Cafeteria Catholicism

If you haven't heard the phrase "Cafeteria Catholicism," it is used to refer to those self-professed Catholics who "pick and choose" what aspects of Catholic teachings they will accept and live by and those they won't - much like one picks and chooses what one will eat from a cafeteria lunch. It's a term of derision, largely because it implies that one "picks and chooses" teachings based upon similar reasons as those used to pick and choose food: personal taste and whim.

Chris Burgwald writes about this:

One of my frustrations in discussions with progressive Catholics is their tendency to discard truths (especially of a sexual nature) which they disagree with. Other Catholics certainly may tend to do the same thing with other teachings, but this particular Catholic (me) accepts every teaching of the Church, because of Jesus' promise that the Church would not fail.

A princpal example cited for this is, as one will so often find, a person who disagrees with Vatican teachings on homosexuality and marriage. There are a couple of problems with this.

First, Chris Burgwald seems to imply that the reasons for disagreement are easily dismissed because - something communicated with the use of the label "Cafeteria Catholicism." It may be that those involved disagree on account of very serious matters on conscience. This is important because it is possible for a person to disagree with Catholic teachings if their conscience requires it and yet still remain Catholic.

Not everything is open for such disagreement - for example, teachings held to be infallible - but they do exist and arguable those dealing with sexuality and marriage could be among them. Chris Burgwald may believe that his Church will "not fail," but that can only be a long term view, in the sense that any errors made will be corrected (otherwise it attributes infallibility to individuals rather than "the system"). Correction, however, requires the existence of people who disagree with the current teachings and who are willing to make a case for alternatives.

Another problem is the absence of similar criticism of conservative Catholics - why is it that only liberals get saddled with the label "Cafeteria Catholics"? The fact of the matter is, there were any number of Catholics who supported America's invasion of Iraq, even though the Vatican condemned it. Once again, this is arguably a case where a person can disagree with the Vatican and still remain good Catholic, even if they actively participated in or promoted the war, but why weren't any pro-war statements from conservative Catholics included alongside critical statements of liberal Catholics?

Now, Chris Burgwald may have opposed the invasion so this last comment doesn't necessarily apply to him: why do some conservative Catholics think that it is acceptable for them to reject Vatican teachings on certain things (like war or social services) but wrong for liberals to reject Vatican teachings on other things (like abortion or sexuality)? As far as I can tell, both are doing the same thing, which is to make independent decisions about which teachings their consciences allow them to follow.

If it's legitimate for one group, it's legitime for the other - and the Roman Catholic Church will never progress at all unless some people are questioning what is being taught at any given time. People can legitimately argue about how well any given teaching can be criticized, but it's not very sound to argue that criticism and disagreement should be dispensed with entirely.

Read More:

• Roman Catholicism
• Catholicism & Homosexuality