Why the cafeteria catholicism?

[Luger]

Why do so many feel they can pick and choose not only what they accept but also feel that it’s OK to publicly attack that which is allowed by the Catholic Church?

There was a discussion after Divine Liturgy (this was in my eastern parish) last Sunday which included my Eastern Catholic pastor and he wanted me to join it. He and a handful of others railed on and on about:

• The OF Mass and how it was sacrilegious.
• Communion in hand and how it too was sacrilegious.
• The use of female altar servers. Again, sacrilegious.
• The use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Again, sacrilegious.

I replied that we are all free to have our personal preferences within the direction set by the Church (abuses are a whole different discussion) but to publicly attack/denigrate what the Church formally allows as being defective or inferior is not only resoundingly ignorant, it’s also very bad form. They got very upset when I said their opinions were really nothing more than another flavor of cafeteria catholicism.

Why do some feel they can attack anything they want from the Church with complete impunity? As if it’s their right/duty to tell us not what the Church allows but what She should allow? Again, we are not talking about liturgical abuses. We are talking about things that are already allowed and in many cases encouraged by the Church.

Any ideas? Just simple ignorant and bitterness?

 

[choy]

funny thing is the insults hurled towards the other end would also apply to those hurling them

while traditionalists decry the “happy clappy” Masses, they themselves support the “my way or the highway” type of Catholicism that its TLM or nothing

if you take a step back and think about it, its just two sides of the same coin

 

[Catholicben]

I agree with many (except the OF bash) of the things made above (CITT, altar girls, extraordinary ministers) to a pointbut I do recognize that they are allowed by the church and are not intrinsically sacrilegious.

I do think that extraordinary ministers should be reduced and not used when not necessary, and altar girls and communion in the hand should not be allowed, but the fact is, they are. And I accept that.

 

[Rence]

funny thing is the insults hurled towards the other end would also apply to those hurling them

while traditionalists decry the “happy clappy” Masses, they themselves support the “my way or the highway” type of Catholicism that its TLM or nothing

if you take a step back and think about it, its just two sides of the same coin

It’s because people who fall on either side of the same coin are very passionate about what they believe in, and are fighting to preserve it, without really caring about those who don’t share the same views that they do.

For the ultra traditional side of that coin, they are no different than those who allowed persecution of those who did not want to accept the rules of the Church (witch drownings, burning at the stake, confining “dissenters” to house arrest, etc) because they felt that it was for the “noble” cause of saving souls (both the dissenters, and those who would follow the dissenter). They just can’t take the fact that people are different from them. They are not happy to enjoy the freedoms they have that allow them to practice their faith, the way it is best for them to practice that faith, because everyone else has to practice their faith with them.

The other side of the coin want the freedom to live their lives they way they want to live it, and don’t want the other side imposing their religious views on them. They greatly appreciate their freedom of choice and will fight for it.

Whether people like to hear it or not, we’re all cafeterial catholics. A person who accepts everything spoon-fed to them by the Church without question, without reserve, without wondering about it — just doesn’t exist. It’s part of life. There will be something that doesn’t sound right as we journey though our development of faith. You can talk yourself into believing everything and naively expect everyone can or will do the same, you can just work through the problems and do your best to make sense of it all as you go along, or you can disregard the teachings of the Church regardless of either side of the fence you are on and try to bully people into following your version of the Truth.

 

[JRKH]

I think that largely it has to do with living in our modern world of “free democracy” instead of the older “Monarchy” model.

Americans in particular feel it is their peculiar right to criticize whatever they disagree with and in whatever language they choose. “Free Speech” is the banner.
What they fail to recognize is that The Church is not, and never has been, a democracy. It is a Kingdom with an all powerful monarch named Jesus and a group of Imperial Ministers headed up by the King’s own Vicar. This group of minsters is collectively referred to as the Magisterium. What is issued from the Magisterium is issued in the name of the King and not up for selective adherance.
If such groups have legitimate issues to raise there are channels within the church for dealing with such issues. They should avail themselves of said channels, and then be satisfied with whatever answer they receive from The Church (in accordance with Our Lord’s own desire as stated in Mt 18:15-18)

Now - having spouted all of the above, speaking of the individual “cafateria catholic” I’d say that the problem is weakness of will, and lack of humility. Also the sin of Pride plays a significant role in that they are unwilling to submit to the Will of Christ in His Church.

