Wouldn't calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic be a Mortal sin?

[Timidandunsure]

This Term just bothers me…

Most likely because I am not the best Catholic, and am a sinner and struggle constantly. But I haven’t given up hope for myself yet. And there are things the church believes that I do not believe with my heart, mostly small obscure stuff, but I know if the church says this is how it is, I try to live up to that rule.

When I see it in posts, it often refers to these people in a negitive way, almost contempt. To me that seems a sin of pride and of the worse kind. Like saying, I am follow all the rules, you don’t, so I am better and closer to God than you and he loves me more. Instead of feeling bad for a member of your family that is in allot of trouble and may not realize it.

Obviously I feel I may fall into your term of Cafeteria Catholic, because I don’t always believe in my heart some of the more radical sins, Like Hypnosis is a moral sin, I just don’t see it, I see it being used to help people, and I feel that can be okay. But just because I don’t believe it, Doesn’t mean I don’t respect it, and treat it as if I did beleive it, and one day I hope to ask someone in heaven to explain what I was misssing.

It reminds me of that story about the two brothers and the father, one brother goes off and blows his inheratance, the other stays and follows all the rules, but when the other comes back the one who stayed is ticked off and feels he is a better son than his brother.

I suppose its just a term, I find it offensive and mean. But then again it just might be guilt about being so poor at my own faith that makes me feel so.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, just at myself and how that term makes me feel.

anywho…

 

[JCPhoenix]

I ask you…how would calling someone a “cafeteria Catholic” be a mortal sin? Have you looked up the conditions required for a sin to be mortal?

That would be your first step.

Secondly, a Cafeteria Catholic is someone who picks and chooses what they want to believe, and disregards the rest.

The fact that you struggle with something doesn’t make you a cafeteria catholic…however, if you are willfully disagreeing with what the Church teaches, that is a grave matter and you are, in fact, committing a mortal sin by that act. (if willfully done and all conditions apply).

The fact that you have questions and don’t see how something can be a mortal sin doesn’t make you a cafeteria Catholic…it makes you a person who is struggling to learn and understand your faith. This is to be admired.

Now…have you actually researched your own question? Or are you doing as I once did and swallowed the objections of others without doing your own research?

Fr. Corapi said that those who are disposed to hear the truth will not be offended by it…and if you yourself are offended by a term that may apply to you, then maybe you should take it as a hint and start reading about your faith.

It is true that some who are faithful my be tained by pride, but then again, pride is a sin we all suffer from, faithful and cafeteria Catholics alike.

That’s why we have the beautiful sacrament of Confession to keep us in line!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Timidandunsure:

Most likely because I am not the best Catholic, and am a sinner and struggle constantly. But I haven’t given up hope for myself yet. And there are things the church believes that I do not believe with my heart, mostly small obscure stuff, but I know if the church says this is how it is, I try to live up to that rule.

If you make it clear that you intend to assent to Church teaching even though you don’t understand it now, you will be much more respected among the orthodox I think. You might consider saying “I just can’t accept that yet” as opposed to “I don’t believe it.” If you truly want to believe it, then always use “yet” or other idea as a hedge. If you simply say “I don’t believe it” it could be mistaken for a condition you believe you will always be in.

When I see it in posts, it often refers to these people in a negitive way, almost contempt. To me that seems a sin of pride and of the worse kind. Like saying, I am follow all the rules, you don’t, so I am better and closer to God than you and he loves me more. Instead of feeling bad for a member of your family that is in allot of trouble and may not realize it.

You are right, and I am one who is actively fighting against that, claiming to be no better than anyone else, but not letting them claim superiority over me either lest I allow their pride to grow unchecked when i could have at least tried to stop it. Success at that varies.

I know you do not want to say anything bad about them, such as they are acting like Pharisees, but be assured they have heard that before. You might try instead aquitting them in their heart on the basis of ignorance. On this forum, there are a lot of people eager to debate Church teachings and debate how they should be applied. They are very committed to the Church, but they honestly don’t know how they come off to people like us.

A powerful phrase of Jesus is “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” Either He thought those people nailing Him to the cross were pretty ignorant, or he was lying. I choose the former. These people were probably doing what they felt they had to, or that they were supposed to in the name of God.

