WASHINGTON — Recent headlines trumpeting Catholic support for “gay rights” suggest that the faithful reject Church teaching. But critics allege that the latest opinion research is part of a political strategy to promote same-sex “marriage” and should not be trusted.
When the Washington, D.C.-based Public Religious Research Institute published polling data on what they termed “Catholic attitudes on gay and lesbian issues,” the media jumped on the striking numbers. The Institute’s report, subtitled “A Comprehensive Portrait from Recent Research,”
was released in late March. Despite competition from the military crisis in Libya and Japan’s tsunami tragedy, PRRI’s study drew immediate media attention.
”U.S. Catholics Break With Church on Gay Relationships”, USA Today announced. National Public Radio issued a report on ”Parting With Rome, Most American Catholics Favor Gay Rights”. And The Los Angeles Times proclaimed ”Catholics and Gays: Closer Than You Think”.
PRRI’s website highlights the key findings of its research on Catholic opinion: “Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.”
The report summary states: “A majority of Catholics (56%) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin. Among the general population, less than half (46%) believe it is not a sin.”
Amid ongoing legislative and constitutional challenges to state and federal laws banning same-sex “marriage,” the headlines suggest that Catholics are willing to redefine a fundamental social institution.
But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, contends that some of the questions used to generate the data, as well as the media response to the research, have created an inaccurate portrait of Catholic opinion in America.
Brown and other supporters of traditional marriage fear that the data could discourage resistance to same-sex “marriage.”
Meanwhile, some Catholic experts defend the polling methodology and contend that the numbers don’t lie: Numerous surveys reveal that even active Catholics are more likely than their Protestant counterparts to accept key elements of the homosexual-rights agenda. They say the Church must grapple with the facts.
How Questions Are Phrased
The centerpiece of Brown’s argument is the discrepancy between polls that signal growing support for “marriage equality” and the repeated rejection of same-sex “marriage” by actual voters. The latest research on Catholic opinion, Brown contends, is based on the same kind of flawed methodology that has misrepresented the actual views of respondents, whatever their religious beliefs.
“What is being attempted is to use skewed information to convince people that it’s not worth fighting on the issue. But if gay ‘marriage’ supporters really believe that voters support their position, then let’s allow free and fair referendums on this issue,” said Brown. “The truth is: As we’ve seen in Rhode Island and Maryland, supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ don’t want a public referendum.”
Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland, Calif., chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage — and the Church leader who jump-started Proposition 8, the referendum that banned same-sex “marriage” in the state — underscored the limitations of opinion research.
“The track record shows that polling data on this issue is not all that reliable. In state after state where this has been voted on by the people, the activists have cited polling data in their favor — but they have not won an election once,” said Bishop Cordileone.
He voiced concerns about how “questions on the survey are phrased” and noted that “many people are hesitant to tell a pollster something that would make them look intolerant or bigoted,” according to the edicts of political correctness. “But then when they get into the privacy of the voting booth, they vote their conscience.”
Critics say that the specific formulation of research questions can alter polling results: Marriage may be described as a “civil” rather than a religious institution, confusing respondents about the issue in question. Meanwhile, respondents who self-identify as “Catholic” may rarely attend Mass. Among the several surveys included in the PRRI report, some polls did not give respondents the option of choosing between civil unions and marriage, skewing their response in favor of the latter option.
Divide and Conquer?
Asked to comment on the concerns raised about PRRI’s methodology and objectivity, Stephen Schneck of The Catholic University of America expressed surprise about some findings — such as rising support for same-sex “marriage” among Hispanic Catholics in California.
But Schneck, a professor of politics, didn’t question the integrity of the research process. He noted that the report provided the questions used in the surveys and separated “Catholics” into three groups, including but not limited to individuals who attended Mass at least weekly.
Asked whether media accounts of the PRRI report were accurate, however, Schneck offered a different response: “No. They never are. The media picks and chooses what it reports on the left and the right.”
However, Thomas Peters, who blogs at CatholicVote.org, has challenged the credibility of the PRRI research effort, contending that the polling numbers were part of a larger, well-funded effort to divide and conquer Catholic resistance to same-sex “marriage.”
“This much-circulated poll was paid for by [the] Arcus Foundation and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund,” stated Peters, who noted that both organizations are committed to the homosexual-rights agenda.
The Hass Fund website confirms that, in 2009, PRRI received $107,500 for a California-based survey that “provides polling to help gay-rights groups figure out how to better push their agenda among various faith communities.”
The PRRI report states that it received funding from the Arcus Foundation, whose website profiles its “Religion and Values” program designed to “advance the moral and civil equality of LGBT people at local, state, national and international levels.”
Asked to respond to charges that the Arcus Foundation’s grants raised questions about the objectivity of the research process, PRRI CEO Robert Jones — one of the report’s two authors — said that the surveys adhered to high standards of research. He asserted that the Arcus Foundation had no influence on the study’s design or its outcome.
Other Catholic scholars suggest that the numbers should be a wake-up call for Church leaders. Father Paul Sullins, a professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America, said his own research confirms that practicing Catholics are less likely to support same-sex “marriage” than cradle Catholics who no longer attend Mass.
However, Father Sullins said that the PRRI numbers weren’t surprising: “Generally speaking, Catholics across the board are going to be more supportive of gay ‘marriage’ and tolerant of this group than Protestants,” he said in a telephone interview. “The strongest opposition comes from black churches, which reject the normalization of homosexuality.”
In a 2010 article in the Catholic Social Science Review, Father Sullins outlined several reasons for Catholics’ growing tolerance of homosexual relationships, including same-sex “marriage.” He concluded that the U.S. bishops’ past public efforts to address the challenge of same-sex “marriage” had been “ineffective” and even “counterproductive.”
Father Sullins wrote that his own research showed that young Catholics — in contrast to young evangelicals — accounted for the marked shift in support for homosexual rights. His article suggested that theological dissent fomented by Catholic “elites,” combined with the Church’s failure to win broad acceptance of Humanae Vitae, had paved the way for growing Catholic tolerance of same-sex unions.
Campuses Promoting Agenda?
The Vatican has urged Catholics to resist any moral acceptance or legal recognition of “homosexual unions,” including civil unions. Yet some Catholic universities continue to provide a platform for individuals and organizations that challenge Church teaching on sacramental marriage and sexual ethics.
The Arcus Foundation will fund four academic conferences focused on a central theme — “More Than a Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church” — which are “designed to change the conversation about sexual diversity and the Catholic Church.” Two of the conferences will be held at Fordham University and Fairfield University. The latter conference will feature Sister Jeannine Gramick, co-founder of New Ways Ministry, a homosexual-outreach group repudiated by the U.S. bishops’ conference. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1999 “permanently prohibited” Sister Jeannine from “any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.”
Asked to explain Fairfield University’s decision to accept funding from the Arcus Foundation for an Oct. 29 conference, Paul Lakeland, the Aloysius P. Kelley S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies and director of the Center for Catholic Studies, wrote in an email message: “[T]he conferences were initiated and planned exclusively by faculty from the four institutions. We then applied to the Arcus Foundation for grant funding. At no time has the Arcus Foundation had any role in initiating or planning of the conferences. It is serving simply as a granting agency.”
Is it really time to accommodate new “voices” that reject Catholic teaching on human sexuality and marriage? Bishop Cordileone understands the catechetical challenge ahead, but he’s not letting the opinion polls shake his commitment to upholding fundamental truths.
