"I think I’m probably a ‘Cafeteria Catholic.’”

Maria Shriver, a West Coast Kennedy, shocks the world. Or not.

“I don’t believe that if someone’s divorced they shouldn’t get Communion; I don’t believe that people who are gay shouldn’t be accepted into the Church… I’m pro-choice, I believe women should have that right.” She also said “women should have a larger role in the Catholic Church.”

What she does like about Catholicism, said Shriver, are its teachings on “compassion” and “social justice.”

And what I like about Oregon are the lush forests, the green fields, and the many rivers and streams. I just can't stand the rain. I believe someone should do something about the constant precipitation...

Comments

[Mulder]

Yawn. Why don't they ask more real Catholics what they thing about things?

[Roberta Young]

Oh, there's no question she's a "cafeteria Catholic". The real question is whether Cafeteria Catholics can accurately be described as Catholics at all. Would the Early Church recognize her as one? Does she have any idea why the Church teaches what it teaches. That it's not the personal opinion of a bunch of elderly men.

[Simcha]

Nice. It's like the folks who shake their heads and ask why I'm so strict with my kids, since they're so well-behaved. . .

[Francis Beckwith]

all dessert; no entree.

[Todd]

I hardly think that the Eucharist should be referred to as a "dessert."

That said, there is an Orthodox tradition for handling divorce and remarriage; the Church certainly accepts SSA men and women; and the gifts and abilities of women should be harnessed more fruitfully for the spread of the Gospel.

Her statement on choice is troubling and wrong, but three sound statements aren't sunk by a lack of theological finesse or an error on abortion.

[Terentia]

I agree, she is a cafeteria Catholic but she's not totally wrong about divorced people. A person who obtains a civil divorce and then lives chastely, is allowed to receive the Sacrements. The operative condition is living chastely.

[Ed S]

It may be the hour, but I don't know who SSA man and women are.

[Carl Olson]

I think it is obvious that her reference to woman having a "larger role" is aimed at the ordination of women. After all, the vast majority of jobs in parishes and chancellories are held by women.

Her statement on choice is troubling and wrong, but three sound statements aren't sunk by a lack of theological finesse or an error on abortion.

Good one, Todd. I almost thought you were serious for a moment.

[Carl Olson]

Ed: I'm fairly certain it is "same sex attraction." Or "social security advocate." Or possibly "salivating salamander activist."

[Ed S]

Thanks Carl. Maybe I should take up texting to increase my vocabulary of acronyms and initialisms. Someday my grandchildren will use an "old English dictionary" to look up the words of my birthday greetings to them.

[Todd]

"I think it is obvious that her reference to woman having a 'larger role' is aimed at the ordination of women."

Lacking an explicit statement as such, I would take her words at face value--really all we can do in light of CCC 2478.

That said, there's nothing in Christ's establishment of Holy Orders that precludes women from serving as heads of curial departments, or even as cardinals. That's an extreme example, granted, but not outside the realm of orthodoxy. In reality, greater openness and shared discernment on the parish level would be more than satisfactory to many lay people.

I'm not sure the attempt at humor plays well on grave moral matters. The Eucharist as a "dessert?" That's not a helpful image. One of the problems with some conservatives is that they just can't decide when to get serious.

[Carl Olson]

One of the problems with some conservatives is that they just can't decide when to get serious.

Interpretation: "One of my problems with conservatives is that they don't take me seriously."

[Carl Olson]

The 2008 "WE Empower" conference—aka, the "Women to Be Architects of Change Conference"—under the direction of Maria Shriver, featured Joan Chittister as a speaker. 'Nuf said.

[Todd]

More apt is that humor, thought out by oneself at the computer console, often translates with awkwardness in the non-vocal medium of the internet. The problem isn't that many conservatives don't take people seriously, Carl, but that some have lost the ability to have a meaningful and civil conversation. Ask yourself: would saints be so dismissive of other believers? Many Catholics have developed varied approaches to theology, ministry, and the spiritual life. Can we really imagine Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, and others indulging in cat fights about prudential particulars? Yet that is exactly what the internet often engenders.

Pope Benedict often urges believers to look to saints as models of conduct, especially in the striving toward holiness. Personally, I care little for the particulars of what Maria Shriver says. But the critique and snickering at her (perhaps naive) theological expression strikes me as little better than gossip. Isn't it just gossip in a new medium? She's out of "earshot," as it were. Carl, you post on an offhand comment she made and invite others to join in detraction. Is this the kind of holiness the pope would encourage? Today is the feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin. Wouldn't this site improve by reflecting on the Biblical words of Mary or a saintly commentary on the feast? Why is it as important to note another believer's stumble and make humor at her expense?

[Carl Olson]

Thank you, Todd, for the words of exhortation. I hope you're not offended that I found my time at Divine Liturgy this morning far more edifying than your condescending little sermon.

Ask yourself: would saints be so dismissive of other believers?

A straw man, as usual. I'm not dismissive of Ms. Shriver; I'm critical of her approach to Catholic doctrine and her insistence that she is a devout Catholic who, in her own words, is not worried about "squaring" her beliefs with the "institutional Church". Those comments, btw, can be found in the 14 minute video interview conducted by Washington Post. The fact is, there are plenty of instances of saints criticizing one another (St. Jerome and St. Augustine, etc.), and many instances of saints criticizing other believers (St. Catherine of Sienna and Pope Gregory X, etc.). Proper criticism is not a sin; on the contrary, three of the spiritual works of mercy are to instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, and to admonish sinners.