You may wish those who accuse you to quit (at least so it seems) condemning you in your heart, because actually you don’t know but you are willing to learn. Remember the word cuts both ways, though, so you had also better not condemn them in your heart for being apparent hypocrites, or you will become one yourself. The more you see Christ in them, and believe their efforts toward you are honest, the more you can forgive their strond language and unfortunately bad attitudes.

Remember Jesus even said to listen to what the pharisees teach. These people may hurt your feelings but you can learn so much from them about Catholicism that you end up not minding their little idiosyncracies such as being quick to accuse. Heck, if we want them to forgive our sins then we better be able to forgive theirs or neither of us wins.

Obviously I feel I may fall into your term of Cafeteria Catholic, because I don’t always believe in my heart some of the more radical sins, Like Hypnosis is a moral sin, I just don’t see it, I see it being used to help people, and I feel that can be okay. But just because I don’t believe it, Doesn’t mean I don’t respect it, and treat it as if I did beleive it, and one day I hope to ask someone in heaven to explain what I was misssing.

I differ from many other posters in that I don’t think believing something in your heart against Church teachings is necessarily a sin. I’m sure volumes of technical documents say I’m wrong, but you’ve already stated you’re trying to become united with Church teachings.

I suppose its just a term, I find it offensive and mean. But then again it just might be guilt about being so poor at my own faith that makes me feel so.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, just at myself and how that term makes me feel.

anywho…

You and me and a lot of others. You might want to come in and introduce yourself in the cafeteria Catholics Guild thread, started by Penny Plain who has probably been insulted more than you and I put together on these forums, and knows how it feels.

The Good News is that IMO many of the worst offenders on both the CC side and the orthodox side, have really mellowed out and become more patient with each other over the last few weeks. (I was a pretty vitriolic CC, but I finally realized a lot of stuff I won’t go into now and here I am claiming progress on Catholic unity on the forums. How dare I make such claims?

Alan

 

[Ruthie]

Your question leaves me with mixed feelings!

I have considered the phrase “Cafeteria Catholic” as a handy way to refer to those who consider themselves Catholics, but refuse to obey the Church in some matters. They treat Catholic dogma and teachings as a selection of items, as in a cafeteria, from which they can take some and reject others.

I have not examined my conscience as to how I use the phrase… It is difficult to refer to the above folks without sounding snotty, even if I don’t mean to.

It is the part about rejecting teachings that makes them “cafeteria Catholics.” folks like you, and me too, who accept the things that are difficult for us, taking it on faith that some day we will understand why the Church teaches them, are doing our best to be faithful Catholics.

Hang in there. If you have the time and perseverance, try to read everything that has been posted in the “ask an apologist” forum. You will learn a lot about some of the more difficult teachings! It helped me immensely. (I’m retired, so I have the time…)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’ve decided that I’ve probably been sinning by wearing the label cafeteria Catholic.

I wore it because it seemed that I was in fact, using certain people’s definitions of what the term meant.

Once I suggested we use the term in a positive context, such as one who has so many devotions to choose from in the Church they can pick and choose which ones to engage in.

Of course I was soundly thrashed, I guess for trying to make a Known Pejorative Term into something positive.

It seems to do me no good. Around weak Catholics or non-Catholics, I might still call myself Catholic whenever it seems the label may help do some good for other people. To avoid confusion on this board, I will now just call myself agnostic so that nobody can call me a hypocrite for not believing all the right stuff.

Also if I consider myself agnostic, I might be able to win more Catholic bashers as I can become friends with them without necessarily telling them that I am “technically” a Catholic and take them by surprise.

Gosh I decided I really don’t care what I’m called, except to the degree that the name I use for myself seems to give people preconceived notions about my attitudes and beliefs, making it hard for them to concentrate on my actual message. If I claim to have no specific set of beliefs, then I cannot be accused of violating my own beliefs, and perhaps put me into a stronger position overall. I have no doubt that God knows my heart, so I hope He will find that I am doing these things for strategic reasons to advance the Good News and not out of fear for emotional conflicts. I’d rather be called a samaritan or tax collector and be defended by Christ than to call myself a Catholic and found to be a hypocrite. Since I’ll always be a sinner and probably always have doubts about Catholic teachings, I will accept that God is not calling me to true Catholoicism at this time. Maybe I am to be an ambassador, or maybe I’m supposed to forget about religion and just get a job. I don’t know.

