Archdiocese survey finds diverging views among area Catholics

[_Abyssinia]

The vast majority of Catholics in the west have rejected the teaching.

Do you think that the majority of Catholics that use contraception for spacing out or preventing pregnancy go to Church on weekly basis, or agree with the Church on issues like abortion, marriage and premarital sex?

 

[Tigg]

The vast majority of Catholics in the west have rejected the teaching.

Which does not mean it is not the salvific path to follow, but only that those Catholics, at considerable risk, consider their own opinion above revealed truth.

 

[chefmomster2]

Is it verified that every person who answers the survey is a member of the diocese? Why has the decision been made to release the survey results? Has is been determined how many of the survey respondents went to Church weekly?

I don’t know the answer to the first question.

As regards the second, the Church in the past has been routinely criticized for “hiding” documents, etc. In mu opinion, they did this in the spirit of openness.

When I took the survey, it was self-identifying- it asked if you were clergy, a bishop, a lay minister or whatever. I don’t recall that it asked about your mass attendance. My guess is that they wanted the opinions of any Catholic whether they were faithful practicing members or not. That guess is based on the tone of the questions which I would generalize as: Do we teach “X” clearly?, “How could we do it better?”, "How can we better bring those who disagree with the teaching into communion with the Church on “X”?

 

[chefmomster2]

How many who have stated opinions about the results of the survey actually took the survey?

 

[ProVobis]

Do you think that the majority of Catholics that use contraception for spacing out or preventing pregnancy go to Church on weekly basis, or agree with the Church on issues like abortion, marriage and premarital sex?

There may be a lot of correlation there, but isn’t it possible many don’t go to Church because of these rules? Just saying.

When I took the survey, it was self-identifying- it asked if you were clergy, a bishop, a lay minister or whatever. I don’t recall that it asked about your mass attendance.

Maybe they should have, since attendance at Mass is also a Church rule.

 

[chefmomster2]

Maybe they should have, since attendance at Mass is also a Church rule.

Maybe. I think, though, that they were looking more specifically at the family. (There were questions about raising children in the faith including worship and teaching.)

 

[Tigg]

Soliciting the opinions of the laity is NOT the same as catering to opinions. The pope wanted a snapshot of the problems facing the Church. In no place did the questions infer amy change to the doctrinal beliefs of the Church. What they did ask repeatedly was how to return separated Catholics to the Church and to full communion.

A thorough reading of the actual questions can be found here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20131105_iii-assemblea-sinodo-vescovi_en.html

Well, let’s look at this more closely.

Consequently, we can well understand the urgency with which the worldwide episcopate is called upon to gather cum et sub Petro to address these challenges. For example, by simply calling to mind the fact that, as a result of the current situation, many children and young people will never see their parents receive the sacraments, then we understand just how urgent are the challenges to evangelization arising from the current situation, which can be seen in almost every part of the “global village”. Corresponding in a particular manner to this reality today is the wide acceptance of the teaching on divine mercy and concern towards people who suffer on the periphery of societies, globally and in existential situations. Consequently, vast expectations exist concerning the decisions which are to be made pastorally regarding the family. A reflection on these issues by the Synod of Bishops, in addition to it being much needed and urgent, is a dutiful expression of charity towards those entrusted to the Bishops’ care and the entire human family.

Again, reiterating divine mercy without mention of God’s justice. (Are they saying one is to be emphasized while disregarding the other?) Did I miss the part about repentance? Perhaps the bishops are actually unaware of the fact that many remarried Catholics already receive communion on their own volition, although the ones I personally know and consider friends, say they do not go to Confession. I guess I’m just confused. Many Catholics have clearly rejected what the Church has to say, but still, knowing this, the synod will validly consider their attitudes and perspective although contrary to Divine Law.

I think it is important for all Catholics to withhold judgment until we see where this is actually headed.

I think it important for Catholics to truly understand their perennial faith and know that what has always been taught and believed must continue to be taught and believed and no authentic “development” of doctrine can change it.

Earlier, sensus fidelium was mentioned with a clarifying link. Here’s one response more closely attuned to my own Catholic sense.

