I found this article over at Religion Dispatches about how conservatives Catholics are cafeteria Catholics in their own way:
“Cafeteria Catholics” is a term often used by conservatives to describe members of the church who are not in alignment with Church teaching on every issue. Using this term, conservatives claim that liberals are too willing to pick and choose which teachings they will follow. But conservatives overlook the reality that the Catholic Church has a very liberal social teaching that places the dignity of the person at its core. This influences the way the Church teaches about aid to the poor, economic justice within taxation systems, and universal health care. Since the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, the Church has formally taught that a social approach to health care was necessary to ensure equal access for all. The burden of providing health care to everyone belonged to the society at large. Catholic Social Ethics has further developed this notion since the Council and consistently articulated support for universal health care within society.
Catholic Bishops in the United States, however, have opposed universal health care out of fear that abortion will be included in whatever bill that Congress might pass. Instead of proudly stating the Catholic tradition on universal health care and then demanding that abortion be excluded from public option benefits, the Catholic bishops have started from a place of opposition and, in so doing, failed to uphold a core social teaching of the Church.
Catholic bishops in this country have shown that they are only willing to speak out politically in support of deeply conservative causes associated with the culture wars (i.e., abortion and same-sex relationships). They are not willing to stand up for the liberal principles that have shaped the Church’s official teaching and the work of its theologians. In other words, the bishops are picking and choosing at the cafeteria of Church teaching and behaving like right-wing political ideologues.
The call to serve the sick is found in the New Testament teaching of Jesus. The Gospel is clear on the topic of health care when it states, “From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs.” The principle of the Common Good means that merit is not a factor in health care. Followers of Jesus are called to defend the needy, not ignore them.
Read more on conservative cafeteria catholics
posted September 4, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Great article. The focus on the call to for equality,dignity and care of every person, especially the downtrodden and poor, has been non-existent. Especially given the fact that abortions and women seeking abortions has a strong economic component….that properly and adequately dealt with in this country—instead of relentless and ultimately pointless rhetoric— would do so much to reduce abortion.
posted September 5, 2009 at 10:04 am
The last tiem I checked, Church doctrine was very clear on the matter of the death penalty too
posted September 5, 2009 at 10:08 am
Of course every person and every religious leader in history has made personal choices of which traditions to uphold, reform, neglect, or reject. When people criticize “cafeteria believers,” they are just complaining that other people chose different foods.
posted September 5, 2009 at 11:21 am
This article looks at the right issues, but in the wrong way. Social teaching has been a large part of Church teaching for nearly 2000 years. This is definitely true. But, there are certain principles that are primary. Life is one of these principles. With the track record of the current administration in regards to life issues, it would be extremely dangerous to jump on board a health care overall without first having life (in all its stages) protected. To do so would be a kin to jumping off a cliff, THEN trying to figure out how to fly.
posted September 5, 2009 at 11:27 am
It seems Mr. Paul Raushenbush may not be aware that conservative congress members attempted to put an abortion prohibition in the universal healthcare proposal. And that he may be a little nieve in not understanding that the ultimate liberal goal may be to have abortion included in the plan. When one “let’s the camal get his nose under the tent, he will soon have a camal living with him.” Okay, I butchered the qoute but I think the Catholic bishops must oppose the current healthcare proposal. In fact, Mr. Raushenbush may not be aware that a capitalistic based economy may be the most successful way of helping God’s people..Hello!! Remember, we are all sinners and that is our nature. Let’s recognize our nature with a system that has some government safety net and oversight, yet allows people to be people. Having President Obama as a benovalent king is not freedom. Thanks!! Len
posted September 5, 2009 at 11:58 am
It’s funny what a lot of liberals do when they don’t get things passed as quickly as they would like. In the case of socialized health care (and most other matters), they start attacking the very people they need to convince. Quick question: What’s the largest, longest running charitable organization in the history of mankind with hospitals, schools and aid outposts in nearly every nation on the planet? Hint: It’s not the UN or the Redcross. Answer: The Roman Catholic Church. Democrats (especially leadership) started this debate talking about how important compromise was to passing needed reform. Instead, their idea of compromise has been anything but actual compromise. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of playing politics on this important matter. But, the party in power needs to show that they actually want this to succeed.
posted September 5, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I find this criticism rather odd. If you take the very small trouble to go to the USCCB website, you can find a lot of information supporting health care reform. The position of the bishops is pretty clear. They are doing exactly what Mr. Raushenbush says they should do–supporting health care reform but opposing the coverage of abortion.
posted September 8, 2009 at 10:08 am
The Gospel is clear on the topic of health care when it states, “From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs.”
Is this the Gospel or Karl Marx? If it is Karl Marx I don’t think you are helping much.
posted September 8, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Equating the Gospels with Marxism is a bit of a stretch, don’t ya think?
posted September 8, 2009 at 1:09 pm
He said it, not me. A search through Bible Gateway under the NIV and the KJV revealed no sentence containing the sentence “From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs.” This was in fact Marx, although it was a popular socialist slogan at the time. While I agree with the author of this article about the Christian duty to care for the needy, it was improper to use quotation marks in reference to a Gospel principle when in fact no such quote can be found in the Bible* and in fact the statement was made by Karl Marx. This does nothing for the Gospel or for health care.
*Reasoning from seperate scriptures would not involve quotation marks.