Posted on 03/21/2013 9:59:14 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The total number of American Catholics depends largely on what you think it takes to be a Catholic, with the numbers dropping as the required level of commitment increases. It takes very little effort to self-identify as a Catholic, so the Pew Research Center’s survey sets the Catholic population high at 75 million. The Catholic Research Forum has more rigorous standards, defining Catholics as people who are baptized into the church and arrange for a Catholic funeral. By this measure, there are approximately 68 million American Catholics. Finally, some demographers count only people who register at a church or regularly attend Mass. The U.S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership Study, which asked local church leaders to estimate the number of people in their congregations, set the American Catholic population at just 59 million. Weak church attendance accounts for this discrepancy: Only 24 percent of self-reported American Catholics attend Mass weekly. (Another church-generated estimate, the Official Catholic Directory, estimates the national flock at 66.3 million, but critics worry that clerics inflate the numbers for this publication for PR reasons.) What do these numbers mean? There’s a population of approximately 19 million Americans who think they’re Catholic but who are unknown to their local priests.
None of these methods accurately captures the Vatican’s view of the Catholic population. Under church law, baptism makes you a Catholic, and you remain a Catholic until you’re excommunicated or formally repudiate the faith. Since more people unilaterally abandon Catholicism than join it without baptism, the Vatican’s census is typically even higher than the number of self-identified faithful. The official Statistical Yearbook of the Church counts a total of 1.196 billion Catholics worldwide, or 96 million more than Pew does, a difference of about 9 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Frankly, I can't think of two politicians I;d be much more in opposition to, with the exceptions of Dianne Feinstein and Obama himself.
I'm Catholic, and my ancestors have been for over a thousand years. I don't vote for baby murderers, and never have.
I can't stop Biden and Pelosi from claiming they are Catholic any more than I can stop a wino from claiming he is the risen Christ: those claims fall upon their respective makers.
You, however, would concentrate on those who have been bamboozled and sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, and ignore the multitude who have not. How many are reading this in Spanish? Maybe you should go post on a website that caters to the Hispanic voters who gave you the statistic you are browbeating us all with, and leave the Catholics who vote in keeping with Church Doctrine (against abortion, against obamacare, etc.) alone .
Badgering us doesn't cause a Papal edict to be passed down, we don't vote on such things.
Pelosi and Biden are the picks of the administration, not the Catholic Congregations, and that is a diplomatic matter controlled by a crypto-Muslim.
Ultimately, however, the actions of the Pelosis and Bidens of this world will reflect upon them when it really counts, and all the worldly politics they can muster will not be enough to save them from a much higher jurisdiction.
The rest of us will vote our conscience and in keeping with Church Doctrine, against the murder of innocents, and against those who support it. If you will note, the demographic laid out is that one in three Catholics regularly attends Mass, while even more, statistically, voted against the Democrats.
Maybe it was the Catholics who didn't show at the polls to vote for a candidate with a track record of antithetical political action in Massachusetts who 'let' the Democrats win. When the choice is two flavors of poop soup, some folks just won't order off the menu.
For the last two POTUS election cycles, the GOP has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fill the top of the ticket--NOT a winning strategy.
Where was the Hispanic outreach? Pretty limp, imho. Did the Hispanic Catholics regard themselves as Hispanic Catholics or Catholic Hispanics? What was foremost in their electoral psyche--voting for what the Dems offered or voting against the policies (pro-homo, pro-abort) of the Dem Party which would be in direct opposition to the Church?
There are those of us out here who will not buy Obamacare. I'm in the middle of an oil boom, and could be sitting at the house, having trained dozens of others to do what I do and making a small fortune off their labors, but I refuse to hire anyone and pay the abortion jizzya (tax) of Obamacare--and will be fined instead for my own, personal, noncompliance. The Almighty will take care of me and mine, when He deems fit, and we will have enough. I prefer that to a false prosperity which would condemn me to eternal damnation. Not everyone has those priorities, and many who do not are not Catholics.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if you have read this far, but just in case you have, why don't you quit with the anti-Catholic screed and stop trying to tear down the Church which is fighting still against homosexual "marriage", which is still fighting abortion at every level, including the morning after pill which is commonly lumped in with "contraception" to make it appear to be something less murderous than it is.
While I'd love to see those who conspicuously defy Catholic Doctrine get their come-uppance, that issue will ultimately be decided at a pay grade far higher than mine.
Sorry, I didn’t realize ansel12 was hiding behind the religion forum rules to attack Conservative Catholics. Pardon me if I took such attacks personally.
No one is attacking conservative Catholics, but some conservative Catholics are defending and covering for the pro-abortion left by trying to conceal the Catholic vote and deny that it is majority democrat, thereby blocking efforts and awareness that they themselves should be leading, conservatives need to know how Catholics vote, and what millions more of them means to our goals.
It always has been the same, for more than a 100 years before Hispanics recently started arriving.
Hispanic Catholics aren’t changing that, since they only recently got here in large numbers the effect that they are having is keeping the Catholic vote in it’s traditional place, as the dwindling whites in the denomination, have in recent years become a little more conservative.
Besides, whether white or Hispanic, they still belong to the same denomination, Catholic, in fact Mexico has always been an almost purely Catholic nation.
We can educate conservatives and pro-lifers, and the many Catholics here on the truth of the Catholic vote, and what Catholic immigration means in regards to saving the lives of the unborn and preserving conservatism in America....if that is our goal.
Teamsters, Longshoremen, Miners, Powder handlers, Policemen, Firemen, and other high risk jobs went to the Irish, who would do them because other avenues of gainful employ were closed to them, even after slavery was over. Those were the jobs which the Unions, in their early iteration, were most likely to benefit the worker, and in which son followed father in employment. Families became union families, like their fathers and grandfathers before them. Those families typically vote Democrat because of the longstanding union affiliation, something which colors every aspect of their lives--and has for generations.
