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

[AlanFromWichita]

Feanaro's Wife:

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?

No, I don’t see my own hypocracy because I do not deny the downside from the CC point of view, having noted that the sins and dangers thereof have been well enumerated so I just did not rehash them.

When it gets to the point by their saying that CC’s should just depart from the Church because they are divisive and annoying, then I don’t know whether it is pride or not, so I don’t presume to know their hearts. There is one thing, though, when they call me a “marginal” Catholic as opposed to a “faithful” Catholic then I say they are objectively holding themselves in higher esteem by conviction of their own words. If that’s not they mean they shouldn’t say it.

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

I appreciate your openness, and your desire not to judge, condemn, or throw out those Catholics you believe “more marginal” than yourselves. From the way you present yourself here, you are not Part of the Problem, and the “broad brush” does not apply to you.

Please accept, however, that at least on these forums there are many orthodox who actually do wish to do “mental cleansing” and make comments such as we should get rid of those who do not assent and have a smaller Church because it would be in a better position, being leaner and with “better, more faithful” Catholics. If you don’t believe they are around, they are and there are many. If you don’t believe it check out this thread on whether CC’s should be nurtured or shunned.

I believe these people go beyond trying to teach, and they condemn CCs in their own hearts. Let me show you something about pride that you might find interesting. See how tricky it is when you think you might be a better Catholic than others (again present company excepted) and why I came up with the idea it could be a matter of pride. If it doesn’t apply to you, that’s wonderful, but I suspect there are others reading this to which I would say, “he who has ears let him hear”
Dark Night of the Soul:

***CHAPTER II *** Of certain spiritual imperfections which beginners have with respect to the habit of pride.

AS these beginners feel themselves to be very fervent and diligent in spiritual things and devout exercises, from this prosperity (although it is true that holy things of their own nature cause humility) there often comes to them, through their imperfections, a certain kind of secret pride, whence they come to have some degree of satisfaction with their works and with themselves. And hence there comes to them likewise a certain desire, which is somewhat vain, and at times very vain, to speak of spiritual things in the presence of others, and sometimes even to teach such things rather than to learn them. They condemn others in their heart when they see that they have not the kind of devotion which they themselves desire; and sometimes they even say this in words, herein resembling the Pharisee, who boasted of himself, praising God for his own good works and despising the publican.

1. In these persons the devil often increases the fervour that they have and the desire to perform these and other works more frequently, so that their pride and presumption may grow greater. For the devil knows quite well that all these works and virtues which they perform are not only valueless to them, but even become vices in them. And such a degree of evil are some of these persons wont to reach that they would have none appear good save themselves; and thus, in deed and word, whenever the opportunity occurs, they condemn them and slander them, beholding the mote in their brother’s eye and not considering the beam which is in their own;they strain at another’s gnat and themselves swallow a camel.

Alan

 

[jegow]

Timidandunsure:

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.

A cool thing to look at though is that he came back and was willing to do whatever - even be just a hired helper like those of his father’s since he knew that they recieved better treatment than what he was getting out of his state of life, of doing what he found to be important at the time.

 

[JohnnyArcade]

Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the Church mandate compliance with the law, not agreement with it?

I thought we as Catholics were free to have our own opinions inside, but were required to obey (and not spread this heretical opinion to others).

Obviously, the ideal we strive for is to understand with our mind, heart, and soul why the beliefs are what they are. This is where prayer, education, confession, and the continuing receipt of God’s saving graces come intom play.

What worries me is that I obey (and attempt to promulgate to others) the Church’s teachings, and am happy to do them in hear. they make sense to em. But I wonder am I so willing to do this because I know the rule says “you must obey”, and I just accept that without really pondering? I think you can spin yourself down a pit of despair if you grill yourself too much on “how perfect is my heart?”.

Much like confession. How many of us have PERFECT contrition? None of us, I daresay. Yet our obligation is to continue to attend confession, and attempt to truly have a contrite heart, anmd strive to avoid sin again.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

JohnnyArcade:

Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the Church mandate compliance with the law, not agreement with it?

I thought we as Catholics were free to have our own opinions inside, but were required to obey (and not spread this heretical opinion to others).

Obviously, the ideal we strive for is to understand with our mind, heart, and soul why the beliefs are what they are. This is where prayer, education, confession, and the continuing receipt of God’s saving graces come intom play.

