Understanding a specific Cafeteria Catholic issue

[rcwitness]

Parents have God given rights to put obligations on their children, right?

God parents are extended a role from the parents to give example of the faith which the parents are bringing the children under.

You have a right to require your child to attend formation classes, Mass, or to listen to your own fellowship/testimony. The child will be present during family prayer time. The child will witness the practice of the faith put into daily devotion with fruitation.

If there is significant lack of true devotion by parents and God parents, then The child will not be receiving sufficient understanding of the faith. This is very prevalent, unfortunately. But also having every degree on the spectrum.

The truth of the Church and her Teachings are not relative to the practice of parents. And everyone has an obligation to seek God. Jesus knocks on the door to come in. The Sacraments accomplish what they are given for, yet disbelief and disobedience can reject His life in us and us in His life.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Isn’t that what confirmation is for? Aren’t teens supposed to freely choose to be confirmed? The initiation process doesn’t stop at baptism.

It is true that initiation does not stop at baptism.
And it is true that teens should freely choose to be confirmed (as should anyone who has attained the age of reason).

But that is not what confirmation is for.

That is a very common, but no less mistaken, representation of the sacrament. (Just ask any of our eastern brethren :byzsoc: )

tee

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Parents have God given rights to put obligations on their children, right?

God parents are extended a role from the parents to give example of the faith which the parents are bringing the children under.

You have a right to require your child to attend formation classes, Mass, or to listen to your own fellowship/testimony. The child will be present during family prayer time. The child will witness the practice of the faith put into daily devotion with fruitation.

If there is significant lack of true devotion by parents and God parents, then The child will not be receiving sufficient understanding of the faith. This is very prevalent, unfortunately. But also having every degree on the spectrum.

The truth of the Church and her Teachings are not relative to the practice of parents. And everyone has an obligation to seek God. Jesus knocks on the door to come in. The Sacraments accomplish what they are given for, yet disbelief and disobedience can reject His life in us and us in His life.

So the parents and godparents give example of the faith. They bear witness to the Church and help the child be properly formed. The child grows up to believe (truly!) that there is no true Church but the Catholic Church (although perhaps without any nuance or discussion of the EOC) and doesn’t plan on leaving because he or she just doesn’t want to.

But the child grows up to Also believe (perhaps quietly, perhaps not so quietly) that the Church is wrong about certain things, or perhaps if not objectively wrong, that it can be ignored on certain issues. The godparents and parents know this, and what can they really do? They don’t have powers of spiritual discipline like excommunication. So what can you really do?

For real, what can you do? The only thing I can think of is make a really good argument for why an infant, once baptized, should never leave the Church and Also do everything it says. Is there an argument that will make a significant difference?

Maybe it would help to back up just a tad. As it currently stands, what does happen if a cradle Catholic ignores important Church teaching? What are the consequences? What meaningful things happen as a result? Is there anything beyond the unseen situation between that person and God? If so, a good portion of the aforementioned argument might come down to the quality of a person’s life, comparing the cafeteria style to the hardcore obedient style. Perhaps that’s a starting point of some kind.

How would one go about arguing that a life fully submitted to the Church is predictably and significantly better than one that is less than fully submitted to the Church? Specifically, how would one make this argument to…let’s say a teenager, a high school age person, who presumes that ongoing membership will be a thing but complete obedience might not be. Especially with college coming up. How would you make the specific argument that total submission to Church authority objectively leads to better quality of life than less submission? What is it that really drives the idea that total submission is important?

 

[DCNBILL]

The point has been brought up a few times that a “well formed” Catholic does not see the Church as imposing anything on anyone, nor calling obedience to anyone. These things come from God. If one believes this then the Church teachings are looked upon as the will of God for us and accepted as such.

In the case of Catholics who seem to want to pick and choose what they want to believe God wills for them, well they either are not well formed or do not truly believe in the God of the Church.

 

[JerryZ]

So the parents and godparents give example of the faith. They bear witness to the Church and help the child be properly formed. The child grows up to believe (truly!) that there is no true Church but the Catholic Church (although perhaps without any nuance or discussion of the EOC) and doesn’t plan on leaving because he or she just doesn’t want to.

But the child grows up to Also believe (perhaps quietly, perhaps not so quietly) that the Church is wrong about certain things, or perhaps if not objectively wrong, that it can be ignored on certain issues. The godparents and parents know this, and what can they really do? They don’t have powers of spiritual discipline like excommunication. So what can you really do?

