Say "No!" To Cafeteria Catholicism
"Someone once said, 'there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood in the United States, but there is no shortage of vocations to the papacy'...If we each appoint ourselves pope and throw out a doctrine here, or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic."
-John Martignoni
3 comments:
Danny,
This reminds me of a recent thread on Pontifications. Al posted his Ninth Law, which states, “If a Catholic cannot name at least one article of faith that he believes principally on the basis of the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, he’s either a saint or a Protestant”. This seems to be the antithesis of Cafeteria Catholicism. If a Catholic contemplates an area of the Church’s teaching that he can’t completely understand or accept on the basis of rational thought, he must nonetheless accept it as authoritative because the Church (through her Magisterium) teaches it. By contrast, Cafeteria Catholicism is a result of exercising private judgment and assuming that if one doesn’t understand (or like) a particular doctrine, he is free to reject it.
So, two questions come to mind. First, are there any doctrines that you would have difficulty understanding or accepting rationally, that you nonetheless believe because the Church teaches them? I should hasten to add that even Pontificator acknowledged some of his own! Second, what teachings do you think are most susceptible to questioning today as a result of Cafeteria Catholicism? Contraception…sexuality in general…all-male priesthood…celibate priesthood…Eucharistic theology…papal authority in general?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Every blessing,
Frank
Frank,
As to the first question: I had some reservations about Mary being a virgin after the birth of Christ. They were reservations, not full out disbelief, because I wasn't sure one way or the other. I have recently read argument proving Mary's perpetual virginity and have reconciled the matter. I would suggest reading Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen" among other books about Mary for clarity on the doctrine. That was the only issue for me. It no longer is an issue.
You may think that the celibate priesthood might have been an issue for me, being a married man with aspirations to the priesthood. However, after prayerfully considering it, researching and reading (such as this article I posted a while back http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2005/11/married-priests-arent-answer-by.html), and from seeing how involved Fr. Brad was in his priesthood with no time at all for even himself (let alone a family), I fully support the celibate priesthood.
As you may see (and as I have realized), I have been Catholic all along. I just didn't fully realize it until it became a neccessity to leave the Anglican Communion.
As for the second question: You mention issues susceptible to questioning today such as "Contraception…sexuality in general…all-male priesthood…celibate priesthood…Eucharistic theology…papal authority in general" and I'm sure there are many other "questionable" subjects. But when practitioners of cafeteria Catholicism learn to really read and understand the Bible, and understand that Catholic teaching doesn't contradict the Bible and the Bible doesn't contradict Catholic teaching, then they won't be so quick to throw out whatever doctrine they so desire. They need to understand that the teachings of the Church are not supposed to conform to the beliefs of individuals, but the beliefs of individuals are supposed to conform to the teachings of the Church!
Many Blessings,
Danny
Danny,
Thanks for the insight. I really enjoyed Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper," and I look forward to reading "Hail, Holy Queen."
Frank
Post a Comment