Peace
James

 

[dancny]

I think that a true “cafeteria” Catholic is one who may oppose abortion but use contraception. They pick and choose the things they do and don’t accept, such as, Well I was married by a JP and that’s as god as a Priest. Right? We all have things we disagree with and we all have things we don’t like, but if we can accpet them and not let them deter us from practising the faith or allow them to make us leave the faith for some protestant group then we are largely ok. I don’t have a problem with a Priest who does not like people receiving in the hand. On the other side we have Priests who don’t like people who genuflect before receiving. We should be able to discuss these things and it is good that you were there to offer an opposing view.

Why is it like this? Partly human nature. We have our likes and dislikes. Partly it is the education we receive. If your mom and dad go home from church and talk about those horrible people who are so sacriligious they allow female altar servers that is what you learn. It can be hard to accept something else, especially if the parish has a Tridentine mass and that is the one you got to. Some people like to be part of the in crowd. If Father doesn’t like it and he is the center of the parish then I can’t like it either. Watch a new priest come in with a different view and some people will turn around.

Make up your own mind and stay within the fabric woven by our church, witness for sanity and you’ll do everyone a service.

 

[musicality]

I replied that we are all free to have our personal preferences within the direction set by the Church (abuses are a whole different discussion) but to publicly attack/denigrate what the Church formally allows as being defective or inferior is not only resoundingly ignorant, it’s also very bad form. They got very upset when I said their opinions were really nothing more than another flavor of cafeteria catholicism.

Why do some feel they can attack anything they want from the Church with complete impunity? As if it’s their right/duty to tell us not what the Church allows but what She should allow? Again, we are not talking about liturgical abuses. We are talking about things that are already allowed and in many cases encouraged by the Church.

Any ideas? Just simple ignorant and bitterness?

From what I can tell your points are absolutely valid. Often, when people are brought up on either side of the cafeteria coin, they don’t like being told that they are wrong.

 

[Stylites]

Whether people like to hear it or not, we’re all cafeterial catholics. A person who accepts everything spoon-fed to them by the Church without question, without reserve, without wondering about it — just doesn’t exist. It’s part of life.

No, there’s no mystery or ubiquitousness about being a Cafeteria Catholic - it’s only that old ‘cardinal virtue’ of pride which compels people to think that they are more Catholic than the Pope.

 

[Aramis]

The great ironies: the Eastern Catholics are where communion in the hand was preserved! Specifically, the Armenian Church!

 

[JRKH]

No, there’s no mystery or ubiquitousness about being a Cafeteria Catholic - it’s only that old ‘cardinal virtue’ of pride which compels people to think that they are more Catholic than the Pope.

Don’t you mean cardinal sin??

Peace
James

 

[Newbie2]

funny thing is the insults hurled towards the other end would also apply to those hurling them

while traditionalists decry the “happy clappy” Masses, they themselves support the “my way or the highway” type of Catholicism that its TLM or nothing

if you take a step back and think about it, its just two sides of the same coin

Exactomundo. And there are those who are just this side of the “TLM or nothing” as well.

From what I can tell your points are absolutely valid. Often, when people are brought up on either side of the cafeteria coin, they don’t like being told that they are wrong.

In my experience, “traditionalist cafeteria Catholics”, i.e. those who stick to Church teachings (their own interpretation, that is) are the most vehement about telling others how wrong they are. IMHO, most “liberal” cafeterists know they’re stretching or breaking Church teachings, but don’t see it as a big deal.

No, there’s no mystery or ubiquitousness about being a Cafeteria Catholic - it’s only that old ‘cardinal virtue’ of pride which compels people to think that they are more Catholic than the Pope.