“No one believes in unjust discrimination against sexual minorities,” said Bishop Cordileone. “But the majority of Americans still know — despite what some powerfully influential people in our society would have us believe — that there is something special about the unions of husbands and wives that is unique, unlike any other relationship, and that this special institution of marriage is not discriminatory, but benefits everyone, especially children.”
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Polling Wars
Below are polling stats from Wikipedia’s entry on “Same-sex Marriage in Rhode Island”, where homosexual activists have failed, so far, to accomplish their goals through the legislature, despite repeated attempts over the years.
“A May 2009 poll conducted by Brown University showed that 60% of Rhode Islanders support legalizing same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose. A different poll in June 2009 commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said that 43% of Rhode Island voters oppose legalizing same-sex marriage, while 36% support it with 17% undecided. But an August 2010 poll done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that 59% of Rhode Islanders supported legalizing same-sex marriage (of that 59%, 38% felt strongly about the issue). Forty-three percent of Rhode Islanders are Catholic, and the survey showed that 63% of Catholics supported same-sex marriage so long as it did not infringe of the church’s right to marry whomever it chooses.”
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
The modus operandi of our HOLY CHURCH HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE RUN BY PUBLIC POLLS!!!!! WHEN THE CHURCH STOPS CALLING THE FAITHFUL TO LIVE A HOLY LIFE WE ARE ALL IN BIG TROUBLE!!!!!!
I would like to see a defense of Catholic teaching which clearly explains why public polls among Catholics will never alter the teachings of the Church. The moral virtues taught by our Church are there for one reason; in order to make us holy. Now we all realize that we are weak, frail, sinful human beings, which is why we have the sacrament of confession. The CHURCH WILL NEVER AND CAN NEVER LOWER IT’S STANDARDS FOR THESE OUR THE STANDARDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. Even if every Catholic woman in the world had an abortion this will never change the fact that a life has been taken!!!!! Would we ever say that since there are so many murders in this city we are going to make murder legal???????????????????
WPR jr, Jesus said, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) If that church doesn’t exist today, then Jesus was not who He said He was.
@WPR - “Mary, obviously you have no knowledge of the ‘humanist’ movement of the mid-fifteenth century.” Actually I do. It’s all nonsense! “There was no Catholic Church in the early 4h Century, only widespread and diverse Christian gatherings.” Really? “Various congregations were headed by Patriarchs. James, brother of Jesus (JESUS NEVER HAD A BROTHER!) led an early gathering of Xtians, who were and continued to be a Jewish sect, respecting all Jewish covenants” You don’t say? “To say any of those writings were divinely inspired defies accepted scholarship.” There you go again! You have been duped WPR!You say you are familiar with Scripture? It is a joke.I suppose you don’t put any weight on Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church and the letters of the early Church fathers. You have been duped WPR. You have bought into a total lie. Please pick up the Bible and read the New Testament and ask the Holy Spirit to open up your mind and your heart. Read what the early Church Fathers had to say and you will see in those letters the Catholic Church as she is today. There’s one way to look at this WPR, if I am wrong no loss; but if you are wrong it could be eternal.
Mary, obviously you have no knowledge of the ‘humanist’ movement of the mid-fifteenth century. Its major finding the forgery of the Gift of Constantine is now accepted as forgery by the Vatican. Equally obvious is your mistaking ‘secular humanist’ of today for the renkowned humanist study of authenticity of the Bible. Unfortunately, you substitute Sarcasm for Substance throughout your reply. There was no Catholic Church in the early 4h Century, only widespread and diverse Christian gatherings. Various congregations were headed by Patriarchs. James, brother of Jesus led an early gathering of Xtians, who were and continued to be a Jewish sect, respecting all Jewish covenants. James and Paul were at odds, and Peter was a go between. You have fallen prey to the indoctrination of Roman teaching. No one at anytime sat himself and said; now I’m going to write a Bible. At the end of the second century there were more than 30 gospels, none written by an apostle, none written by an eye witness, but each with a theme and a thesis, written to a particular audience. To say any of those writings were divinely inspired defies accepted scholarship. Each of the many gospels had as much validity as any other, authenticity as accepted Canon came by Council called by a Patriarch of the church in the 4th century, the rest were apocrypal.
@WPR - Since you are so well versed in Scripture then you should know it was the Catholic Church that determined what books in the New Testament were divinely inspired. “In the mid 15th century a group referred to as humanist studied all script to determine authenticy from forgery.” You have got to be kidding me? You are going to tell me that some humanist group studied Scripture to determine what was authentic and what esd not and you are asking me to consider that vs. what the Catholic Church has said? Sorry WPR I’m sticking with the Catholic Church’s assessment of authencity.
Oh Mary, why even bother…in no manner of speaking would I suggest ‘knowing what God is’, if you read you’ll note it is just the opposite, that I’ve stated, unless there is difficulty fathoming what ‘mystery’ means. We are not addressing who condemns homosexuality, nor is there any confusion as to what homosexuality is. Why do you keep making incoherent rebuttals that are not germane. The sole issue is gay/lesbian making a decision for themselve independent of your judgmentality, and all other references alluding to some special knowledge of what God thinks and what God is all about. This might surprise you but I am fairly well read in scripture, how these books were put together, decisions made about them, apocryphal and canon. In the mid 15th century a group referred to as humanist studied all script to determine authenticy from forgery. Kindly refrain from discussing your passion about ‘belief’ as it is not germane to the topic. Contrarily, every thing you state is against ‘right of gay/lesbian’ right to choose and decide for self. The continued insistence of you and others, repeatedly invoking what God wants, is silly as neither you or I or anyone else can know the ‘mystery’ of what God wants. You will not get any closer, by over and over, hiding rational inquiry behind the mask of scripture, when we don’t know in certainty the validity of any of the books. What we do know is we have a Constitution, and it is that Constitution, which is the law of the land, not invoking an anachronistic faith in ‘natural law’, natural philosophy, inerrancy of a Bible…it is that Constitution which must prevail over belief; even if such belief suffers the majority of its citizens.
@WPR jr. - “You keep insisting on stating what God is, as if you know the big ‘what’,the mystery which lies beyond all of us.” The three major religions of the world,Christianity,Judaism and Islam all believe God is One so there is no mystery for the vast majority of us as you claim. These religions also condemn homosexuality (excluding those denominations that have morphed into political correctness and are in error). There should be absolutely no mystery or confusion on the issue of homosexuality. You just don’t want to accept that there is a truth. You clearly have not done much reading of Scripture or have read it and just rejected it or passages of it that do not comply with your world view. I have never said that either you or anyone else does not have the “right” to choose. Also, my views on same-sex union are definitely not about me as you claim. It is definitely about God and what has been said in Scripture about homosexuality.I am just as passionate about my beliefs as you seem to be so please do not tell me to “get out of their way and their right to choose.” From a legal perspective I totally agree with Kevin’s assessment. If you think that gay activists would not jump all over the Catholic Church and file discrimination lawsuits you are either delusional or think that I am. If gay “marriage” became legal, speaking out against homosexuality will be considered hate speech. What is this drive by gay activists to recognize something that most Americans do not even agree with?
WPR jr, I have seen nothing to suggest that its proponents expect same-sex “marriage” to be something different here than it is elsewhere, or that they don’t have the same objectives as its proponents in other countries do. One would have to be pretty naive to think that the Constitution could not be bent to the will of a minority that has the nation’s attention. It has happened before, and there are plenty of people, including our sitting president, who consider the Constitution a “living document.”
