Gallup Poll: "Catholics" more liberal than average American

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caveman

Guest
Gallup poll results as reported by The Baptist Standard:

Asked whether a range of issues are “morally acceptable,” here’s how Catholics compared to the general population:

• Abortion: Catholics 40 percent; 41 percent overall

• Homosexual relations: Catholics 54 percent; 45 percent overall

• Divorce: Catholics 71 percent; 66 percent overall

• Embryonic stem cell research: Catholics 63 percent; 62 percent overall

• Heterosexual sex outside marriage: Catholics 67 percent; 57 percent overall

• Having a child out of wedlock: Catholics 61 percent; 52 percent overall
 
Someone is not admitting that they are a lapsed Catholic when responding to a poll.
 
I agree with Fitz. There are many people who say they are Catholic because they were baptized as such but do not hold the values of the faith.

My question would be: How to “Practicing Catholics” compare to average Americans?
 
I agree with Fitz. There are many people who say they are Catholic because they were baptized as such but do not hold the values of the faith.

My question would be: How to “Practicing Catholics” compare to average Americans?
I would be interested in this also.
 
Practicing or not, such polls reflect the abysmal level of catechesis in this country.
 
A majority of “Catholics” also voted for Obama - res ipsa loquitur.

But, as others have said, the poll is based on self-identified “Catholics,” not those who attend Mass at least weekly.
 
This poll brings up a wider question:

Do lapsed Catholics have a bigger tendency to be more opposed to the teachings of the Catholic faith than those who were never Catholic in the first place?
 
Just my $0.02 but the good, practicing Catholics here on this board are the exception, not the rule. I look at my diocese in particular and see those stats (in that poll) to be fairly accurate.

Practicing Catholic or not, it does reflect the teaching/lack of the Faith here in America. And yes I do think lapsed Catholics tend to be more “rebellious” toward the teachings.

And a rebellious Catholic is not automatically a Protestant. I find many more pro-life, Conservative types amongst Protestant circles. And they take the Christian faith more seriously. We may need to swallow our pride a bit and learn from them.
 
Someone is not admitting that they are a lapsed Catholic when responding to a poll.
Here is the actual Gallup Poll.

I just happened to have posted this poll once already today in a completely different context. It is a very interesting poll. It does in fact break it down by attenders and non-attenders. But even Catholic attenders are fairly liberal and show substantial dissent from their monarchs.

Take for instance homosexuality: 44% of Catholic regular attenders find it morally acceptable. This is virtually identical with the American average. Catholic non-attenders on the other hand approve of homosexuality at over 60%. Thus the Catholic average is something like 54% which is substantially higher than the American average.

Anyway, it makes interesting reading.
 
The statistics of views of Catholics depend on the country they are in. The results in Italy or Spain are likely to be more conservative than those of America.
 
The statistics of views of Catholics depend on the country they are in. The results in Italy or Spain are likely to be more conservative than those of America.
Are you serious?? I do not know about Spain but I think that Italy is in no better shape than the USA. Just look at the lifestyle of the elected conservative politicians.
 
Here is the actual Gallup Poll.

I just happened to have posted this poll once already today in a completely different context. It is a very interesting poll. It does in fact break it down by attenders and non-attenders. But even Catholic attenders are fairly liberal and show substantial dissent from their monarchs.

Take for instance homosexuality: 44% of Catholic regular attenders find it morally acceptable. This is virtually identical with the American average. Catholic non-attenders on the other hand approve of homosexuality at over 60%. Thus the Catholic average is something like 54% which is substantially higher than the American average.

Anyway, it makes interesting reading.
What I found interesting is that 53% of the Church going Catholics accept premarital sex but only 48% accept children out of wedlock. No surprise that young pregnant girls of Church going families seek abortions. For real Catholics it should have been 0% to sex outside marriage and 100% to children no matter what.
 
It would be interesting to know what the geographical breakdowns are.