What worries me is that I obey (and attempt to promulgate to others) the Church’s teachings, and am happy to do them in hear. they make sense to em. But I wonder am I so willing to do this because I know the rule says “you must obey”, and I just accept that without really pondering? I think you can spin yourself down a pit of despair if you grill yourself too much on “how perfect is my heart?”.

Much like confession. How many of us have PERFECT contrition? None of us, I daresay. Yet our obligation is to continue to attend confession, and attempt to truly have a contrite heart, anmd strive to avoid sin again.

Welcome to the forums. I see you just joined last month. :tiphat:

If I understand you right, I think I agree with you completely.

I’m not sure, though, whether you are making a comparison between obeying because it is required or because it’s desirable? Or perhaps are you suggesting that after a while you don’t really think about motivation and pretty much just seek as a natural habit? For some people, I think that is a sticky point – for me, for example, having had some bad experiences with certain Church authorities when I was young and again when I was in my 30s, are wary of anything we are told we “have” to believe, vs. something a person makes so compelling that we just can’t help but see its beauty.

If we think it looks delicious, we nibble and/or gobble. If it is shoved at us, then we get like Morris the cat.

Just figure we are either like dogs or cats in our approach to true spiritual nutrition. Maybe that has some metaphorical benefit?

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

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

Alan, I will be the first to admit I am a sinner and really no better than anyone else. My entry into heaven will depend totally on God’s mercy.

I have decided to help educate and fill in the gaps that today’s Catholics have in regard to Church teaching. I first had to fill them in myself and still not are all filled. I am still learning everyday.

Now, no matter where I actually stand as a sinner, it does not invalidate the truth of the Church’s message. Even if I am a hypocrite and have failed in practice and example it does not invalidate the truth of the message. If I fail to live up to the Gospel, that is my own failing. Other posters such as you here can help me with that as well.

 

[buffalo]

Alan, talk with the poor and downtrodden. Ask them if they need all that to believe and follow the Gospel?

 

[buffalo]

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

Someone who steals is a thief
Someone who lies is a liar
Someone who aborts is an abortionist
Someone who cheats is a cheater
Someone who picks and chooses Catholic teaching is a heretic (aka cafeteria catholic)

Those descriptions are not the same as judging. Only God can judge.

 

[felra]

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.

Interesting the language that you use to describe my rationally formulated statement–my feelings based on my beliefs. This describes how a person with a relativism belief system arrives at their conclusions. I am not a relativist.

Considering all that, I have one question for you. How can you objectively determine whether any given Catholic is “cafeteria” or “striving?”

I will requote my previous post:
“…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.” (italics added for emphasis).

How will you know when it is proper time to give up being nice and assume they are just fighting you? … If they are truly on God’s side, then their faith should tell them nothing is impossible with God.

What does “being nice” have anything to do with loving the sinner but hating the sin? It is more a matter of speaking the truth in love for the eternal welfare of the soul of another in error. You are trying to set up a false dichotomy in my position where one does not exist. Why is this? Are you yourself guilty of assumption or projection?

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.

“Cafeteria Catholic” is a dirty name? Besides, I present this label to their face for purposes of clarifying the discussion and their position of open, active and public dissent. Nothing covert or back stabbing here. Please do not imply or arroneously conclude that I being judgemental, that is unbecoming, and, well, presumptuous/judgmental to do so.

I hate it when that happens.

I agree. Again, I will requote myself from my previous post:
“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.”
Here is the objective standard by which one may judge (note, lower case judge) the fruit of a tree:

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CCC)

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.

Yes, this is good to remind ourselves of, and always pray for that problematic person.

 

[felra]

buffalo:

Someone who steals is a thief
Someone who lies is a liar
Someone who aborts is an abortionist
Someone who cheats is a cheater
Someone who picks and chooses Catholic teaching is a heretic (aka cafeteria catholic)

Those descriptions are not the same as judging. Only God can judge.

Like the robot in the old “Lost in Space” (am I that old??) who shouted the alarm to his human companion, “Caution!! Caution!! Caution!! Will Robinson …” …the moment one ventures to describe, label, let alone offer critical assessment of some one’s observed and stated behavior and position, you will undoubtedly be labeled as being presumptuous and guilty of the bigger sin of being judgmental, and have this scripture quoted to you:

Matt. 7: 3-5 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

 

[buffalo]

felra:
How about this scripture on fraternal correction from the same Gospel?

