Pew: 77% of Catholics who are Democrats say abortion should be legal

[Tis_Bearself]

I 100% expect every single Democrat to agree with the stated platform of their chosen party.

That’s just silly. Many Democrats disagree with some part or another of the platform of their party. As do many Republicans.

 

[CoffeeFanatic]

It isn’t silly at all. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I don’t join political parties if I fundamentally disagree with them on major issues of their platform, especially when those issues conflict with my faith.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You can’t extrapolate your own choice in not joining a party unless you 100 percent agree, to everyone else.

I don’t think I’ve ever met either a Dem or Republican who agreed with the whole party platform. Usually they will agree with the parts of it they think are important. They may or may not agree with the parts they consider less important or less likely to come to fruition.

 

[TK421]

@mercyalways

23% actually seems encouraging to me, considering officially pro-life Democrats have all-but vanished. The Democratic Party started rapidly changing on social issues in the 1990s but beforehand the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the United States were always registered Democrats. They’ve been trickling out from the party since then, but things take time as old generations die off and new ones reach voting age.

Something similar happened in the early 1960s. The GOP and Democrats switched roles on several issues, which was brought on from the Civil Rights Movement. Beforehand, while Eisenhower was technically a Republican president, he was rather liberal for his time, which was normal for the GOP.

 

[vz71]

Just seems unreasonable to expect a large group to be monolithic on the big issues.

Mass attendance is a big issue.

 

[FiveLinden]

Here’s some advice from outside the Church: Catholics should discuss the merits and demerits of an inclusive versus and exclusive approach to Catholic identity.

It could be possible to affirm Catholic identity and at the same time disagree with some of its teachings. Identity in most human organisations does not mean ‘complete acceptance’. I can recognise my father as my father and our common membership of the FiveLinden family without agreeing with him on everything. I can be a member of my local residents’ association while thinking the majority position on the local park is wrong. I can be a patriot while disagreeing with many things my country has done and is doing. I can be an ‘atheist’ while disagreeing with just about every other ‘atheist’ on something.

So why does ‘Catholic’ have, in the opinion of many CAFers, imply agreement with all Church teachings? It seems to me to be a rather circular argument: you disagree with X, therefore you are not a Catholic except in the ‘baptised Catholic’ sense.

Surely it would be more sensible and enable more rational discussion if we broke down Catholics into those who accept everything, those who consciously reject a small number of teachings, those who have a cultural affinity to Catholic practice, and those who think the Church is worth listening to on issues while not defining what should be believed?

I have met ‘Catholics’ in each of these categories. They are each a reality. Surely the Church would be better to engage with people where they are than to exclude?

 

[LilyM]

VanitasVanitatum:

No, it’s probably just that they have enough faith that they still to identify as that.

Just seems unreasonable to expect a large group to be monolithic on the big issues.

But you WOULD expect that at least the majority of people claiming membership of a voluntary group would be on board with the clearly expressed position of that group on a major issue such as abortion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So why does ‘Catholic’ have, in the opinion of many CAFers, imply agreement with all Church teachings?

Primarily because we make a Profession of Faith that we believe in the Church teachings, as a requirement for being Catholic. If we make that profession and then proceed to disagree with major church teachings, we’re either liars or messed up.

I personally consider anyone baptized Catholic to be a Catholic, whether in terms of practicing they are a good, bad, or lukewarm Catholic. However, there’s a reasonable argument that there is some difference between a Catholic who’s a “good Catholic” and one who is a “cafeteria Catholic” or a “CINO”.

In many cases there’s some room for debate about how we best carry out a particular teaching, but abortion is not one of those cases. It’s murder and it’s always wrong, the end.

 

[yankeesouth]

Wouldn’t it sound funny to God to have a mere human stand in front of him and tell him to his face what he gets right and what he gets wrong?

Well actually, it wouldn’t be funny for them.

But yes, I have often thought that when I hear feminists rail against all male priesthood that Jesus instituted or liberals, in general, dissenting from a teaching of Jesus lol. I imagine they think they will have the opportunity to let Jesus know what’s up! They seem to forget the part about every knee shall bow.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Surely the Church would be better to engage with people where they are than to exclude?

They aren’t actually excluded from anything, it’s well within their power to participate in a lot of things if they want.

 

[yankeesouth]

They aren’t actually excluded from anything, it’s well within their power to participate in a lot of things if they want.

