Three cheers for "cafeteria" Catholics

[St_Francis]

Interesting post. I personally don’t like the phrase “Cafeteria Catholics” as it has a very prideful and superior connotation, as if the person using the phrase is somehow holier or more religious than the person they are speaking of. I don’t know any Catholics who are 100% in lock-step with the church on every single issue. Many Catholics have intuitive beliefs on certain topics - as a result of reason, logic, science, personal experience, etc. Belittling them is not going to change their beliefs. And asking them to leave the church is short-sighted and wrong. I take you at your word that there were members of CAF who said the church would be better off without you. That is very disappointing.

I think you’re courageous for feeling your doubts and doing it anyway, with an eye to growing in understanding along the way.

Don’t you dare think the church would be better off without THINKING people, like yourself.
Obedience is one thing, but blindness is another. And ignorance is a slippery slope. It is so much easier to take authority’s word than to thrash out the issues personally, daily, as we encounter challenges to doctrine in our lives.

I agree with Muligan, the term “cafeteria Catholic” is pejorative. So is the new, chic-er version “buffet Catholic”. Either way it implies condescension.

You are accepting what you can grasp in faith for the time being. That’s not being choosy, those are the gradual steps of discernment.

Be brave. Love the mystery.

I think first of all that we can agree that there is a difference between people with doubts or confusion and those who, as St Thomas Aquinas put is, obstinately adhere to their own opinion.

So with those with genuine doubts, those who realize they do not understand a teaching but who want to be in line with the Church and who question and seek for the resolution, we should live up to the name of this forum and help them understand

The others are those whom we call cafeteria Catholics, those who obstinately hold onto their own opinion, and I would say that cC is a term which *describes *them. If the pick and choose between teachings they accept and those they do not accept, well, they are picking and choosing. Why would they be insulted when we point this out? Don’t they proclaim themselves to be people who think for themselves and refuse to kowtow to celibate old men in another country and the like? They take pride in what they are doing, so what’s the problem with acknowledging what they are doing?

I personally prefer to use the term dissenting Catholic, because After being involved in a rather long thread about this very topic, dissenting Catholic seemed more acceptable to others.

So do you two prefer the term dissenting Catholic?

 

[Tigg]

There is nothing wrong with objective questioning. Remember Doctrine can change.

No, it doesn’t change! It develops into a fuller understanding of the absolute *same *doctrine; It does not abandon the old for something new and innovative, it brings the teaching to a fuller understanding of what has ***always ***been taught and believed. It remains consistent as a fuller knowledge is gained. If the Church “changed” her doctrine (a misnomer) she would have absolutely no credibility at all in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Tigg]

I think first of all that we can agree that there is a difference between people with doubts or confusion and those who, as St Thomas Aquinas put is, obstinately adhere to their own opinion.

So with those with genuine doubts, those who realize they do not understand a teaching but who want to be in line with the Church and who question and seek for the resolution, we should live up to the name of this forum and help them understand

There are actually good resources on this board for those **sincerely **seeking. But many of these threads are only a way to vent anger and frustration and hold onto “attitude” that is not about to admit that personal opinion just might be wrong after all. The book is closed and grace rejected.

 

[Tigg]

You say you should follow logic and critical thinking, and that’s true.

Does your reasoning tell you that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by and guided by God? If no, then your reasoning doesn’t tell you to be Catholic, if yes then it does. But you say that your reasoning also tells you that some of the Church’s teachings are wrong.

But that would be a contradiction - something has to give, or you are not following logic like you say you should. It is not logical to say both that the Church is and is not what it says it is. So if you believe both, then you must be wrong about one or the other.

The question is, which one? And if after reading and thinking you can’t resolve the issues you have, then the question becomes which is more likely? Leaving aside the particular issues you may have, you have two logical choices:

a) you are certain enough in your reasoning about your issues to discard whatever it is that led you to the Church

b) you are certain enough in your reasoning about the Church to admit that you can be wrong about whatever issues you may have

In both cases, you are discarding something that your reasoning led you to, because, again, you know that you must be wrong about something. The question is which do you think is more likely?

So it’s not that the Church says you must check your brain at the door, or that you must give up on reason. It’s just that you can’t stop reasoning simply because you ran into a contradiction where you don’t want to give up on either side. Logic requires that you resolve this contradiction one way or the other. Making a choice is not giving up. Refusing to make a choice and pretending that everything is ok is giving up.

