From Cafeteria to Google Catholic

Dear Theophilous,

I think we’ve all heard of the term Cafeteria Catholic; referring to the kind of person who picks and chooses which Church teachings to follow and ignoring the ones they’d rather do without. The term comes from the same kind of whimsical approach most of us take when getting lunch at the cafeteria; perhaps choosing the daily special over the cellophane wrapped sandwich, or maybe this time we’ll take the red Jell-O instead of the green.

The sad thing is, we all probably know of at least one Cafeteria Catholic. There’s Uncle Fred who likes to take his Eucharist without the obligatory side of yearly confession. Or maybe there’s your pew neighbour who’s there every week, she coos at the babies being baptized and loves Pope Francis, but she also thinks a woman should have the right to choose abortion.

Unfortunately, when we try to show these folks that Catholicism is a smorgasbord rather than a cafeteria, where every last teaching is to be not only eaten, but also savoured, we’re usually shouted down for trying to force-feed them.

Recently, however, I’ve noticed an even more disturbing trend when it comes to Catholic teaching; something I would like to call Google Catholicism.

Let me explain…

My brother-in-law is in the last year of his radiology residency. Like all doctors, although his speciality is radiology, during his residency he has had to do stints in all areas of medicine from paediatrics to gerontology and everything in between. Early on in his residency he spent some time in the ER of a major downtown hospital. When I asked him about this experience, he said the worst part was that most patients that came in had already self-diagnosed from the internet, and that they were telling him the treatment he was supposed to prescribe. It seems that 30 seconds on Google supersedes 12+ years (at that particular moment) of university education.

A parallel can be extended to the Catholic Church. Pope Francis, himself, even likened “the Church as a field hospital after battle.”

From having watched and meditated upon the goings-on at the recent Synod on the Family; it’s left me wondering if the Church is a field hospital where the patients, and in some cases even the nurses, are telling the surgeons what treatments to prescribe. Those who were once Cafeteria Catholics, who picked and chose which teachings of the Church to follow to suit their needs, have now become Google Catholics, telling the Church which teachings to change to suit their needs.

The biggest hullabaloo seemed to centre on the question of Communion for divorced and re-married Catholics. Although there is a recognition of a state of sin (cf Mt 19:3-8; Mk 10:2-9 and Lk 16:18), the proponents of this practice, and others, seem intent on flying in the face of Christ’s teachings. The Magisterium is right in saying that there are simply some teachings that cannot be changed, because they come from Christ Himself; yet there are still some, both inside and outside the Church, who insist they know better.

On this matter, as well as any other (especially homosexuality), the pat argument of the Google Catholic is to trot out the ubiquitous Pope Francis quote: “Who am I to judge?” Although correct in that we do not have the right of final judgement on a person’s soul, we do have a responsibility to judge each other’s actions so as to best help one another present the best case possible when it comes to our final judgement. Added to this problem is the fact that this quote is usually wildly misused, misunderstood and presented out of context. Pope Francis himself recently explained: "On that occasion I said this: If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" (cited in New Catholic Reporter) In this statement there is a notion of love for a sinner seeking mercy; a seeking out of the Lord and a willingness to follow in His ways of repentance.

Just as there is an inherent danger to our physical health when we self-diagnose and self-prescribe off the internet without the foundation of a sound medical education, so too is there an inherent danger to our spiritual health when we self-diagnose and self-prescribe for our sins. Being a Google Catholic can be great, if you allow it to open the doors to the smorgasbord of Catholic teaching. However, if you insist on being a Google Catholic to put yourself ahead of Christ and the 2000+ year cumulative teachings of the Church He founded – then you’re playing with fire.

Imitating Christ by Meeting our Dominical Obligation



Dear Theophilus, 

This past weekend I was going through my notebook from the Catholic teacher education course I took last summer when I came across a quote from one of the instructors I had written down: 

No where in the Bible does Jesus say to us that we must go to Mass every Sunday or go to confession at least once a year. 

This is a very bold statement with even bolder implications, especially when given by a person with some academic authority in front of a room of impressionable young teachers. I distinctly remember twitching in my seat, but at the time I had no way of countering this statement. To be honest, when I racked my brain, I couldn’t find an answer that could have suitably swayed the argument towards an acceptance of our dominical obligation. 