Exactly.

What do you think is the root cause of this? Again, IMHO, I think that lack of firm direction and cohesion by the bishops is a major factor. If “X” is allowed in a particular diocese, let’s say something either bordering on or a clear abuse, and in the neighboring diocese it’s strictly forbidden, which parishioners do you think will be more accepting of “X”?

 

[Cat]

I think that largely it has to do with living in our modern world of “free democracy” instead of the older “Monarchy” model.

Americans in particular feel it is their peculiar right to criticize whatever they disagree with and in whatever language they choose. “Free Speech” is the banner.
What they fail to recognize is that The Church is not, and never has been, a democracy. It is a Kingdom with an all powerful monarch named Jesus and a group of Imperial Ministers headed up by the King’s own Vicar. This group of minsters is collectively referred to as the Magisterium. What is issued from the Magisterium is issued in the name of the King and not up for selective adherance.
If such groups have legitimate issues to raise there are channels within the church for dealing with such issues. They should avail themselves of said channels, and then be satisfied with whatever answer they receive from The Church (in accordance with Our Lord’s own desire as stated in Mt 18:15-18)

Now - having spouted all of the above, speaking of the individual “cafateria catholic” I’d say that the problem is weakness of will, and lack of humility. Also the sin of Pride plays a significant role in that they are unwilling to submit to the Will of Christ in His Church.

Peace
James

This is such a good post with so much practical truth.

This “American individualism” and “Don’t tread on me” and “freedom” thinking is one reason why Protestantism, especially Calvinism, became established in the United States. Up until the last decade or so, we Americans viewed government with suspicion and are generally opposed to over-involvement of government, especially a far-away federal government, in everyday life.

Sounds like the same mentality that causes a lot of Catholics to ignore the Authority of Holy Mother Church, doesn’t it?

Now many Americans seem to be looking to government as “Savior” and demanding more government involvement in every area of our lives. I wonder if perhaps this is happening because so many Americans have no church connection whatsoever, and people need a “Savior,” so they look to government instead of Jesus Christ and the Church.

And when you think about it, in the U.S., most people historically LEAVE their mothers at a fairly young age and make their own way in life. People, especially men, who live with their mothers are considered milquetoasts and weaklings, and men who pander constantly to their mothers are called “Mama’s boys.” So no wonder we have a hard time obeying “Holy Mother Church” once we are grown ups.

Finally, when we see the absolutely mess that the federal government has created by its constant meddling and unconstitutional forays into every area of private life of its citizens, we learn NOT to trust the federal governement. In the same way, we have learned not to trust the Vatican, especially when we see the horrific disaster of the predator priests. Yes, I know that the secular media has exaggerated this scandal and even lied about the facts. But the facts are bad even without the secular spin. Priests shouldn’t be having sex with anyone, including their hand.

Don’t get me wrong–when it comes to public policy, I’m very much in favor of limited government, rugged individualism, “don’t tread on me,” and lots and lots of personal freedom! I definitely believe that our U.S. government is becoming much too involved in our personal lives and I want the government to return to the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and let the States and the people handle all the rest.

But I think that we have to keep a different mindset when it comes to Holy Mother Church. We are DUAL citizens–citizens of the United States (or wherever), and citizens of God’s Kingdom, and the two “governments” are not the same.

And even if our Church seems to be gumming it all up, we have to trust and obey.

 

[curlycool89]

It’s because people who fall on either side of the same coin are very passionate about what they believe in, and are fighting to preserve it, without really caring about those who don’t share the same views that they do.

For the ultra traditional side of that coin, they are no different than those who allowed persecution of those who did not want to accept the rules of the Church (witch drownings, burning at the stake, confining “dissenters” to house arrest, etc) because they felt that it was for the “noble” cause of saving souls (both the dissenters, and those who would follow the dissenter). They just can’t take the fact that people are different from them. They are not happy to enjoy the freedoms they have that allow them to practice their faith, the way it is best for them to practice that faith, because everyone else has to practice their faith with them.