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12What think you? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains, and goeth to seek that which is gone astray?
13And if it so be that he find it: Amen I say to you, he rejoiceth more for that, than for the ninety-nine that went not astray.
14Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
15But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
16And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
17And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
And from the Catechism:

And from the Catechism:

**1829 **The *fruits *of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

1435 Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right, by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.

 

[felra]

buffalo:

How about this scripture on fraternal correction from the same Gospel?

14Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. …

17And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
And from the Catechism:

**1829 **The *fruits *of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; …

1435 Conversion is …fraternal correction, .

Yes, this is the fullness of the Gospel message and what it means to show true compassion.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

Alan, I will be the first to admit I am a sinner and really no better than anyone else. My entry into heaven will depend totally on God’s mercy.

I have decided to help educate and fill in the gaps that today’s Catholics have in regard to Church teaching. I first had to fill them in myself and still not are all filled. I am still learning everyday.

So far, so good. I’m with you all the way it would seem up until this point.

buffalo:

Now, no matter where I actually stand as a sinner, it does not invalidate the truth of the Church’s message. Even if I am a hypocrite and have failed in practice and example it does not invalidate the truth of the message. If I fail to live up to the Gospel, that is my own failing. Other posters such as you here can help me with that as well.

I agree with you, and I appreciate the way you worded it. Often when I try to make a point, other posters help me make it in a way it is more likely to be received.

My point is not that your status as the sinner changes the truth. My point is that your status as a sinner and as a loving caring human being, from the standpoint of the subjective observations of the person you’re trying to teach, greatly affect whether that truth that you speak from your mouth will be heard. If you are a harsh, intolerance jerk (hypothetically of course) than you can proclaim the gospel truth all day and you are nothing but a clanging gong or crashing cymbal, unlikely to evangelize anyone.

IOW, if you have an inner light, let it shine. Your sinfulness has a profound effect on whether others hear your message. Do you not suppose that some of the priests who were honestly guilty of child molestation were ostensibly conservative and orthodox? Some might have even liked the Tridentine Mass. The fact that they sought truth intellectually and proclaimed it publicly may not have advanced the cause of the Church as much as their sinfulness hurt it.

Therefore I applaud you for searching the truth, for understanding that you are a sinner, and for allowing others to help you make your point. I agree with you that your sinfulness does not affect the nature of truth. I vehemently disagree that such sinfulness does not negatively impact the degree to which your profession of the truth is accepted by anyone who needs to hear it, especially if they are not ready for such esoteric discussion due to a broken leg that needs to be fixed first, or if you just seem like another loud person who may or may not be right but is sufficiently obnoxious one would rather have them go away than act as one’s teacher…

Alan

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

So far, so good. I’m with you all the way it would seem up until this point.

I agree with you, and I appreciate the way you worded it. Often when I try to make a point, other posters help me make it in a way it is more likely to be received.

My point is not that your status as the sinner changes the truth. My point is that your status as a sinner and as a loving caring human being, from the standpoint of the subjective observations of the person you’re trying to teach, greatly affect whether that truth that you speak from your mouth will be heard. If you are a harsh, intolerance jerk (hypothetically of course) than you can proclaim the gospel truth all day and you are nothing but a clanging gong or crashing cymbal, unlikely to evangelize anyone.

IOW, if you have an inner light, let it shine. Your sinfulness has a profound effect on whether others hear your message. Do you not suppose that some of the priests who were honestly guilty of child molestation were ostensibly conservative and orthodox? Some might have even liked the Tridentine Mass. The fact that they sought truth intellectually and proclaimed it publicly may not have advanced the cause of the Church as much as their sinfulness hurt it.

Therefore I applaud you for searching the truth, for understanding that you are a sinner, and for allowing others to help you make your point. I agree with you that your sinfulness does not affect the nature of truth. I vehemently disagree that such sinfulness does not negatively impact the degree to which your profession of the truth is accepted by anyone who needs to hear it, especially if they are not ready for such esoteric discussion due to a broken leg that needs to be fixed first, or if you just seem like another loud person who may or may not be right but is sufficiently obnoxious one would rather have them go away than act as one’s teacher…

Alan

Bravo - bottom line actions speak louder than words.