For real, what can you do? The only thing I can think of is make a really good argument for why an infant, once baptized, should never leave the Church and Also do everything it says. Is there an argument that will make a significant difference?

Maybe it would help to back up just a tad. As it currently stands, what does happen if a cradle Catholic ignores important Church teaching? What are the consequences? What meaningful things happen as a result? Is there anything beyond the unseen situation between that person and God? If so, a good portion of the aforementioned argument might come down to the quality of a person’s life, comparing the cafeteria style to the hardcore obedient style. Perhaps that’s a starting point of some kind.

How would one go about arguing that a life fully submitted to the Church is predictably and significantly better than one that is less than fully submitted to the Church? Specifically, how would one make this argument to…let’s say a teenager, a high school age person, who presumes that ongoing membership will be a thing but complete obedience might not be. Especially with college coming up. How would you make the specific argument that total submission to Church authority objectively leads to better quality of life than less submission? What is it that really drives the idea that total submission is important?

It depends. There are core beliefs, some are called Dogmas other Doctrines, these are very important. If one does not give full assent to these and chooses to believe “alternatives” then that makes one either a “Material Heretic” or a “Formal Heretic”.
If one chooses this, then one is placing himself/herself out of the Church, often referred as “in schism” with the Church.
If the person gives scandal (that is: Manifestly and publicly displays his/her rejection of Church teaching).
The Church can apply a Canonical decree of “Excommunication” which simply means that the person cannot receive the Sacraments from the Church until he/she repents and accepts the teachings of the Church.
It does NOT mean that the person is hell bound. Only GOD is the judge of the heart of people.

However NOT accepting what has been declared DOGMA or Doctrinal teachings of the Church cannot be rejected by the members of the Church.

Disciplines are neither DOGMA nor Doctrines and do not require our assent of faith.
If we have issues with Dogmas and/or Doctrines of Faith it is our DUTY to diligently study the Bible, Church documents, Council documents, etc. so that we can give our assent to the Church teachings.

The Catholic Church teaches that we can apply our intellect to understand the Teachings given us by GOD and Jesus either in Holy Scripture or Holy Traditions of the Church.
Some Dogmas are hard to fully comprehend with our intellect but since they were given to us by GOD Himself we cannot but fully assent to them even if we will never fully understand them. (At least in our earthly lives)

…

 

[Allegra]

Thanks for your response. JerryZ feels that it’s important to consider how the parents and godparents promise to instruct in the faith, which makes it easier to get things done, makes things easier to understand. Are you suggesting that their instruction and encouragement is strictly non-coercive and not in any way a demand that an obligation be fulfilled?

And what if this instruction is heard and understood but rejected and ignored on major points, while maintaining membership in (technically) good standing? Is that still a time for suggestions, or is there a point where obligation and demands take over?

Children have an obligation to obey their parents. Adults don’t.

 

[DCNBILL]

Children have an obligation to obey their parents. Adults don’t.

But we are called to honor them all of our life.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

It depends. There are core beliefs, some are called Dogmas other Doctrines, these are very important. If one does not give full assent to these and chooses to believe “alternatives” then that makes one either a “Material Heretic” or a “Formal Heretic”.
If one chooses this, then one is placing himself/herself out of the Church, often referred as “in schism” with the Church.
If the person gives scandal (that is: Manifestly and publicly displays his/her rejection of Church teaching).
The Church can apply a Canonical decree of “Excommunication” which simply means that the person cannot receive the Sacraments from the Church until he/she repents and accepts the teachings of the Church.
It does NOT mean that the person is hell bound. Only GOD is the judge of the heart of people.

However NOT accepting what has been declared DOGMA or Doctrinal teachings of the Church cannot be rejected by the members of the Church.

Disciplines are neither DOGMA nor Doctrines and do not require our assent of faith.
If we have issues with Dogmas and/or Doctrines of Faith it is our DUTY to diligently study the Bible, Church documents, Council documents, etc. so that we can give our assent to the Church teachings.

The Catholic Church teaches that we can apply our intellect to understand the Teachings given us by GOD and Jesus either in Holy Scripture or Holy Traditions of the Church.
Some Dogmas are hard to fully comprehend with our intellect but since they were given to us by GOD Himself we cannot but fully assent to them even if we will never fully understand them. (At least in our earthly lives)

…

I know lots of cafeteria Catholics, as I’m sure you do as well. None of them, to my knowledge, have been excommunicated or disciplined in any way, and in many instances there’s absolutely no doubt that they are either formal or material heretics.