Excellent! And let’s not forget humility (which someone else mentioned.) Our own logic and reason have no contest against the infinite wisdom of God. A sincere crying out to Him is needed here - a realization that we are, indeed, poor in spirit; that we cannot “rely on our own understanding.” Pride and haughtiness (the academia) brings about erroneous judgment which convinces us we have it all figured out, and has caused many to fall into heresy. Along with the inquiring mind there must be some openness to submission so that when the Spirit graces us with His truth, we can assent to it so God can give us the absolute free gift of faith.

 

[Tigg]

Wow! I couldn’t have said it better, thank you!

I have strong disagreements with certain teachings. In my heart of hearts, using the brain God gave me, I think the Church has got it wrong on some issues.

In the Catholic church, there is no room for disagreement or dissent with these basic teachings. The Church is right, I am wrong, case closed. They are divine, I am either stupid, misguided, or prideful.

So, am I really a Catholic?

Have you thought that maybe it’s something more basic than simple disagreement with church teaching? That maybe you have really rejected the notion that God had a plan right after the Fall, for man’s salvation. Maybe you cannot really believe in God’s absolute providence for His people. That we have a fallen nature which will always be prone to sin and that in order NOT to sin and be saved, we must truly know what sin is. Would a loving God, who made us only to bring us eternal happiness, be so cruel so as not to show us the pathway to Himself? Would He really leave us in doubt and in danger of losing the very thing He created us for? I think not…(enter the vehicle, His Church.)

I am not rejecting God or Jesus Christ, I an rejecting the church teaching because I don’t believe that God ‘believes’ (that’s a poor word for it, but I think you get what I mean) what the church teaches.

Using the comments and logic above can you not see that by rejecting the Church you ARE rejecting Christ. How else is He to teach us; He divinely revealed Himself to us through the scriptures and tradition and with Him there can be no contradiction.

 

[cycleman]

Have you thought that maybe it’s something more basic than simple disagreement with church teaching? That maybe you have really rejected the notion that God had a plan right after the Fall, for man’s salvation. Maybe you cannot really believe in God’s absolute providence for His people. That we have a fallen nature which will always be prone to sin and that in order NOT to sin and be saved, we must truly know what sin is. Would a loving God, who made us only to bring us eternal happiness, be so cruel so as not to show us the pathway to Himself? Would He really leave us in doubt and in danger of losing the very thing He created us for? I think not…(enter the vehicle, His Church.)

Using the comments and logic above can you not see that by rejecting the Church you ARE rejecting Christ. How else is He to teach us; He divinely revealed Himself to us through the scriptures and tradition and with Him there can be no contradiction.

Actually, what I think it comes down to is that I do not believe that the Church authentically represents the will of God in all things. Bottom line, I believe from the time of Christ on down they sometimes must have goofed, because some of the current teachings just don’t make sense. The Catholic Church, and most of the posters here, believe that is impossible and that whether or not the teaching makes sense to them or not, they accept it (and are comfortable with it) because it is the church’s teaching and it cannot be wrong.

If you believe the Catholic Church can never be wrong and represents the authentic will of God, of course you will see opposition by me or any other cafeteria Catholic as a rejection of God’s will.

My very first post on CAF was one about a relatively obscure doctrine (obscure not because it isn’t important, obscure because it doesn’t affect many people) that the permanently impotent before marriage (e.g. a quadriplegic) cannot marry. I called that doctrine a ‘moral evil’ which was a bit over the top, but the bottom line was that I did not believe that consummation of the marriage should be an absolute requirement. The impact of the doctrine is that a loving man and woman are denied marriage for what I consider no good reason and orphaned children are potentially denied a loving and Christian home by a couple who could make excellent parents. I’m not interested in rehashing the arguments here; they are already in the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=887654

What is important to this discussion is that since I believe in my heart of hearts that these couples should not be denied marriage, and I believe that a loving and merciful God would not deny them marriage, the only conclusion left is that the Church doctrine is wrong and does not represent the will of God. Why do I believe this rather than accepting the church’s teaching? I honestly don’t know, I was raised Catholic and all that but the doctrine still seems wrong. I can’t just magically say ‘I’m wrong’, and “the Church must be right”.

Bringing this back to ‘Cafeteria Catholics’, I think it’s important to realize not all of them are just picking and choosing the doctrines they like or are convenient. In some cases, there are people who have truly searched their hearts and minds and in the end concluded that there is some part of Church teaching that they just cannot accept.

I guess reading the St. Thomas Aquinas quote (from a post above)
On the contrary, just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.

So, there seems be no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic. If you disbelieve even one article of faith, you are not of the faith. Therefore, if I understand that correctly, I am not Catholic and neither are any other cafeteria Catholics.

