"There is a phrase that non-Catholics may not be familiar with - it is, "cafeteria Catholics": this refers to those Catholics who like to pick and choose which parts of Catholic dotrine they will adhere to."

Kind of like catholics who supported invading Iraq and who are for tax cuts for the rich?

Tom,

While the late Pope John Paul II was opposed to the military aspects of the liberation of Iraq (though, of course, completely in favor of the end of the anti-God Saddamite regime), that was his personal opinion - it wasn't binding upon Catholics.

As for tax cuts - such are not even mentioned in any Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church insists, of course, that there be a decent provision for the poor...but it is entirely un-interested in what the marginal tax rate is.

Mark, there's no seperating the pope's words from the views of the church. He doesn't have "personal opinions." He speaks for the church.

The following quote is from Paragraph 100 in the Catholic Catechism:

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

The pope rejected the idea that the Iraq war is a "just war," as well as the notion that any preemptive war could be a just war.

By backing the Bush Doctrine and it's application in Iraq, you are going against the church, thus being a "cafeteria catholic."

Welcome to the club!

Mr. Shipley:



A quick question. If you say only the Pope can interpret the Word of God authentically, do you also have to say that the Pope is always and everywhere interpreting?



Those seem logically distinct. As a Catholic, I know that the definitive word on Chuch matters is going to come from the Pope. But that's not to say that everything the Pope says is interpreting the Word of God.



An example? Capital punishment. JPII thought that it was important to combat the "culture of death" by opposing all types of death, including capital punishment. He did not, however, require all Catholics to oppose capital punishment as a matter of "faith and morals."



Could not this "just war" question be something like this?



And I strongly object to your statement that the Pope "doesn't have personal opinions." Of course he does. The notion that the Pope speaks for God is essential to Catholics. But don't over-apply it. And definitely don't confuse it with "the cafeteria."

Tom,

What Father Barry said...

I don't pretend to be a Catholic scholar - I have a fund of knowledge, but anyone who's spent time in a seminary will leave me in the dust on matters theological. All I can say is that people who do know have assured me on a lot of points (my father is one of the best sources I have on this, as he is a Catholic scholar) - and among them is that supporting the liberation of Iraq is not in opposition to Catholicism.

On the other hand, I followed JPII in deciding to oppose the death penalty - I agree that the defenders of the Culture of Life need to hold themselves to a very high standard...on the other hand, I'll never say that supporting the application of the death penalty is unChristian in and of itself.

Father,

Yes, the Pope can have personal opinions. But when he gives speeches and enters into political matters, is he not speaking for the Church?

And my entire point of responding to Mark here is that I take offense to insinuating I'm not a "real" catholic, because I do not think catholic law on abortion should be the law of the United States. He says people like me pick and choose what they believe.

Well, is mark not pick and choosing what he believes in regard to what the church says when he supports this war and the idea that preemtive wars can be just?

Personally, if I were in the situation that abortion would be an option, I would not get one (or have my partner get one). But I do believe in the concept of seperation of church and state, and recognize that because my religion says i must abide by this law doesn't mean everyone in this country must also.

Now, because I choose this, does this make me less of a catholic than Mark who chooses to go against the church by supporting this war and the idea of preemptive wars?

"On the other hand, I followed JPII in deciding to oppose the death penalty - I agree that the defenders of the Culture of Life need to hold themselves to a very high standard...on the other hand, I'll never say that supporting the application of the death penalty is unChristian in and of itself."

Is this not "picking and choosing?"

And the concept of Iraq being a just war was run by the pope by people in the US government. They rejected the notion that it was... and rejected the notion that preemptive wars can be just. The vehimently spoke out against the war.

The catholic church, taking into consideration the idea of "Just Wars," was vehimately against this war.

I don't know how my not supporting US laws to ban abortions is any different than not supporting a law to ban the death penalty or supporting the doctrine of preemption.

"As a Catholic, I know that the definitive word on Chuch matters is going to come from the Pope. But that's not to say that everything the Pope says is interpreting the Word of God."

No, but he spoke out against the war in a very official way. These aren't off-the-cuff remarks overheard by somebody. He made speeches and pleas to world leaders on this subject.

Tom,
Perhaps I tend to over-simplify. But the "just war" criteria is a prudential one. Reasonable people can differ on it's application, as (I believe) happened in this case. Here is an instructive comment made by Colorado Spring's Bishop Michael Sheridan in July of 2004:

"The proper application of these elements of the just war doctrine has been the subject of a great deal of debate. People of good will may disagree as to the moral legitimacy of this war or any war. This discernment always involves the possibility of error simply because none of us can be sure that we have all the information necessary to make an absolute judgment. In the end the Catechism tells us that "the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Reasonable people can also differ on the application/necessity of the death penalty. As the most recent Catechism says:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