Alan

 

[Ruthie]

Alan, I don’t think you meet the definition of an agnostic!

“I’d rather be called a samaritan or tax collector and be defended by Christ than to call myself a Catholic and found to be a hypocrite.”

That’s a good thought. Yet, I think we all will be called hypocrites at some point, whether we are or not.

“Since I’ll always be a sinner and probably always have doubts about Catholic teachings, I will accept that God is not calling me to true Catholoicism at this time.”

I’m not so sure that’s true. It depends on what you do with the doubts. The very fact that you use the word “doubts,” instead of something like “disagreements,” tells me you’re on the right track. “Doubt” implies that you are willing to agree with the Church.

You’re in my prayers.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

JCPhoenix:

a Cafeteria Catholic is someone who picks and chooses what they want to believe, and disregards the rest.

The fact that you struggle with something doesn’t make you a cafeteria catholic…however, if you are willfully disagreeing with what the Church teaches, that is a grave matter

I think alot of the problems with the term “cafeteria Catholic” come from individual definitions.

You and I agree that it is used primarily to describe someone who willfully opposes Church teaching because they decide it is wrong or does not apply in their situation.

Some people who think they are being labelled a cafeteria Catholic are actually just struggling with their faith, like you and me and the rest of Catholics everywhere.

No person, no Catholic is perfect. All of us struggle with our faith. But we are to be obedient to the Church and trust in Her.

We are not required to understand or accept a teaching of the Church. We are only required to follow it. Sometimes understanding follows obedience.

Malia

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Would you prefer the more accurate term: heretic?

It is from the Greek word meaning to pick out for one’s self. Of course heretic is fighting words, so we don’t use it. Using Cafeteria Catholic as an attempt to be nicer. It is easier than using, “one who calls himself Catholic but rejects certain Church teachings.”

Scott

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ruthie:

I have considered the phrase “Cafeteria Catholic” as a handy way to refer to those who consider themselves Catholics, but refuse to obey the Church in some matters. They treat Catholic dogma and teachings as a selection of items, as in a cafeteria, from which they can take some and reject others.

This is a good description of how I have used the term as well.

The question is, why do we need a term to identify ourselves as two separate groups of sinners? If we truly believe we are all sinners, and that none of us are better than the others, then what purpose does such a division serve, and such a word other than to formalize the division?

If the division is strictly academic – for example for the purposes of coming up with catechesis strategy – then why does it carry an emotional payload? Why should ministering to cafeteria Catholics be any more or less shameful than ministering to the widows and orphans? Are they not, in the opinion of the orthodox, missing out on something that important?

I have not examined my conscience as to how I use the phrase… It is difficult to refer to the above folks without sounding snotty, even if I don’t mean to.

That was a very honest response, and it shows how much you’ve been conditioned to think of people who exhibit certain characteristics (presumably from sin) as below you. It does appear you are fighting that, as well you should. There are several strategies to get over it, but suffice it to say I am gradually learning the art of not judging, even those people whom I think judge me!

It is the part about rejecting teachings that makes them “cafeteria Catholics.” folks like you, and me too, who accept the things that are difficult for us, taking it on faith that some day we will understand why the Church teaches them, are doing our best to be faithful Catholics.

It’s great that you do that! If you must pity us, I’d rather that than scorn us. If you scorn us it makes us askeered to ask any questions and open our ears to hear the answer because we are so afraid of hearing something that hurts our wittle feelings.

Hang in there. If you have the time and perseverance, try to read everything that has been posted in the “ask an apologist” forum. You will learn a lot about some of the more difficult teachings! It helped me immensely. (I’m retired, so I have the time…)

I have not tried that, but it sounds like a great idea! I’m usually too busy writing to read!

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

T
The question is, why do we need a term to identify ourselves as two separate groups of sinners? If we truly believe we are all sinners, and that none of us are better than the others, then what purpose does such a division serve, and such a word other than to formalize the division?

The term defines those who accept vs those who reject.

It is true we are all sinners. The True Church does not have divisions as it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The question is do you belong to it?