The Truth with Love

not

Truth without love
or
Love without truth

Everyone on this board will hear the message as they are disposed to receive it. Some will accept what you find offensive, some will not. The point is hopefully we are all learning something and growing from it.

But, your conditions that need to be met before one can hear the truth, I don’t agree with.

There are many saints and people who have been in different places in their journey who had their life changed by hearing or seeing something. A starving man can be given spritual food and benefit form it.

Jesus fed the hungry after He finished preaching to them.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

Alan, talk with the poor and downtrodden. Ask them if they need all that to believe and follow the Gospel?

I might just take you up on that. Occasionally my family and I have worked as a volunteer at the Catholic Diocese’s new Lord’s Diner in Wichita, which provides a hot meal every evening with no questions asked. People line up for an hour outside the doors before they open. My son had the job of going around and talking to the guests, but once when the serving line was caught up I got to play the piano for them. They really liked some old ragtime pieces, and a few Church hymns. I don’t know if they would have liked it, though, if I’d grabbed a microphone and started preaching, seeing that I had a captive audience of hungry people of all faiths.

Maybe you can imagine this experiment. Try greeting them at the door when they are hungry and have been waiting an hour with their anxious children, and asking them if they believe the Good News that the Catholic Church is infallible in her teachings on faith and morals. If they do not, spend a few minutes telling them of they myriad blessings they will find if they only surrender. Maybe they’ll pretend to agree with you, all right, but don’t stand between them and the food.

Wait until after they’re served, then go sit with them at the table, talk to them a little about their concerns, building trust and the feeling that you care, and I suggest they will be much more able to hear something you have to say than when you were between them and the food.

Does this not make sense? Do you believe the poor and the downtrodden want to hear about whether Mary’s virginity is inaccurate from a person standing between them and starvation? For that matter, what about other physiological needs? Would you stand outside the bathroom and stop people going in to tell them about the wonders of the Magisterium? They will say or do whatever it takes to take care of their immediate need, most likely, and pay as little attention to you as they can get away with.

Which part of this reasoning do you think the poor and downtrodden are immune to? Do you have any evidence – even anecdotal, that a hungry, homeless man is just as likely to hear your ruminations on the Real Presence, before he gets a bite to eat as after?

Even Gomer Pyle knew better than that. He knew you come into a person’s home, have a bite to eat, and then discuss business.

If you’re telling me to ask the poor and the downtrodden if they care about Maslow’s theory on leadership, I doubt they will care very much, except for certain intellectuals maybe. So what? They don’t need to understand it to make it true. They probably also care a whole lot less about the scientific names of the enzymes that enable their GI tract to operate, than they do in putting some food into one end of it. What about that doesn’t make sense to you?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

buffalo:

Someone who steals is a thief
Someone who lies is a liar
Someone who aborts is an abortionist
Someone who cheats is a cheater
Someone who picks and chooses Catholic teaching is a heretic (aka cafeteria catholic)

Those descriptions are not the same as judging. Only God can judge.

Ok, I accept your point that those descriptions, in and of themselves, do not explicity judge, except for the possible trivial point that “picking and choosing” does not necessary imply rejecting other teachings, but I will take it that is what you intended to convey.

However, the judgment comes not from the descriptions, but from the reaction one’s heart has to the existence, whether real or hypothetical, of a person with a particular condition, including one that exposes that person’s sin.

In other words, if you call someone a “cafeteria Catholic” in a friendly, closed door discussion where you are trying to get them to understand something, that may in fact be non-judgmental. When you stand in the midst of a group of people who consistently and vocally denounce cafeteria Catholics as sinful, evil, and What’s Wrong With The World, and tell those people they are a cafeteria Catholic, then you have in fact conveyed a message that they are a sinner; hence the words take on judgment because you (presumably for argument) knew very well that the term is thought to be pejorative and simply sticking it on a person is a cry for others to join you in condemning them in your heart.

As Rush Limbaugh said, “words mean things.” A scientist can say that you have some fancy sounding disease and that may sound like an entirely neutral description. The same fact conveyed with the words, “this person has tendencies to molest children” and suddenly the description becomes loaded to the average or even above average listener with a judgment. The “factual” statement itself is no longer in itself the point, but becomes the excuse to judge one another in our hearts.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Feanaro's Wife:

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

Thank you.