It goes on to say that the cases where capital punishment is necessary are "rare, if not practically non–existent." But what is clear here is that there is nothing intrinsically unjust about the death penalty. Nor is there anything intrinsically wrong with war. However, there are certain specific criteria under which either of there can be exercised. And, at the risk of repeating myself, reasonable people can differ on these specifics.
So, war and capital punishment are not "always and everywhere evil." There are conditions under which both are valid. But there is absolutely no exception to be made about abortion. It IS always and everywhere evil.
There is no room for disagreement on this. And that is the very real difference between the two.
So, though I would never presume to make a claim about whether you are "less of a Catholic than Mark," he is making a judgement about an issue that is indeed a matter of judgement. You, however, are talking about abortion. There is not - and never has been - a single ounce of "wiggle room" on that one.
If they seem the same to you, I'm not sure I can convince you otherwise. But they are most definitely different, and it is this diffence that leads to the application of the term "cafeteria Catholic" in one instance, and not in the other.
A final note: when the Pope "gives speeches and enters into political matters," he is "speaking for the Church." But when this conversation started, we were talking about speaking for God. And those are different things. A clear sign of this? The Pope did not forbid American Catholics from participating. However, he has repeatedly forbade any Catholic from participating in an abortion in any way.
Sorry for being long-winded. Also, please don't be offended by my candor. I do not mean to cast aspersions on your intentions in any way, no matter how much I may disagree with your conclusions. (And in the in interest of full disclosure, I am not a priest. My online pseudonym comes from Karl Malden's character from On the Waterfront. This fact is rarely an issue, but in this particular instance, it might cloud the matter a bit...)

Tom,

I will stand corrected on this as necessary, but I don't think that Church teaching requires you to advocate a ban on abortion - Father Barry can probably help us out here, but I believe that what is required is that no Catholic do anything to promote abortion in any form. There is, I believe, a difference here.

The difference would be between signing a petition demanding that abortion be immediately banned and deciding to expend one's efforts in working to change public attitudes about abortion so that fewer and fewer people choose to have them. What you can't do, as a Catholic, is work to expand access to abortion, or encourage people to have abortions, or advocate policies which tend to increase the number of abortions.

The problem with most of the Catholic Democrats is that they do advocate policies which incease the number of abortions and/or tend to downplay the moral aspects of terminating an unborn life.

Actually when the conversation started, I was not saying referring to the pope speaking for God, I was speaking of the pope speaking for the church. See below...

"Mark, there's no seperating the pope's words from the views of the church. He doesn't have "personal opinions." He speaks for the church."

And Mark, I have no problem with you having problems with some catholics on their stance on abortion.

What I have a problem with is you constantly using your religion as a political tool, as a way to try and gain superiority over others. You use religion in politcal context all the time and, quite honestly, it's beneath you and our religion to do so. You throw terms like cafeteria catholic around when you admit that you have to consult with others more knowledgable about catholicism to make sure your political beliefs still allow you the status of "good catholic"... well, to me i see more of a political being than religious being in those actions.

To judge another catholic's worth on one poltically charged issue... when you don't even know that person, well, it's just not right.

Also the new pope's first edict (or one of the first) was an affirmation that church should seperated from the state, and that the state should not force religious law on citizens of the country.

If that's the case, then one can be pro-choice... essentially have the clinton stance on abortion... have them safe and as rare as possible and not have the to subjected to being labeled "cafeteria" catholics or any other politicized terms. I can't tell other people who don't share my religious view that they can't have an abortion. I recognize it's their right as a citizen of this country to have one.

All this talk about Kerry not being able to get communion because he is pro-choice... just political (expletive deleted).

Religion is an extrememly personal thing, and one of the worst recent developments i've seen is people using to try and gain political advantage.

Actually when the conversation started, I was not saying referring to the pope speaking for God, I was speaking of the pope speaking for the church. See below...

I stand corrected. I was looking at Comment #3, where you quoted the Catechism as saying:

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

But let me step back from those particulars for a moment and get back to the bigger picture. I think Mark is trying to take a more nuanced position than mine. And a more nuanced position than I am comfortable with here. I believe a more "hard-line" approach is necessary, so forgive me if I come on a bit strong.


The issue is more important (and also less complex) than what we've discussed so far. Though I believe that there is a profound misunderstanding of “freedom of religion” in this country, I would rather not address that particularly thorny issue. What I want to address is this notion that the abortion debate is simply being used for political purposes, and the notion that we are “forcing” our religious views where they do not belong.


Not so. Abortion is murder. The Catholic Church has never been obscure or confused on this one. It is the taking of an innocent human life, at a time when it is most vulnerable. But the Catholic Church does not think that only its followers must hold this to be true. It believes that: “respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be.”


That is the core of the problem. And why, with respect, I must disagree with Mark. I believe that “Church teaching requires you to advocate a ban on abortion.” But I also believe that “human reason” requires me to advocate such a ban. It’s not because I’m a Catholic that I oppose abortion, but because I’m a person.