I also know of some famous people who put this out in the public eye, for example Chris Christie recently said “I use contraception, and I’m not talking about the rhythm method. Does that make me a bad Catholic?” Implying that he’s not, of course, although he does know what Church doctrine says about that. (He’s spent quite a bit of time around Rick Santorum, that’s how I know he’s aware of Church doctrine on this matter).

In a far more serious example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is working on distributing contraception to 120 million women in the developing world, and most of that developing world is predominantly or overwhelmingly Catholic. Melinda (the cradle Catholic in this marriage) chooses her words more carefully in front of a Catholic audience, but when she isn’t in front of a Catholic audience she has said that she’s aware of what the Church teaches, but this is an important issue and it comes down to doing the right thing even though the Church says do the wrong thing. In total, it is a 560 million dollar disagreement.

If either she or her husband has been excommunicated, I haven’t heard about it and neither has the Internet. But here they are, several years into meeting a goal with 2020 as the short term benchmark, and universal access to family planning is the long term goal. They’re making good progress, too. This is really happening. No one’s being disciplined, though.

I acknowledge that these punishments exist, at least in principle, but in practice it generally seems like cafeteria Catholics can go ahead and do their thing as loudly or as quietly as they like. This is why I approach the issue with the assumption that no actual discipline is Likely to happen, so in the absence of any Church-enforced discipline where does the discussion go from there?

 

[Peter_J]

I’d like some help in understanding a particular issue that has to do with Cafeteria Catholics, especially those who are cradle Catholics.

Suppose a cradle Catholic is examining the following two propositions.

1. As an infant, and without my consent, I was baptized into a particular church, this baptism supposedly left an indelible seal on me whose full meaning I probably don’t entirely understand, and I am expected to remain affiliated with this church for my whole life.
2. Beyond all that, I am also expected to obey this church in whatever things it decides I must obey. I’m not likely to face any real punishment if I don’t obey, and other Catholics will be reluctant to call me a bad Catholic, but people might call me a “cafeteria Catholic” or something similar.

So, with those two propositions in mind, the cafeteria Catholic is likely to reach these two conclusions.

1. It’s kind of bogus that other people chose my religion and my church for me, I kind of think I should have been in charge of that. But it’s not so bad, and I’m not so enamored with religion in the abstract that I feel the need to explore elsewhere, so I’m willing to swallow that objection, take the path of least resistance, and continue in the church where I was placed. It will keep certain family members relatively happy too.
2. Wait a minute, I’m also expected to obey this church in whatever things it decides I ought to? That’s unreasonable, and I won’t go along with it. I was very accommodating on point number one, and for that I am owed the courtesy of being able to choose which things I obey and which I do not. If I had made an adult decision to join this church I would have taken that into consideration, but since I wasn’t given a choice about my religious identity, I will go ahead and decide for myself how much of this I will obey. That is not entirely ideal, but under present circumstances it is the best and most reasonable arrangement.

How does CAF respond to this way of thinking? Pay special attention to Proposition 2 and Conclusion 2- cradle Catholics are expected to obey the Church in all things that the Church says to obey, and then the conclusion is “That’s unreasonable.” Keep in mind that the cafeteria Catholic was able to come to grips with Proposition 1 a bit more easily, but Proposition 2 looks more untenable.

Speaking as Catholics who are for the most part opposed to the cafeteria approach, do you have any particular line of reasoning in your back pocket that would cause Proposition 2 to conclude differently? Personally, at this time, I can’t think of any truly convincing arguments as to why infant-baptized cradle Catholics should be seen as people who truly owe their obedience to the Church, as if it can be demanded of them. But that is probably why I’m not a Catholic, and perhaps someone out there has an amazing response that I haven’t thought of.

Speaking of which, I’m going to add a poll to this question. Just checking to make sure- when an infant is baptized Catholic, does that mean this person owes their obedience to the Catholic Church, in the sense of an obligation that can be demanded of them? Keeping in mind that the entire decision-making process which led to the creation of this obligation was intentionally kept out of the hands of the person whose obedience is being demanded- is there a way to argue for this conclusion in a way that makes you seem reasonable?

That’s all I’m really getting at, but I hope the pairings of propositions and conclusions helped make it all a bit more understandable.

Hi badnewsbarrett. I know you’ve already got a number of people responding to your questions, but if you want another I’ll give my thoughts.

On the heart of your questions, I’m inclined to think this is one of those cases where someone who is qualified to address them would probably do so in a venue other than a internet discussion forum like this.

But having said that, let me suggest that your hypothetical person should worry less about “people might call me a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ or something similar”, and instead worry about whether such criticism would be justified.