 

[buffalo]

AlanFromWichita:

Ok, I accept your point that those descriptions, in and of themselves, do not explicity judge, except for the possible trivial point that “picking and choosing” does not necessary imply rejecting other teachings, but I will take it that is what you intended to convey.

However, the judgment comes not from the descriptions, but from the reaction one’s heart has to the existence, whether real or hypothetical, of a person with a particular condition, including one that exposes that person’s sin.

In other words, if you call someone a “cafeteria Catholic” in a friendly, closed door discussion where you are trying to get them to understand something, that may in fact be non-judgmental. When you stand in the midst of a group of people who consistently and vocally denounce cafeteria Catholics as sinful, evil, and What’s Wrong With The World, and tell those people they are a cafeteria Catholic, then you have in fact conveyed a message that they are a sinner; hence the words take on judgment because you (presumably for argument) knew very well that the term is thought to be pejorative and simply sticking it on a person is a cry for others to join you in condemning them in your heart.

As Rush Limbaugh said, “words mean things.” A scientist can say that you have some fancy sounding disease and that may sound like an entirely neutral description. The same fact conveyed with the words, “this person has tendencies to molest children” and suddenly the description becomes loaded to the average or even above average listener with a judgment. The “factual” statement itself is no longer in itself the point, but becomes the excuse to judge one another in our hearts.

Alan

The reaction should be fraternal correction.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

felra:

Interesting the language that you use to describe my rationally formulated statement–my feelings based on my beliefs. This describes how a person with a relativism belief system arrives at their conclusions. I am not a relativist.

If I read you right, you believe I have imparted (evil ) relativistic thinking unto you, and or that I have claimed your statement contains feelings and not just hard facts. Lemme see, and if you are right I’ll agree with you:
felra in earlier post:

 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.

OK, in search for “rational” or “objective” content I see that you have made the logical argument that your use of the term indicates contradiction, your opinion on their level of dishonesty, your knowledge of what’s in their mind to know that they “insist on considering themselves” a certain way, (how do you know they aren’t just calling themselves good Catholics so they don’t have to listen to you label them?) they lack integrity in your opinion, they sow confusion as if you know better, and by contrasting them from “honestly striving Catholics” you have discerned that their strivings are not honest, but are somehow phony or deceptive, so it looks like to me, and you are blaming them for your own ability to live up for Church teachings.

That may be logical and devoid of feelings, but it is constructed almost entirely of your own subjective opinion the way it looks from here.

OK, so it isn’t your feelings I’m seeing so far but your completely subjective judgment applied to a commonly-known-as-pejorative term that gives you an excuse to blame someone else for your faith problems.

I stand corrected, at least so far in your post analysis.

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

I did quote this part, summarizing I believe your message that you use these terms to express your personal opinions on whether another Catholic measures up to a particular level on these scales.

By throwing in repentant and unrepentant as criteria, that pretty much opens it up entirely to the eye of the beholder to completely categorize a cafeteria Catholic, since this is a matter that can be deeply hidden in the heart and never accurately discerned, so in an atmosphere where CC’s are routinely ridiculed, even making the assertion indelibly connects that person with that negative connotation of being unrepentent, which is your subjective opinion entirely and I refuse to believe that unless you have powers greater than Pio that you can objectively determine them.

Therefore, even if you claim these definitions are objective, they can never be objectively determined so the use of these terms is always arbitrary and normally pejorative. If this is what you think the terms mean, and you apply it to another Catholic, then you have judged them in your heart based on surface observations, no different than the pharisees blowing a gasket over Jesus’s friends not doing the ritual washing of their hands or cup or whatever it was.

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.

In my case, I have received multiple messages, both public and PM that I have helped people break out of their shell, have a clearer understanding of Catholicism, for the first time in years get a grip on their mental illness, learn to forgive and adore family members and priests?
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)
For which of these good works would you judge my fruits as bad? I think that no human being is good or bad, being a mixture of human with original sin and the image and spirit of God, therefore every utterance is potentially a mixture of good and bad fruit. Dozens of people all over the world have found the things I say to be healing to them, and I don’t know of any who have increased their position on heresy. I have contributed many ways for staunch Catholics to defend their positions against attackers, even when I may not have agreed with their point. In short, I have received feedback from many people tellilng me of the great fruits that they have grown out of my words which are human, but based on my version of love.

