Why is it that cafeteria Catholics


#1

tend to always pick and choose around areas of morals? They beleive in the idea of Heaven which is quite unbelievable, an amazing vocation of living for eternity in beatitude. Yet when it comes to contraception they just can’t get their minds around it.


#2

[quote=John of Woking]tend to always pick and choose around areas of morals? They beleive in the idea of Heaven which is quite unbelievable, an amazing vocation of living for eternity in beatitude. Yet when it comes to contraception they just can’t get their minds around it.
[/quote]

Here are some factors which are influential in answering the question Why do cafeteria Catholics “pick and choose”? I am sure that there are others.

  1. sin
  2. ignorance of the Truth
  3. placing individual interests before group interests
  4. skepticism
  5. problems with authority
  6. pride
  7. an unteachable spirit
  8. unbelief

#3

[quote=John of Woking]tend to always pick and choose around areas of morals? They beleive in the idea of Heaven which is quite unbelievable, an amazing vocation of living for eternity in beatitude. Yet when it comes to contraception they just can’t get their minds around it.
[/quote]

Maybe because the Church’s arguments against contraception could not even convince Paul VI’s own commitee on it, and other leading Catholic philosophers and theologians of the 20th century, including Karl Rahner, Jacques Maritain, Hans Kung, Germain Grisez, Eduard Schillibeeckx, and Yves Congar.

Note that the conservatives Maritain and Grisez both rejected Huamni Vitae, though Grisez accepts the teaching against contraception, while rejecting Paul’s arguments.

Why is it that reactionary Catholics are always blindly accepting some irrational authority?

Adam


#4

respectfully submitted, in spite of voices to the contrary, Pope Paul VI protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, issued one of the most prophetic utterances of the 20th century. Everything he warned about, and worse, has come true due to the wholesale idolatry of the contraceptive mentality among Catholics and by western culture.


#5

[quote=amarischuk]Maybe because the Church’s arguments against contraception could not even convince Paul VI’s own commitee on it, and other leading Catholic philosophers and theologians of the 20th century, including Karl Rahner, Jacques Maritain, Hans Kung, Germain Grisez, Eduard Schillibeeckx, and Yves Congar.

Note that the conservatives Maritain and Grisez both rejected Huamni Vitae, though Grisez accepts the teaching against contraception, while rejecting Paul’s arguments.

Why is it that reactionary Catholics are always blindly accepting some irrational authority?

Adam
[/quote]

Kung and Schillibeeckx are not reliable testimony to issues of Truth as they both made errors in their teachings. Paul VI restated the Church’s 2000 year belief.


#6

And besides that, the council that Paul VI worked with was to share their findings on the pill which was brand new. Previously contraceptives had been limited to barrier methods, which were more obvious in why they were immoral (ie, putting a barrier between spouses rather than giving everything to one another.)

Besides that, few Catholics I’ve met have read Catholic theologians to back up their opnion or form their opinion on contraception. They simply decide for themselves contraception is okay, or have the culture engrained in them so much they don’t realize there’s another choice.


#7

Why is it that reactionary Catholics are always blindly accepting …authority?

They don’t. As soon as it turns to something they don’t like such as social teachings, ecumenism or liturgical reform, they right there in the caferteria line.


#8

[quote=katherine2]Why is it that reactionary Catholics are always blindly accepting …authority?
They don’t. As soon as it turns to something they don’t like such as social teachings, ecumenism or liturgical reform, they right there in the caferteria line.
[/quote]

Okay, then, so why are they so hypocritical that they don’t realize that they pick and choose among Church teachings just as much as those they deem “cafeteria Catholics”?


#9

[quote=4 marks]Here are some factors which are influential in answering the question Why do cafeteria Catholics “pick and choose”? I am sure that there are others.

  1. sin
  2. ignorance of the Truth
  3. placing individual interests before group interests
  4. skepticism
  5. problems with authority
  6. pride
  7. an unteachable spirit
  8. unbelief
    [/quote]

I think you left off the most important one - they (we) have rigorously and intensely studied specific issues and to avoid the sin of lying to ourselves, we personally disagree with irrelevant and untenable teachings.

Pat


#10

I think it’s a matter of conscience. When I converted and had difficulty with certain teachings, contraception was one of them, well meaning Catholics explained part of the catechism:

**1782 **Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

They left out this part:

**1783 **Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

Catholic_Mike posted this on a different thread regarding following the Church’s teachings:

[quote=Catholic_Mike]There are a few things the Catholic Church teaches that I don’t “agree” with in the sense that I have yet to see a pursuasive argument to support them. I can’t really claim to believe them. However, I trust that the Church is wiser than I - and I believe in its docterinal infallability (which doesn’t necessaraly mean it’s theological reasoning is right, just that the answers are).

I’m not quite sold on birth control - though I’m coming around a bit, in part with help from the Pope’s “Love and Responsibility” - but I will obey the Church on the mater none the less.
[/quote]

To me, this is the correct attitude.