Those of us who accept still fail, but it is the interior disposition towards the faith that is different. Most CINO’s I know are obstinate in their rejection of certain aspects of Caholicism. They claim they know better (an issue of authority) and essentially turn their backs on Catholic teaching.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

The term defines those who accept vs those who reject.

It is true we are all sinners. The True Church does not have divisions as it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The question is do you belong to it?

Yes, I agree the True Church does not have divisions, but the True Church objectively claims me as one of its members by virtue of my baptism which was performed well before the age of consent.

That is an objective fact and to deny it is to claim to know better than the Church whether I am a member. I can renounce her, and she can excommunicate me, but she cannot cease to acknowledge that I am in fact a member of her dysfunctional family.

So therefore the answer is, some of us are Catholic by assent, and others by baptism, but yes we are still all members of the True Church. To deny that is to deny her authority, but does not make you a non-member.

We cannot choose our family members, deciding one day they are brothers and the next they aren’t, by that day’s opinion we form of their attitudes and thoughts, which may honestly be confused to the point they don’t know themselves whether they are stubborn, scared, or some other thing.

Remember also that there is no objective way to judge a mortal sin of another human being, because the objective criteria are subjectively determined in nature. There is an objective truth, but it cannot be discovered. Therefore it is presumptuous for any Catholic to put another Catholic or even himself, for that matter, in a group that ostensibly is “True Catholic” or not.

Alan

 

[felra]

I don’t usually use the term cafeteria Catholic. But when I do, I say it to point out the contradiction and dishonesty of the person who persist and insists on considering themselves in good standing with the Church, despite their known position of active and public dissent in matters of faith and morals. These folks lack integrity because they know better. They also bring scandal, sow confusion and make it more difficult for honestly striving Catholics to be faithful in all aspects of Church teaching.

Cafeteria Catholic=dissent/disobedient/unrepentant.
Striving Catholic=assent/obedient/repentant.

No mortal sin in this sinner in correctly labeling a Catholic cafeteria if they menu select which Church teaching that they will give consent to. I could use much more harsher labels, so cafeteria connotes a mild expression. Nor do I pretend to judge hearts, only that you can know a tree by what it says, does and the fruit that it produces.

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes, I agree the True Church does not have divisions, but the True Church objectively claims me as one of its members by virtue of my baptism which was performed well before the age of consent.

That is an objective fact and to deny it is to claim to know better than the Church whether I am a member. I can renounce her, and she can excommunicate me, but she cannot cease to acknowledge that I am in fact a member of her dysfunctional family.

So therefore the answer is, some of us are Catholic by assent, and others by baptism, but yes we are still all members of the True Church. To deny that is to deny her authority, but does not make you a non-member.

We cannot choose our family members, deciding one day they are brothers and the next they aren’t, by that day’s opinion we form of their attitudes and thoughts, which may honestly be confused to the point they don’t know themselves whether they are stubborn, scared, or some other thing.

Remember also that there is no objective way to judge a mortal sin of another human being, because the objective criteria are subjectively determined in nature. There is an objective truth, but it cannot be discovered. Therefore it is presumptuous for any Catholic to put another Catholic or even himself, for that matter, in a group that ostensibly is “True Catholic” or not.

Alan

One can excommunicate themselves through apostasy or heresy.

Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)

Excommunication: The Church’s highest censure or medicinal penalty, in which the offender is completely cut off from the daily life of the Church, including sacraments.
Excommunication ferendae sententiae: An excommunication imposed as the result of a judgment of a church tribunal.

                        **Excommunication                              latae sententiae: **reserved to the Apostolic See:                              An automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) that                              only the Roman Pontiff and his Roman Congregations                              can remove (thus “reserved to the Apostolic See”).

 

[Writer]

buffalo:

The term defines those who accept vs those who reject.

It is true we are all sinners. The True Church does not have divisions as it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The question is do you belong to it?

Those of us who accept still fail, but it is the interior disposition towards the faith that is different. Most CINO’s I know are obstinate in their rejection of certain aspects of Caholicism. They claim they know better (an issue of authority) and essentially turn their backs on Catholic teaching.

