to handle a problem, cafeteria Catholics *don’t believe certain truths, *as the Flat Earth Society doesn’t believe a truth.

But most cafeteria Catholics disbelieve because they do not know or understand the truth. For example, the article you quoted from the Washington Post said this: “The church teaches natural family planning, which Catholics can use to plan sex and attempt to avoid getting pregnant.”

NFP is at least as effective as artificial birth control (abc). Even the Pill has a lot of failures, as documented by AGI. But secular writers don’t write: “The school teaches the use of abc, which students can use to plan sex and attempt to avoid getting pregnant,” no, secular writes write, “which students can use to avoid getting pregnant.” See that difference there? One seems a lot more dubious than the other, but in truth, NFP is certainly more effective than condoms.

When so many Catholics get their information from people who are the philosophical descendants of people who were overtly enemies of the Catholic Church if not conscious enemies themselves, they will have bad information. Over 70%of the US is not in any way Catholic. Unless a Catholic consciously searches for Catholic sources of information, he will get anti-Catholic information.

 

[naomily]

I think it’s because you find yourself at odds with your sexuality and your beliefs. The Church doesn’t condemn people for having an attraction to the same sex. However, the Church does teach homosexual acts are a sin. I understand you find celibacy something that makes you unhappy. However, we’re called to discipline ourselves in ways which may make us unhappy and believe we have a lot of rules imposed upon us, but those things are what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church is not alone in its thinking regarding a lot of issues, such as homosexuality, contraceptive use, abortion, marriage, etc.

Actually, no. The gay thing is up there on my long list of CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES (to be nailed to my local parish’s door any day now ) but it isn’t the only issue. Everything from sex abuse, to Eucharistic adoration, to veiling, to the role of women, to Papal infallibility, to the hot button issues you described.

The problem isn’t necessarily with the individual issues but that I can’t take “it’s what the Church teaches” as an acceptable reason to do anything.

It’s like when you’re a kid pestering your mother and she says “because I said so!” Except that I am a grown woman capable of rational thought given excuses at every turn.

 

[Usige]

I should not have to shrug and assume the Church is right and I’m wrong.

Faith is not about stopping questioning why, but saying “God, I don’t understand, but I trust that the Church is leading me towards you.” We aren’t required to understand, but rather to trust and obey Christ’s Church on Earth. When Christ returns and hands me the Keys to the Kingdom then I will put my own personal pondering before the magisterial teachings of His Church. Until that time I will rely on faith in the Church rather than what my logic of the day dictates I should believe.

 

[spunjalebi]

Actually, no. The gay thing is up there on my long list of CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES (to be nailed to my local parish’s door any day now ) but it isn’t the only issue. Everything from sex abuse, to Eucharistic adoration, to veiling, to the role of women, to Papal infallibility, to the hot button issues you described.

The problem isn’t necessarily with the individual issues but that I can’t take “it’s what the Church teaches” as an acceptable reason to do anything.

It’s like when you’re a kid pestering your mother and she says “because I said so!” Except that I am a grown woman capable of rational thought given excuses at every turn.

Everyone here is a grown person capable of rational thought. I’ll bet you anything, most Catholics find the sex abuse scandals to be more than unsettling, but as far as some of the other issues you’ve listed? I don’t know what to tell you. The Church isn’t going to change her position. The Magisterium exists for a reason, and it’s not to tell people how to think, but to inform us as to* why* the Church believes as she does.

 

[wmw]

Your point is a good one. I know almost no one who is like the typical CAFer in real life. The vast majority are the 'cafeteria type" that tick off the posters here. They support the parish with time and treasure and without them, there is no doubt the doors would close.

Warning: This is a bit tongue in cheek and a bit like the song, “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way”!

I find it totally the other way, 10% of the people, usually the most orthodox, do 90% of the volunteer work and provide more than 80% of the funds. There always seems to be that rich family or two that is quite liberal yet sends in that yearly big check. But for the most part, less than half seem willing to hand in a card saying that they choose to pledge zero or more. I love them all like prodigal sons and gladly help provide for what little of the Mass they attend, but don’t fool yourself that the major group of “luke warms” actually do more than occasionally fill pews. Still, every year a “luke warm” does find a heart of flesh within themselves and becomes one of us steadfast a little more often than a steadfast is taken home to our Lord. So, yes it takes time, but love finds a way to be patient with that multitude needing parables.