Pax,
RLG


#11

Well, this is a materialistic argument, but as far as the artificial methods go, the Church always ends up to be right in the long run. Just last night I heard that a BC patch is being connected with heart attacks in women over 35. There were lots of problems with pills, many questions still unanswered, problems with barrier methods like the Dalkon Shield, and so on. Maybe some methods or meds have no problems, but how are we to figure that out in advance? Which ones to choose?

And then there is the issue of Catholics as a group–why should we limit our population? And just who is it who is so interested in pushing contraception anyway? Who started all this? You may be surprised. And now that the birth rate has evaporated, are we really better off? As the wife of a husband who grew up in a traditional large Hispanic family, I think not. They managed and they managed well, unlike my own limited WASP family.


#12

A few other quick notes:

  1. Without “cafeteria Catholics”, I would have had a tougher time with my initial conversion.

  2. Everyone is in a different place in their path to sainthood, thus my favorite verse Matt 7:3.

  3. If you think I am not following the teaching of that verse in one of my posts, please read my post again to make sure you’re not reading something into it. If your not, then I beg forgiveness. I am still working on me with the help of the Holy Spirit…

God bless,
RLG


#13

[quote=amarischuk]Maybe because the Church’s arguments against contraception could not even convince Paul VI’s own commitee on it, and other leading Catholic philosophers and theologians of the 20th century, including Karl Rahner, Jacques Maritain, Hans Kung, Germain Grisez, Eduard Schillibeeckx, and Yves Congar.
[/quote]

Truth does not require unanymous assent. There was apparently a lot of disagreement at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) but that did not mean that the conclusion reached there was not truth. The same applies to the Church’s teaching on contraception, in fact all her teachings.

In Christ,
Nancy :slight_smile:


#14

[quote=patg] We personally disagree with irrelevant and untenable teachings.

Pat
[/quote]

Would you be kind enough to name some teachings of the Catholic faith that are, in your estimation, “irrelevant” and “untenable”?


#15

[quote=Catholic4aReasn]Truth does not require unanymous assent. There was apparently a lot of disagreement at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) but that did not mean that the conclusion reached there was not truth. The same applies to the Church’s teaching on contraception, in fact all her teachings.

In Christ,
Nancy :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Yes…the Church is not a democracy, and God’s greatest concern is not that everyone gets to behave how they want or in a way that gives them the most pleasure. A large part of being faithful is submitting to authority and using some discipline even (and especially) when one does not feel like it or personally reach the same conclusions after much “thinking” and “research.”

Catholics who disagree with Church moral doctrines and issues of faith are a joke and they make the faith look bad.


#16

[quote=katherine2]They don’t. As soon as it turns to something they don’t like such as social teachings, ecumenism or liturgical reform, they right there in the caferteria line.
[/quote]

Orthodox Catholics do follow Churh teachings on moral and social teachings. Don’t confuse the teachings of the Church with the teachingsof the secular welfare state and you’ll understand how you made that error in thinking.


#17

[quote=4 marks]Would you be kind enough to name some teachings of the Catholic faith that are, in your estimation, “irrelevant” and “untenable”?
[/quote]

Okay, just a few:

[list]
*]The idea of a bodily assumption or ascension is based on the ancient concept of a three tiered universe in which there is the flat earth, the sky as a “half bowl” above the earth on which the sun and stars move, and heaven as a place above this bowl. We know now that a body ascending up through the clouds would continue into “infinite space” and that God or heaven really isn’t right up there… The ascension concept made perfect sense in the primitive understanding of the universe but it is pointless to declare it as absolute doctrine now…
*]We know enough of history, geography, and science, and ancient literary forms to put to rest the traditional claim that the bible is infallible and innerant in areas where it was never meant to be. Even though the church conditionally declares this in Dei Verbum, it seldom educates the average catholic about even this partial admission (If you doubt this, just notice the number of posts here with topics like “Are the birth stories in Matthew and Luke history?”, “Did Noah’s Ark exist?”, or “Who sinned first, Adam or Eve?”. Questions like these reveal a serious lack of biblical understanding that is seldom addressed by the church).
*] We know enough biology to figure out that the male and female contribute something to the making of a child. The ancients believed that the male seed included everything and the woman only served as the incubator - a misconcept which forms the basis for numerous sins and sexual prohibitions.
*]And I’ll throw in one really specific seasonal one. How often do we hear: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” Every bible scholar knows that this “Christmas” phrase is copied from Isaiah and that in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah (young woman)was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin. I can’t imagine how many doctrines were developed based either entirely or loosely on this mistranslation. I also am amazed at how few Catholics have even heard of this.

[/list]
The current drastic decline in the power of institutional Christianity is occurring not because of liberal compromises with the ancient verities, but because the traditional basis upon which the faith system has been erected can no longer be sustained. The heart will never worship what the mind rejects. When these realities are finally recognized by church leaders, then perhaps the need for a totally new reformation will become both imperative and unavoidable.

Many in the modern world are no longer drawn to blindly accept and obey a religion which suggests that salvation comes through the barbaric human sacrifice of a perfect person who was crucified to appease an offended theistic deity (who through some twist of logic turns out to be himself). Neither are they attracted to the idea that in the shedding of Jesus’ blood somehow the price of sin was paid. These threadbare concepts are not worthy today of eliciting worship. Indeed, they have become grotesque.


