What is a "Cafeteria Catholic"?

[geocajun]

Church doctrine on contraception HAS changed. In past centuries, the Church did not distinguish between natural and unnatural methods, it just said all sexual acts had to be open to life.

As for abortion, it was always considered a sin but it was not always equated with murder, since it was not thought that the embryo had a full human soul from the moment of conception.

Another example. For a long time, ALL interest on loans was regarded as usury and considered a mortal sin. The teaching on usury's intrinsic evil has not changed, but now a "normal" interest rate is recognized as not being usury.

These are the "details" I am talking about. The principles don't chage, but the interpretations and practicalities do!

HV did assert the whole 'serious and just reason' for using partial abstinence which was certainly something new as well.

I think what is crossing here is the difference between the doctrine itself, the understanding of the doctrine, and the expression of that understanding. The latter two do change.

Also, I'd love for our pope to write something on usury. I'm certainly confused by it. We built our parish school using a loan from our dioceses. The loan is interest bearing, and I believe that loan is from money we tithed to the church which was given to the diocese, that was later 'loaned' to us, and now we are paying it back. Twisted.
I'd love to see what the pope considers to be the difference between usury of old, and usury today. I've seen folks conjecture on this, but frankly the whole thing is a mess and it just looks to me like Rome is 'turning its head' at it rather than clearing it up.

 

[AMDG]

I thought we were looking for a definition of "cafeteria Catholic" (to support the other thread), not a defense of abortion or even one on usury practices.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not to derail this further but a question for you all.

What is a Heretic?

I am curious how similiar this definition is to Cafeteria Catholic since I have heard it said that Cafeteria Catholics straddle this fence with heretic on one side.

 

[vle045]

.... just looking for the cafeteria... can someone point me in the right direction... I'd like to pick up a few things from the buffet........

 

[stivvy]

Not to derail this further but a question for you all.

What is a Heretic?

I am curious how similiar this definition is to Cafeteria Catholic since I have heard it said that Cafeteria Catholics straddle this fence with heretic on one side.

I would say that a heritic is one who practices and not just believes in, or "wishes", changes in Catholic doctrine.

Cafateria Catholic is just a term to explain the "picking and choosing" to siut ones own life style. Many of those who are Cafateria Catholics practice heretical ways of life....if that makes sense....IMHO

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I would say that a heritic is one who practices and not just believes in, or "wishes", changes in Catholic doctrine.

Cafateria Catholic is just a term to explain the "picking and choosing" to siut ones own life style. Many of those who are Cafateria Catholics practice heretical ways of life....if that makes sense....IMHO

That is what I have heard.

But if this is true then when does it become Heretical?

Is it when that person is in full knowledge that they are acting and teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine?

 

[stivvy]

I would say you are correct....

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I would say you are correct....

Then for our discussion a Cafeteria Catholic would not be a Heretic since they are still Catholic.

This would imply that Cafeteria Catholics disagree with doctrinal teachings and even live contrary to doctrinal teachings but they do so in ignorance.

Where a Heretic would be outside the Church and spirtually no longer Catholic because they act and teach contrary to doctrine in full knowledge.

 

[geocajun]

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."

Heretics are those who deny dogmas of the faith.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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."

Heretics are those who deny dogmas of the faith.

Thanks Geo.

What about the part where it says "obstinate doubt"?

 

[geocajun]

Jack,
Yes, if one has obstinate doubt about a dogma of faith, they may be a heretic.
Those who contracept aren't dissenting to a dogma of faith by any standard I know of. Dogmas of faith are those things which are revealed to us at once from God - ie are overt in scripture or revelation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,
Yes, if one has obstinate doubt about a dogma of faith, they may be a heretic.
Those who contracept aren't dissenting to a dogma of faith by any standard I know of. Dogmas of faith are those things which are revealed to us at once from God - ie are overt in scripture or revelation.

Thanks again Geo. I like the quick response.

By the way what is the definition of Dogma?

