88% ? :(

[wmw]

USA Today Article - usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-24/catholic-religious-identity-survey/50891152/1

The survey, a comprehensive look at the beliefs and practices of 1,442 U.S. Catholic adults in 2011

88%, say “how a person lives is more important than whether he or she is Catholic,”

86% say “you can disagree with aspects of church teachings and still remain loyal to the church.”

40% say you can be a good Catholic without believing that in Mass, the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ

31% attending Mass at least once a week

30% support the “teaching authority claimed by the Vatican.”

 

[iheartdance]

 

[pnewton]

I note that USAToday doesn’t link the “research.” In looking at statistics, sampling is everything. That is what I am interested in seeing. Also, wording needs to be neutral.

 

[_Abyssinia]

USA Today Article - usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-24/catholic-religious-identity-survey/50891152/1

The survey, a comprehensive look at the beliefs and practices of 1,442 U.S. Catholic adults in 2011

88%, say “how a person lives is more important than whether he or she is Catholic,”

86% say “you can disagree with aspects of church teachings and still remain loyal to the church.”

40% say you can be a good Catholic without believing that in Mass, the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ

31% attending Mass at least once a week

30% support the “teaching authority claimed by the Vatican.”

When 31% of Catholics according to the poll attend mass once a week you can take the seriously

 

[pnewton]

This is an NCR survey. So the percentages are reflective of NCR type of Catholics, as best I can tell by their article. I think this pretty much explains why their sampling appears so counter-intuitive.

ncronline.org/news/catholics-america/different-generations-church#table2

 

[Gorgias]

100% of people who drink orange juice will die.

Something to think about.

Not true. Ostensibly, some who are present at the end of time will drink orange juice; these will not die, per se.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I was watching a news show last night and apparently 88% of the Catholic party believe that Catholics should be able to make their own choices while only 11% believe Catholics should make their choices within the laws of the Church.

Does that make sense how I worded it?

Anyway, this makes me very sad.
A relative thought this quite humorous and laughed at me basically for following church teachings. Didn’t bother me though - Jesus lives!

edit:
88% of the Catholic party believes that people should not have to remain fiaithful to the Catholic Church, but should be able to make their own decisions. <— I wrote that in my journal last night after hearing it, so that makes more sense. Sorry for the confusing post

Yah, I guess I won’t put much stock into this poll. And like someone said, we just keep marching along. I asked my relative i referred to, about the “party” and he said it was the Democratic party. shrug I don’t know much about politics

Herein lies your problem. The “Catholic party” is supposedly the “Democratic party”. I’m not surprise about your stats because of that.

Bishop Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield and Bishop Ricken of the Diocese of Green Bay disprove that way of thinking.

 

[catholictiger]

tells me one simple thing the future leaders of this church have alot of evangelizing to do, the sexual revolution modern relativism, and many other causes has done a number to the culture and to the Church. The Church needs to step up and be a light in the ever growing darkness.

 

[runningdude]

Problem is with polls on Catholics, is I think pollsters just ask people whether they are Catholics for most polls, and they do not ask about their adherence to the faith. There are people who never go to Church but they were baptised Catholic and call themselves Catholic. I do not think polls should group non practising Catholics with practising Catholics because the result of the poll will be skewed because those that are not practising Catholicism will have different views on a range of topics than Catholics who adhere to the Church’s teaching

It is Catholic doctrine that those who are “non-practicing” are Catholic. When the Church counted 1 billion adherents worldwide, it included these Catholics in that number.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim 60 million members in the United States, and then exclude the millions from the opinion polls, who don’t fully practice to the faith.

You can’t have your cake and then eat around the bitter parts…

 

[Cranch]

It is Catholic doctrine that those who are “non-practicing” are Catholic. When the Church counted 1 billion adherents worldwide, it included these Catholics in that number.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim 60 million members in the United States, and then exclude the millions from the opinion polls, who don’t fully practice to the faith.

You can’t have your cake and then eat around the bitter parts…

There is however nothing wrong with making distinctions in that population regarding belief and practice. At least that’s the message when it comes to Muslims.

 

[wmw]

It is Catholic doctrine that those who are “non-practicing” are Catholic. When the Church counted 1 billion adherents worldwide, it included these Catholics in that number.

It would be intellectually dishonest to claim 60 million members in the United States, and then exclude the millions from the opinion polls, who don’t fully practice to the faith.

You can’t have your cake and then eat around the bitter parts…

The greater mission field is among those who say they are Catholic and are already Baptized Catholic. I think that most at least occasionally come to church. Yet, I don’t think they get that they are being lukewarm and actually might be worse off spiritually than a Bushman in Africa who is guided by his tribal chief and witchdoctor in that the poorly practicing and weakly catechized Catholic is so close, yet not really committing to their faith.

