Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. In regard's to Rick Santorum's overt cafeteria Catholicsm: Heaven fobid that the American hierarchy takes him to ask having shown themselves so utterly politically aligned in this and past election campaigns.
   Similar expressions of cafeteria Catholicsm are also endorsed here in Australia by senior members of the hierarchy.
   I guess it depends on what side of the political line the politician is on so to incur the wrath of particular hierarchy here.
   The American hierarchy in the near past has demanded that candidates such as Senator Kerry be denied the Eucharist for not opposing abortion, but so far not a raised eye-brow at Santorum who endorses other forms of killing (and a raft of suppressions of civil rights).
   What can the American church hope to gain from such double standards and covert poliiticking?
   Is such as Santorum the best exemplar of the preferred type of Catholicsm in America (and elsewhere) or does the covert support of him represent how dire the situation for American/Western Catholicism really is?

   Posted By: Mark Johnson

2. Thank you, Michael, for a most apposite selection and exposition, which lights the way through a mish-mash of opinions on the gay marriage issue.
   Sad indeed that so many Catholics are blinded and unprepared, as adults, to conscientiously concede the validity of a mixed response on such a complex issue, while preferring instead to impose Church teaching on a diverse polity with alternative but equally valid ethical reasons for their position.
   Mark Johnson also hits the nail on the head in his closing remark: note the close affinity and endorsement through their silence of Tony Abbott and his politics by the hierarchy, privileging bio-ethical and sexual morality issues over social justice ones.
   What, indeed, of this sell-out to Church teaching or is this just 'prudential'? Whatever happened to the 'two sides of Christ's Seamless Shroud'?

   Posted By: Michael Furtado

3. The term cafeteria Catholicism is meant as an insult, but in fact it represents something deserving of a complment - when it's not otherwise a misconceived metaphor.
   A cafeteria presents an array of meals from which to choose. No-one expects a person to pile everything on his or her plate and it would seem somewhat gross to do so!
   On the other hand, a cafeteria is a place of choice and selection, and these imply some process of discerment and rational discrimination. To say of a person that he or she is a 'cafeteria x' is really an acknowledgment that they are thinking about what they choose and reject. The same may not be always so readily apparent of a person who accepts holus-bolus everything in the Catechism or everything their bishop says.
   This latter approach is of course premissed on a foundational argument that goes 'Catholicism consists only of what the Pope and bishops pronounce that conforms to their predecessors; therefore a Catholic must accept what they say without question'.
   As we see, though, even this conformist approach cannot avoid disputes beween riival conformists, as to both content and degree!
   We can certainly disagree with choices made by others, Santorum and Keneally alike, but to do so with integrity we have to make discriminating choices of our own.
   It is hard to escape the conclusion that if you are not a cafeteria Catholic (of some sort), you are either, at best, truly docile, or at worst, effectively dumb.

   Posted By: smk

4. Since when is disagreeing with the fallible US Bishops about capital punishment an instance of cafeteria Catholicism?
   The CCC says at 2267: 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.
   Ditto re. the war in Afghanistan and Iraq - a prudential matter on which, for the record, I am in some sympathy with the US Bishops.
   I'm really confused: aren't liberals supposed to be against 'creeping infallibility'?

   Posted By: HH

5. HH: If we must stick to the letter of the law...
   a
   Are you saying that those currently on death row and all of those killed by the state in the US, and in wars away from the US, have had their responsibility 'fully determined'?
   Especially when we know this not to be the case.
   So then why is Rick Santorum's support for such killing of those not deemed fully responsible not challenged by the usual politically aligned hierarchy?

   Posted By: Mark Johnson

6. MJ: re 'Rick Santorum's support for such killing of those not deemed fully responsible.'
   Well, if Santorum supports the execution of individuals not deemed fully responsible, he's clearly against perennial Church teaching.
   That's a very serious charge.
   Can you cite evidence that Santorum unambiguously supports the killing of a specific individual deemed not fully responsible - as opposed to the death penalty in the U.S. in principle?
   I just note he said this in 2005: “I felt very troubled about cases where someone may have been convicted wrongly. DNA evidence definitely should be used when possible. I agree with the pope that in the civilized world ... the application of the death penalty should be limited. I would definitely agree with that. I would certainly suggest there probably should be some further limits on what we use it for.”
   And in January this year he said: When there is certainty, that's the case that capital punishment can be used. If there is not certainty, under the law, it shouldn't be used.