Many Catholics have developed varied approaches to theology, ministry, and the spiritual life.

Wow, another straw man! Ms. Shriver supports abortion, dismisses the "institutional Church," happily identifies herself as a "cafeteria Catholic," praises Joan Chittister (on three occasions, no less), and strongly implies her support of women's ordination. This is not a "varied approach," but the talk of a Catholic dissenting from Church doctrine. Big difference.

Yet that is exactly what the internet often engenders.

It also seems to engender a lot of straw men. It's amazing to me that my hay fever isn't overwhelming me at the moment.

Pope Benedict often urges believers to look to saints as models of conduct, especially in the striving toward holiness.

Really? Who is this ... Pope Benedict? Oh, that's right, he's the guy I've been reading for some fifteen years and who is my favorite living theologian and whose works are published by Ignatius Press, who I work for. By the way, I really admire St. Jerome and St. Thomas More, especially because they knew that it was alright to use sarcasm when necessary.

Isn't it just gossip in a new medium?

No. Gossip is usually defined as "idle talk or rumor." The post we are arguing about quoted, in part, remarks made in a public interview by Ms. Shriver. They were about serious matters and reflected a dangerous, if common, perspective: you can be a good Catholic without embracing all of Catholic dogma and doctrine. There is no rumor involved. You appear, I take it, to be referring to my belief that Ms. Shriver is in favor of the ordination of woman. Having now watched the full interview, I would bet good money that she is indeed a supporter of women's ordination. For example, when she is specifically asked about being a woman in a Church that doesn't allow women to be priests, her first remark is: "Well, I have a dispute with a lot in the Catholic Church..." She then specifically praises the work of Joan Chittister, who is, as noted before, a strong and public supporter of women's ordination (not to mention being a dissenter on many other issues). Sounds like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck....

Carl, you post on an offhand comment she made and invite others to join in detraction.

I'm drowning in bales of straw here! Those "offhand" comments were part of an interview given to support and publicize the conference she heads, which is aimed at "empowering" women and encouraging women to explore more deeply their spiritual beliefs. My comments were not in any way about disparaging Ms. Shriver, but criticizing her publicly stated beliefs. If you can't tell the difference, I encourage you to refrain from posting your own disparaging remarks. How strange is it that you have more of an issue with me criticizing Ms. Shriver's comments than with her own comments, as if "gossip" is somehow worse than publicly supporting abortion!

Wouldn't this site improve by reflecting on the Biblical words of Mary or a saintly commentary on the feast?

Uh, last night I posted two posts about today's feast: here and here.

Why is it as important to note another believer's stumble and make humor at her expense?

Ms. Shriver: "I'm pro-choice." Todd: "That's a stumble." Good to know. Are there any saints who refer to the support of abortion by a Catholic as a "stumble"? Just curious.

[T]

Dear Mr. Olson, I just wanted to say you are one of the rare bloggers who writes deep comments that have fine irony without insulting anyone, at least from what I've been reading on this blog.

I wouldn't have commented, but I saw that you had to spend your time defending yourself from baseless accusations, so this is just a small note of support.

[Todd]

"I'm drowning in bales of straw here!"

Interpretation: It's easier to minimize the argument and malign the person than engage the observation.

[Carl Olson]

Todd: http://tinyurl.com/2mbujn

[jack]

Rose Kennedy turning in her grave...

[Karen Hall]

A couple of years ago when I was in Spain, being driven through the countryside by a friend-of-a-friend who spoke no English, he started to explain to me that he was Catholic. This being Spain, I didn't think that was much of a newsflash. But he kept on and on, explaining that he was a PRACTICING Catholic, not like the other Catholics. I was starting to think he was a kook when I finally realized what he was telling me: I'm a Catholic who goes to Mass and believes what the Church teaches, unlike all the other people in my country who call themselves Catholic yet don't do either.

I think we need to come up with a new term for ACTUAL Catholics, since the pseudo Catholics are not going to relinquish their grip on the lie that they are us.

[Todd]

Carl, cute one.

"I think we need to come up with a new term for ACTUAL Catholics, since the pseudo Catholics are not going to relinquish their grip on the lie that they are us."

Pharisees?

Seriously, one would think the lived witness of "actual" Catholics would shine through.

[Mark Brumley]

Seriously, one would think the lived witness of "actual" Catholics would shine through.

It might if so many other kinds of Catholic would get out of the way.

It would help if we distinguished Catholics committed to the Church's teaching on the basis of a supernatural motive, from Catholics who either (1) accept Catholicism as a sort of philosophy of life or what they were raised on (nonsupernatural motive) or (2) don't accept it but pick and choose what they will affirm (dissent).

Also, we should distinguish defects of faith from other kinds of defects.

[Martha]

I think that if they don't believe ALL that the magisterium of the Church teaches WHY BOTHER being catholic???? I'm trying to get an annulment to become catholic and people like Maria Shriver pay minimal lip service to the church and it's teachings. She might as well leave the church and join the unitarians.

[Karl]

"That said, there is an Orthodox tradition for handling divorce and remarriage"

Yes, it is called ADULTERY.

It is what the Catholic Church bends over backwards for to give out, fraudulent annulments, as they cheapen marriage and insult those of us who sacrifice to live by our vows. The Church works to find ever more "clever" ways to package ADULTERY.

The Orthodox are simply more honest about it, but it is still ADULTERY!

A Former Catholic over ADULTERY!