 

[Mulligan2]

I think first of all that we can agree that there is a difference between people with doubts or confusion and those who, as St Thomas Aquinas put is, obstinately adhere to their own opinion.

So with those with genuine doubts, those who realize they do not understand a teaching but who want to be in line with the Church and who question and seek for the resolution, we should live up to the name of this forum and help them understand

The others are those whom we call cafeteria Catholics, those who obstinately hold onto their own opinion, and I would say that cC is a term which *describes *them. If the pick and choose between teachings they accept and those they do not accept, well, they are picking and choosing. Why would they be insulted when we point this out? Don’t they proclaim themselves to be people who think for themselves and refuse to kowtow to celibate old men in another country and the like? They take pride in what they are doing, so what’s the problem with acknowledging what they are doing?

I personally prefer to use the term dissenting Catholic, because After being involved in a rather long thread about this very topic, dissenting Catholic seemed more acceptable to others.

So do you two prefer the term dissenting Catholic?

Let’s say a Catholic agrees with 99.99% of the Catechism, and there is only one thing they disagree with. Are they a dissenting Catholic? Frankly, I’m less impressed by someone who presumes to believe 100% of the Catechism (and is unwilling to think for themselves), than I am with someone who is inquisitive, discerning, and questioning.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Let’s say a Catholic agrees with 99.99% of the Catechism, and there is only one thing they disagree with. Are they a dissenting Catholic? Frankly, I’m less impressed by someone who presumes to believe 100% of the Catechism (and is unwilling to think for themselves), than I am with someone who is inquisitive, discerning, and questioning.

Believing 100% of Catholicism and not thinking for oneself are not terribly related. Further, you just said that you’re more impressed with someone who knowingly professes an obvious contradiction than someone who doesn’t.

 

[Tigg]

Actually, what I think it comes down to is that I do not believe that the Church authentically represents the will of God in all things. Bottom line, I believe from the time of Christ on down they sometimes must have goofed, because some of the current teachings just don’t make sense. The Catholic Church, and most of the posters here, believe that is impossible and that whether or not the teaching makes sense to them or not, they accept it (and are comfortable with it) because it is the church’s teaching and it cannot be wrong.

If you believe the Catholic Church can never be wrong and represents the authentic will of God, of course you will see opposition by me or any other cafeteria Catholic as a rejection of God’s will.

My very first post on CAF was one about a relatively obscure doctrine (obscure not because it isn’t important, obscure because it doesn’t affect many people) that the permanently impotent before marriage (e.g. a quadriplegic) cannot marry. I called that doctrine a ‘moral evil’ which was a bit over the top, but the bottom line was that I did not believe that consummation of the marriage should be an absolute requirement. The impact of the doctrine is that a loving man and woman are denied marriage for what I consider no good reason and orphaned children are potentially denied a loving and Christian home by a couple who could make excellent parents. I’m not interested in rehashing the arguments here; they are already in the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=887654

What is important to this discussion is that since I believe in my heart of hearts that these couples should not be denied marriage, and I believe that a loving and merciful God would not deny them marriage, the only conclusion left is that the Church doctrine is wrong and does not represent the will of God. Why do I believe this rather than accepting the church’s teaching? I honestly don’t know, I was raised Catholic and all that but the doctrine still seems wrong. I can’t just magically say ‘I’m wrong’, and “the Church must be right”.

Bringing this back to ‘Cafeteria Catholics’, I think it’s important to realize not all of them are just picking and choosing the doctrines they like or are convenient. In some cases, there are people who have truly searched their hearts and minds and in the end concluded that there is some part of Church teaching that they just cannot accept.

I guess reading the St. Thomas Aquinas quote (from a post above)
On the contrary, just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.

So, there seems be no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic. If you disbelieve even one article of faith, you are not of the faith. Therefore, if I understand that correctly, I am not Catholic and neither are any other cafeteria Catholics.

I am sorry for your struggle, but God does love you and will bring you the fullness of life, which is His desire for you, although I understand you are unable to see it at this time. That fullness may come in a way you never suspected and one brought about by laying yourself at the feet of Jesus. You might search for a good spiritual director, although I know they are difficult to find.

There are different levels of assenting to God’s truth and His will. There are also different levels of trust. An open heart and prayer might lead you into another world…one you did not think existed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Well, the way the term is generally used, it means a Catholic who does not believe one or more teachings of the Church. Those who support abortion being legal who were baptized Catholic and who have not left the Church, for example.

This is not a new phenomena, btw. Here is what St Thomas Aquinas had to say about those who rejected just one aspect of the Faith:

On the contrary, Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.