That was, until my pastor made a very profound observation on the Gospel during his homily this past weekend. 

The Gospel story from Luke is a well known one. It recounts Jesus’ return to Nazareth at the start of his ministry, as the people are beginning to learn of his teaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee. It wasn’t Jesus’ reading from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah and his subsequent announcement that he is the Christ foretold by the prophet that struck me as Father expounded the Gospel in his homily. Instead, it was Father pointing out the significance of a seemingly insignificant line that caught my attention: 

When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. (Lk 4:16) 

As was his custom. In other words, Jesus was in the habit of keeping the Fourth Commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. (cf. Ex 20:8) Although he is the Christ, himself, the living Temple of the Lord our God, Jesus, in the humbleness of his humanity, did the Father’s will and went to synagogue on Saturday (or, as a Christian equivalent, he went to church on Sunday). 

As the saying goes – actions speak louder than words; and through his actions, Christ was telling us that we need to meet our dominical obligation to deepen our relationship with him by becoming an imitation of him. 

As the beautiful expression of St. Augustine states: “Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Our entire existence is one that is meant to bring us back to the Lord. What more beautiful way is there to bring restfulness to our hearts, than by becoming one with the Lord in thought and action. 

Although Christ never commanded us: Thou shalt go to Mass on Sunday, he definitely showed us by example that we should. Since he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom; then we too should make it our custom to go to church on the Sabbath day.

What is Full and Active Participation in the Liturgy?



Dear Theophilus,

Lately I’ve come to enjoy reading The Eye of the Tiber. This light-hearted blog takes a look at some of the more un-Catholic activities that seem to bubble to the surface from time to time in the Catholic Church. Some might find The Eye of the Tiber to be a bit churlish, and others a bit childish, but I find it’s in putting things into the silly extreme that we can put them into their proper perspective.

In a recent post The Eye of the Tiber, tongue firmly planted in cheek, told of how a congregation rushed forward to the bewilderment of a visiting priest to participate in the consecration of the Eucharist. Apparently, to be able to participate fully and actively in the liturgy, members of this fictional parish encircle the altar during the Eucharistic prayer, stretching out their hands over the bread and wine at the moment of consecration as though they are concelebrating with the priest.

Unfortunately, many people perceive this as the only way to participate fully and actively in the Mass – by being directly involved in every moment. I’ve heard people complain that only the priest and a few of his favourites “do everything” at Mass while everybody else just sits there and watches. This is often accompanied with head scratching and the puzzled query: Wasn’t Vatican II supposed to change all of this?

In short, Yes – The Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) does call the faithful to become full and active participants in the liturgy by stating:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. (SC 14)

And

With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example. (SC 19)

And this did open the door to more lay participation in the Mass, most notably in the roles of lector and extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. The problem, however, is that many people seemed to have stopped reading the document at this point, interpreting Sacrosanctum Concilium to mean that the laity would be welcome to take over the roles reserved by sacred scripture and tradition for the clergy.

Reading a little further we recall that, as the Church, we are called to be the body of Christ on earth, and that, in the same way that our temporal bodies are made of many parts, each with its unique function, it is the same with the spiritual body of Christ – the Catholic Church. We are all unique, individual parts of the body of Christ – each with our own special function (vocation) within the Church. Just as our toes cannot perform the same function as our mouths, nor our lungs as our stomachs or brains; a lector is not called to perform the role of a cantor; nor an usher that of a priest, bishop or pope. Everybody has an indispensible role to play in the proper functioning of the Church, and each needs to participate fully and actively in their role for the Catholic Church to fulfill its mission of bringing God’s Word to the world.

The bishops of Vatican II recognized this when they continued to state in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the "sacrament of unity," namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.
Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation. (SC 26)

Followed more importantly by:

In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy. (SC 28)

I think this second paragraph from Sacrosanctum Concilium is probably the most important (and the most looked over). It distinctly states that everyone must participate as far as their office (role) in the liturgy calls for. In other words, it’s perfectly fine to be a simple member of the congregation, as long as we participate fully and actively as a member of the congregation, engaging ourselves by listening attentively to the Word of God, responding to the common prayers and allowing God to engage in us through his Son, Jesus Christ, in the Eucharist.