   Posted By: HH

7. HH: There are two directions to which Santorum's willingnes to allow those not deemed fully responsible to die flows: firstly in regards to US wars abroad.
   For example, Santorum's stance in regards to Iraq, has been to defend the invasion and loss of life because of his belief that Iraq was a threat to the US (despite evidence to the contrary).
   Knowledge of Iraq being such a threat, and the mistake made about its supposed weapons of mass destruction, has been debunked yet Santorum has never resiled from his support of such an invasion and the disatrous loss of life.
   Note also Pope John Paul's opposition to such an invasion.
   In regards to his stance on the death penalty, his ambiguous current words are one matter, but his actions are another, in which case he voted in 1994 against replacing the death penalty with life sentencing, and has since supported limiting death penalty appeals that death row inamtes could use so to challenge their convictions and sentences.
   There have been no words of regret for such support, despite American bishops recently moving towards support of eradication of the death penalty.
   If Rick Santorum now argues (possibly to catch up to what the bishops are now saying) for the need for certainty in regards to state sanctioned killing, is he saying that this isnt the case now? And therefore such killing should cease until there is certainty? Or is he advocating the status quo?

   Posted By: Mark Johnson

8. Since this Blogwatch, Kate of Igcognita and friends have worked themselves into a lather over putting not only Kristina Keneally's feet to the fire but a whole raft of reprobates who should be cast out of the Church.
   Zeal for the House of Incognita is currently spiking to an all time high.
   Not only that, but Kate has produced the definitive blue print for a thoroughly purified and renewed Catholic Church.
   One has only to do the 'fire walk' across to her website and inspect Kate's plan for the few Catholics left who might pass muster.
   The eschatological vision is found under the title, 'What to Do?'
   Kate's got the answers. But more about this soon.

   Posted By: David Timbs

9. MJ:
   1. a. Put in the worst possible light, even if Santorum hasn't admitted he was wrong about Iraq and WMDs, this doesn't amount to a declaration from him that he supported the killing of innocent civilians in the war.
   Suppose my wish had come true and there had been no invasion. I foresaw that Saddam would have killed more innocents, as was his wont. So am I (and, arguably JPII) to be condemned as supporting such killings because I/we foresaw them?
   b. I know JPII was against the invasion. I agreed with him in this. But his viewpoint wasn't an ex cathedra, binding on all Catholics, ruling, surely ... or are we into galloping infallibility?
   2. Of course Santorum opposed repealing the death penalty; he supports it!
   And so what if most of the US Bishops oppose it - they do not constitute the infallible magisterium, do they?
   As for the fact that sometimes innocents are killed as a result of uncertainties surrounding guilt, how does this prove Santorum supports that happening, any more than those who oppose the death penalty can be said to support the documented killing and maiming, by several of those reprieved by a lifting of the death penalty, of fellow prisoners, guards, and others?

   Posted By: HH

10. Kristina Keneally said: I do not accept the Church’s view that sexual activity must always be for the
    purposes of conception and procreation.
    How she reconciles this statement above with Humanae vitae 15 is anyone's guess: On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from — provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.
    Perhaps KK was absent for the lecture about the moral chasm between foresight and intention?

    Posted By: HH

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. CathBlog - How to be a saint

   My childhood was spent in the midst of the communion of saints. Much as I loved my household saints and enjoyed lighting candles to them and asking for their intercession in the more difficult moments of my life, becoming one was not a viable option, writes Elizabeth McKenzie.

2. CathBlog - People divided by a common faith

   During the past couple of weeks or so, I have watched one blogger earnestly and daily call for the reform of CathNews... not only the content, but in particular the comments which are published. The level of response from the readership there has been violently underwhelming, asks Christine Hogan.

3. CathBlog - Getting brand Vatican 'on message'

   Recently the Vatican Press Office hired former FoxNews correspondent Greg Burke. He is needed to provide professional advice and expertise in the face of unprecedented criticism of the Office’s uneven performance and suspect credibility. His immediate focus is educating his employers in the power of modern information technology and public perceptions about the credibility factor, writes David Timbs.

4. CathBlog - The window Vatican II opened

   Vatican II was like a cool change after three or four Melbourne days in the high 30s. With dawning clarity I listened to the disquiet I was experiencing living in religious life and realised that there were other ways open to me to live out my baptismal call, writes Judith Lynch.

5. CathBlog - CN off to the Promised and Holy lands

   Every journey starts with a single step… and the first step in CathNews’ first pilgrimage was taken almost three years ago now. So, having got our travellers on board, and organised the skeleton plan of where we would go, it came time in the last month or so to fine tune what our pilgrims would see and do. I am looking forward to the whole trip – and it leaves three weeks from this Saturday, writes Christine Hogan.