—
You say that you would not support mandating that a Catholic Church perform a ceremony (i.e. wedding for a same-sex couple) that is contrary to its teachings. In principle, however, that would be no different than requiring a Catholic adoption agency to place children with same-sex couples. In both cases, the Church performs a service that involves the formation of family relationships, where those relationships are legally recognized by the government and the state grants permission to the Church to perform the legal certifications on its behalf. As we’ve seen with the Massachusetts adoption agency, the state can revoke that permission if it believes the Church is discriminating unfairly. The only reason I suppose that the principle has not been enforced on the institution of marriage in the Church is that it would generate a popular backlash against the homosexual agenda that the latter is not yet strong enough to withstand. I have no doubt, however, that it is coming. Unless matters change course significantly, I have no reason to believe that in 10 or perhaps as few as 5 years that my Church will not be permitted to certify marriages. Couples will still participate in the sacramental aspect of marriage in the Church, but they will be required to participate in a separate process in a civil institution before their marriage is legally recognized by the government.
Kevin, as strange as these posts might seem, from your last post I can feel your pain. It is quite obvious what has occurred in Canada and England would be found disturbing to you. Yet despite the myriad anecdotal accounts, it must be stated that we are not Canada, we are not England, and we are not under the same Constitution. Further, it is necessary to remain on topic to discuss any matter. We are not talking adoption or foster parents or any derivative circumstance. I do remain in your camp if the sole concern reflected on mandating the Catholic Church to perform a ceremony contrary to its dogmatic faith. However, that is not the issue, is it. Regardless, you would be against same-sex unions performed anywhere, or at all. Therein lies the rub. The presentation of issues in Canada and England are an obfuscation and rationalization masking the fact ‘your are against same-sex unions’ irrespectively. There is nothing to deter you from that position.
Mary, I don’t know what to say in your regard. You keep insisting on stating what God is, as if you know the big ‘what’, the mystery which lies beyond all of us. There is no attempt to ‘shake’ your faith here. But the vast majority believe the creator of all this wrote a book. Unfortunately, all too many differing religions think it has the true orthodox version and the others are heresy…intolerance is the result, and an unbending will to rigidly adhere to script, an indoctrination.
What is appalling is extending beyond belief, affirming a set of actions, rendering null another’s freedom to choose and act…based entirely on your accepted version of God’s love, what you think is Truth, and what is unacceptable to you. The problem is that same-sex union ought not be about you at all or what you resent or find unacceptable. It is entirely about gay/lesian making decision for themselve…and if they wish to get married, somewhere and anywhere other than a Catholic Church, get out of their way…stop picketing others right to choose.
@ Kevin Rahe - Great post!!
@WPR - God is not “It” The three major religions all believe in the One God. God is not subjective but an objective Truth. He is not a mystery to me. God is Trinity to me as a Christian and while I do not profess to know all that I could possibly know I do know that he loves me. Truth is not based on your opinion or anyone else’s. The Sacred Scriptures revealed the Truth and Who Truth is. You just choose to not believe it but it does not make in untrue. I do not hide behind my religion but I do attempt to live my life as God asks of me. God does not love you any less than me but he does not love the sin of homosexuality. All of this is unacceptable to you but what I find unacceptable is the constant homosexual activism that demands to change the moral climate of this country. “They” will even demonstrate in front of Catholic Churches and disrupt Mass. It is morally unacceptable to me that “my church” be picketed and singled out with the claim that the Catholic Church is discriminatory. WPR, I do not know any other way to be other than the way God desires. We all have choices to make in life. Sometimes choices require great sacrifices and releasing ones wishes. To follow God’s way brings great joy and peace, a joy and peace that cannot be found even in the best of human relationships.
That same-sex “marriage” is tyrannical toward Christianity is a matter of fact. You may find that harsh, but I am in no position to soften up reality. In Canada it has led to restrictions on free speech and the investigation of a priest for merely preaching Catholic doctrine. In Massachusetts it has resulted in a Catholic agency abandoning its adoption services because the state required it to place children into paradoxical situations in order to maintain its license, which it refused to do. A couple in the UK had their application to be foster parents denied on the grounds that their Christian faith’s teachings on homosexual practice are “inimical to the interests of children.” I have seen nothing that gives me any reason to think that if the recognition of same-sex “marriage” is imposed on the whole country that such situations won’t become even more widespread. Finally, my disdain for a “portion of citizenry” exists only in your imagination. I have several acquaintances who are homosexual, and have socialized and even vacationed with them several times. Never once did they give me “The Willies.”
Mary, God is where It is; and that is a big mystery to which none of us knows about. It was Alexander Pope who stated; any God we can understand is no God at all. There is no equation from which to remove or put in a God. But we do have a Constitution, which demands that we be free from the intolerance of those who think their book is written by God, and all else is heterodox. We do have a Constitution which states its citizens are free to worship or not; whether they do or don’t, they are all equal and entitled to all benefits equally…why you refuse this and hide behind religion and its rationalizations is ‘totally unacceptable’.
Kevin, I’m not sure what the difficulty is. No one chooses to be gay. No one chooses to be hetero. “Tyrannical”, how ‘harsh’ do you wish to be. It seems that “Xtianity” is a mask, to conceal your prejudices. To subjugate a portion of citizenry, for no reason other than your didain for it. If Xtianity were to ‘walk the walk’ as you impute it would ‘walk’ away from such ungodly abuse and self-proclaimed righteousness at someone elses expense. Marginalization is no more than bantying without substance. There has never been a suggestion made to prevent a Catholic from practicing its religion. But, the Catholics here wish to prevent gay couples from exercising its preference…that is the shame, that is ‘marginalization’.
WPR jr, you suggest that Christians “simply leave well enough alone,” but the problem is that same-sex “marriage” won’t leave us alone. It is proving to be a tyrannical force wherever it is officially recognized, and Christianity stands in its way, whether Christians are actively looking to fight it or not. You imply that those who seek same-sex “marriage” are marginalized in our society, but such marginalization is nothing less than what they desire for Christians. How can you blame us for defending our place in society? And if Christianity involved as you suggest it should only talking and not walking the talk, it would be irrelevant (which is I suppose your objective).
@WPR - Marriage is both unitive as well as procreative. From a physiological standpoint homosexuals cannot be physically united and they certainly cannot procreate. We are a Nation under God as well as a Nation under Law. You are removing God from the equation or at least your version of who God is. This is totally unacceptable.
Kevin, you and I are at loggerheads here. It does not matter to me that you are in disagreement. The issue is NOT a privilege, but an independent decision to be made by gay/lesbian couples affored as citizens the same rights and privileges as anyone else. It is not for you or me to decide, or any relgious resentful adherent, whose religion states that homosexual behavior is an abomination. I would suggest that ‘Mary’ educate herself on matters regarding the Enlightenment and the precise meaning of the reference to ‘superstition’...those who believe in God and what the Bible has to say about ‘homosexuality’ is a non entity. This forum easily could digress into many of the references from Leviticus, not only on homosexuality, but on adultery, blaspheming children and all other commands to slaughter these sinful creatures…is that the Bible Mary wishes to enforce. No, the matter is not a trial of a citizen to prove whether that citizen ‘warrants’ marriage, or what that citizen ‘contributes’ while in marriage. That ‘sinful’, despicable, Bible ignoring couple disdainful and contemptuous to so many good worthy Xtians is benefited the entirety of the Constituion of America, so be it, even if Kevin thinks that Constitution is lacking in perfection.