I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith…

Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, **he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, *but to his own will. ***Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a[n obstinant] heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.

Summa Theologica II-II 5 Q 3

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Francis. I see where that fits in.

I always considered Catholics who not accept one or more teachings of the Church to be CINO’s (Catholic-In-Name-Only) or simply liberal catholics.

I understand now that “cafeteria” can also apply.

Thanks again

 

[Mulligan2]

Believing 100% of Catholicism and not thinking for oneself are not terribly related. Further, you just said that you’re more impressed with someone who knowingly professes an obvious contradiction than someone who doesn’t.

I am not someone who can take everything at face value. If I don’t understand something, I ask questions. Sometimes I understand the answers and sometimes I don’t. Faith is different than science, for instance, where things can be proven. Faith is a belief or devotion to someone or something without logical proof. We are all on a faith journey, and we are all imperfect. I believe it is wrong to denigrate someone by calling them a hyphenated Catholic simply because they ask questions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Faith is different than science, for instance, where things can be proven. Faith is a belief or devotion to someone or something without logical proof.

You are wrong on both counts.

Science doesn’t “prove” anything. It may provide evidence and develop theories concerning what the evidence appears to demonstrate. That is not the same as a “proof,” however. There are proofs in mathematics, not In science.

Faith is not ”devotion without logical proof."

You may want to read this article to be dispelled of a wrong notion.

reasons.org/articles/faith-and-reason

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is important to this discussion is that since I believe in my heart of hearts that these couples should not be denied marriage, and I believe that a loving and merciful God would not deny them marriage, the only conclusion left is that the Church doctrine is wrong and does not represent the will of God.

Is your general principle that a “loving and merciful God” would not allow suffering or deny goods to individuals?

Would you expect, for example, that a living and merciful God would prefer that Christian martyrs would recant and be spared suffering than be forced to endure painful deaths (torn apart by lions, boiling oil, crucifixion) because he wouldn’t expect it of human beings to be faithful in the face of great sacrifice, suffering or painful consequences?

Peter didn’t understand why Jesus would need to suffer and die at the hands of men. What did Jesus say to him? “Get behind me…”

At what point does human will get to dictate terms to divine providence? What are the indicators?

Is it merely whenever we think “God’s mercy and love” wouldn’t tolerate it? We seem to be quite ready to excuse and bend the rules citing “God’s mercy and love.” However, given Jesus’ words to Peter, his ways are not ours and when we try to impose our rules as if we can make eternal judgements better than God, we run into difficulty.

We are always ready to take the easy way out, God not so much. Whose will, in the end, will be done?

 

[Mulligan2]

You are wrong on both counts.

Science doesn’t “prove” anything. It may provide evidence and develop theories concerning what the evidence appears to demonstrate. That is not the same as a “proof,” however. There are proofs in mathematics, not In science.

Faith is not ”devotion without logical proof."

You may want to read this article to be dispelled of a wrong notion.

reasons.org/articles/faith-and-reason

Dictionary definition of faith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

Dictionary definition of science: the state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

 

[CatholicSheila]

I would be classed as a Cafeteria Catholic by some on this board. I dissent on one issue, it’s just a very political one. I don’t tell the Church she needs to change her views, but I do think she is wrong. As such I do think she would be right, if not to change her view, to allow some difference of opinion.

Perhaps the Church would be better off without me. What people lose in that statement is, would I be better off without the Church?

I don’t think so. If I Ieave the Church over one issue, I am much less likely to change my mind on that issue. If I do have a change of mind, outside of the church, it is more likely to be away from the Church teaching than a move towards it.

 

[catybug]

See I believe if you privately disagree over one issue, but are open to the fact you might be wrong and are still searching for an answer, then you aren’t necessarily a dissenting Catholic. in the post about Aquinas, notice that he said those who are obstinate in that they are right. I privatley questioned the views on Homosexuality and Contraception for a long time, but kept an open mind and believed that still believed that the Church could be infallible, and I prayed fervently for an answer, and one day the answer clicked. And the through logic and reason, decided that the Church was right. The thing is I kept an open mind, and constantly searched, and I didn’t go off spouting my decent to the world. I asked questions, lots of questions, to Priests, to my youth minister. Thats the difference between questioning Catholic ans those " i’m Catholic but" Catholics.

In the end it does come down the faith that Jesus meant what he said when he said " The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her" if the Church is wrong in its moral teachings, and has been wrong all along, then the gates of Hell have prevailed. also its important to realize the Church isn’t the one making the rules, rather certain things are revealed over time. Its still ultimatley God who is in charge.