No Pope, no Council, no Synod, no priest in any confessional—no one has any right or capacity to set aside Divine Law [regarding divorce and remarriage.] Those who argue that the Church should change her teaching on this matter are asking the Church to do something she cannot do. They are asking her to overrule Jesus. Appeals to culture, pointing out what certain Protestant denominations do or don’t do, even the practice of the Orthodox churches—none of these can or should overrule the stance of the Roman Catholic Church. We have held, properly, that Jesus’ teaching on the matter cannot be set aside by formulas, human rituals, human judges, human clerics, or any number of euphemisms.

~ Msgr. Charles Pope ~

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe. I think, though, that they were looking more specifically at the family. (There were questions about raising children in the faith including worship and teaching.)

According to other sources, the father’s attendance at Mass weighs much more heavily than the mother’s. One of these days I’m sure these types of surveys will include that factor.

 

[chefmomster2]

Again, reiterating divine mercy without mention of God’s justice. (Are they saying one is to be emphasized while disregarding the other?) Did I miss the part about repentance?

The mercy and justice of God are inextricably entwined. They are individually and collectively necessary. I don’t believe that the mention of one can ever dismisses the other. The fact that repentence was not mentioned does not presume that it will not be addressed.

Perhaps the bishops are actually unaware of the fact that many remarried Catholics already receive communion on their own volition, although the ones I personally know and consider friends, say they do not go to Confession. I guess I’m just confused

.
Many Catholics have clearly rejected what the Church has to say, but still, knowing this, the synod will validly consider their attitudes and perspective although contrary to Divine Law.

• First, these are the people the Church is trying to reach. These are the people who the Church is called to minister to in an effort to bring them back into full communion in the Church.
• Second, they also solicited the opinions of devout Catholics who follow Church doctrine. And Twice-A-Year Catholics. And all other Catholics.
• If the opinions of devout churchgoers was not appropriately represented that would be because they did not complete the survey.
• There is no reason to believe that the opinions of the “fallen away” will be held preferential to those of the devout.
• We have no way of knowing the bavkground of thise taking the survey. I tend to believe it would include more churchgoers because they would be the ones who got the info through their parishes.

I think it important for Catholics to truly understand their perennial faith and know that what has always been taught and believed must continue to be taught and believed and no authentic “development” of doctrine can change it.

Absolutely. And that has been the consistent role of the Church. We will have to wait and see what happens as this synod goes forward. We have no reason to believe that the Pope and the bishops will do anything that will divert from this. I believe that my role is to pray for guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout the synod. Additionally, I will believe that the attendees at the synod will proceed with caution and with a true adherence to the doctrines that the Church holds dear. I don’t have the right to pre-judge. I must have faith in the leaders of the Church because they are the Apostolic Successors of the Apostles and deserve my faith.

Earlier, sensus fidelium was mentioned with a clarifying link. Here’s one response more closely attuned to my own Catholic sense.

From CNS: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1305130.htm
Pope tells theologians ‘sense of the faithful’ is not majority opinion
December 2, 2016

“By the gift of the Holy Spirit, the members of the church possess the ‘sense of the faith,’” he said. “It is a question of a kind of ‘spiritual instinct,’ which permits us to ‘think with the church’ and discern what is consistent with the apostolic faith and the spirit of the Gospel.”

The pope said the magisterium, the church’s teaching authority, has the “duty to pay attention to what the Spirit tells the church through authentic manifestations of the ‘sense of the faithful.’”

But he told the theologians this sense "must not be confused with the sociological reality of majority opinion. That is something else. It is therefore important, and it is your task, to elaborate the criteria that permit discernment of authentic expressions of the ‘sense of the faithful.’"

Citing his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis said theologians “must always listen to the faith as lived by the humble and little ones, to whom it has pleased the father to reveal what he has hidden from the learned and the wise.”

 

[Tigg]

From CNS: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1305130.htm
Pope tells theologians ‘sense of the faithful’ is not majority opinion
December 2, 2016

“By the gift of the Holy Spirit, the members of the church possess the ‘sense of the faith,’” he said. “It is a question of a kind of ‘spiritual instinct,’ which permits us to ‘think with the church’ and discern what is consistent with the apostolic faith and the spirit of the Gospel.”