#18

Patg, that was a great post.

I would add the glorification of Abraham’s faith and obedience which destroys the Catholic concept of natural law theory to your list.

What essentially we have here is the collision of two views of the Church. On the one hand a juvenile and superstious fundamentalism which ranges on issues from Adam and Eve to Noah’s arc to the resurrection of the dead. And the other, a group often equally as devoted to the Truth but simultaneously recognizing the past mythological nature of so much which has been handed down, misunderstood and misappropriated as inerrant revelation.

It is not a question of democracy in the Church. Few liberals want theology (as a science, remembering that it was the work of liberals to make theology a science in the 12th and 20th centuries) subject to democracy. What they (we) oppose is the notion that one man is alledgedly given the power to resolve an issue in its permanence, irregardless of the findings of those commissioned to look into the subject for him.

Kung and Schillibeeckx are not reliable testimony to issues of Truth as they both made errors in their teachings. Paul VI restated the Church’s 2000 year belief.

Ad hominem. You reject them because they are wrong according to you. That is just a lazy way of going about it. Made errors or not, Kung is responsible for Ratzinger’s getting a teaching position in Tubingen which set Ratzinger on his career path and Kung was a periti at VII.

Maritain didn’t think that Paul VI was restating the Church’s 2000 year teaching. He explicitly said so, prior to Humani Vitae was published:

I know that Casti connubii has an entirely different ring to it. But precisely, if I am right (or better, if we are right) it must be said that this question offers another of those tragic examples where the church defends a truth by blockading it with ways of thinking that simple human experience has left way behind (a l’aveuglette) [that is, like a blind man feeling his way in the dark]. The day when the church would admit such techniques as we are speaking about, nothing would have been changed in its doctrine,

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_128/ai_75445694

Adam


#19

[quote=patg]Okay, just a few:

[list]
*]The idea of a bodily assumption or ascension is based on the ancient concept of a three tiered universe in which there is the flat earth, the sky as a “half bowl” above the earth on which the sun and stars move, and heaven as a place above this bowl. We know now that a body ascending up through the clouds would continue into “infinite space” and that God or heaven really isn’t right up there… The ascension concept made perfect sense in the primitive understanding of the universe but it is pointless to declare it as absolute doctrine now…
*]We know enough of history, geography, and science, and ancient literary forms to put to rest the traditional claim that the bible is infallible and innerant in areas where it was never meant to be. Even though the church conditionally declares this in Dei Verbum, it seldom educates the average catholic about even this partial admission (If you doubt this, just notice the number of posts here with topics like “Are the birth stories in Matthew and Luke history?”, “Did Noah’s Ark exist?”, or “Who sinned first, Adam or Eve?”. Questions like these reveal a serious lack of biblical understanding that is seldom addressed by the church).
*]We know enough biology to figure out that the male and female contribute something to the making of a child. The ancients believed that the male seed included everything and the woman only served as the incubator - a misconcept which forms the basis for numerous sins and sexual prohibitions.
*]And I’ll throw in one really specific seasonal one. How often do we hear: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us.” Every bible scholar knows that this “Christmas” phrase is copied from Isaiah and that in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah (young woman)was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, Virgin. I can’t imagine how many doctrines were developed based either entirely or loosely on this mistranslation. I also am amazed at how few Catholics have even heard of this.
[/list]The current drastic decline in the power of institutional Christianity is occurring not because of liberal compromises with the ancient verities, but because the traditional basis upon which the faith system has been erected can no longer be sustained. The heart will never worship what the mind rejects. When these realities are finally recognized by church leaders, then perhaps the need for a totally new reformation will become both imperative and unavoidable.

Many in the modern world are no longer drawn to blindly accept and obey a religion which suggests that salvation comes through the barbaric human sacrifice of a perfect person who was crucified to appease an offended theistic deity (who through some twist of logic turns out to be himself). Neither are they attracted to the idea that in the shedding of Jesus’ blood somehow the price of sin was paid. These threadbare concepts are not worthy today of eliciting worship. Indeed, they have become grotesque.
[/quote]

Last I Checked “the Church of the Jesus Seminar” isn’t exactly growing. Name me a church where such teology is taught and if that church is growing I can’t think of one.


#20

[quote=Maccabees]Last I Checked “the Church of the Jesus Seminar” isn’t exactly growing. Name me a church where such teology is taught and if that church is growing I can’t think of one.
[/quote]

Last I checked the Orthodox and pentecostals were the fastest growing churches in the West. The fastest growing religion on earth is Islam.

I suggest you find a different argument. The interesting correlary to “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions” (Chesterton) is that “truths do not cease to be true because they become unpopular”.

Try to find a theologian of note who agrees with the superstituous and dated interpretations of those passages. Like in the patristic era, like in the middle ages, the intellectuals tended to be in advance of the magisterium and the ignorant masses. And I use the word advance to denote the progressive and evolutionary nature of Catholic teaching.

Funny how the self-proclaimed orthodox (by which they mean reactionaries) so often note that the Church is not a democracy, but then try to prove that the Church is right because 1 billion Catholics can’t be wrong!

Adam


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.