Interesting quote from pope John Paul II on Cafeteria Catholicism

[Rising_Suns]

Brethren,
I stumbled across an interesting quote from pope John Paul II, which may be useful in discussions regarding what is often labelled Cafeteria Catholicism;

"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic,' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere. "

This quote seems fitting to today, since conjugal sexuality is often a point of contention within discussions.

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[hsilgne]

Brethren,
I stumbled across an interesting quote from pope John Paul II, which may be useful in discussions regarding what is often labelled Cafeteria Catholicism;

Pope John Paul II
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic,' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere. "

This quote seems fitting, since conjugal sexuality is often a point of contention within discussions, even though it shouldn't be.

Blessings,

-Davide

Thank you for sharing that. Which document is that from?

 

[Rising_Suns]

It was in an audience with Bishops in Los Angeles, 1987.

-Davide

 

[FullyMT]

I think the issue, at times, isn't a disagreement, but a misunderstanding on what the Church teaches (or being against something they think the Church teaches but in reality does not).

 

[Michie]

Brethren,
I stumbled across an interesting quote from pope John Paul II, which may be useful in discussions regarding what is often labelled Cafeteria Catholicism;

Pope John Paul II
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a 'good Catholic,' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere. "

This quote seems fitting, since conjugal sexuality is often a point of contention within discussions.

Blessings,

-Davide

I've never had a problem with the foundational teachings.

Only the nitpicking that seems prevalent in some discussions.

I agree with the above statement.

 

[MikeK]

This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.

Grave? Ouch. They usually reserve terms like "grave" for the really bad stuff, like practicing NFP without a good enough reason.

 

[colleen]

Well seing that using purposely using NFP for the wrong reasons would be a mortal sin I think grave is the perfect word.

 

[gitlance]

How could disobedience of the Holy Magisterium be anything less than a grave matter -- therefore potentially a mortal sin?

 

[Rising_Suns]

I've never had a problem with the foundational teachings.

Only the nitpicking that seems prevalent in some discussions.

I agree with the above statement.

You're ok Michie. I think the pope is refering to those who persistently and obstinately object to the Church's teachings, or those who think it is part of being a 'good Catholic' to question the magisterium, even in what they consider non-essential teachings.

It seems more people need to realize that our call to obedience is not limited to just Ex Cathedra or extraordinary Magisterial teachings, but also includes the ordinary Magisterium as well;

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Adhering to it is not the problem. I obey the church in matters of birth control and conjugal love. I just don't buy their explanations about natural law and human sexuality. I think that their thinking is outdated secondary to the misunderstandings of human sexuality of the past. Natural law is only a theory, not a true law, and it seems to be more based on superstition than any real reason.

What JohnPaul II does not say is that it is a sin to doubt church teaching or to demand a better explanation for them, or to critique the conclusions. The only thing the church demands, and the only thing that it can demand is obedience. One can be a good Catholic while obeying the church, even if one doubts her teachings in some matters.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Adhering to it is not the problem. I obey the church in matters of birth control and conjugal love. I just don't buy their explanations about natural law and human sexuality.

What JohnPaul II does not say is that it is a sin to doubt church teaching or to demand a better explanation for them, or to critique the conclusions. The only thing the church demands, and the only thing that it can demand is obedience. One can be a good Catholic while obeying the church, even if one doubts her teachings in some matters.

Jerome,
"Relgious assent" (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium) is not just a passive obedience, but it is also due respect/reverence.

"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

When posts like yours openly object and criticize the Church's teaching on sexuality, year after year, you neither show due reverence, nor the sincerety in seeking understanding.

It becomes a grave matter when such comments are ordered towards causing others to sin. By publically criticising the Church, you make this a public issue. This is not just a matter of being Catholic, Jerome, but it is a matter of the well-being of other souls. The need to call for an account, therefore, is all the more pressing, in my opinion.

-Davide

 

[geocajun]

Adhering to it is not the problem. I obey the church in matters of birth control and conjugal love. I just don't buy their explanations about natural law and human sexuality. I think that their thinking is outdated secondary to the misunderstandings of human sexuality of the past. Natural law is only a theory, not a true law, and it seems to be more based on superstition than any real reason.

What JohnPaul II does not say is that it is a sin to doubt church teaching or to demand a better explanation for them, or to critique the conclusions. The only thing the church demands, and the only thing that it can demand is obedience. One can be a good Catholic while obeying the church, even if one doubts her teachings in some matters.