At the risk of becoming hopelessly redundant: murder is wrong, and (I repeat) that is not a ”Catholic” position. It is a first principle. One that has been here from the beginning. I am more than willing to “impose” my view of murder on others in the “normal course” of things, as is my country. We don’t allow it. Last time I checked, murder was against the law. And no one was troubled by that.


The missing link between these two issues is that abortion is actually murder. If we have laws against murder than everyone (Catholic or not) agrees are important and valid, why can’t we have laws against abortion, which is just a particular kind of murder? So when I say we should ban abortion, I’m not imposing my religious views on anyone. I’m “forcing” them to obey natural law.


For more on this particular issue, I suggest looking up the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion. It says all of these things far more clearly and eloquently than I could ever hope to.

Religion is an extrememly personal thing, and one of the worst recent developments i've seen is people using to try and gain political advantage.

Religion is indeed an extremely personal thing. But where is it said that a personal thing is a private thing? The founding fathers never intended this country to be run by people who could abstract their faith from their “public” persona. They intended it to be run by men who would make decisions founded on their beliefs. Otherwise, we find ourselves in our current situation. We are perfectly comfortable as a nation with saying that, though “we would never do it ourselves,” we think there is a fundamental and justifiable right for our citizens to kill their children.


(And I would claim that Kerry used this “religious” issue to his political advantage long before anyone tried to use it against him. This is nothing new or even particularly recent. But I sure hope we never reach the point where Kerry’s personal moral views are unimportant to us when evaluating him as a political leader.)



I hope there are no hard feelings about this, Tom. I know these are pretty harsh words, and I also believe they must be said. But please trust that I'm being honest when I say that I'm not directing them at you personally, but at your ideas. I don't know you, and would never presme to make a judgement about your own personal beliefs. But I must admit: I do believe in judging another Catholic's ideas and principles "on one poltically charged issue" if that issue is abortion.


(I do strongly support your view that one should not judge another Catholic's "worth" on this issue alone. In fact, I'm not comfortable ever judging your "worth." But I am sure Mark would agree with this.)

Father Barry,

I guess what I'm trying to do is allow a little wriggle room for those Catholics who are as yet uncomfortable in directly fighting against abortion - I, too, was once like that...and, indeed, it only changed completely for me recently. It took the intervention of some women who were victims of the abortion industry to instruct me in how necessary it was for me to fight against abortion everywhere and all the time. Boiled down, they figure it is the duty of all people of good will to prevent any more women from being bamboozled into abortion and then suffering the deep emotional and physical scars for the rest of their lives. But I still don't think I have the authority to judge negatively those who still hold back - in my view, which can stand correction as needed, as long as someone at least does no harm in the abortion issue, then they are on the right side of the issue.

Tom,

Father Barry answered it all pretty well - but I will add this:

Being the political animal that I am, I must hold the concept that religion has no place in deciding laws to be in contravention of good sense.

A person either believes in his religion, or he doesn't. If you believe that your religious-based world view is good and true, then you have an objective duty to bring it into the public square for the benefit of your fellow man. To do otherwise is to denigrate your religion and dishonor yourself.

I am extraordinarily flawed, Tom, but I do try to be a man of honor - and that means that I will clearly state my views and what I will do in service of them, so that you can know precisely where I stand at all times...there will be no confusion in the matter, and you will be able to act accordingly knowing, in advance, precisely what I'll do.

As regards yourself, you are my ally as a fellow Catholic, but I find that I cannot rely upon you - I don't know when and where you will stand with me for principle, and when you will ditch principle for political expediency.

"I don't know when and where you will stand with me for principle, and when you will ditch principle for political expediency."

This coming from a guy who sides with Bush over the pope on Iraq and preempive wars...

At least you're acknowledging i'm a catholic now. That's progress.

...as long as someone at least does no harm in the abortion issue, then they are on the right side of the issue.

I agree. And I believe the Church thinks this, as well. The condemnation comes down upon those who advance the abortion agenda in some way.

I would not be satisfied with everyone merely "doing no wrong," because I think that there is something that needs to be "made right." But I would certainly consider them allies.

Tom,

As soon as you come across the perfect Catholic, you just let me know...and the Pope, he'll be highly interested.

I don't expect you to be perfect, but there are certain things are are a must - among them is staunch opposition to abortion and at least the willingness to allow no extension of the practice. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but the impression I get is that you have no fundamental objection to abortion on demand being the law of the land - and that is a view a Catholic cannot hold and remain truly Catholic.

To re-clarify a bit - You can, in my view, in good conscience hold and opinion that an outright ban on abortion is not the right way to go, but when a legal case is brought to overturn, say, a parental consent law, then all Catholics must be in favor of keeping that law in place.

Does that help?

Father Barry,

Agreed - but I am the practical politician, and that is the art of the possible. I think you agree that we'll take our allies where we find them, and go along with them until our paths diverge, always with the hope that they'll continue on with us right to the ultimate goal.

To be sure!