How To Spot A Cafeteria Catholic
This article appeared on Newsday.com We have noted the Cafeteria Catholics in case you were not able to tell the difference.
Heading into the noon Mass at St. Agnes Cathedral in Rockville Centre Tuesday, Anne-Marie Patton (Catholic) said she had no doubts Rudy Giuliani was out of line when he received Holy Communion at a papal Mass despite his public advocacy for abortion rights.
And she agreed with the public rebuke Giuliani received on Monday from Cardinal Edward Egan.
"I think it's more than rude," said Patton, of Rockville Centre, as a light rain fell at the cathedral. "If Giuliani knows the teachings of the church and knows the state of his personal life, he should know he is not entitled to receive Holy Communion."
She added: "If you are a member of a religion or an organization, you abide by the rules."
But another Roman Catholic, Cristina Ruiz Diaz of Farmingdale (Cafeteria Catholic), said she thought Egan was making too much of the matter. "Just because that's one point we disagree with ... doesn't mean that we're bad Catholics and nobody should talk to us," she said.
"A lot of people think that way [about abortion rights] and they're not as public," she added.
Catholics across Long Island had mixed reactions Tuesday on the flare-up. Some said Egan's actions were justified, while others thought he was stirring up a ruckus over something inconsequential.
Egan posted a statement on the Archdiocese of New York's Web site stating that he and Giuliani had a "private agreement" that Giuliani would not receive Holy Communion -- then Giuliani violated the agreement by doing so at the April 19 Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Giuliani is also twice-divorced and thrice-married. He never had his second marriage annulled and by church doctrine should not receive Holy Communion for that reason either.
Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said yesterday Egan does not plan any generalized crackdown on average Catholics in the pews who support abortion rights and receive Holy Communion.
But he said the issue with Giuliani had become so public that the cardinal felt obligated to respond. He added that "Catholics have an obligation to understand church teaching and to understand that Holy Communion should only be received when a person is in a state of grace."
Asked what Egan's move might mean for Catholics who worship on Long Island, Sean Dolan, spokesman for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, said the diocese adheres to church doctrine that prohibits abortion and added that any public official who advocates abortion shouldn't receive Communion.
Another parishioner at St. Agnes, Peg McHale (Catholic), 82, of Lynbrook, said that "it stands to reason if you are promoting abortion, then you are not in good standing with the Catholic Church" and should not receive Communion.
Janet Liotta (Cafeteria Catholic), a Catholic from Farmingdale, said that while Giuliani's lifestyle shows "he is not a Catholic," Egan also mishandled it by making a public spectacle. "I don't think Egan is acting in a Christ-like manner," she said. "I think it's heartless."
Real estate agent Charles Funk (Cafeteria Catholic), who works in Centereach, said there are other, more important issues the cardinal should spend his time on. "It's more like gossip than news," he said.
posted by Moderator @ 5:55 AM
45 Comments
45 Comments:
The Cardinal and Bishops blew it by giving Communion to Pro-Choice Politicians at such a blessed and public event. No wonder so many younger Catholics don't know their catechism. It isn't enforced by those who are supposed to be the authorities. They have abdicated their roles and as such are abandoning the Eucharist.
Is this the reduction in the Church we have been expecting? This article just exemplifies that many "Catholics" really are not Catholic at all.
They should all go back to RCIA class. They don't know what it really means to be Catholic.
Whenever I speak with cafeteria catholics on topics like this, I like to ask them "So, when was it you decided to leave the Church?"
It stuns them into shame every time.
It's time for Archbishop Raymond Burke to lead this important discussion. Apparently a number of his colleagues aren't up to the task.
I am, by far, not a Giuliani supporter, either in his private life , as he has displayed it, or in his public life, as he has proclaimed it.
The pejorative phrase "cafeteria Catholic", whether it is used to describe Giuliani or to describe those who do not follow a course of strict obedience to Church teaching, is almost always used in a hypocritical way. There are few of us who do not pick and choose where to place moral emphasis.