The pope said the magisterium, the church’s teaching authority, has the “duty to pay attention to what the Spirit tells the church through authentic manifestations of the ‘sense of the faithful.’”

But he told the theologians this sense "must not be confused with the sociological reality of majority opinion. That is something else. It is therefore important, and it is your task, to elaborate the criteria that permit discernment of authentic expressions of the ‘sense of the faithful.’"

Citing his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis said theologians “must always listen to the faith as lived by the humble and little ones, to whom it has pleased the father to reveal what he has hidden from the learned and the wise.”

This in no way deviates from the previously posted quote.

 

[chefmomster2]

This in no way deviates from the previously posted quote.

Nor was it intended to! I agree with it. What my quote does is to show that despite the fears of many over the upcoming synod, Pope Francis appears to fully understand the importance of doctrine and the need for a prayerful and thoughtful approach to these topics.

 

[Ender]

Many Catholics have clearly rejected what the Church has to say, but still, knowing this, the synod will validly consider their attitudes and perspective although contrary to Divine Law.

I don’t think that’s what is happening here. If the attitudes and perspectives of the dissenters are being considered it is not with the idea of changing divine law but of understanding the extent of the problem and to gain a sense of how to reach out to these people. If we believe the Church is what she claims to be then we should have no concern that she will stumble in this situation. I think the citation you provided explains the intent of the synod:* Consequently, vast expectations exist concerning** the decisions which are to be made pastorally *regarding the family. A reflection on these issues by the Synod of Bishops, in addition to it being much needed and urgent, is a dutiful expression of charity towards those entrusted to the Bishops’ care and the entire human family.
The effort seems to be directed at how to reach out to those who reject the truth; I don’t think there will be any effort to change what that truth is. This is a pastoral concern.

Ender

 

[Rence]

I’m wondering at this point, what the Church is thinking and why it is becoming so popular to cater to human opinion. What can this survey possibly hope to achieve because I find it hard to believe that the ecclesiastic powers that be are ignorant of the non-existence of true catechesis. To be blunt, people may dissent, mock and even persecute the Church, but that is completely irrelevant as the truths of the faith are absolute.

I’m sure it’s just a means to assess just how much Catholics disagree with Church teaching, and a means in which they can bring back those rules and laws to the communities out there. It would be nice if some of the teachings would change, but that’s not likely to happen. After having a small sample Q/A panel (which is what this really is), they will have a good audience to build on to reaffirm their teachings and rules. I wouldn’t look at this process negatively. They’re not going to change their rules and laws no matter how many people disagree with them. We know the Church better than that.

 

[Ender]

They’re not going to change their rules and laws no matter how many people disagree with them.

This comment illustrates how much language matters. If church doctrines are seen as rules and laws developed by the Magisterium then disagreeing with them is sensible; we all oppose laws we feel are misguided. If, however, church doctrines are understood to be revealed truth then opposing them is irrational. I really don’t think most people have any conception of who it is they are disagreeing with when they reject, say, the doctrine against contraception.

Ender

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t think that’s what is happening here. If the attitudes and perspectives of the dissenters are being considered it is not with the idea of changing divine law but of understanding the extent of the problem and to gain a sense of how to reach out to these people. If we believe the Church is what she claims to be then we should have no concern that she will stumble in this situation. I think the citation you provided explains the intent of the synod:* Consequently, vast expectations exist concerning** the decisions which are to be made pastorally ***regarding the family. A reflection on these issues by the Synod of Bishops, in addition to it being much needed and urgent, is a dutiful expression of charity towards those entrusted to the Bishops’ care and the entire human family.
The effort seems to be directed at how to reach out to those who reject the truth; I don’t think there will be any effort to change what that truth is. This is a pastoral concern.