 

[Duane1966]

Yes, because it’s a good idea, for lots of reasons. But Jesus does not demand affiliation, and His call is and always has been strictly non-coercive. It’s a key distinction, and yes I do think it would be most appropriate if His Church followed that specific example more consistently.

Actually, He does demand affiliation, if you want eternal life, as seen by Luke 10:16

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

So if you are not affiliated to Him, you are rejecting not only Him, but the Father. What happens if you reject the Father? What part of His Church do you find coercive? Jesus is not coercive?

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”d 5He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.e 6Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”f 7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.g 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing;* so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.h 9For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank

So being blinded until you convert is not coercive? That is amazingly funny.

They are universal, and if you want to encourage anyone to stop sinning, anyone is fair game and should be treated basically the same in that respect.

Speaking of which, if you’re talking to a nominally cradle Catholic on the one hand and an Evangelical never-been-a-Catholic on the other, do you treat them basically the same with respect to things like “You should obey everything that is taught by the Catholic Church”? Or is there any type of difference there?

No difference, or if they are a cradle Catholic, Muslim or Atheist. Since what the Catholic Church teaches is true, why not spread the good news?

Reality check, sir. Kids have a smorgasbord of options whether their parents like it or don’t. Will parents restrict options and limit freedom of movement? Yes indeed. Can I question whether that is always a good idea or if it is being done in a way that’s completely reasonable or right? I can and I will, in some detail if we keep going on like this.

Reality check. You did not answer the question. I did not ask you if kids have a smorgasbord of options, or whether parents restrict options and limit freedom of movement, etc. I specifically asked you: “Do you expect parents to raise their kids with a smorgasbord of options, saying: “it’s okay if you choose, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, Shintoism, etc…,” or do you expect the parents to raise their kids in what they believe?”

I know some people who are super nominal with their Catholicism and don’t believe any of it at all, but they plan on baptizing their kids in a Catholic Church in order to fulfill the tradition that grandma and grandpa expect of them. Yes that is really the only reason, I asked. Then I said “Really, are you serious, who does that?” And he said “Apparently we do.”

Sounds like the Holy Spirit is nudging them, and they don’t realize it. Who can question the Holy Spirit? By the way, I know a similar story. The parents are still nominal Catholics, their kid is a priest. He thanks God everyday that he was baptized (as an infant I might add), and received the graces that flowed from the sacrament. Yes the Lord is good.

I wonder if their kids will think that’s bogus.

Seriously, I do, I want to find out.

I know people that are the kids of ministers. They are rabid atheists. They think the crucifixion is bogus. In reality, just because someone thinks something is bogus, does not make it so.

I’m circumcised too, and I don’t think it’s bogus. It’s hygienic.

TMI. But Jesus’ circumcision was not for hygiene, it was to bring Him into the Jewish community. Why would you have a problem with an infant being brought into Christ’s family? Especially in light of this passage:

People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them,* and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. (This sounds like you)
16Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
17Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”

Bringing infants to Jesus, sounds like a preview of infant baptism, and people not wanting the infants brought to Jesus.

But hey, Jesus’ circumcision didn’t lock him in to one religion. He went and started a whole new world religion.

And yet without a doubt, it left an indelible mark on Him, that forever linked Him to that religion, one that He did not ask for. I have yet to read where he preached against the circumcision of Jewish male babies. If it is so bad, why didn’t He preach against it.

And people are free to walk away from His Church. Look at all the former Catholics who started something. You probably owe your spiritual community to a former Catholic who walked away sometime in the last 500 years.

Technically people can remove some books from the Bible if they want to. Bazinga!

You have a habit of not answering the question, but answering something that was not asked. Bazinga back at you! I asked: so I should be able to obey only the parts I want to, correct?

To be concluded…

 

[Duane1966]

Conclusion.

Again though, it’s more a question of whether infant baptism and nominal membership make any noticeable difference in terms of what the obligations are (if they are properly called obligations), and does it make any difference in the way you demand (or ask nicely, maybe?) that they be fulfilled.

We all have obligations, whether we ask for them or not. Again, you are free to reject and walk away from the Church Jesus founded. I have yet to see the word demand in any of the councils of the Church. I have yet to see Jesus ask nicely, something like: please don’t commit adultery, or the Father say: please don’t kill, or steal. Nope, I hear demands. And since you have already stated that the laws are universal, why would the laws of His Church, since He is God, be less so?