At present and in history, the Church has hardly been consistent in its expulsion or exclusion of persons (within and without the ministry) who publicly depart from the teachings of Christ or the elaborations of his ministers, or who are otherwise known by the Church to have grievously done so.
I am not sure how the Church ought best deal with those it considers to be unworthy, but I am sure that such judgments ought not be imposed on a selective basis. "Flavor of the month" is not an appropriate moral strategy.
I, for one, was taken back at the fact that the Pope's last public appearance, which lasted about a half hour at Kennedy Airport, the Pope stood throughout that time next to a visibly gloating Dick Cheney. It was one of the more opportunistic events I have recently seen in which an ill-deserving politician was permitted to bask in the reflected light of the moral symbolism cast by the Pope. The Pope and his staff could have prevented that.
At one point or another, we all stop in at the cafeteria.
Was Cheney receiving Communion? No!
He was representing the leadership of the free world and doing a fine job of it.
Could you wear your own politics any more prominently on your sleeve?
Anonymous comments are cowardly.
Anonymous said:
At one point or another, we all stop in at the cafeteria.
Speak for yourself, Protestant!
Since different anonymous posters are not automatically distinguishable, let me note that my only prior posting in this thread was one in which I suggested that most of us, including the clergy, visit the cafeteria.
To Kimp - I thought this was a discussion concerning the interplay of morality and politics.
Do you think that Christ would have endorsed the politics of the missile, the waterboard and confinement without trial?
Do you think a living Christ would have been welcome in the backrooms of the Bush and Cheney government?
What would you say to posting the Sermon on the Mount in classrooms and urging its daily recitation?
To Anonymous - you call me a Protestant. Is that the new principle, "I think, therefore I am a Protestant"?
Best wishes and peace be to you,
Anon
Anon-
I don't know if you're Protestant, but you sure aren't Catholic!
The discussion piece is about people like you who are confused as to what Catholic Catechism teaches and what the rules for receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion are. It you do not follow the Catechism of the Church, you are not living a Catholic life. As such, when you profess to others in your community that you are a practicing Catholic, and they hear your endorsements of non-Catholic teaching, it causes confusion.
From your agenda, it appears you are more of a Protestant Hillaryite...
Let me ask you something. Do you think she's going to protect you?
The first thing she'll do at 3 am when THE PHONE rings is hand it to "slick willie" and say "It's for you!"
Apparently you would prefer to endorse someone who will willfully and creatively kill the unborn, in YOUR own neighborhood, rather than go after an enemy, in THEIR own neighborhood, who has made a vow to kill all Americans...Catholics first!
Give 'em hell Sarge!
BTW: we would be negligent to omit the fact that the real reason Hillary wouldn't be available to answer the call at 3 am is because she would be pinned down by sniper fire.
Hey Jay-
trying out new material for the show? that was a good one!
"Give 'em hell Sarge!"
Not exactly the sort of thing a good Catholic would recommend nor do.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon-
You are still not Catholic. You were also quite uncharitable and unpatriotic in your own commentary. Perhaps you don't see it that way because your own vision is distorted by you fanatical views?
It seems quite inappropriate that Giuliani (whose campaign I have donated to) should have respected the private agreement which he had with Cardinal Egan. He is a very public supporter of abortion which is unacceptable to Catholics. Rudy made it a public issue when he broke that agreement by taking the sacrament at a very public forum (Mass with the Pope and many dignataries). Cardinal Egan was right to publicly respond in the way that he did. It didn't start with him.
Folks, it's not that hard to use a nickname (under Name/URL) or initials. Posting with "Anonymous" ruins a thread, since it's impossible to figure out who is saying what.
Please have some concern for your readers.
BRING ME ALL OF MY CHILDREN
Turn no one away out of hatred/judgement
Rather pray that all may come to believe and love....peace, peace, peace
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3rVKYVpsGBs
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon needs a mirror because hers doesn't reflect very well.