 

[naomily]

Faith is not about stopping questioning why, but saying “God, I don’t understand, but I trust that the Church is leading me towards you.” We aren’t required to understand, but rather to trust and obey Christ’s Church on Earth. When Christ returns and hands me the Keys to the Kingdom then I will put my own personal pondering before the magisterial teachings of His Church. Until that time I will rely on faith in the Church rather than what my logic of the day dictates I should believe.

See, I can’t go along with that. First of all, I minored in history (specifically European history) in college. It’s pretty hard for me to have faith in the Church at this point. You don’t have to be a liberal extremist to see that throughout the past two thousand years, the Church has made rather a lot of mistakes. I personally know people who have not only been sexually abused by priests but whose testimony was invalidated by the Church. How am I supposed to trust such a clearly flawed institution? Yes, great things have come from Catholicism but it is made up of human beings who are capable of great evil. So why should I trust it?

 

[spunjalebi]

See, I can’t go along with that. First of all, I minored in history (specifically European history) in college. It’s pretty hard for me to have faith in the Church at this point. You don’t have to be a liberal extremist to see that throughout the past two thousand years, the Church has made rather a lot of mistakes. I personally know people who have not only been sexually abused by priests but whose testimony was invalidated by the Church. How am I supposed to trust such a clearly flawed institution? Yes, great things have come from Catholicism but it is made up of human beings who are capable of great evil. So why should I trust it?

I hope you know you’re not the only one who’s angry about the way the Church has handled all of that. I’ve done some research myself on the history and was appalled to find out the Vatican covered up the sex abuses from the start instead of addressing it right away. As crazy as this sounds, it doesn’t mean God is wrong, or His teachings are wrong, or what the Church teaches is wrong. What flawed or evil people do does not invalidate the teachings of God. What I DO ask is why leadership didn’t step up to the plate and follow their own teachings on how to care for their flock, and I do ask why the leaders of that time didn’t take a more direct approach in dealing with social issues as they did previously in the past.

I don’t place my trust in individuals or institutions, but I do place my trust in God to guide the right people to lead. Put it this way-- the evil deeds from people does not incapacitate others to do good. People have committed acts of terrorism in the name of God, but it does not in any way mean God is a terrorist, or is evil.

 

[naomily]

I hope you know you’re not the only one who’s angry about the way the Church has handled all of that. I’ve done some research myself on the history and was appalled to find out the Vatican covered up the sex abuses from the start instead of addressing it right away. As crazy as this sounds, it doesn’t mean God is wrong, or His teachings are wrong, or what the Church teaches is wrong. What flawed or evil people do does not invalidate the teachings of God. What I DO ask is why leadership didn’t step up to the plate and follow their own teachings on how to care for their flock, and I do ask why the leaders of that time didn’t take a more direct approach in dealing with social issues as they did previously in the past.

I don’t place my trust in individuals or institutions, but I do place my trust in God to guide the right people to lead.

But how am I supposed to put my trust in an institution that clearly comes not from God, but man? How does one sort of the aspects of Catholicism that are cultural, or historical (and in many cases, evil) from those ordained by God? If we’ve established that Popes can be bad men and bishops worse and the proclamations of the Church can be misguided and wrong, then why am I being told that I ought to just shut up and have faith in the Church?

I don’t want Pope Francis to legalize marijuana or anything crazy, just the freedom to let my conscience and intelligence guide my life in conjunction with the Church. I want to be allowed differing opinions without being called apostate.

 

[St_Francis]

I wanted to post some examples from the comments of misconceptions, but wanted to avoid making my post too long…

MYTH: “Couple points here - birth control - the two main churches - catholic [sic] and Baptist who most object to birth control - are run by men. All they want if [sic] more minds to control and get it by using women as baby factories.”

Couple points here - birth control - the two main magazines - Playboy and Penthouse who most support birth control - are run by men. All they want is for women to be more sexually available without the risk of child support payments.

MYTH: "The Catholic faith has been responsible for more deaths than any other form of religion on our planet.
Atheistic Communism has been responsible for more deaths in one century than all religions combined.

“Catholic doctrine is not set in stone. It has changed over the millenia. Priests were married men until the middle of the 1100’s AD. Women in the early church after Jesus died were noted leaders of the church.”

1. Unmarried priests is not doctrine but discipline, and still exists in the Eastern catholic Churches. 2. Women in the early Church who were noted leaders *agreed *with *all *Church teachings, as do more recent women who are noted leaders of the Church, such as St Therese of Liseux, one of 33 Doctors of the Church, and Mother Theresa.

 

[phil19034]

I know a lot of people on CAF complain about so-called “cafeteria” Catholics who disagree with the Church on certain issues. In fact, when I was deciding whether to get baptized or not I was told point-blank by some members here that the church would be better off without me.