What you might consider is taking the mixed fruit you hear other people say, and seeing if you can find the love or truth in it instead of picking out just that part that you can object to. The whole problem since Adam is that we have had a feeling of separation from God and from each other. Do not look down on others for their sins; that only increases the separation and does not bring about unity.

Let me ask you this. Does telling a person, “I can see you are angry with the Church, but if you don’t mind I’d like to sit down and go over a few problems with you” have a greater chance, or lesser chance of evangelizing than saying, “boy, you are an angry cafeteria Catholic and as your loving brother I’m here to tell you that you are on your way straight to hell unless you listen carefully and agree to everything that I say in the name of the Church, or that I would say if I knew it all myself.”

Good grief! Is it just my imagination, or does it seem like people think I am trying to teach them lying is OK, rather than giving – for no charge – information I have paid a great deal of time and money to learn, consisting of proven, documented strategy on how to get the Truth, the FULL TRUTH OF THE CHURCH AS THEY PROFESS TO BELIEVE IT, no less, to people with problems with their faith, to be an effective leader. Am I simply throwing pearls to swine here? Is there anybody who can give me a positive sanity check on any of this?.

The real question is, do you believe your work here is to have the right intellectual answer all the time, or to actually call people to the Church? Kind of like Dr. Phil (not that I’m a fan) was once credited by my mother (who is a fan) as saying when a husband insisted his wife’s feeling on something were wrong, and he just couldn’t let go of it because she refused to cave – on a relatively immaterial issue at that, he had this advice, “you have a strategy decision. You can strive to prove you’re right, or you can strive to be happy.”

The next question is, if you are considering a faith journey, would you rather travel with someone who meets, empathizes with, and helps you over your objections, or somebody who labels you essentially an unworthy heretic and would just as soon you got out of the Church as take up space in the pew?

I will requote my previous post:
“…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.” (italics added for emphasis).

Known to whom? You? It is always presumptuous, though I admit there can be a very high degree of certainty.
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

What does “being nice” have anything to do with loving the sinner but hating the sin? It is more a matter of speaking the truth in love for the eternal welfare of the soul of another in error. You are trying to set up a false dichotomy in my position where one does not exist. Why is this? Are you yourself guilty of assumption or projection?

For starters, I believe “love the sinner hate the sin” is a human invention, used both to acquit and to condemn, by subtle contextual clues. Second, being nice is an integral part of loving, I would say. Being nice does not imply excusing bad behavior.

I’m not assuming anything on purpose. I’m saying if a man’s hungry, give him a plate of food before you talk to the Full Truth, or you’re wasting your breath. What is controversial about that?

Am I guilty of assumption or projection? All the time. That’s one of the strategies I use to see through the surface level rhetoric; it takes a thief to catch a thief, as THEY say.

“Cafeteria Catholic” is a dirty name? Besides, I present this label to their face for purposes of clarifying the discussion and their position of open, active and public dissent. Nothing covert or back stabbing here. Please do not imply or arroneously conclude that I being judgemental, that is unbecoming, and, well, presumptuous/judgmental to do so.

I am not accusing you of being judgmental, but I am observing by your actions that you give many clues that could be falsely construed as being so, and I thought you might like to know – that is my Christian charity to you, partially to satisfy my ego I suppose in some way or other, but honestly I’m trying to give you and others powerful tools, based on real naturall-law type phenomena, that you can use free of charge to assist in your efforts.

If you are trying to convince a group of people of something, does it not pay to listen to a person who claims to speak for that group, in devising your presentation strategy? If you come across a hungry, homeless man scrounging for food, do you think the greater act of love is to expound upon the beauty of the Whole Truth, or to take him to McDonalds and buy a hamburger with him? BTW, sometimes that’s what i do with beggers if they claim it isn’t for booze, I go to the restaurant with them, buy them lunch, and eat with them. Yes, often God crops up, but I feed it to them little by little, without shunning them the minute they refuse to sign a statement that they will agree to anything you say from now on.

I agree. Again, I will requote myself from my previous post:
“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.”
Here is the objective standard by which one may judge (note, lower case judge) the fruit of a tree:

**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CCC)

Please give me the test you use to objectively measure whether I am “obstinate” or exhibit “total repudiation” or “refusal of submission” and maybe I’ll try to believe you are not just being arbitrary and reckless with your judgments. If these criteria are objective, than any honest person should be able to come to the same conclusion about whether I fit these unfortunate descriptions or not.

Alan