Do you think she likes anybody other than Hillary?
I think everyone here needs a mirror. And we'll probably all get that whenever the "Warning" happens.
Meanwhile there is not one child of God who is appointed to judge another child of God. Meanwhile people should just learn the teachings of the Church and be obedient. And we should offer the teachings of the Church to those who may not know where to look with LOVE and PATIENCE and let God do the judging.
I think it is thinking like this that has lead, in part, to much of the misinformation many Catholics have about what it is that makes one truly Catholic.
If someone isn't there to point out the error, how does anybody really learn. Too many priests have let the bar slip under the auspices of "not judging".
A spade is a spade, not a hoe.
The trouble with some self-described protectors of the faith is that they they have a self-satisfied, sanctimonious certainty that surpasses anything Christ said or did and tends to actually contradict the message of caritas that is central to Christ's life and teaching.
Please take note that in my initial posting my point was not that a politician who publicly tolerates abortion ought not be subjected to sacramental discipline. That is a different discussion.
My point was that, in the past and at present, the Church has tolerated major public departures from its moral teachings without imposing discipline. In short, public discipline should not be so selective as to render it a subjective or political choice rather than a moral consequence.
It is ironic that such selectivity is a very public form of "cafeteria morality".
Best wishes,
Anon
Do you not ascribe to the fact that "Right is right, even if nobody is right"?
There is no room for discussion. Period!
Dear frrh,
You say:
=========
"Do you not ascribe to the fact that 'Right is right, even if nobody is right'?
"There is no room for discussion. Period!"
=========
Neither one of the statements is correct. In, fact, each is internally inconsistent and they seem to be inconsistent with each other.
I take the first statement to be your contention that "Right is right, even if nobody is right". Of course there is an objective reality as to many things and there are subjective opinions as to other things. If no one is right (part of your premise) then the objective fact is of no consequence to anyone's knowledge or conduct. In moral matters, if no one knows what is right or what is wrong then, surely, no one is morally culpable.
Having asked the first question, you preempt an answer by stating: "There is no room for discussion. Period!" Do you get that from something Christ said or something that is in current Church law or something Aquinas contended?
You will recall that there was once no room for discussion as to whether the earth was the center of the universe or whether Joan of Arc should be burned at the stake or, for some, as to the moral lives of the civil or religious hierarchy. Of course, the mere act of saying that there is no room for discussion does, itself, break the rule.
Best wishes,
Anon
If someone isn't there to point out the error, how does anybody really learn. Too many priests have let the bar slip under the auspices of "not judging".
We certainly have the model of pointing out error and not judging from our Lady Herself. She points to her Son always and tells us how much we're missing by not drawing close to Him through conversion. And so many conversions happen when some little gift is given to us that we really don't deserve...with conversion must come healing...not just adherence to the law. Our Lord told those kinds that He "didn't know them".
But pointing out error in anger always has fingers pointing back at the accuser that he now has his own sin to confess! You may have had the grace to "see" through the prayers and/or tears of another. Or else we wouldn't have an Augustine or good thief. Perhaps another has not had that grace. So, if you're willing to judge another, then you have the responsibility to pray very hard for God's will to be accepted by him/her.
If you have tried and the person/s still remain stubborn then do what scripture says and wipe the dust off your feet and leave them to themselves. By being drawn into anger/frustration only hurts yourself and what is really terrible is when this goes a step further and the person is told just what his punishment is...like going to hell, etc., well it's almost a curse upon the person whom God is not yet through with.
In moral matters, if no one knows what is right or what is wrong then, surely, no one is morally culpable.
Well, this is a bit too easy an excuse. Each human with his precious gift of free will is ordered through the reflection of the natural law all about him/her to form his conscience. He/she has that responsibility by nature. And our Lady herself has mentioned that even those in the most remote parts of the world still have the sense of good and evil written on their hearts even if they have not seen it codified. In this day and age, with the availability to discover and learn our moral traditions based on natural law there is hardly anyone who isn't exposed to that clear cut sense of good and evil.