But I was thinking about it today, and here’s what I thought:

Just my two cents.

I used to be a Cafeteria Catholic, so I think I can speak well about these points you raise.

By a lot of accounts, something like 70% of Catholics disagree with doctrine on at least one of the major “social justice” issues. Now, yes, people are entitled to wishing that those 70% would become come more in-line with traditional views. But what if they went the other way?

I don’t know what this means? Are you referring to Birth Control and Abortion? Are you suggesting that 70% of Catholics are either pro birth control or pro abortion? I don’t think that’s correct. Now, if you say that 70% of Catholics commit sexual sin, or that 70% of American Catholic women use(d) birth control then I might be believe that. We are all sinners. When I was away from the Church and having pre-martial sex with contraception, my brother asked me “don’t you wish the Church would say that birth control was not a sin.” My reply was “no.” He said, “but you are using it doesn’t that mean that you don’t find anything wrong with it.” I said, “doesn’t matter… the Church must continue to hold a higher standard for society than society holds itself to. The day the Church lowers Her standards society will crumble even more. Someone needs to preach morality because society will not.” This was even when I was not practicing and even starting doubt everything.

Now, if by “social justice” you mean economics, immigration, etc. then Catholics have room to disagree. In those instances, the Bishops are speaking as citizens of world or nation. Even if the USCCB makes a statement. If it’s not on Faith or Morals, it’s not binding. However, a good Catholic should research the issue and learn what the Pope or the Bishops truly mean or why they say what they say. Often when you remove bias, the Church leaders usually make a lot of sense.

Could the Catholic Church as an institution (at least as we know it today) survive if 70% of its members decided to, say, become Episcopalians instead? I can’t be the only “cafeteria” Catholic who’s a regular church-goers who supports their parishes both socially and financially. What would it look like if all of those people walked?

Only approx 20-25% of self proclaimed Catholics go to Church. Studies show that approx 80% of the money each parish receives comes from only 20% of the members. While you might be attend Mass each week and contribute money (thank you BTW), most Cafeteria Catholics do not attend Mass weekly.

Maybe I’m just in a mood today, but I think we should be applauding people who hang on to this faith by their fingernails instead of complaining about them. There’s a saying that courage isn’t not being afraid, it’s being afraid and going ahead anyway. Something similar could probably be said in this case. It’s easy to do what the church wants if you agree with it. But three cheers for those who try to stay with and support the church despite personal differences that they can’t reconcile.

I think there is a huge difference between people who quietly disagree with the Church and people who publicly disagree with the Church. The reason people on here seem to have an issue with Cafeteria Catholics isn’t because we have an issue with them as people. But we do have an issue with why are they Cafeteria Catholics, what happened during their education, etc. and what can be done to better catechesis? Also, Cafeteria Catholic (whether public or private) often do harm when it comes to evangelizing to other Christians and non-Christians. Reason, they sometimes spread misinformation about the Church, purposefully or non-purposefully. The beliefs of the Catholic Church are often judged by what the lay people say and not based on the Catechism or the magisterium.

Ultimately, I do think it’s better to have Cafeteria Catholics in the fold, for their souls. The Church is a hospital for sinners, after all. However, the public dissents (whether progressive or Traditionalist) can be a major headache, as they often lead Catholics to stray from Church teaching.

God Bless.

 

[spunjalebi]

But how am I supposed to put my trust in an institution that clearly comes not from God, but man? How does one sort of the aspects of Catholicism that are cultural, or historical (and in many cases, evil) from those ordained by God? If we’ve established that Popes can be bad men and bishops worse and the proclamations of the Church can be misguided and wrong, then why am I being told that I ought to just shut up and have faith in the Church?

I don’t want Pope Francis to legalize marijuana or anything crazy, just the freedom to let my conscience and intelligence guide my life in conjunction with the Church. I want to be allowed differing opinions without being called apostate.

Christianity is a faith that was revealed to us, and it depended on man to spread it. I don’t think anyone here is saying to “shut up and have faith” at all. Trust me, I’ve had people sort of say that to me myself…

People have a tendency to order things in the way they understand, and that’s why we have the Church. The Magisterium has gone a lot to determine what is just something that was “made up” by man, and what is something that has been revealed through divine inspiration. I don’t think through the thousands of years of teaching and tradition that the theology was just created through a few edits. That is what I believe.