It’s when we worry too much about fulfilling the offices of others in the Mass as opposed to those that pertain to our office or rank that the wheels seem to fall off and the Mass and its participants no longer resemble themselves.

Why I Can't Change the Church... nor would I



Dear Theophilus,

During a course on sacred scripture this summer, the course instructor started the class with a very interesting ice-breaker activity. “If you were Pope,” he asked, “what is the one thing you would change in the Catholic Church today?” The majority of answers were of either the gay marriage or women priests variety. When it came to my turn, I mumbled something about a return to a greater understanding of the sacred in the liturgy.

With hindsight, I think I would answer that question a lot differently if I were asked it today. I would answer it with a string of questions:

Do you attend Mass regularly?

If the answer is yes , then I would follow it up with this next question (if ever the reply were negative, then I would just jump to my final question):

Do you recite the Apostles’ Creed with the rest of the Congregation?

Then, do you believe with the conviction of your whole heart that what you are saying is true?

I would then get into the nitty-gritty:

So then, you believe in ‘One holy catholic and apostolic Church’?

Taking this sentence of the Creed apart, I would then want to discuss the nature of apostolic succession; that Christ entrusted the earthly Church to St. Peter (Mt 16:18), as well as the notion that the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide the Apostles and their successors until Christ’s return (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, Acts 1:21-26, and 1 Tim 1:6, 4:14 and 5:22). Even more importantly, I would want to bring to light the notion of the definition of catholic (which you can read about here).

Coming to an understanding that Catholicism permeates Creation in its entirety, I would then feel compelled to ask:

So then, do you believe in ‘God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth’?

I’d ask this because, if you feel the Catholic Church can (and ergo should) be changed, then you must also then be calling into question the Creator, He who put the earthly Church into place. If you cannot believe in His Church, then how can you also claim to believe in a God that is Almighty?

The final question I would ask this person to reflect upon would be this:

If you cannot believe in ‘One holy catholic and apostolic Church’, since you feel it needs to be fundamentally changed; then how can you, in good conscience, teach in a catholic school or provide professional development for catholic teachers?

As for myself, when it comes to the doctrines of the Catholic Church – I wouldn’t change a thing.

Michael Coren - Debunking Lies about Christianity



Dear Theophilus,

When I first set out on the journey of writing this blog, one of my goals was to comment about the books I’m reading as I finish them. This is something that I realize that I’ve completely dropped the ball on. Much like the chain smoker that lights a new cigarette from the dying ember of the one before it, I usually find myself racing through the end of one book so I can get to the next one. I know this is no way to enjoy the delicate tastes a book has to offer, but there is so much out there to be read that I feel compelled to get through as much as possible. This said, I’ve already gone through a number of books since I started this blog last November and I’ve hardly mentioned any of them.

Today is the first day of changing all that, and I hope to make a habit of sharing the new insights I’ve learned while they are still fresh in my mind. So I want to share my thoughts on Michael Coren’s latest book: Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity. I mentioned this book in an earlier post, but feel it deserves the attention of a post all of its own.

Having read Coren’s previous book, Why Catholics are Right, and finding it not only a wonderful insight into Catholic teaching, but also a great defence of the Catholic Church today, I was anxious to read what Coren had to say in the defence of Christianity.

Before going any further, however, one needs to note that Michael Coren makes no bones about being an Orthodox Catholic, and he certainly won’t apologize for it. So, while what he says might seem abrupt to some more liberal minded readers, it needs to be said and leaves the reader with a better understanding of Christian and Catholic teaching.

In his introduction, Coren discusses how Christianity has become the last, great whipping boy in the public arena of modern western society. He notes that if much of what is said about Christianity were to be expressed about other religious groups – Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. – there would be much hew and cry for the speaker’s head in today’s politically correct culture; and rightfully so. In Heresy Coren gives the everyday Christian the answers needed to defend the faith against the most common arguments made against it. The following is a list of chapters from the book:

1. Jesus Didn’t Exist
2. There is No God: Bad Things Happen to Good People
3. The Da Vinci Code
4. All the Clever People are Atheists
5. Hitler was a Christian
6. Christians and Christianity Supported Slavery
7. Christians are Opposed to Science
8. Christians Oppose Progress and Change
9. Christians are Obsessed with Abortion
10. What Else can we Throw at Christianity

To give a sampling of what you’ll find in Coren’s book, I’ll give an extremely brief synopsis of chapters 3 and 7.