At the risk of being accused of “regionalism”, we ought to recognize that the major concentrations of Catholics are in the East and in the Rust Belt portions of the upper midwest. (Texas and California would be different situations, most Catholics in both likely being Hispanic) Both regions are also liberal-leaning in every way, pretty much across the board. This poll, to me, suggests that likely Catholics in those regions have absorbed as much or more from their surrounding culture than they have from the Church. It would be interesting to know, by region, what, e.g., high-church Protestants and Jews would say.

Most regularly churchgoing Protestants are in the South and the non-industrial midwest, or so I am inclined to at least suspect. Therefore, these results, awful as they are, might represent regional ways as much as anything else.
 
It would be interesting to know what the geographical breakdowns are.

At the risk of being accused of “regionalism”, we ought to recognize that the major concentrations of Catholics are in the East and in the Rust Belt portions of the upper midwest. (Texas and California would be different situations, most Catholics in both likely being Hispanic) Both regions are also liberal-leaning in every way, pretty much across the board. This poll, to me, suggests that likely Catholics in those regions have absorbed as much or more from their surrounding culture than they have from the Church. It would be interesting to know, by region, what, e.g., high-church Protestants and Jews would say.

Most regularly churchgoing Protestants are in the South and the non-industrial midwest, or so I am inclined to at least suspect. Therefore, these results, awful as they are, might represent regional ways as much as anything else.
You’re right. I was recently in the Kansas City area. Those people know how to Catholic. I couldn’t believe how many parishes had Perpetual Adoration. The Catholics in North Dakota and Nebraska seem to know how to Catholic as well. It’s not a surprise the places they live are overwhelmingly voting pro-life. A good example is Dickinson, North Dakota. The town is overwhelmingly Catholic yet it votes overwhelmingly pro-life. The same seems to be true of Catholics in South Dakota as well. Contrast that with another big Catholic place – Dubuque, Iowa. It’s an old industrial town and 75 percent of the town is Catholic, but it votes overwhelmingly for pro-choice politicians. In my own area which is in the rust belt, the Catholics in the town vote overwhelmingly pro-choice while the Catholics in the same county in the suburb next door vote overwhelmingly pro-life. The difference is very simple – many Catholics can’t see beyond the orders of their union bosses.
 
At the risk of being accused of “regionalism”, we ought to recognize that the major concentrations of Catholics are in the East and in the Rust Belt portions of the upper midwest. (Texas and California would be different situations, most Catholics in both likely being Hispanic) Both regions are also liberal-leaning in every way, pretty much across the board. This poll, to me, suggests that likely Catholics in those regions have absorbed as much or more from their surrounding culture than they have from the Church. It would be interesting to know, by region, what, e.g., high-church Protestants and Jews would say.
I live in the upper midwest (Chicago). I don’t think it is a matter of Catholics in these regions absorbing the surrounding culture. In most cases, they formed the culture itself.

Chicago’s distinctive culture is almost entirely a result of the Catholics from central and eastern Europe that settled it. Sure we also have Jews, Orthodox Christians, the mainlines, Black evangelicals, but by and large these groups have not affected the overall culture of Chicago–instead each being content to have their own subculture.

There’s a reason why it’s almost instinctive for Chicagoans to refer to a reverend as Father even when he’s not Catholic. It’s because Catholicism has been the dominant religious institution here.
 
I live in the upper midwest (Chicago). I don’t think it is a matter of Catholics in these regions absorbing the surrounding culture. In most cases, they formed the culture itself.

Chicago’s distinctive culture is almost entirely a result of the Catholics from central and eastern Europe that settled it. Sure we also have Jews, Orthodox Christians, the mainlines, Black evangelicals, but by and large these groups have not affected the overall culture of Chicago–instead each being content to have their own subculture.