If you think about it, Christianity as a whole has come from man because it depended on man to communicate it to each other. We have Jesus for a reason because obviously we needed an intermediary being to communicate with God. We could say Christianity comes from man because we depended on a man (Jesus) to tell us He came to fulfill the Law, so we wouldn’t have to keep living by it as the Jews did.

If we’ve established Popes have been wrong, it means the Pope was wrong-- not God. Popes are not infallible in the sense if they woke up one day and said “all Catholics are required to skip breakfast every day” that we’d have to do it. Infallibility doesn’t work that way. People have followed the leadership of misguided Popes because they believed the Popes were right, but there were always people who believed the Popes were wrong.

There is nothing that says you are an apostate if you have issues with Church teaching. My husband would say the same thing as you have about allowing his conscience and intelligence guide his life in conjunction with the Church, but he’s no apostate. There are hoards of people in Europe who are very much Catholic in their culture and spirituality, but don’t agree with everything the Church teaches. Yet, their culture is so guided by Catholicism it would be difficult to separate the two. Their opinion on various teachings would be different, but it would be absurd to call them apostates. An apostate is someone who is a Christian and rejects Jesus, IMO. It’s not someone who has an issue with contraception or women veiling.

It also goes to note the Church has changed her mind regarding various cultural issues, but that is different than changing her mind on the manner of doctrine. I did some reading once on the history of hair and found out there was a time where the Church condemned men wearing beards, and there was a time where the Church condemned curly hair or the curling of hair for aesthetics. I know that sounds silly, but for the time the Church was making an attempt to teach her people on separating themselves from vanity and poor associations. However, does that mean the Church actually has a doctrine on beards and curly hair being evil things? No. What the Church teaches between the lowercase t and uppercase T are just as different as between cultural admonitions and doctrine.

 

[sw85]

!2000 across a billion is poor statistics. Such a “population” is a statistical joke.

Err, well, no, actually, 12000 is quite a remarkably large sample size. Heck, 1000 would be remarkably large.

There is also pretty remarkable consistency across polls, regardless of sample size.

 

[catybug]

The Church as an institution dors come frome God though. Peter was the first Pope and there have been an unbroken line since. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church and they havent. The church maybe did not handle the sex abuse scandals well, but that does not change Its infallibilty on Moral teachings (homosexualoty, women priests ect) because thats what was stated by God and if they church is wrong then thw gates of hell have already prevailed. I uaed to disagree and doubt those things too, and I was free to do so. I think the important thing is to be open to the truth and you will find it. Butas a practicing Catholic you cant go around acting as if the moral teachings of the church arefalliable. To do so goes against Jesus himself who instituted it.

 

[MaryT777]

Hey, I’m all for supporting those who are trying to stay with and support the Church despite having personal doubts.

What I have a problem with are people who try to use their ‘staying’ as a weapon, or a justification.

You know, “well, I’M a Catholic in good-standing at St. Faroutikis, and I’m pro choice. It’s the woman’s decision. I don’t pay attention to out-moded pronouncements from old MEN. I think for MYSELF.”

Or, “I think the Church is dead wrong in just about everything but I was born Catholic, and I’m just as ‘good’ as any other Catholic, and I’ll tear down everything I can about the Church while claiming that I CAN do so because I AM Catholic.”

or, “Well, I know that I disagree with the Church on X and so do other people in my parish, so we go ahead and do what WE KNOW is RIGHT. One of these days the Church will ‘catch up with us.’ Until then we will proudly ‘market’ ourselves as Catholic, claim our schools as Catholic, and teach them to ‘take the good and leave the bad’ as they see fit.”

You get the idea.

Basically, the person who disagrees with the Church on a given subject but who shuts up about it and prays, not that the Church ‘listen to him and change’, but that he or she be granted the grace to come into union and acceptance of the CHURCH. . .is the REAL one who ‘hangs on to the faith’ while suffering personal doubts or worries.

The person however who proudly proclaims his or her disagreement on various subjects, over and over and over, as in, “Oh, I can’t wait for women priests, communion for the divorced, gay marriage acceptance, etc.” and then with great sighs says, 'But the Church still hasn’t come to its senses, and so I’m just trying to wait until it does". . .that’s not a person to cheer for. That’s a person who is turning things upside down and trying to make it look as though he or she is a HERO for being willing to ‘hang on’ until the Church finally gets as enlightened and Christlike as he (or she) is.

I agree with this post completely. My pet peeve is just as such, such as a girl I know who proudly claims she is a “pro choice” Catholic. There is no such thing I told her to which of course after proudly pronouncing her views she was deeply offended. Perhaps these people don’t consider I’m offended when they call themselves Catholic and then declare themselves pro choice.

Mary.