Coren does well to debunk the modern myths that have developed from Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code. I’ve always held that this novel was a good piece of fiction, but it should always be taken as that – a piece of fiction. According to Coren, this is the greatest problem with what Dan Brown writes; that most people take it as the truth (especially since Brown begins the novel by stating that his story is based completely on actual truth). Coren then goes on to correct most of Dan Brown’s lies, citing authoritative and academic works on subjects such as Opus Dei.

In the chapter concerning Christianity being opposed to science, Coren takes full aim at the perennial argument that Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church, must be against science because the Pope had Galileo locked up for claiming the earth revolved around the sun. As a matter of fact Coren points out that this theory was first proposed by Copernicus, a Catholic priest, and championed by another Catholic cleric, Kepler. Galileo’s crime was to use the theory to directly challenge sacred scripture and to infer that the Pope was a simpleton – two ideas that he refused to retract – making it not the scientific idea, but rather the way that Galileo went about his business that landed him under house arrest.

What I like best about Coren’s latest book is that he tackles these questions from a non-denominational Christian perspective. Unlike his previous book, Why Catholics are Right, Coren sets out to defend Christian teaching throughout history – the majority of which just happens to be Catholic. Reading Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity will provide any Christian with more than enough ammunition the next time an armchair atheist tries to shout them down at their local pub.

On Heretics and Heresy...



Dear Theophilus,

As I mentioned in my last post, I am taking my Religious Education part 2 course to add to my qualifications as a catholic teacher. As promised by my friend, colleague and course director, many of the twenty some-odd students in the class are at varying points along the way of their spiritual journey.

Many of my classmates are posing some very good and thought provoking questions on Catholic Church teachings. I think much of what they’re asking about comes from the perception of Church teachings presented in the media; the two most frequent questions turning around homosexuality and the ordination of women.

It’s good to ask questions. That’s how we learn. The course instructor even went so far as to state that over the millennia Church doctrine has evolved and formed through the discussion of heresy. In fact, in the Early Church, it was the discussion of heresies that drove the first councils of bishops and led to the clear expression of doctrines such as the Nicene Creed (Council of Nicaea 325) and Mary as the Mother of God (Theotokos – Council of Ephesus 431). It’s too bad, however, that the instructor left it at that, and did not delve into answering the questions at hand.

The idea that did resurface, time and again, through our discussion, was a questioning of why the Church excludes and judges those that go against its teachings. Both Fr. Robert Barron and Michael Coren offer fantastic insights as to how the Catholic Church deals with heresies and heretics.

Both start from the accepted definition of heresy: “An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.” From here, what both Fr. Barron and Coren proclaim is that the Catholic Church has no problem accepting heretics into the fold; it is rather their heretical ideas that cause the problem. Michael Coren goes further in writing that it is not the Catholic Church that excommunicates heretics, but that they excommunicate themselves (Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity) and that the Catholic Church plainly states its ideals and teachings, and if you don’t like them, you are painfully free to go (Why Catholics are Right). Both of Coren’s books are excellent resources to help Catholics and Christians to answer the questions others will have as they search out their faith.

Recently, Fr. Barron posted his thoughts on heresy on his website, www.wordonfire.org. Fr. Barron reiterates that we need to love the heretic while being wary of their heretical ideas. In his talk, Fr. Barron explains how trying to tell the Catholic Church to change its teachings is tantamount to telling another person of free will what they can and cannot believe. Fr. Barron goes on to use a great parallel – that telling the Catholic Church to accept uncatholic teachings would be like asking the United States Golf Association to start building baseball diamonds. Not that there is anything wrong with baseball, it’s just not the stated purpose of the USGA.

What we need to do is to educate ourselves. Ask the hard questions of faith and Catholic teachings, and then find out why they exist. Once we’ve educated ourselves, we can lovingly teach our neighbour, helping them along their own faith journey.