But perhaps on your side the Church herself still formulates, through dialogue with the best, her teachings re: science, etc., always including reason with faith. And there are always Her children still in need of further teaching in order to be brought to the light which in the end is always found to be Love.
Anon is DEFINITELY NOT CATHOLIC.
Dear Anon-
I suggest you get a qualified spiritual director.
God's law and the Canon of the Church are "right". If you do not agree, you are, by definition, non-Catholic.
Dear Mirrose,
You appear to take some issue with my statement: "In moral matters, if no one knows what is right or what is wrong then, surely, no one is morally culpable."
The operative word was "if". I was attempting to show that the formulation posed by frrh was not helpful.
In fact, we do generally do reach conclusions on what is right and what is wrong, and we often act in ways that follow or ignore those conclusions. There are some things that are beyond our analytical reach or as to which reasonable minds can differ.
There are some things that are not as simple as some moralists would have them be.
If the story of Abraham is correct, was it sinful for Abraham to take steps to kill his son?
Was it wrong of God to deceive Abraham into thinking that such filicide was God's will?
Is it wrong for us to second guess Abraham? Or to second guess God?
Would it have been wrong for Isaac to defend himself or for Isaac's mother to have thrown Abraham off a cliff to save her son?
I appreciate your commentaries Mirrose. You make an effort to understand the human condition.
I wonder about those who simply make declarative statements (cf. Gloria and frrh) and make no effort at dialog. If, by accident of birth they had been born Muslim in the Middle East, which of the religious Muslim ideologies would they have gravitated towards?
Best wishes,
Anon
I believe, Anon, that we always have to take actions within the context of the times in which they happen and also within the belief systems...your example for instance being the old covenant with its own revealed law then. That is why it is always good to be specific instead of using generalities when it comes to moral judgments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks to this question when it explains the culpabiity of one committing serious/deadly sin...mortal sin...the conditions/formation of conscience for such, etc.
But there are also, once known and once committed to in belief, those revelations of truth held in tradition that one then must adhere to, at least objectively...the basic revelation of the commandments of God for instance. If one is living perfectly in love they wouldn't be necessary, but due to original sin/human nature, we then need guidelines that are, so to speak, written in stone, or else we could speculate ourselves to hell!! Such laws are really God's own mercy for us, limited human beings that we are. That is, trusting that our Creator always has our best interests in mind in giving us these helps/rules/laws. Curiosity alone can lead one into ventures where there is no way out. And such blunders often have the Peter Principle to blame. We think we are more equipped, beyond the rules, to take on more risk than we really are. Due to that pride we often will afterwards claim we just didn't know any better when in actuality we did know enough to at least not take the chance on what we didn't know!
It's not often that right answers are found in speculating from a very far distance in time re: correct moral behavior in what is completely foreign territory for those in contemporary times. There are too many incalculables to ever be certain. Trust in God as a good Father AND One, while teaching a lesson that has far reaching ramifictions MUST be done His way, for His own reasons.
And a good day to you too!
It all comes down to ONE thing.
To be a true Catholic means you follow the ENTIRE doctrine of the Church and not your own interpretations of these doctrines, whole or in part.
You can't just swallow half of the pill.
There are lots of people who go to Catholic Church who are not truly Catholic. The sad part is: they have chosen to be comfortable and Oprah-like in their choices.
Gloria,
It would be great if life, logic and understanding were as simple as you seem to describe.
The Church, as an institution, and its clergy, as individuals and as functionaries, have no better record in "following the entire doctrine" than do the laity, militant, average or lapsed.
Some major lines can be drawn dividing sources of moral obligation:
1. Conscience - Conscience is generally a sound guide to remaining on the path of being a good person.
2. The Ten Commandments - One of the most concise statements concerning fundamental morality, second, perhaps only to the Sermon on the Mount.