Hi Jerome,
fwiw, I think when you say 'doubt' what you mean is 'difficulty'. Doubt is problematic, and a much stronger concept which indicates someone is faced with two choices and unable to decide which to go with. Difficulty is where one accepts one assertion, but does not understand the reason for it.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Jerome,
"Relgious assent" (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium) is not just a passive obedience, but it is also due respect/reverence.



When posts like yours openly object and criticize the Church's teaching on sexuality, year after year, you neither show due reverence, nor the sincerety in seeking understanding.

It becomes a grave matter when such comments are ordered towards causing others to sin. By publically criticising the Church, you make this a public issue. This is not just a matter of being Catholic, Jerome, but it is a matter of the well-being of other souls. The need to call for an account, therefore, is all the more pressing, in my opinion.

-Davide

That is not what JohnPaul II said. You are adding to his words. The church is called to acount for her teachings. Cardinals, Bishops and priests have doubted the teachings of Humanae Vitae and have counselled parishoners to use birth control in certain circumstances. If I was a lone voice or a member of an opposition group, you may have a point, but when the church leaders doubt or disagree with the teachings, this is hardly a matter that is settled or leading others to sin.
The church has the responsibility to be consistant in her teachings or revise them. It does not good for a bunch of lay Catholics to point the finger at other lay Catholics and accuse them of sin. It is not right

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

So because bishops disagree the matter is not settled?

I'm not a huge expert of Church history, but I know enough to realise that's a pretty weak argument. Lots of bishops were heretics, it doesn't mean that the heresies they taught were ever acceptable or that the Church's position on the matters was never closed until they stopped dissenting.

 

[geocajun]

There is a huge difference between disagreement, and encouraging dissent.
Some here are acting as though disagreement is sinful, which it isn't. Encouraging others to dissent from established teaching however, is sinful behavior.

 

[Rising_Suns]

So because bishops disagree the matter is not settled?

I'm not a huge expert of Church history, but I know enough to realise that's a pretty weak argument. Lots of bishops were heretics, it doesn't mean that the heresies they taught were ever acceptable or that the Church's position on the matters was never closed until they stopped dissenting.

Right.

Furthermore, disagreement by bishops is inconsequential with regard to contraception, since the pope has spoken on this matter. As Lumen Gentium noted, we are to submit especially to the supreme pontiff with due "reverence" and "sincerity", not publically criticize and object with every opportunity.

To say that doing so does not encourage dissent, is, in my opinion, a glaring error.

-Davide

 

[Dream]

That is not what JohnPaul II said. You are adding to his words. The church is called to acount for her teachings. Cardinals, Bishops and priests have doubted the teachings of Humanae Vitae and have counselled parishoners to use birth control in certain circumstances. If I was a lone voice or a member of an opposition group, you may have a point, but when the church leaders doubt or disagree with the teachings, this is hardly a matter that is settled or leading others to sin.
The church has the responsibility to be consistant in her teachings or revise them. It does not good for a bunch of lay Catholics to point the finger at other lay Catholics and accuse them of sin. It is not right

The personal actions of individual priests or bishop does not give anybody a free ticket to encourage the spread of dissent or heresy.

At one point, there were more bishops professing to the teachings of Arius than those professing to the teachings of the Council of Nicaea. The actions of these bishops did not make it acceptable for lay people to ascribe to this heresy.

 

[geocajun]

The personal actions of individual priests or bishop does not give anybody a free ticket to encourage the spread of dissent or heresy.

At one point, there were more bishops professing to the teachings of Arius than those professing to the teachings of the Council of Nicaea. The actions of these bishops did not make it acceptable for lay people to ascribe to this heresy.

That is true, it doesn't. What it does do (actions of dissident bishops or priests) is confuse a ton of people who have always been taught to follow their bishops. It is quite difficult for a layman to know what is authoritative and what isn't, which is a topic discussed in detail in the book What Went Wrong with Vatican II.
I suggest to folks the rule of thumb is to stick with the pope. I personally have a great deal of sympathy for those who are confused or even scandalized by their pastors and bishops lack of continuity with the magisterial teachings.

 

[helenofbritain]

The late, great JPII (look! there is is... no. up there... on the right... yes!) said that back in 1987?

Impressive.

Although it's also sad that what was true then is still true now. Let's keep praying!

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Who has encouraged dissent? I obey the church. I am one of many that point out the inconsistency of the teaching on sex and birth control, and I want the teaching revised or expanded. All I get in return is a sit down and shut up response by people that don't know what they are talking about.

Remember the parable that Christ told us. Which servant will the master love more, the one that says yes yes and then does not do what his master wants, or the one that says no I will not, but then submits and does exactly what his master wants?