Kevin and Mary will never find same-sex marriage acceptable, nor do you have to; simply leave well enough alone…you don’t even have to like it.
There is a reason why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. That is to protect minority rights from the majority, to prevent the majority as suggested in this forum from overpowering any individual contrary opinions. If what I just wrote is not true; we would need no Constitution, the majority will would prevail. As I wrote previously, this is not a numbers game, counting what all the Xtians et al might have to say. Are we enlightened or not, as Justice Brandeis and the late Archibald Cox have stated; are we a nation of law or a nation of men.
I fully support the bishops of this country getting up on the ‘bully’ pulpit and proclaiming same-sex unions as vile, sinful, contrary to Genesis and whatever. But, when talk erupts into actions prohibiting a loving couple from making a personal decision to which they have a right to do as any other citizen, that is the ‘abomination’ I address.
@WPR - “The Enlightenment put an end to religious superstition for once and all, placing an emphasis on science and reason.” What enlightenment? What religious superstition? Perhaps for you but not for the majority of Americans who oppose same sex “marriage” and who believe in God and what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. There is absolutely no reason why the majority of Americans (who are Christian by the way) need to acquiesce to what 1% of the population claim is a right. I very much resent this trend of homosexual activism.
@WPR jr, when you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear pretty quickly that it’s far from a complete body of philosophy. Rather, it is merely a framework or foundation for law that ensures that men have the freedom to do the right thing. As such, it is quite limited in preventing them from doing the wrong thing. Obviously, we need laws beyond the Constitution itself. However, those laws must be informed by some outside philosophy - they cannot flow from the Constitution itself, for it offers too little in the way of suggestion of what is right or what is wrong. On its own it doesn’t even proscribe murder (and I’m not talking about abortion). John Adams put it best, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
—
To your point, I think that deciding not to do something - in this case recognize same-sex unions as marriage - is completely consistent with your suggestion that, “this nation conducts itself responsibly, morally, humanely and respecting races, creeds, diversity and philosophy of thought; whether to ones liking or not.”
—
Your final point summarizes the benefits conferred on married couples by the government. However, like all things so conferred, there is a cost involved. In the case of traditionally-married couples, the cost is warranted by the contribution they make to society - namely society itself. Same-sex couples cannot be expected to make the same contribution, so would need at the very least some other commensurate contribution to justify receive those benefits. If you want to call into question society’s idea of marriage, for example suggesting that bearing children is no longer viewed as one of its primary components, then that would suggest revisiting the question of whether the benefits granted to married couples continue to be warranted, rather than that those benefits should be granted to someone else. If you want to argue that bearing children is not one of the primary components of same-sex “marriage,” then you’re making your own argument that such unions ought to be treated differently by the government than a traditional marriage.
Kevin, I find the near entirety of your post a non sequitur and as a result falls into the category of pseudepigrapha. What some of us are attempting to state, at least me anyway, it matters not what the Bible or any religion has to say. Religion is solely your perogative inwhich to believe or not…not to foist upon any other. Again, in no manner of speaking would I attempt to change or thwart any of your beliefs. In so doing, do not attempt to prevent others from exercising theirs; in this case same-sex unions.
As much as many think God wrote a Book, and the ‘many’ think they possess the true version, or that this country was founded upon Xtian principles, I thank that God that this country has a Constitution founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. What matters is the manner inwhich we and this nation conducts itself responsibly, morally, humanely and respecting races, creeds, diversity and philosophy of thought; whether to ones liking or not. The Enlightenment put an end to religious superstition for once and all, placing an emphasis on science and reason. It is not a numbers game, of how many Xtians there are, or of reputed Xtian principles, but a dynamic change of culture, philosophy, science and literature…not a question of having babies, or rearing them, but rights of property, transfer of property, inheritance, health care proxy and all the perks and benefits we all as citizens have a right to enjoy without presumptions of a particular religion inhibiting enjoyment thereof.
@WPR jr, this is not about a right to choose. It is about whether the government ought to recognize the choice you’ve made. Christian principles have formed the basis for much of Western law, so it’s only natural that laws recognizing relationships and activities are going to lead to those relationships and activities being compared to the Christian ideal to see how they stack up. Since a primary purpose of marriage is to form a structure suited to the bearing and raising of children, it’s only reasonable to expect that unions recognized by the government and granted the privileges and benefits bestowed on married couples be deemed suitable for that purpose. The problem with same-sex “marriage” is that not only does it not fit the traditional Christian (or practically any religion’s) ideal of marriage, but it cannot be expected to result in the bearing any children at all, it openly implies activities which are expressly forbidden by nearly all religions, and even if children are introduced into it by other means, they find themselves in a situation that is paradoxical according to the natural law.
All throughout the many replies to this post, some have seen fit to quote scripture. To what end, scripture is a non entity. Scripture does not matter. This is a civil rights issue of a right to choose, regardless of anyone elses preference or beliefs. There is no challenge here in regards to belief. Why then keep adding scripture to the text. The issue and only issue is two people who wish to marry contrary to the impositions and restraints placed upon them. It is the old saw; mind your own business…you do not have to like it or any of it; just leave well enough alone. Anyone who chooses selecively any verse of scripture, let it apply to you alone; we are dealing with a civil rights issue, not a religious one. We are a diverse nation, respecting all creeds, cultures, ethnicity, races and yes religious beliefs, kindly do not impose a particular belief on the rest who think and believe otherwise. In short if two people wish to marry, regardless of gender is it any jurisdiction of yours.
@Dave - Actually, the reason your analogy falls flat is because when an airplane flies through the air, it does not create a situation that contradicts what’s in the Bible, but you cannot say the same about the situation created when two people of the same sex are treated as married.
—
It is not that I cannot see that different reasonable views of marriage might be possible. It is rather that the different views of marriage that I’ve seen are not reasonable.
—
I think that most people, if they really think about it - that is, once you get over the hurdle of actually getting them to think at all - will see that families are not only the fundamental building blocks of society, but are a model of government as well, for they are kingdoms where the king and queen produce and govern their own subjects. Marriage establishes the royalty, but a same-sex couple as parents simply does not fit this idea, for it would be like establishing a country that could never be expected to have any citizens.
—
Regarding your comments to MaryM, while it is true that God has not yet revealed His full Truth to mankind, the teachings that the Catholic Church has declared infallibly true or dogmatic have never changed, and this includes her teachings on marriage, which is not merely a practical construct but a sacrament in the eyes of the Church. You say that the Bible is the “benchmark,” but in reality the Bible was assembled by the Church with conscious objective of supporting the Church’s teachings. If you think there’s a conflict between what’s in the Bible and what the Catholic Church teaches, the only possibilities are that you’re wrong or that the Church made a mistake in including the book in question in the Bible in the first place. You’re also right that nobody should claim to have a perfect understanding of God’s will, and I would say that Jesus’ actions indicate that quite clearly. But “nobody” is a singular term. Perhaps that’s why he chose twelve Apostles.
@Dave “I would say that the teachings of the various denominations - including the Catholic Church - all represent an approximation of the Truth. All - again including the Catholic Church - have seen their teachings morph/evolve as times as passed. Again, that’s just part of being part of a faith community” You are absolutely wrong in your assessment. The Catholic Church does not change her position on faith and morals. She makes changes in church discipline but not doctrine. Jesus never said that a collective group of churches could make decisions and could morph and that we could discern for ourselves what is right or wrong. What He did say is that He was establishing one church and that the Apostles were to go out and teach all that He commanded. The Catholic Church has Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as its Deposit of Faith. From the time of the Apostles and their successors we have guidance on what it means to be a Christian. We all have the option to choose to accept the definitive teachings of the Church or not. Free will, we all have it and please God let us all use it wisely.