3. The counsel and example given by Christ in the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.
4. The advise of persons of good will who are qualified to counsel as to moral issues and the life of goodness.
As to almost all moral issues, the average individual can get to the correct choice by resorting to the first three sources of counsel.
Generally, in discussions such as this, someone makes an "in your face" declaration that one is not a Catholic and one is in danger of losing one's immortal soul if one does not strictly follow the proclamations of the hierarchy, particularly those of the Pope, when he speaks "ex cathedra".
Some are surprised that the Church got along quite well for almost 2000 years without having proclaimed the doctrine of infallibility. It is not my purpose to open a discussion as to that doctrine. I certainly do not question the obligation of the Pope, particularly, and the hierarchy, generally, to articulate to the public (Catholic and not) their views as to major moral issues that transcend time or that arise more profoundly in the present time.
My point is that a person who follows conscience, aided by the Commandment and Christ's Word, in a good faith effort to be a good person, is very likely to get it right, even if he is isolated from contact with the hierarchy and its pronouncements.
I suspect that some will recoil in horror at what they will see as my apostasy or who will have some delight that, in their view, I have demonstrated that I am "not a Catholic". I wonder what Christ would say.
To round it out, I guess I should tell you my view that the Church would better perform its important functions if the clergy were permitted to marry and if more emphasis were placed on the pastoral function -- as opposed to the bureaucratic function.
Best wishes,
Anon
Anon-
you are an obvious episcopalian and NOT Catholic.
Gloria (and anyone else who cares to comment),
Do you think it is more likely that a good Roman Catholic will get to Heaven than a good Episcopalian or a good Jew or a good Muslim or a good agnostic?
Anon
Anon-
I think/hope they will ALL get to heaven. It really isn't my call.
I just know that by your statements that you are not Catholic. You may go to Catholic Mass, but if you live/believe by the way you are writing, you are not living a truly Catholic life. It might be a perfectly fine life for you. It is not, however, TRULY Catholic.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Whatever it is you are trying to say...fine.
The definition we are seeking is what does it mean to be truly Catholic and living a Catholic life. Webster's probably doesn't have that definition. A good old priest will. You should talk to one and get counseled.
Keep in mind, I do love you. You just are not living a Catholic life and your rhetoric is perfect testament to that truth.
Don't worry because there are millions of mixed-up people just like you who don't really know the difference between what it means to be truly Catholic and being a cafeteria Catholic as you are.
Personally I don't see this as anyones business except Rudy's and our fathers.
It bothers me to see these kind of arguments on a site such as this.
John-
so do you think it is ok for these politicians to receive communion? where would you prefer a topic such as this be discussed? in a secular blog where nobody is held responsible?
what does John want discussed on "a site such as this"?
The Bishops are not doing anything about the politicians and the total disregard of the Eucharist and they certainly do not have any public discussion about OLA.
How about we talk about women priests? Apparently Anonymous thinks it's a good idea. I sure don't.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dear Anon-
it is obvious that you are a very troubled person with an immediate need for adequate one on one spiritual direction if you are to find the answers that will satisfy you.
you seem to be far too irritated to communicate with on this topic in this forum as it is obvious you are not willing to agree with Catholic Church teaching on these matters.
please get help and make a decision as to what it is you want to believe. the Catholic Church, and true Catholics, is/are not going to agree with your current platform.
Spot on!:
http://stjstp.org/May_04_2008_Bulletin.html
I agree with kenc. Anon is an obviously agitated person who does not accept Catholic doctrine.
There is nothing good that can come of this exchange on this site. He/she needs to seek counseling. I pray that it will come soon so Anon can find peace in whatever belief system fits.
True Roman Catholicism is currently not in his/her voice.
Anon should move on and get a life in the numerous episcopal churches available to her. I will pray for her at today's Mass.
I see no room for her militant views in the Catholic Church. I guess we can't win them all over with the truth, can we?
This tirade is a perfect example of cafeteria catholicism. Thank you Anon for helping to make the article's point come to life so other readers can better understand the differences between true Catholics and people like yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home