There’s a reason why it’s almost instinctive for Chicagoans to refer to a reverend as Father even when he’s not Catholic. It’s because Catholicism has been the dominant religious institution here.
I would not argue with your assessment of culture in Chicago in a general sort of way. Your comments remind me of the chapter in Tom Wolfe’s “Bonfire of the Vanities” entitled “Tawkin’ Irish”. In Wolfe’s tongue-in-cheek, but fundamentally accurate way, he described how Irish influence in New York’s law enforcement establishment sort of “required” everyone, from blacks to Jews to whatever, to “become Irish” because the law enforcement culture had been so pervasively Irish for so long. One even felt obliged to adopt whatever New York ways of speking and acting are peculiar to the New York Irish regardless of one’s real origins. (Thus the chapter title)

Other influences can enter the same cultural stream as one’s religion or ethnicity. As another poster pointed out above, “being Democrat” or “being a union man” was almost identified with being Catholic for a very long time. The cultures sort of melded together at some times in history. My own Irish grandfather, a railroadman, listed three organizations on his “traveling card” (a custom of his time) The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Knights of Columbus and the Knights of St. Malachy (an Irish-specific Catholic organization, whose purpose was to encourage non-drinking among its members) The affiliations were unified and tight.

One might be less surprised, today, that 54% of Catholics (Hispanics included) voted for Obama, than that 54% of non-Hispanic Catholics voted against him. 50 years ago, a 54% Republican vote (particularly for someone like McCain) among non-Hispanic Catholics during an economic downturn would have been unheard of.

Cultures can take a long time to change. As the unions have remained joined at the hip with the Democrat party, and the Democrat party has adopted abortion, secular materialism and gender politics almost as the sine qua non of “being a Democrat”, many Catholics seem to have moved with their long-held political affiliations into that same fever swamp, rather than, with their Church, away from it. But that does not mean they never can or never will.

During that part of my life in which I was a Democrat party officeholder, State Committee meetings were almost like school reunions for me. I attended a Catholic college and a Catholic graduate school in this state, and fellow alums were very strong in the party ranks. When the “prolife purge” became stronger and stonger, virtually all of them disappeared from the party activist ranks. I was one of the last to accept the fact that my support of the party and faithfulness to my Church were mutually exclusive. It was a hard thing, particularly since I was unable to become a “true believer” Republican (for various reasons, not important here) and was leaving what, for me, could have been a very nice career track. The same was true of many of my fellow alums; many of whom could claim vastly more credit for making the right choice than could I, since most of them were big city folk who had cultural backgrounds much more similar to that which you attribute to Chicagoans than did I, who came from that part of my state that is Southern in culture.
It’s a lot easier, I think, for a Catholic Southerner to extricate himself from the “Catholic/Democrat” identification than it is for an easterner or a rust belt northerner to do it. I don’t know an enormous number of upper Midwestern non-rust belt people, but I suspect it’s true of them as well.
 
You’re right. I was recently in the Kansas City area. Those people know how to Catholic. I couldn’t believe how many parishes had Perpetual Adoration. The Catholics in North Dakota and Nebraska seem to know how to Catholic as well. It’s not a surprise the places they live are overwhelmingly voting pro-life. A good example is Dickinson, North Dakota. The town is overwhelmingly Catholic yet it votes overwhelmingly pro-life. The same seems to be true of Catholics in South Dakota as well. Contrast that with another big Catholic place – Dubuque, Iowa. It’s an old industrial town and 75 percent of the town is Catholic, but it votes overwhelmingly for pro-choice politicians. In my own area which is in the rust belt, the Catholics in the town vote overwhelmingly pro-choice while the Catholics in the same county in the suburb next door vote overwhelmingly pro-life. The difference is very simple – many Catholics can’t see beyond the orders of their union bosses.
An extremely interesting post.

I might mention that many of the fellow “alums” I spoke of in my previous post were, in fact, largely “Black Irish” of whom there are a good number in Kansas City.

I don’t question your conclusion that Catholics in rust belt places may well vote as directed by their union bosses. But I think that’s also part of a “cultural stream”. I, who was not raised in a union world, cannot imagine voting against my Church just because some union boss told me I should. But then, if every influence, every day in my life told me it’s unimaginable to do otherwise, I think it would at least be much harder. It’s virtually impossible for anyone, Catholic or otherwise, not to take on some aspects of the subculture that surrounds him, not that he might not depart sharply from it in some ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top