 

[geocajun]

Thanks again Geo. I like the quick response.

By the way what is the definition of Dogma?

Well a dogma is often used synonymous with 'doctrine', and that is an accepted usage, but not every doctrine 'must be believed' at the same level - some don't have to be believed at all. Dogma De Fide (dogma of faith) is the highest level of dogma, and those must be revealed to us directly from God.
Dogmas which do not need to be believed at all would include things such as redemptive suffering, or the concrete principles for evaluating the morality of an act, or I believe the morality of contraceptives would also fall into that category. These are all things which are peripheral to the faith.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I googled it and got the same response...
Someone [with pride-some noted] who choose which theological doctrines they prefer in order to live out in a sinful lifestyle.

And then here is the wikipedia definition;

The term suggests that the believers being so described pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line. The term implies that the criticized individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their selfish personal preferences rather than a legitimate hermeneutical interpretation.

link - although generic

 

[Davidnic]

Those who contracept aren't dissenting to a dogma of faith by any standard I know of.

And theologians will argue both ways on that. It is one of those things. That is part of why threads on it get so hot. That and the personal real life issue involved. Not an easy topic.

 

[AMDG]

what is the definition of Dogma?

I really like Louise D'Angelo's book, Come Home...The Door Is Open. It answers all sorts of questions in easy to understand language. It covers Doctrines and Dogmas. Part of a paragraph concerning Dogmas from the book: "Dogmas, like doctrines contain truths revealed by God and must be believed by all Catholics. A dogma is what is called 'an article of divine revelation'. Dogmas are so closely related to dooctrine that often the two words are interchanged. When speaking of dogmas, a writer may often use the word doctrine. ... Nevertheless, both dogmas and doctrines are truths of the Church and of God which must be accepted and believed by all Catholics; and which cannot be changed!" The book also explains that doctrines are the beliefs which the Catholic Church always held as being Divine Revelation, while a Dogma is officially declared by reason of the Pope's infallibility. The book goes on to indicate that before being officially declared Dogmas, they were not binding--only afterwards.

The author of the book, "Louise D'Angelo is founder of the Maryheart Crusaders, an aproved national lay group that seeks to reunite fallen-away Catholics and stimulate lukewarm Catholics toward a fuller spiritual life."

Hope that helps.

 

[geocajun]

And theologians will argue both ways on that. It is one of those things.

Who? They may argue of the infallibility of the teaching, but I am not aware of any who argue over it being a dogma of faith or not.

 

[geocajun]

It seems kind of desperate to me when folks aren't happy with the official catholic definitions and so they post stuff from wikipedia to try and make a point which will only serve to hurt others who they should consider their brothers and sisters in the faith.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Geocajun, do you think it’s a feasible thing that Church would consider giving a homosexual couple special dispensation to live in a unitive monogamous relationship, due to the hardship of the predicament they’re in?

 

[Davidnic]

Who? They may argue of the infallibility of the teaching, but I am not aware of any who argue over it being a dogma of faith or not.

I was referring to the infallibility of the teaching. If it is fides ecclesiastica. That is still much higher than theological opinion and requires assent.

Contraception is argued to be A Catholic Truth. A virtually revealed Theological Conclusion revealed as a factor of natural law. It is not argued as immediately revealed and part of Immediate Divine Faith. If you are saying it is not Immediate Divine Faith (immediate revelation)...then no one argues that. I don't think. But it is a mater of Revelation and the deposit of faith.

But that does not drop it to a theological opinion. They are still fides ecclesiastica and given authority by the infallible teaching authority of the Church in faith and morals. They are, you are right. not Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation so to speak. But they are not so far down the dogmatic ladder. In fact they are right up there.

As to if it is open for theological debate. A strong case can be made it is not open to debate due to the statement of Pius XII as quoted here by Ott:

Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).

A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical "Humani generis" (1950): "When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians" (D 3013).


Ott



That's the argument I was saying existed.