Hmm…thought-provoking thread. I usually try to avoid labeling people, but this reminds me of a Catholic friend. The first thing he told me when he learned I was converting to the Catholic Church was to keep in mind that not all Catholics accept everything the Church says. Just pick and choose, he suggested seriously. (As an aside, I learned later that his wife could not become pregnant on her own, which always made me wonder about their decision to pick and choose on such things as birth control.) It’s hard not to feel judgemental for people like this, but I guess it’s more important that we feel compassion.

Still, the argument can perhaps be made that “caffeteria Catholics” is a term those Catholics really make for themselves–at least in some cases–by their actions or words. Sometimes, referring to them in this way may just like “calling a spade a spade”, the person himself might likely agree with the description anyway.

 

[buffalo]

Writer:

Hmm…thought-provoking thread. I usually try to avoid labeling people, but this reminds me of a Catholic friend. The first thing he told me when he learned I was converting to the Catholic Church was to keep in mind that not all Catholics accept everything the Church says. Just pick and choose, he suggested seriously. (As an aside, I learned later that his wife could not become pregnant on her own, which always made me wonder about their decision to pick and choose on such things as birth control.) It’s hard not to feel judgemental for people like this, but I guess it’s more important that we feel compassion.

Still, the argument can perhaps be made that “caffeteria Catholics” is a term those Catholics really make for themselves–at least in some cases–by their actions or words. Sometimes, referring to them in this way may just like “calling a spade a spade”, the person himself might likely agree with the description anyway.

The best way to grow is to understand where you are. True Catholic charity demands fraternal correction. If a person understands they are CINO then a starting point is established. They then have a choice to learn and accept or continue to reject.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

The best way to grow is to understand where you are. True Catholic charity demands fraternal correction. If a person understands they are CINO then a starting point is established. They then have a choice to learn and accept or continue to reject.

If I understand you right, I completely agree.

Let’s look at things from three points of view. The corrector, the corrected, and the onlooker.

Once you (hereafter “corrector”) establish that starting point, then you are right that the confessed CINO (hereafter “corrected”) has the free will to decide. To take it to extreme, “I set before you life and death. Choose life” which I’m too lazy to go look up but I think is Biblical because after all there’s a song about it.

What about from the point of view of the corrector? We’ve established that the corrected is admittedly weaker in desire if also in capability at knowing and assenting to Church teachings. Now we see this person. I’ve heard sales people say there is a time you need to quit selling and just stand and wait and let the customer decide, even if it means standing in silence for a minute while they think of stuff. After all, they are giving up something – their time, stewardship, and mental allegiance – for what you are telling them they should trade it in and get. You are not asking them whether they want a stick of gum at the checkout line. You are asking them to turn their entire lives around. How long do you think they should have before we assume they have no desire? A day? A week? Ten years? Five posts or three phone calls? Two missed Masses? Until we run out of patience? You will soon find that such efforts to define obstinate objectively are futile, so we should not go that far in our efforts to evangelize.

Remember it is the person who is least that is greatest in the kingdom. You may be right about all doctrine, but if you place yourself above others then you are acting out the publican and the pharisee act, plus you elevate yourself preventing humble love and thus without love all your knowledge means nothing. Therefore, love comes before knowledge.

Of course, you are there to answer questions and respond to what may seem to be turns in events. But to continue to treat the corrected as inferior or obstinate may be accurate, but you can never objectively know and I assert it does absolutely no good to place them at a lower position at the table than yourself.

From an onlooker, what I see is a person being frustrated, angry, and has condemned another in his heart. The other is defensive, hurt, feels his dignity is attacked and is not being taken seriously. They may respond by trying to learn the truth, or by becoming hardened and obstinate on the surface as a defense mechanism.

In a secular world, there is a principle called “Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs” that I learned in leadership class in ROTC. It says that to ask a person to be self-actualized (intellectual assenting, saintly, enlightened, or whatever you call it) they must first have more basic needs met.

For example, if a man is starving, give him some physical food or he is unlikely to benefit from you spiritual food.

Similarly, make sure a person feels safe before talking about self-esteem. Feels love before asking him to be full mental assent.

Listen to the CCs cry out “I don’t feel loved.” Well, guess what, we don’t really love but condemn them in our hearts. While we do them the work of mercy of admonishing and teaching, we cancel our own selves out by becoming impatient with them as assuming they Aren’t Really Trying.