 

[St_Francis]

Actually, what I think it comes down to is that I do not believe that the Church authentically represents the will of God in all things. Bottom line, I believe from the time of Christ on down they sometimes must have goofed, because some of the current teachings just don’t make sense. The Catholic Church, and most of the posters here, believe that is impossible and that whether or not the teaching makes sense to them or not, they accept it (and are comfortable with it) because it is the church’s teaching and it cannot be wrong.

If you believe the Catholic Church can never be wrong and represents the authentic will of God, of course you will see opposition by me or any other cafeteria Catholic as a rejection of God’s will.

My very first post on CAF was one about a relatively obscure doctrine (obscure not because it isn’t important, obscure because it doesn’t affect many people) that the permanently impotent before marriage (e.g. a quadriplegic) cannot marry. I called that doctrine a ‘moral evil’ which was a bit over the top, but the bottom line was that I did not believe that consummation of the marriage should be an absolute requirement. The impact of the doctrine is that a loving man and woman are denied marriage for what I consider no good reason and orphaned children are potentially denied a loving and Christian home by a couple who could make excellent parents. I’m not interested in rehashing the arguments here; they are already in the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=887654

What is important to this discussion is that since I believe in my heart of hearts that these couples should not be denied marriage, and I believe that a loving and merciful God would not deny them marriage, the only conclusion left is that the Church doctrine is wrong and does not represent the will of God. Why do I believe this rather than accepting the church’s teaching? I honestly don’t know, I was raised Catholic and all that but the doctrine still seems wrong. I can’t just magically say ‘I’m wrong’, and “the Church must be right”.

Bringing this back to ‘Cafeteria Catholics’, I think it’s important to realize not all of them are just picking and choosing the doctrines they like or are convenient. In some cases, there are people who have truly searched their hearts and minds and in the end concluded that there is some part of Church teaching that they just cannot accept.

I guess reading the St. Thomas Aquinas quote (from a post above)
On the contrary, just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.

So, there seems be no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic. If you disbelieve even one article of faith, you are not of the faith. Therefore, if I understand that correctly, I am not Catholic and neither are any other cafeteria Catholics.

Once a person is baptized in or is received into the Catholic Church, they are Catholic and that cannot be removed from them by anyone else. A Catholic may be a *bad *Catholic, but they always have the mark on their soul of their baptism.

 

[St_Francis]

Let’s say a Catholic agrees with 99.99% of the Catechism, and there is only one thing they disagree with. Are they a dissenting Catholic?

The problem here is the nature of their consent. As St Thomas points out, if one *chooses *whether or not to agree, this is different from *accepting *that the Church has authority and God’s protection to teach. The first is opinion, the second, faith.

Frankly, I’m less impressed by someone who presumes to believe 100% of the Catechism (and is unwilling to think for themselves),

Why does someone have to agree with you for you to consider him to be thinking for himself? Seems like a contradiction there, no?

than I am with someone who is inquisitive, discerning, and questioning.

You should read more of the Summa than just the part I quoted.

 

[esieffe]

I don’t know that I’d give them three cheers. Maybe one…one and a half.

I get what you are saying. I always cringe when people tell “cafeteria Catholics” that the Church would be better off without them. The Church isn’t a pristine country club where we must take pains to keep out the rabble. Rather than emphasizing that they are not welcome, we would be better off encouraging them to open their hearts and minds to the fullness of the Church’s teaching.

There are a lot of Catholics out there who stick around for a lot of different reasons, not all of which I understand. I think we should celebrate how close they are to Christ. But that doesn’t mean we give up on trying to draw them even closer to Him. But we are all in that boat of needing to be closer to Him.

My point exactly. While I spent years wandering in the desert of spiritual despair, the rain of God and the words of his messengers were slowly building up in the cistern of my soul. I know… too mushy, but that time did come for me. I finally became ready for the true church and it’s teachings, as they were meant to be taken.

So, while I don’t want “cafeteria Catholics” dragging the church herself in bad directions, they are most certainly welcome at Mass, in hopes that they may accept the church and
all of her teachings and blessings.

 

[CatholicSheila]

See I believe if you privately disagree over one issue, but are open to the fact you might be wrong and are still searching for an answer, then you aren’t necessarily a dissenting Catholic.

Then I’m dissenting. I’m not “searching for an answer”. It is always possible I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t say I am open to it - I’m not looking for proof that I am wrong. I’m just not arrogant enough that I think I get to tell the Church (or anyone) that they have to change their view just because I disgree.