Well - this has been a most unenlightening exchange of views, which in and of itself is somewhat enlightening. To the extent that there is, in fact, a divergence of views between the Magisterium and many in the pews, I think I understand it a bit better. And it’s not because they don’t understand the Church’s teachings, or have chosen to distort or ignore what they know to be the Truth.
—
John 9:41: “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”
@Kevin - the reason you feel my analogy falls flat is because, in your view, “there’s little room to doubt what type of relationship (marriage) is and what it means.” You go on to say that there are “obvious reasons” why “society and the Church in particular expects men and women to marry” that don’t apply to same-gender relationships. Again, I think you are so locked into your view of what marriage is about that you can’t see that different reasonable views might be possible. I think many, if not most, people view marriage as being desirable because it supports the development of healthy, happy, productive families ... whether we’re talking about families consisting of just a couple, or families that also include children. From that viewpoint, there’s no particular reason to distinguish straight couples from same-gender couples. As for your comment regarding the “failure” of same-sex marriage, the same-gender couples I’ve known who entered into civil unions or marriages would disagree with your assessment.
@MaryM - I would say that the teachings of the various denominations - including the Catholic Church - all represent an approximation of the Truth. All - again including the Catholic Church - have seen their teachings morph/evolve as times as passed. Again, that’s just part of being part of a faith community composed of imperfect human beings; nobody should claim to have perfect discernment of what the Holy Spirit is telling us. The one benchmark we have is the Bible, which hopefully keeps us all from straying too far from the Truth. But nobody should feel they have perfect understanding of God’s will. We should humbly admit our limited understanding, and pray for God’s Grace.
@ Dave. I am sorry that you did not find my response compelling. However, any Church who split from the Catholic Church and then split again and again and again can trace their roots only in a very indirect way. If I opened a church I could make the same argument. The key question is are all of these “spin-offs” a true representation of Christ’s teachings or have they morphed? The answer is they have morphed. It was the Catholic Church that addressed heresy in early Christianity and always has. You don’t seem to want to accept that it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Catholic Church and she is infallible when she speaks of faith and morals. So, if you don’t think the Catholic Church has the truth then I would ask you who does? Is it the Presbyterian Church, what about the Methodist Church or the non-denominational church down the street or are we “permitted” to have our subjective version of truth? And by the way, there are important differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church and even within Protestantism itself. It doesn’t make sense, Dave. The bottom line is you do not want to accept the Catholic Church as having the authority to speak about issues that you do not agree with so you make excuses for yourself and others that there is no compelling evidence for her to be the one true church. I can’t force you to believe Dave. Faith is a gift. But I can ask you to pray for the truth.
@Dave, I say that the way you treat a thing says more about what you consider it to be than the name you give it. The idea behind civil unions is to give same-sex couples effectively the same legal treatment granted to traditionally married couples. That is the big thing. Whether you call it “marriage” is the small thing. Therein lies the folly of those who gave same-sex couples civil union status thinking that it wasn’t “marriage.”
—
If airplanes were mentioned in the Bible with attributes that suggest they should not fly, then your analogy would be valid. Because the Bible makes no mention of airplanes, but does mention marriage in enough detail that there’s little room to doubt what type of relationship it is and what it means, the analogy falls flat.
—
Your implication that homosexual relationships are “loving, committed and monogamous” and should therefore be granted the status of “marriage” (or perhaps that if granted the status of “marriage” they would be “loving, committed and monogamous” - it’s not clear which) makes no sense whatsoever. Despite divorce rates and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, there continues to be pressure from society - especially among the religious - for a man and woman to take a public vow before beginning an intimate relationship with each other, for obvious reasons (e.g. the propensity for such relationships to result in children, the inherent incompatibility of men and women, the length of time it takes to raise a child, etc.) But the reasons that society and the Church in particular expects men and women to marry simply don’t exist where same-sex couples are concerned. Not only that, but even where same-sex “marriage” has been available for some time, it has been an utter failure when you consider the percentage of homosexuals who have married (the best estimate seems to be about 10% in The Netherlands). In fact, from articles I’ve read it seems that more homosexuals are interested in the indirect benefits that come from marriage being available to them than are interested in obtaining the benefits of marriage directly.
@MaryM—every Christian denomination that exists today traces its roots to Jesus and the Apostles. Diverging views on how Christ’s teachings should be interpreted and implemented were apparent from the very beginning, including differences between Paul and Peter highlighted in Acts, where Peter seemingly got things wrong. Splits have been occurring throughout the history of the Church, and as problematic as that has been, it’s part of being a Church composed of fallible human beings. All denominations trace their roots to Christ and the Apostles, and all have done their best to hear the Spirit of Truth as communicated through Scripture. Saying that today’s Catholic Church is the only one to trace its roots to Christ—i.e., that its historical path back to Christ represents the only true Church—and that its teachings have always been perfectly guided by the Spirit of Truth ... that and many other of your comments still amount to little more than another “we’re right because we say so” argument. It may represent good Catholic teaching ... and frankly, most denominations teach the same things about themselves ... but as a stand-alone argument for the authority of the Magisterium, it just isn’t very compelling.
@Kevin—The argument that anything not explicitly affirmed in the Bible is condemned won’t be convincing to very many people. It reminds me of an uncle of mine who didn’t believe in people flying in airplanes because it wasn’t natural and it wasn’t affirmed in the Bible. While many of the scriptures pertaining to marriage in the Bible do affirm timeless aspects of how couples should relate—love, commitment, fidelity—the fact that the Bible only deals with straight couples in such relationships is not telling at all. Especially given that same-sex activities throughout the time the Scriptures were being written were associated with behaviors - rape, pagan worship, prostitution, pederasty - that were anything but loving, committed, and monogamous.
And BTW—this is also about civil unions, which are also opposed by the Catholic Church.
@Dave - The Catholic Church traces its routes to Jesus and the Apostles. It is the only church that can make that claim. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Jesus went to great lengths to give us truth and to ensure it would be handed on intact until his return. He established a Church that he said would always be guided by the Spirit of truth (John 14:16–17, 16:13). He put apostles in charge of his Church, giving them gifts to govern and teach in his name, saying, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10;16.Those who honestly want the truth will “hear” it. They will recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd, distinguishing it from all merely human “voices” (cf. John 10), precisely because they are willing to do what he says. They want to follow his way, so they are attentive to him. “If any man’s will is to do [God’s] will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God” (John 7:17).Those who prefer to follow their own philosophies, on the other hand, will continue to find a welcome hiding place from truth in the world, in their prejudices, and most securely in the sound-proof booth of subjectivism. If there are a divergence of views in the pews it is not the fault of the Church. Opinions cannot be truth. Most people in the pews know what the truth is, they just choose to not follow it. They prefer to make up their own minds and choose to determine what is right or wrong.There are approximately 35,000 Protestant denominations in the United States. When someone doesn’t like what’s being preached in one church they find another one that conforms with their views. I believe though at the heart of this is the search for truth. I for one would follow the Church that traces its routes to Christ and the Apostles. She has not changed in 2,000 years and does not adapt her teachings based upon opinions or the moral standard of the time. She is the voice that speaks for Christ and who is guided by the Holy Spirit and id not just an institution made up of human beings. She is the voice of Truth when everyone around her has caved in to moral relativism.