So, traditionalists are paladins?

This is such a good post with so much practical truth.

This “American individualism” and “Don’t tread on me” and “freedom” thinking is one reason why Protestantism, especially Calvinism, became established in the United States. Up until the last decade or so, we Americans viewed government with suspicion and are generally opposed to over-involvement of government, especially a far-away federal government, in everyday life.

Sounds like the same mentality that causes a lot of Catholics to ignore the Authority of Holy Mother Church, doesn’t it?

Now many Americans seem to be looking to government as “Savior” and demanding more government involvement in every area of our lives. I wonder if perhaps this is happening because so many Americans have no church connection whatsoever, and people need a “Savior,” so they look to government instead of Jesus Christ and the Church.

And when you think about it, in the U.S., most people historically LEAVE their mothers at a fairly young age and make their own way in life. People, especially men, who live with their mothers are considered milquetoasts and weaklings, and men who pander constantly to their mothers are called “Mama’s boys.” So no wonder we have a hard time obeying “Holy Mother Church” once we are grown ups.

Finally, when we see the absolutely mess that the federal government has created by its constant meddling and unconstitutional forays into every area of private life of its citizens, we learn NOT to trust the federal governement. In the same way, we have learned not to trust the Vatican, especially when we see the horrific disaster of the predator priests. Yes, I know that the secular media has exaggerated this scandal and even lied about the facts. But the facts are bad even without the secular spin. Priests shouldn’t be having sex with anyone, including their hand.

Don’t get me wrong–when it comes to public policy, I’m very much in favor of limited government, rugged individualism, “don’t tread on me,” and lots and lots of personal freedom! I definitely believe that our U.S. government is becoming much too involved in our personal lives and I want the government to return to the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and let the States and the people handle all the rest.

But I think that we have to keep a different mindset when it comes to Holy Mother Church. We are DUAL citizens–citizens of the United States (or wherever), and citizens of God’s Kingdom, and the two “governments” are not the same.

And even if our Church seems to be gumming it all up, we have to trust and obey.

Very true. I know Americans probably hate it when it’s pointed out, but American thinking is very closely associated with Protestantism (the first settlers were Protestants after all).

 

[Luger]

**I think that largely it has to do with living in our modern world of “free democracy” instead of the older “Monarchy” model.

Americans in particular feel it is their peculiar right to criticize whatever they disagree with and in whatever language they choose. “Free Speech” is the banner. **
What they fail to recognize is that The Church is not, and never has been, a democracy. It is a Kingdom with an all powerful monarch named Jesus and a group of Imperial Ministers headed up by the King’s own Vicar. This group of minsters is collectively referred to as the Magisterium. What is issued from the Magisterium is issued in the name of the King and not up for selective adherance.
If such groups have legitimate issues to raise there are channels within the church for dealing with such issues. They should avail themselves of said channels, and then be satisfied with whatever answer they receive from The Church (in accordance with Our Lord’s own desire as stated in Mt 18:15-18)

Now - having spouted all of the above, speaking of the individual “cafateria catholic” **I’d say that the problem is weakness of will, and lack of humility. Also the sin of Pride plays a significant role in that they are unwilling to submit to the Will of Christ in His Church.
**
Peace
James

Excellent insight! I guess it comes down to pride and a willingness to condemn others while never putting our own actions under the same scrutiny. Thanks.

 

[Luger]

No, there’s no mystery or ubiquitousness about being a Cafeteria Catholic - it’s only that old ‘cardinal virtue’ of pride which compels people to think that they are more Catholic than the Pope.

And it seems that pride impacts both extremes the hardest.

 

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by Stylites
No, there’s no mystery or ubiquitousness about being a Cafeteria Catholic - it’s only that old 'cardinal virtue

Yes, pride is a sin, but I used the term ‘cardinal virtue’ to point out the seditious and seductive nature of pride, especially in the context of fellow Catholics who think they know better than the Church does.