Alan

Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, from this web site:
http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/hierarchy.gif

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Writer:

It’s hard not to feel judgemental for people like this, but I guess it’s more important that we feel compassion.

This part of your statement stands alone, and always applies I believe. No matter what the “like this” is. Since we simply have not walked in their shoes, we can only guess about what their actions are truly conveying. They may convey anxiety, but how to distinguish between stubbornness, and perhaps allegiance to his third grade nun who rubbed it into him so hard that it is difficult to give up?

I’m not saying that’s the typical case, but it is always a leap of faith to conclude that even a confessed CINO is actually obstinate; it is always a subjective judgment.

Still, the argument can perhaps be made that “caffeteria Catholics” is a term those Catholics really make for themselves–at least in some cases–by their actions or words. Sometimes, referring to them in this way may just like “calling a spade a spade”, the person himself might likely agree with the description anyway.

If you say that Catholics who park in one parking lot are “left” Catholics and the others “right” Catholics, and people know it and still park in one or the other lot, they have full knowledge that they will look to the public like they not only wear the “left” or “right” label, but do so proudly and feel lucky compared to the poor shleps who park in the other lot.

Now if you start assigning good/bad values to different types of sins, then it quits becoming purely descriptive and gets into posturing. If you posture yourself above, at a higher place at a table, you may be asked to move down. If you place yourself at the lowest place, below the others, then you may asked to look up. The greatest is the one who serves, which doesn’t always involve serving “lip service” IMO.

This group has the sin of pride because they think they are better than the other Catholics because they claim to be Full Mental Assenting although they acknowledge they are sinners and are no better than others; just that the others are worse than them.

The other has lots of potential sins and dangers that have been well enumerated so I won’t rehash them.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

Cafeteria Catholic=dissent/disobedient/unrepentant.
Striving Catholic=assent/obedient/repentant.

I think I understand your message, or at least I don’t see anything wrong with the way you describe your feelings based on your beliefs.

Considering all that, I have one question for you. How can you objectively determine whether any given Catholic is “cafeteria” or “striving?” Does this condition change from time to time as a Catholic only beginning on the spiritual journey grow in leaps and starts? Maybe spiritual isolation and indifference one day is desolation that leads to desire the next?

How will you know when it is proper time to give up being nice and assume they are just fighting you? For that matter, have you ever heard of a lifeguard rescuing a drowning person and that drowning person fights them? If they don’t know what they are doing, then they just have to let go and save themselves; if they are confident in their faith they can do what they can to pull off the rescue. If they are truly on God’s side, then their faith should tell them nothing is impossible with God.

If we write off a sinner, then we say God cannot save them. If we simply cease to deal with them because they get on our nerves, that’s a whole different story. Then you can just say that it is no longer your ministry to deal with them, wish them on their way but don’t call them dirty names as soon as they get out of hearing range or guess what? You’ve not only accepted all their sins but raised them the sin of judgment.

I hate it when that happens.

In essence, I don’t care what a person says to me, I never make the assumption that he/she is impossible to get through to. We claim to be working on God’s side, and all things are possible with God. I may distance myself because I think I have nothing valuable to say, but never walk away saying, “boy that person was sure a problem for me – I’m glad I don’t have that person’s sins,” because the instant you do you risk getting them yourself just for the asking.

Alan

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

AlanFromWichita:

This group has the sin of pride because they think they are better than the other Catholics because they claim to be Full Mental Assenting although they acknowledge they are sinners and are no better than others; just that the others are worse than them.

Alan

I find it very ironic that you are casting a judgement on this group of people by saying that it has the sin of pride. You are also presuming to know their hearts by saying that they think they are better than others. Do you even see your own hypocrisy?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can tell you what is in my heart. I don’t feel better than anyone else, cafeteria Catholic or otherwise. I am truly trying to help my fellow Catholic by informing them of Church teaching.

I would appreciate if anyone thinks that I have been condescending, prideful, or uncharitable, that they address this specifically… but please leave out the broad judgements that paint everyone with the “pride” brush.

Malia

 

[Mike_Dye]

No it’s not a mortal sin…maybe not the best way to bring someone to the fulness of Catholism but not a sin!
Mike