I find disputes about whether Bible passages that condemn homosexual acts really mean what they say to be rather silly in the context of what we’re really talking about, which is same-sex “marriage.” The Bible has plenty to say about marriage, so let those who want to convince Christians that they shouldn’t oppose same-sex “marriage” show how the Bible affirms it, especially in passages such as these:
—
When one finds a worthy wife, her value is far beyond pearls. Her husband, entrusting his heart to her, has an unfailing prize. (Proverbs 31:10-11)
—
I too am a mortal man, the same as all the rest, and a descendant of the first man formed on earth. And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh in a ten-months’ period-body and blood, from the seed of man, and the pleasure that accompanies marriage. (Wisdom 7:1-2)
—
He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12)
@MaryM—I can agree with you that truth is objective, rather than subjective. I don’t agree, however, that any human being, or institution composed of human beings, has a perfect understanding of God’s will. And so, no, I do not equate the teachings of the Catholic Church with objective truth. And that gets back to my earlier points. If the Catholic Church wants people to accept its teachings, they either have to (1) convince people that the Magisterium does, in fact, have the final word on all matters of Bibilical interpretation and conveyance of God’s will or (2) they have to convince people through arguments (theological, scientific, sociological) that stand on their own. So far, they haven’t been doing a very good job on either front, as evidenced by this apparent divergence of views between the Magisterium and many in the pews. The “we’re right because we say so” response is an example of an ineffective response to (1); ridiculing well-considered and sincere opposing views is an ineffective response to (2).
@Dave - You say: “If you want a good overview of scholarly work that has been done, covering both sides of this issue and heavily referenced, see the following:” - Actually, truth is not subjective but objective. The Truth,as taught by Catholic Church is objective truth. If you choose to not believe it that is certainly your right. We have seen the tenets of Christianity watered down in many Protestant denominations in order to fit a much more “tolerant” view. This does no one a favor except lead them away from Truth.
The attendance results are on page 7 of the report. You ought to be able to infer what the question was from those results, but apparently not. The survey is an expanded version of a “topline questionnaire” that can be found at:
http://www.publicreligion.org/objects/uploads/fck/file/AVS 2010 Topline FINAL.pdf
The actual question was “Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services ... more than once a week, once a week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, seldom, never, don’t know/refused.”
As for what I had to say about the scriptural passages you raised, I am aware of the positions and supporting arguments of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Jewish community. I’m also familiar with opposing arguments of a number of Protestant denominations and Reform Judaism. I find the latter much more convincing. (That said, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to accuse anyone of twisting scripture just to distort its meaning into something they like.) If you want a good overview of scholarly work that has been done, covering both sides of this issue and heavily referenced, see the following:
http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/What We Believe/Social Issues/In Process/Human Sexuality/Resources/background.ashx
“Mans ways are not God’s ways…marriage is only intended for opposite sex as commanded by God. no more, no less. Let those who break this law/precepts of God put themselves in perdition.
@Deacon Marv. LOL, I can just see the poor guy or gal ringing your phone Marv! And I know how you probably feel sometimes, especially when they won’t let up. I took a job for a while as a pollster for the gov’t over an immunology survey and they teach how to “keep the callee from hanging up” for as long as possible, but without getting testy. Well, that’s the gov’t and it has more reasons than most poll-taking firms for stressing politeness. Unfortunately, you’d think political candidates would be even more attuned to the need to be “POLITELY correct.”
Fifteen years ago I received a slew of calls from somebody running against my then-Congressman, John Olver. Well, one night, no sooner than I’d hear this poll-taker and get out the vote caller give me the spiel about Olver being so pro-abortion and (which I knew from years back since he was also my precinct neighbor and past state senator)... she rapidly went into how Challenger X was also going to “roll back welfare spending, make the mothers more accountable and restore fiscal sanity.” BIG MISTAKE, BIG HUGE MISTAKE. She presumed, or assumed (and we all know how that’s spelled) that I was an automatic “fiscal conservative” because I was a registered elephant at the time. Well, I’d gotten sick of so many calls from Sunbelt pols asking for money two years before when they were taking over the House in the ‘94 election and saw what that led to: Gingrichburg-Titanicsville.
No way was I also one of those prolifers eager to play the role of judgmental Cotton Mather on poor welfare moms who have enough on their hands without cheapskate pols and tele-pollsters dang near lecturing me…especially when I knew the guy their willing victim was campaigning against. The first callers I politely listened to. After the third, I gave some “push back.” Guess what? Nobody’s bothered me since. Happily, I must confess, there must be a local “don’t bother with THAT JERK” list they added me to.
@ Dave - I asked you about the specific questions that were asked of those being polled. Unless I missed it, I do not see anything like that in the link you provided so if you are telling me that Catholics were asked specifically about their Mass attendance and their views on homosexuality I didn’t see it. So please provide that specific information since you say that question was asked. Your comments about the Scripture passages and its references to homosexuality, I suspect will require you to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see what it has to say about homosexual activity, and ask an Orthodox Jew about that passage in Leviticus to see what they have to say. You have a very “unique” way of twisting things to conform with your views. Let’s see the solid research you say backs up your thought.
Was it Mark Twain who said the following?
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
“Figures lie, and liars figure.”
On rare occasions when I’m called by a pollster, I first ask, “Who commissioned the poll? Who’s paying for it?” Funny, the pollster doesn’t want to answer that one, so I bid adieu and hang up.
@Mary M.—the Lev.18 passage (and a similar one in Levi.20) were given in the context of practices common in Egypt and Canaan. Both historical sources and other Biblical references indicate that same-sex practices in those cultures had to do with pagan rituals. These practices are also referenced in Deut.23, 1 Kings 14, 15, and 22, and in 2 Kings 23. (In fact, in those passages, the KJV actually uses the word “sodomites” for words that are more accurately translated as “male cult prostitutes” (RSV) or “male shrine prostitutes” (NIV).) Many historians and theologians - not all, of course - but many believe the Levitical passages really were talking about these sorts of pagan rites.
There are similar issues with Paul’s references, which many believe refer to common Graco-Roman same-sex activities involving pagan worship, prostitution, and pederasty. The word “fornicator” in 1 Cor. comes from a Greek word that generally connotes activities conducted for self-gratification (either solely out of lust or for pay). The word sometimes translated as “homosexual” is actually a word Paul seems to have made up, with a meaning that is no longer well understood, but probably didn’t refer to people in the kinds of committed, loving relationships we’re talking about here. Again, not a conclusion everyone agrees with, but one held by many and backed up with solid research.
Regarding your question about the poll, the full report can be found at:
http://www.publicreligion.org/objects/uploads/51/Catholics_and_LGBT_issues_2011_FINAL.pdf
Dave - You said the survey did ask about Mass attendance. Can you provide the specific questions asked?
@ Dave - You said - @Mary Ann Isbell—The story of Sodom and Gomorrah deals with the attempted same-sex gang rape of strangers. Please do not equate those people with the same-gender couples we are talking about here. What about this from the Bible? - Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination or 1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites ... will inherit the kingdom of God.” or Romans 1:26-27: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
So long as the Church doesn’t take its cues from hired-gun pollster politicos when it comes to shaping its moral standards, we have nothing to worry about. Cardinals Ratzinger and Schonbrunn didn’t wet their respective index fingers and raise them into the wind to inquire which way the winds were blowing when they co-authored the Church’s most recent Catechism. Does anybody believe for a moment that the Magisterium, led by no less than former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict 16th, is about to start taking any poll seriously when there’s the slightest whiff of doubt surrounding its results? Take a deep breath and relax folks. The gates of hell aren’t going to be pried open by a poll of all things.