Among our enumerated rights and freedoms, I don’t think you’ll ever locate the freedom to break whatever law you want, but you will find the freedom of religion and the freedom to assemble and so forth. Perhaps there are certain rights and freedoms properly associated with religion, religious switching and lack of religion that are not properly associated with lawlessness. Now if you think that should be added- you don’t really think so, do you. But if you want to make an argument for why the Freedom of Religion concept is misguided (and do so in a country where your specific church is right around 20% of the population), go right ahead.

So in other words, there are all sorts of laws that require obligations of you that you had no hand in formulating, that you follow. And that is in this temporal life. And yet you have a problem with the Church making demands of human beings, (for their benefit, whether they realize it or not), to further their relationship with God in this life and to bring them eternal life.

I suppose there is also a distinction between nationality (belonging to a particular nation) and the nation itself (a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language) vis a vis a religion or a particular church, each of which involve a system of belief or worship which people presumably choose to practice at will and, in a free society, are free to abandon or change at will. Unless their religion is somehow tied up in some awkward bundle along with their common descent, history, culture, or language, but that would be silly. And also potentially less free. But what is really more important, truth or freedom? Who can know. And why do they somehow wind up being at odds with each other whenever I’m talking about them in the context of Catholicism?

They are at odds to you, not to most Catholics. The Church’s laws bring more freedom. It’s that simple. Who has more freedom, the fish that swims in the river (submitting to the Church’s teachings), or the fish that jumps out of the water and lands flopping around on the riverbank?

You’re very welcome, and I think they were pretty amazing.

Why do our perceptions of your answers always end up being at odds with each other?

So I am going to rephrase your question.

1. Wait a minute, I’m also expected to obey God in whatever things He decides I ought to? That’s unreasonable, and I won’t go along with it. I was very accommodating on point number one, and for that I am owed the courtesy of being able to choose which things I obey and which I do not. If I had made an adult decision to have a relationship with God I would have taken that into consideration, but since I wasn’t given a choice about my religious identity, I will go ahead and decide for myself how much of His laws I will obey. That is not entirely ideal, but under present circumstances it is the best and most reasonable arrangement.

This sounds like it could come from the mouth of Satan. Is this the still best and most reasonable arrangement?

You see badnews, when the Church speaks infallibly, you are hearing the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whether you accept it or not. And it does not matter if you are Atheist, Lutheran, Evangelical, Marxist, or cafeteria Catholic. Her teachings are universal.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

But we are called to honor them all of our life.

If I honored my parents my whole life, I wouldn’t have become Catholic…

 

[DCNBILL]

If I honored my parents my whole life, I wouldn’t have become Catholic…

Honor does not imply obedience, it is about love and respect.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Honor does not imply obedience, it is about love and respect.

You commented on Allegra’s post that said that adults aren’t called to obey parents with that we are called to honor them. It seemed like you were trying to imply that even as an adult, we should do as they say. Which isn’t true.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Hi there Mr Barrett,

Over the course of well over half a century I was told on occasion, bits and bobs of catholic belief (not all true) and - lo and behold - I have been using my prerogative AND I AM LOOKING INTO IT.

There are four billion people queuing up one side of me complaining about that and four billion people queuing up the other side of me complaining about that.

With variations, the same goes for every other Catholic, nominal and non-nominal.

You haven’t explained what makes you pretend to assume that “Catholics” aren’t supposed to fulfil proper human dignity against all pressures and USE THEIR PREROGATIVE IN THEIR OWN SPACE AND TIME.

The fact that wicked colonialists of nation A through their uneducated and brainwashed (and angry) nun proxies drummed it into the last ten generations of nation B that they are too stupid to think - an atrocity sadly repeated all over the world in every age of history - doesn’t alter any of these realities.

I don’t have a single drop of nation B in me. My parents and grandparents were of a mixture of other races, and tentative converts from numerous different other things, and went as far as they were able or thought appropriate. I am building on their successes and following their good example. I don’t care how discontented that “makes” 488,000 other forum members including you Mr B.

The way the rest of you posters are generalising, don’t “talk into the air”.

 

[DCNBILL]

You commented on Allegra’s post that said that adults aren’t called to obey parents with that we are called to honor them. It seemed like you were trying to imply that even as an adult, we should do as they say. Which isn’t true.

I agree, they may counsel us but not tell us what to do.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi badnewsbarrett. I know you’ve already got a number of people responding to your questions, but if you want another

P.S. Or maybe you don’t. If so, that’s alright. (Admittedly I haven’t read anyone else’s responses on this thread, so I’m not going to complain if my own response doesn’t receive any attention.)