Ender

Yes, totally totally agree. But we need to be aware that dissenters go all the way up to Cardinal Kasper. They have a voice pretty high up. I think they are a minority in the Church hierarchy but we can’t deny their presence and the fact that they will manipulate what the other orthodox Bishops etc. are trying to do here. (Did you hear that quote from Kasper that most Christians are not heroic? Hence, the need to water down the practice of the faith to their level? Sometimes that guy sounds just like Satan tempting Jesus in the desert! straight from the mouth of the Grand Inquisitor, Brothers Karamazov, almost a parody - we have improved Jesus and moved on, we’ll go ahead and turn the stones into bread; we’re putting the struggle behind us)

And to the point someone else had that Catholics who don’t accept teachings don’t attend Mass because of it, and so, if we can change teaching we bring people in, utter lethal nonsense. The Anglican Church has accommodated every single modern change and is basically dead for it. To secularize the Church is to kill the Church. I understand and even sympathize with the motives behind this effort to change teaching to a certain degree (from the eyes of my human side, as opposed to the inner side of God). People just don’t want to feel the sense of moral obligation Christianity opposes on them and for whatever reason they lack the will, self-discipline and desire to accept Church teaching and make the top priority in their life an effort to change in accordance with it. They are trying to eliminate the struggle of their conscience - eat your cake and have it too. This is not complicated.

 

[Teelynn]

Not entirely. One Pope managed to push through the infallible decree of the Assumption and cited the popularity of such a move. Same went for eating meat on Friday, the Saturday Mass fulfilling the obligation, and vernacular in the liturgy among other things, I believe.

But your point is taken.

I wasn’t aware of the eating meat on Friday. To my knowledge the Church never really ‘changed’ the idea of sacrificing on Friday. If you eat meat on Friday then you should sacrifice in another way. I thought most of these changes were part of Vat ll but I’m just asking because I am not the expert here (to say the least)

On another aspect that someone pointed out (could have been you but I’d have to look back) that the Church will not change doctrine anyway regardless of the outcome of the Synod. This is true enough, but I am worried that this will be another watershed moment where things will go haywire again just as they did after Vat ll and the clergy will start doing things not exactly in conformity to actual Church teaching. First thing that went through my mind when this was announced: “Here we go again…the fallout from Vat ll repeated.”

 

[FollowChrist34]

On another aspect that someone pointed out (could have been you but I’d have to look back) that the Church will not change doctrine anyway regardless of the outcome of the Synod. This is true enough, but I am worried that this will be another watershed moment where things will go haywire again just as they did after Vat ll and the clergy will start doing things not exactly in conformity to actual Church teaching. First thing that went through my mind when this was announced: “Here we go again…the fallout from Vat ll repeated.”

Yes, I think you are right. There a lot of smoke and mirrors right now in terms of what’s going to change, pastoral application and/or teaching. And while we can dispute endlessly about how many angels and/or annulments can fit onto the head of a pin, it’s only common sense to see where, in practicality, this will go in today’s Church. You don’t have to be a mystic to figure that one out.

 

[WKW_69]

Do you think that the majority of Catholics that use contraception for spacing out or preventing pregnancy go to Church on weekly basis, or agree with the Church on issues like abortion, marriage and premarital sex?

I think most Catholic agree with the church that abortion is evil. As far as those other things people have different feelings about those issues. So I can’t say what the majority believes.

 

[ProVobis]

I wasn’t aware of the eating meat on Friday. To my knowledge the Church never really ‘changed’ the idea of sacrificing on Friday. If you eat meat on Friday then you should sacrifice in another way. I thought most of these changes were part of Vat ll but I’m just asking because I am not the expert here (to say the least)

I think it was around 1966 when the Pope relaxed the Friday meat abstinence. Prior to that all Fridays of the year except Solemnities (Christmas, etc.) were to be meat-free and under pain of mortal sin to have violated that, except in cases where health might have been impacted.

 

[mikekle]

I read a few of the questions posted online. It seemed to me that the questions were directed at diocesan officials rather than individual Catholics. I really doubt whether this ‘survey’ was carried in the manner intended.

In any case, the article mentions 1,300 respondents, out of an archdiocese of 600,000. I’m not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this. A diocesan official says it was not a scientific survey.

The fact is, Church teaching on contraception, divorce, and same sex marriage will not be changing.

Well, if these figures are accurate, then IMO, the church has not done its job, as far as preaching and teaching its members, that is obvious if they are making these kinds of statements.