I agree with Raymond. Without knowing the actual questions, it’s difficult to guess what the results really mean. For all we know they could be as bad as the, “Do you believe abortion should remain legal?” question floated by those who want to maintain the status quo regarding abortion, which is essentially a loaded question for a great percentage of respondents.
I would still be interested in anybody’s thoughts about how the Catholic Church should deal with this apparent divergence between the views of many parishioners and official Church teachings, based on the following two premises: (1) Many parishioners are, in fact, familiar with the arguments against legal recognition of same-gender relationships, but just don’t find them convincing or compelling, given their understanding of Scripture, the scientific evidence, and their personal experiences with same-gender couples and their families; (2) Many parishioners don’t view the Magisterium as the final authority for interpreting Scripture or conveying God’s will, but instead reserve some of that authority for themselves, based on their own understanding of the Bible. If you disagree with those two premises, that’s fine, but I really think they get at the heart of the current situation and would be mostly interested in hearing thoughts on how the Church should respond.
Distrust any polling results which do not include the actual questions. There absence puts any thinking person on guard. The headline-producing, superficial common media does not qualify in this regard.
Several years ago in Canada, the media reported a poll which showed that most Canadians favoured abortion. It was not true then; it is not true now. But here’s the question: “Do you believe that abortion should be a private matter between the woman and her doctor?” Agreement with this statement was morphed by the common media into overall approval.
Further distortion occurs in that pollsters contact only those with telephone landlines. The number of unlisted cell phones skews the results. Also,pollsters do not like to admit it, but there is an increasing number of people (like myself) who refuse to participate in any poll. An honest report would indicate the percentage of refusals.
There is no doubt that ‘how questions are formulated’ has a bearing on the outcome. Yet in this present issue of civil unions/ gay marriage, placing an onus on the design of the question is a side step from the issue. Catholics, presently, are much less inclined to follow the directives of the hierarchy, and on matters such as this tend to be more progressive. It is one matter for the church to determine that homosexuality is an abomination, that the gay person is objectively disordered, but an entirely different matter to obstruct and interfere with a gay person wishing to pursue a civil rights matter e.g marriage.
What is preached from the pulpit or descended as positional moral judgment from Rome or US bishops ought not be confused with allowing or even madating the obstruction of the rights of an individual to marry of ones own gender. I think most progressively minded Catholics are able to make this distinction and not be bullied otherwise.
@Mary Ann Isbell—The story of Sodom and Gomorrah deals with the attempted same-sex gang rape of strangers. Please do not equate those people with the same-gender couples we are talking about here.
There is an objective truth in all of this and that is that homosexual marriage/civil unions are against the teachings of the Church whether one agrees with it or not! More catechesis is needed from the pulpit on this issue and more Catholics being faithful to the teachings of the Church. Homosexual activism will continue but we know that the Church is never changing on this issue (thank God!)
Any good catholic would not support same sex marriage. They need to read Sodom & Gomorrah. Love the sinner but hate the sin. Mary
Irrespective of Christian teachings,it stands to reason that marriage means a relationship of a man and a woman. Also human civilization came to conclude that it is good for the society and accepted the marriage in that sense many centuries ago.. The Christian religion teaches that marriage is a sacrament and not dissoluble If any so called christian holds that marriage is not sacred or sacrament, he or she is free to believe so, but cannot claim to be a Christian. if some catholics vote for gay marriage it shows their ignorance caused by inadequate parental teaching and inadequate catechism teaching by the Church .It is hiughtime this ignorance is looked into to spread wisdom among the laity
I have been told that statistics can be manipulated to prove just about anything. So I do not put much faith in them. Secularism and liberalism is so subtly creeping into our culture. We need the church to stand strong. I will never give up my faith for a statement made by any bishops, the Pope has the last human word. We know what Christ said is the LAST WORD.!!
The consistent problem with these polls and others is that the polling outfit insists on conflating the numbers practicing, weekly-Mass-attending Catholics with those who are merely cultural Catholics who have no ties to the Church otherwise.
That said, the number of regular Church-going Catholics who support homosexual marriage is greater than zero and that in itself is a scandal. No true Catholic should be in favor of elevating a disordered sexual behavior to the level of a sacrament. That this opinion exists at all is a testament to how dreadful catechesis has been over the past 40 years. That is a major reason why so many Catholics are homeschooling these days. They simply don’t trust Catholic school teachers to teach the truths of the Faith.
The irony is that Catholics have been the biggest public victims of the homosexual agenda to this point. The priestly sex abuse scandal was, in the main, a homosexual scandal with 80%-90% of the cases being homosexual in nature.
I have seen a lot of polls given out by the media, especially those pertaining to Catholics. I have yet to see where the demographics come from. Personally, I’ve never been approached by any poll concerning Catholics about my own point of view, and far as I know neither has any of my fellow Catholics I associate with or come into contact with have been involved in any such poll.
Homosexuality, is wrong on so many levels. But the same-sex marriage issue is really about two things. One, “money”. So that insurance benefits can be extended to anybody living in the same household & two, having a non-natural behavior (socially & physically) accepted by society as a whole. I have known several homosexuals during my lifetime, and crimes and discrimination that has occured to them as nearly always been from other homosexuals, not heterosexuals. The discrimination part in this same-sex agenda is more myth than fact.
“They say the Church must grapple with the facts.”
Indeed. What they forget is that the Church does not determine doctrine by polling. States may decide the issue in that manner, but God’s teaching is clear. It wouldn’t matter if the vast majority of Catholics actually did support same-sex so-called marriage, the truth of the matter is still the same.
Remember, at one time, the vast majority of the Bishops and the people were Arian, believing that Jesus was not fully God. Following the democratic doctrinal method, that should have become Catholic teaching.
Re: Trish - there is no such thing as a “sexual minority”. It’s all about 50 - 50 male to female. Yes, polls (and their perpetrators) do lie. I’ve been watching them for 45 years, and their motives - which are almost always patently clear to objective scrutiny. It’s an attempt at what has been called “the self-fulfilling prophesy”. Real simple rhetoric. The Church is doing fine, and is not wringing its hands over the matter.
Do you want poll results supporting abortion rights? Simple, contract out a bunch of pollsters to conduct basic yea/nay tele-polls or stand out on street corners in towns like Amherst, Brookline, Cambridge, and Northampton, MA.
Do you want poll results supporting pro-life legislation? Simple, contract out pollsters to perform similarly simple yea/nay polls in heavily conservative voting precincts or congressional districts.
Politicians love to use polls; likewise political action groups representing all shades of ideological views.
Why should we in the Catholic Church be surprised to see this happen with regards to gay marriage or any other controversial topics? Polls make for wonderful political tire-irons when people seeking to use wedge issues are hell-bent on using them to divide the unsuspecting faithful. Let’s face it, not many people pay attention to polls unless they’re broadcasted over and over no thanks to the media. Fewer still pay any attention as to how honestly they’re carried out.