 

[JaMc]

Yah, I guess I won’t put much stock into this poll. And like someone said, we just keep marching along. I asked my relative i referred to, about the “party” and he said it was the Democratic party. shrug I don’t know much about politics

Maybe in the days of Al Smith through JFK the Democrats could have been considered a “Catholic” party, but those times are long gone. The last pro-life Catholic on a national Democrat ticket was Sargent Shriver, and that was only as VP. Just search the Internet on how Bob Casey, Sr. was treated at the 1992 National Convention, and you will see that the Democrats haven’t been friendly toward Catholics in many, many years.

 

[runningdude]

There is however nothing wrong with making distinctions in that population regarding belief and practice. …

This is what opinion polls attempt to measure.

 

[Cranch]

Originally Posted by Cranch
There is however nothing wrong with making distinctions in that population regarding belief and practice. …

You miss my point (which I made badly perhaps). I’m not talking about poll results, I’m talking about distinguishing between categories of those polled. Analogous to distinguishing between likely voters and all adults in political polling. Then the proper weight can be given to the poll findings.

 

[runningdude]

You miss my point (which I made badly perhaps). I’m not talking about poll results, I’m talking about distinguishing between categories of those polled. Analogous to distinguishing between likely voters and all adults in political polling. Then the proper weight can be given to the poll findings.

The results of the polls speak for themselves regarding the level of observance. The Catholic Church does not distinguish between “observant” and “non-observant” when reporting its total membership. It would be hypocritical to expect poll workers to do the otherwise.

For instance, if the poll distinguished between “observant”, “semi-observant”, or “non-observant”, it would produce meaningless results, such as “100% of observant Catholics believe X”, “50% of semi-observant believe X”, “0% of non-observant…”. It would then have to report distorting numbers, such as “10% meet of those polled met the definition of observant”, when it it really only disagreement over a single issue, however important.

Pollsters distinguishing levels of observance would only create more opportunities to distort the results to match their agenda.

 

[Pug]

The results of the polls speak for themselves regarding the level of observance. The Catholic Church does not distinguish between “observant” and “non-observant” when reporting its total membership. It would be hypocritical to expect poll workers to do the otherwise.

For instance, if the poll distinguished between “observant”, “semi-observant”, or “non-observant”, it would produce meaningless results, such as “100% of observant Catholics believe X”, “50% of semi-observant believe X”, “0% of non-observant…”

I disagree. I think it depends on what the responder thinks the poll is asking. Since most polls that I have looked into seem to allow more than one way to understand the question, it is unlikely that you will get something like “100% of observant Catholics believe X.”

Take the 88% figure upon which this thread is based. Both me and my spouse are “observant Catholics” and we are with the 88% upon first glance at the question. I assume those who are not with the 88% interpret the question differently than we do. It does not mean that there is a difference of belief. Of course, there probably is a difference of belief, but that question is not worded helpfully enough to determine what it is.

For reference I quote another previous poster:

88%, say “how a person lives is more important than whether he or she is Catholic,”

 

[Cranch]

The results of the polls speak for themselves regarding the level of observance. The Catholic Church does not distinguish between “observant” and “non-observant” when reporting its total membership. It would be hypocritical to expect poll workers to do the otherwise.

For instance, if the poll distinguished between “observant”, “semi-observant”, or “non-observant”, it would produce meaningless results, such as “100% of observant Catholics believe X”, “50% of semi-observant believe X”, “0% of non-observant…”. It would then have to report distorting numbers, such as “10% meet of those polled met the definition of observant”, when it it really only disagreement over a single issue, however important.

Pollsters distinguishing levels of observance would only create more opportunities to distort the results to match their agenda.

I guess I see what you’re driving at, but I don’t share your concern that anyone who considers themselves Catholic be included in a “total membership” number nor were my posts about that. The number doesn’t really mean anything especially under those terms. I am concerned about distorted views held by Catholics and non-Catholics alike about what the Faith is.

The Faith is not what Catholics who see no need for Mass attendance say it is. You say this is brought out in the poll results themselves, e.g. “observance.” But I wonder, when nearly 70% of “Catholics” do not attend regular Mass, how might a non-Catholic judge the importance or even the concept of observance? And what happens when the poll has no questions that might help gauge the observance of respondents but only asks for “Catholic” opinion on controversial issues? You might call the results valid within the poll’s own logic, but could distortion (of the Truth) result?