Now we reach the crux of the matter: Are they union Catholics, or Catholic union members? Which takes primacy in their lives?
The liberals (primarily Democrats) have gradually devalued religious beliefs, and a full belly is hard to compete with at the pulpit--it is so in any denomination. The change was neither sudden nor large, but in small increments over time--the sort of gradual diversion of course which has left families who value(d) their employment affiliations and their religion coupled with the likes of Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
If they are even paying attention to the dichotomy between Catholic Doctrine and the Democrat Platform, they have been conditioned to think of the GOP as the enemy, attacking the very organizations which help them put food on the table.
So don't expect them to change; they have made their choice.
While they may place high priority on bouncing their grandbabies on their knee, they have turned a blind eye to those who would have theirs slaughtered in the womb, and continue to support the groups which got their grandpa the black lung money and improved conditions at the mine.
Perhaps the war on coal has made some inroads into that demographic, and perhaps other actions by this administration will, but for now, it is what it is.
As for me, I'd like to see the Bishops given free reign to deal with those who conspicuously advocate for policies antithetical to Church Doctrine. That, however, is not my decision.
The other conspicuous group, the Hispanics, need to be similarly wooed to get past the decades of Democrat propaganda which portrays the GOP as "racist", and that will have to be done in a language which brings home to that demographic that voting Conservative is in their best interest. That will be difficult to do when the opposition is having a give-away with tax money yet to be collected, and advocating open borders and amnesty (heck some of the GOP is practically advocating the same thing).
Again, secular issues are trumping religious ones, even though we both know that is a bad long-term plan for any individual.
Unless and until those secular issues are addressed, the demographic is unlikely to change.
Catholics vote against the republican party and always have, and always will, there will always be reasons and explanations , and the vote will still go on as always.
We are importing pro-abortion democrat voters.
First, I object to you lumping the demographics together--there are specific demographics which vote one way, and others which do not. You do a disservice to the multitude of Conservative Catholics with your generic branding.
Furthermore, this does nothing to address the issue. Complain as one will, unless the motivations for voting contrary to Church Doctrine are more fully understood, then those motivations not only cannot be addressed, but the problem cannot be rectified through means secular or sacred.
Again, I reiterate: Caucasian Catholics voted in the majority for the Republican, despite the fact that in the last race, the Republican had signed off on legislation in his past which also flew in the face of Church Doctrine. Given the choice, then between a candidate who is perceived as putting food on the table and going against the Church versus one which is perceived as being hostile to the very organizations which protected the means of putting food on the table and is contrary to Church Doctrine, the choice is for many is for the prospects of a full belly.
The GOP gets the nod for that one--they blew it.
The perception in the other major demographic involved, the Hispanics, is that the GOP is hostile to them as well, and again, there was no clear moral choice, as both candidates had a track record of advocating or at least signing off on policy against Church Doctrine.
You want praise from the pulpit, better get someone on the ticket who won't put a priest in the position of supporting someone who has shown they are antithetical to the Church's position on the issues--because that isn't likely to happen.
Again, the GOP. The election was the Republicans' to lose, and they did a fine job.
As for a minor demographic, votes were again along lines that had nothing to do with the Church, but other considerations.
The vote was similar in Protestant congregations with that demographic.
Blaming Catholics for the failures of the political parties will only guarantee those failures will continue. Address the underlying issues with a more (socially) conservative candidate, and there might be some change. Surely, even Evangelical Protestants could agree.
The problem with all your reasons for this and that, is that it is an almost perfect record of voting against the republicans for 150 years, not just recently, or because of unions, or whatever, and we know that it will always remain that way, we can predict the Catholic vote of the future, today, it is what the left bases a future without conservatism on.
Voting for Clinton, Clinton, Al Gore, Obama, Obama, wasn’t because they and their party’s platform were more socially conservative.
We can educate conservatives and pro-lifers, and the many Catholics here on the truth of the Catholic vote, and what Catholic immigration means in regards to saving the lives of the unborn and preserving conservatism in America if that is our goal.
It wasn't because they were Catholic, either.
150 years? Well, that flanges up with what I said, doesn't it?
If you want to get the GOP more votes, dismissing demographics isn't the way to go about it. Understand the underlying problems and there might be a solution. Fail to do so and you only guarantee failure.
Perhaps that might be more successful than painting all Catholics (including Conservative Republican Catholics) with a millions wide brush because some are (at some point) liberal or side with those who side with liberals.
Dismissing the secular factors in the voting habits of a demographic (actually, a few demographics) makes as much sense as writing off the Women's vote because there are a lot of Liberal Women out there. You are concentrating on the wrong factor, it is that they are Liberal or Democrat that is the problem, not that they happen to be Catholic.
Nobody is dismissing demographics, I am trying to educate people in them, members of the catholic religion always have and always will vote majority democrat, that is important demographic information, the most important since the 1965 immigration act was written to import millions of them to replace the anti-democrat voting Protestants.
What is the pro-abortion/gay left’s hope for Texas? That it becomes Catholic, as California did.
Catholic churches often have more than one mass.
babies and the elderly often cannot attend. Since it is South Carolina, some may have to travel a distance to go to a Catholic mass, or miss mass because of work, so may not always be able to attend.
Statistically about 30 percent attend every week.
30 percent of 12000 is 3600 Catholics, but if you include those of us old or young or sick, or those who go at least once a month it is probably closer to half of those 12000 who are pious believers.
That averages 600 people per church per Sabbath...and since most churches have at least two masses, that means 300 or less per service.
sounds about right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.