A theory: many self-identified Catholics who attend Mass regularly do so because they find it to be spiritually meaningful. They find the rites and rituals, the worship experiences, and many of the uniquely-Catholic beliefs about God and faith, to be spiritually meaningful. They draw inspiration and understanding from reading the Scriptures. But they reject the authority of the Magisterium to have the final word on Biblical interpretation and proper understanding of God’s will. They instead reserve some of that authority for themselves, based on their personal understanding of Scripture.
If that is the case, you would see the same kinds of diverse opinions on this topic as you do in many Protestant denominations. And, if that is the case, it would suggest the problem isn’t so much that the Church is doing a poor job of conveying Church teachings to the flock. It would mean that the flock needs to be convinced by the Church’s arguments and (in many cases) haven’t been.
@Mary M.—yes the survey did ask about attendance. Among Catholics in general, 74% supported some form of legal recognition of same-gender relationships (marriage or civil unions). Among those who attend Mass one or more times a week, the number was 64% ... less, but still a significant majority. Those are probably the most important numbers, and the Church opposes both civil unions and marriage for same-gender couples. That said, the split between those supporting civil unions and those supporting same-gender marriage was much more influenced by attendance, and in the direction you would expect.
Right on, Steven D. Greydanus! On going “catechetical failure” in the Church has caused Catholics to believe the propagranda on “same sex marriage” that they read in the papers and hear over the air.
When Bishop Cordileone claims that “No one believes in unjust discrimination against sexual minorities”, he isn’t talking about real people. He’s talking about no one. Real people can unjustly discriminate against sexual minorities whether Bishop Cordileone “believes” that’s what they’re doing or not.
I would like to ask if within this poll there was a question asking the respondent if they attended weekly Mass. Just because someone identifies themselves as “Catholic” does not mean they are representative of Catholic thought. If you don’t practice your faith you are living in the secular world and your opinions will reflect that. I work with so-called Catholics who believe in same-sex marriage. They never attend Mass! On the other hand, people who I that attend Mass weekly would never support gay marriage. The people who conduct these polls know exactly what they are doing and they are well aware the results are very flawed and not at all indicative of Catholic thought. A sample that asks for the religion/faith of someone means nothing if the individual is not practicing their faith. This poll is just another example of the assault on traditional marriage and deliberately skewed to favor homosexual activism.
Bishop Cordileone is correct.
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. CEO and Founder of Public Religion Research Institute and Daniel Cox, Director of Research and Co-founder are or at least had positions in the liberal People for the American Way Foundation.
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., Director and Senior Fellow
Dan Cox, Policy and Values Research Associate.
People for the American Way Foundation: http://www.pfaw.org
You can prove anything you want with a survey!
Who cares what any poll results are? Our Bishops and clergy have the job of teaching truth by word and example and administering the sacraments. This poll, if it has any value at all, is simply pointing out that more work needs to be done in those areas.
How easily we seem to forget that we are not supposed to follow the secular world.
ROISIN is correct. Bernardin & his misguided rabble have attempted to destroy the Catholic Church in the United States, doing what they pleased while telling the faithful they were following Vatican II. The Homosexual cancer in our Church is the ongoing reason for the perpetual “Phila.” type surprises. The effeminate, girly-men must be replaced & that obligation rests with Rome ! We don’t need politically slanted polls from the ultra liberal press presenting the views of supposed Catholics who in most instances have excommunicated themselves by doing as they please instead of following the catechism & canons.
What this demonstrates is that Catholic laity pay closer attention to Jesus and his commandment to “love thy neighbor” than they do to the modern day Sadduccees that rule the church. Bravo and Amen!
Whatever questions one might want to raise about the reliability of the data, it seems unlikely that the wording of questions or slanted reporting of data would result in Catholics specifically being consistently further afield than mainline Protestants as well as the general population on question after question: same-sex marriage, gay rights generally and the sinfulness of homosexual activity. That finding seems to suggest an ongoing catechetical failure in the Church.
Please do some research.
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. CEO and Founder of Public Religion Research Institute and Daniel Cox, Director of Research and Co-founder are or at least had positions in the liberal People for the American Way Foundation:
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., Director and Senior Fellow
Dan Cox, Policy and Values Research Associate
Center for American Values in Public Life
People for the American Way Foundation
2000 M Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036
See: http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/cav/CGGRMemo.pdf
Also check the People for the American Way Foundation web site: http://www.pfaw.org/
You can prove anything you want with a survey!
The article states “that some say that the Church must grapple with the facts [i.e., that most Catholics accept homosexual unions, etc.].” Does anyone really believe that the Magisterium (Pope and bishops in union with him)will ever change its stance or its total disapproval on same-sex unions? The answer is “never”; not because the Catholic Church is wrong-headed, retrograde or medieval, but because it cannot teach error, especially on what is intrinsically wrong. And if the majority of baptised Catholics believe the above-mentioned unions are perfectly OK, then so be it, they can find another religious body which they can call their home.
Simple! Polls lie, those who lie, poll.
First of all, I doubt the statistics. Second, any Catholic who favors same sex marriages let them leave! Sodomy is not only sinful, but is also unhealthy. It defies all common sense, and knowledge of anatomy or physiology. Maybe it is an example of evolution at work, who knows, but it is not a basis for holy matrimony. I think that some Catholics have become so open minded their brains have fallen out.
I do love the quote “No one believes in unjust discrimination against sexual minorities,” said Bishop Cordileone.
Yes, we do discriminate but is is not UNJUST…
I guess justice is in the eye of the beholder.
So, who listens to, reads or puts faith in NPR, USA Today & especially the L.A. “Communist” Times ? Real Catholics abhor this abomination. Any religious or lay Catholic that espouses this does so at their eternal peril !
The report summary states: “A majority of Catholics (56%) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin. Among the general population, less than half (46%) believe it is not a sin.”
I would just like to point out that just because people, including Catholics, do not believe the homosexual act is sinful, doesn’t make it true. I can believe the sky is green, or that an apple is an orange, but that doesn’t make it a fact.
Please pray for our fellow Catholics to have more faith.
When we, as people of faith, spend millions in advertising on crushing same sex marriage, I feel nothing but shame. Is this really where Catholic focus should be? Feed people, clothe people, support people. Live by example!
In my experience, the most obviously homosexual clergy are the same men barking loudest against the acceptance of gay unions. Much like the case of evangelical Ted Haggart and his ilk—spreading hatred while paying male prostitutes for their services on the sly. I wish I could say that the Catholic church was better than that. But, since we have no vote on who becomes Bishop, who becomes Cardinal, it appears we got the leaders we do not deserve.
The hierarchy of the US bishops has failed us, many are practicing homosexuals, with a history of preying on young priests, who have tainted the sacred apostolic tradition. How can we possibly follow God’s laws when our Pharisees have brought shame and despair to the followers? My faith is tested non stop with the on going expose of priests, bishops and cardinals that do not follow God’s laws but demand adherence for the flock. Three of my four parishes have had sexual criminal scandal with young boys and girls, confirmed and tried. Bishops like McCarrick kind have brought debauchery and immense shame and sin to our One True Faith…God help us
Regarding the correlation between polls and state referendum results, polls in the past have generally shown majority opposition to allowing same-gender marriages. That is not inconsistent with how state referendums have gone. I also think there is recognition that, given the demographics regarding who tends to come out on voting day, that there will have to be significant majority support for gay marriage before you start seeing such referendums passing. What is most significant, though, is the long-standing poll trends showing increasing support for government recognition of same-gender relationships in general, and same-gender marriage in particular. That trend is in no way inconsistent with referendum results, and even many opponents of same-gender marriage recognize the trend is real and significant.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.