Since the Church is not a democracy, even if this poll is close to accurate, it doesn’t reflect what the Church believes or teaches.
Your thoughts?
For what it’s worth, the study was not done about Catholics, other than the apparently very few who self-identify as TEA (the survey keeps typing Tea) Party adherents. So, I’m not sure where or to what extent Catholic information has been made part of the study.
Ah ha. Found the data on page 18. The statement must arise from a table showing that 26% of “white” Catholics would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights. Thing is, 38% would be less likely, which means that Church teaching, while not as effective as one would prefer, appears to be having a good impact. The swing, should both ends of the spectrum be equally likely to vote, would be 12% in favor of anti-abortion/pro-life candidates. That would be a landslide in districts where Catholics are a majority of the voters. Not sure how that supports the blog comment, especially as hispanic Catholics are even more unlikely to support pro-abortion candidates. Anywhere the Church is highly present will be poor territory for pro-abortion types to get elected.
That said, I found this statement to be typical of the attitude of the study authors:
“Nearly half the voters think the economy has gotten worse over the last two years; three-in-ten say it is about the same, and 1-in-5 say it has gotten better. However, perceptions of the economy are conditioned by political affiliation.”
The text then goes on to align opinions with parties, suggesting that it is the fact of being a Republican that leads to thinking the ecomony has gotten worse. Perhaps some people said this, but the fact is, it could even more easily be the other way around. A person looks up, sees trouble and then looks for people who agree with that opinion, in order to affect policy. If Democrats are in charge and really like how the economy is going (because they are being enriched by the proceeds of what they are doing), then people who are being expropriated for their benefit will not align themselves with them, but with those who oppose such expropriation. Thus, party affiliation will be a RESULT of opinion, not a CAUSE.
The whole study is tainted by this bias in analysis. For instance, after the abortion analysis the study moves to party affiliation compared to TEA Party support. In what should be unsurprising to anyone who knows what party now controls Congress, the TEA Party is far and away more popular among Republicans than with Democrats. But then, the TEA Party was founded to protest the direction Democrats were taking the country. Who else is going to protest than the opposition party? So, once again, affiliation is a function of opinion, not the way the study insists.
Define Catholic!
it is a bs poll. for all we know they used a catholic kook fringe group.
Your thoughts?
My thoughts? Too dang many cafeteria Catholics in the US. But I do think the tide is turning and we will see more Catholics living the real faith as time goes by.
Another thought is that a lot of these "Catholics" still call themselves such even after leaving the Church.... "I'm Catholic, but I don't attend the Catholic Church anymore."
But from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith?
Pope Benedict woud never have come to this conclusion!
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4747
First of all the poll used as source material is about the Tea Party movement. Surveyed were 3013 people over 18, 600 of whom were on cell phones. Where are they coming up with the Catholic numbers for the story? It’s not in the PDF file. I know some people enjoy trolling for this sort of statistic. Like the ones who harp that 56% of Catholics voted for Obama and 46% of Protestants voted for McCain. It is misleading.
A few years back there was a survey that said Catholics overwhelmingly thought that abortion was okay. When you got to the end of the hit piece, I mean article it said only 229 Catholics were polled. Agenda? It’s hard to take this seriously even though the same people will jump on the band wagon.
So Catholics can be Catholic and not believe Catholic teaching?
Why doesn’t the RCC excercise some good ol’ church discipline if these “adherents” are so out of line?
Oh, that’s right. Their bishops an priests agree with them.
This is true. Unfortunately, it seems that the contemporary Church is unable to teach communicate its teachings to its people. Otherwise the people would agree with the Church's official teachings.
I sincerely doubt that many true believers share that opinion.
Sounds more like the views of a bunch of “pew Catholics.”
People feel like if they don't condone something, than they are being mean and cruel. But if you condone something that you know will surely lead them down the road to hell, you are being mean and cruel.
People don't like it when you tell them that they are wrong. It's human nature. But sometimes, as hard as it may be, you just have to take that stand for that persons well being.
When a Catholic says that they are against gay marriage or being an active homosexual, it is interpreted as hate. It is the direct opposite. We simply do not want anybody to be condemned. It is out of love that we are against it, not hate.
I have people that are homosexuals in my own family. I love them dearly. I still cannot condone their behavior. I do not envy the cross that they have to bare, but we all have our crosses. Some are heavier than others. We can either choose to take on the full weight of the cross, or toss it to the side. Either way, the choice is ours.
We need to re-educate these "catholics".