 

[Rence]

If there were no Cafeteria Catholics, what do you think it would do to the Catholic population? I know some people would be very pleased if the Church was down to a few truly devote individuals rather than all the Cafe Catholics who represent the Church. But that’s not what the Church wants, and that’s not what Jesus wants. It works both ways: if the Church claims ownership of anyone and everyone who was Baptised due to that indelible mark on the individual that makes them Catholic for life no matter what, then they have to deal with those who choose to follow the Church as well as those who don’t.

I can’t explain why extreme liberal people choose to be so liberal because in most cases they are only hurting themselves and those they love. Convincing them of this is almost impossible, especially in the area of morals. They’re used to the indepedence and freedom to do whatever they believe is right for them, and they’re not going to let that be taken away from them easily. It would be better to concentrate on trying to change the way they view morals, rather than trying to get them to obey what they perceive to be extreme opression in the rules of the Church. Going after them with an iron fist is not going to get them to tow the line. It’s beyond me that others think it will.

But I also can’t explain the other side of the coin. Honestly, with all the scrupulosity I have encountered on online Catholic forums, I’m surprised there are any Catholics at all. I just pray (and honestly I pray) that people who are pushed away from the Church over scrupulosity have the common sense to talk to a good priest when confronted by people who are Holier than the Pope. Those especially who are on the fence can be pulled to either side by the way they are treated by those on each side of the fence. So really, if someone is trying to learn more about their faith and trying to make sense of it all, and is constantly told basically, “if it tastes good, spit it out — if it feels good, it’s probably wrong” etc., I really don’t have to wonder which side of the fence they will fall…

 

[Luger]

The great ironies: the Eastern Catholics are where communion in the hand was preserved! Specifically, the Armenian Church!

This priest would not be ordained a priest in the Latin Rite once he became a transitional deacon because of his uber “traditionalism” (actually cafeteria catholicism) so he turned to the East.

 

[Layman]

He and a handful of others railed on and on about:

• The OF Mass and how it was sacrilegious.
• Communion in hand and how it too was sacrilegious.
• The use of female altar servers. Again, sacrilegious.
• The use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Again, sacrilegious.

This person was attacking things he disliked about the modern Latin Rite. Three of them listed above are novelties in the RC rite. This does not equate to an attack on the RC Church. Further, to then have a conversation about ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ in this forum is to engage in ‘argumentem ad hominem’.

The things listed above, including the changes to the rite itself, are, historically, novelties. They are fit subjects for debate.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

There are in fact two Roman Catholic “traditions”, in quotes because of the newness of the OF. Those of us who were taught the catechism pre-1960s were taught:

we, lay people, could never, never touch the Eucharist with anything but our tongues, as an altar-boy I was carefully trained to catch every crumb that might dislodge during communion;
we were taught to genuflect before entering the pew, to kneel before our Lord especially during the period the Eucharist was exposed during Mass, we stood only during the Gospel and while approaching the Altar Rail for communion;
we were taught about proper attire for Mass and the importance of arriving early and leaving only after the priest and,
we were taught to be absolutely quiet while in the house of God both in respect to Him and to those around us who were praying. It was all about deep, heartfelt reverence and respect.

Along came the 1960s and all that we were taught, especially how terrible, even sacrilegious it was for a lay person to handle a consecrated host has been replaced by a ritual that to us was sacrilegious, it’s what we were taught all our Catholic lives. The reverence and respect seemed to be gone, at least diminished.

Those educated after the 1960s knew nothing, or only heard talk about the “old” Mass, it was even outlawed in most areas, so to them the OF was the standard and its evolution nothing unusual, after all everything evolves over time. As the TLM gradually became an allowed Mass again and those trained in the TLM returned to it the misunderstanding and accusations of elitism and sacrilege began to fly across the aisle. The fact is that both rites are approved by the Vatican, both are legitimate, and barring any action by the Vatican, both will continue to be valid so we need to accept that and move on.

For me, I have finally had enough modernism and will return to the TLM this Sunday while my wife continues to sing in the choir of our current OF parish. There will be times when I return to the OF for the occasional special Mass but it won’t be often.