Exactly, liberals exclude themselves. Jesus lays down the rules starting with ‘I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.’ They are free to dissent.

 

[gam197]

Pew: 77 Percent of Catholic Democrats Support Legal Abortion

I am not surprised by this poll.

 

[Dovekin]

The Church has been through this all before. I assume people don’t know about it only because they have been so poorly catechized.

In the 3rd century, during persecutions, there were Christians who were martyrs and there were Christians who lapsed, who renounced their Christianity. After the persecutions, the Church split between those who accepted the lapsed back and those who excluded them. The exclusionists became known as Donatists, an heretical sect that was split off from the Catholic Church.

One of the things St Augustine worked out contending with them was the doctrine of ex opere operato. The sacraments are not valid because of the sanctity of the priest, but because the working of the ritual. In this doctrine is an acknowledgement that priests who are sinners are still members of the Church, still capable of performing the Church’s rituals. This affirms an inclusive Church against those who wanted strict rules excluding some people.

 

[blackforest]

I was simply stunned by the research Pew found:

I couldn’t find the report in full, (this is just a summary). Do they have a PDF? I’m interested in their methodology. A huge number of these surveys don’t control for level of devotion. There’s a vast gully of difference between a weekly-Mass-attending Catholic in good standing vs. people who call themselves “Catholic” but haven’t been to church since a cousin’s wedding 20 years ago.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

But you WOULD expect that at least the majority of people claiming membership of a voluntary group would be on board with the clearly expressed position of that group on a major issue such as abortion.

Not really. Hypothetically, they might agree on 14 of 20 “major” issues. Why throw away the other 14? I feel that the “you must agree on these core beliefs” concept is unusually represented here more than IRL.

 

[Freddy]

LilyM:

But you WOULD expect that at least the majority of people claiming membership of a voluntary group would be on board with the clearly expressed position of that group on a major issue such as abortion.

Not really. Hypothetically, they might agree on 14 of 20 “major” issues. Why throw away the other 14? I feel that the “you must agree on these core beliefs” concept is unusually represented here more than IRL.

There are 1.4 billion Catholics. Is it reasonable to believe that all of them accept every church teaching?

If there was a list of everything that you thought you had to believe to become a Catholic, from the most basic (I assume: Jesus is the son of God and rose from the dead) to the most inconsequential (I have no idea what that might be), is there a cut of point when you can say - Nope, you can’t class yourself as Catholic.

Or does anyone think that you have to accept literally everything. No exceptions.

 

[pnewton]

I personally consider anyone baptized Catholic to be a Catholic, whether in terms of practicing they are a good, bad, or lukewarm Catholic.

The Church does as well. Will a mother forsake her children? As shocking and sad as this survey is, I notice that many Catholics throughout the spectrum are quick to exclude those who reject the teachings they are fervent about, condemn the sins that they are never tempted with, while ignoring that portion of morality that is most difficult. The point of removing the beam from your own eye prior to performing eye surgery is to remind us that our task is primarily to work out our own salvation.

This is not a problem with liberals but with human nature in all.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

But you WOULD expect that at least the majority of people claiming membership of a voluntary group would be on board with the clearly expressed position of that group on a major issue such as abortion.

Not really. Hypothetically, they might agree on 14 of 20 “major” issues. Why throw away the other 14? I feel that the “you must agree on these core beliefs” concept is unusually represented here more than IRL.

Thr question is not.whether I would throw anyone away.
The question is why on earth someone who is in direct opposition to well-established Catholic teaching on so important an issue as abortion would choose.to identify themselves as Catholic.

As I said, membership is entirely voluntary. And there are so many flavours of Christianity that if you disagree with the Church on abortion you are bound to easily be able to find a church whose teachings are more in line with your own views

It strikes me as almost dishonest to do otherwise

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

if you disagree with the Church on abortion you are boubd to easily be able to find a church whose teachings are more in line with your own views

Also keep in mind the question is about legality, not if they themselves would have one. This could reflect a mix of genuine disagreement with teaching and those who personally are anti abortion but not willing to push for that on others?

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

if you disagree with the Church on abortion you are boubd to easily be able to find a church whose teachings are more in line with your own views

Also keep in mind the question is about legality, not if they themselves would have one. This could reflect a mix of genuine disagreement with teaching and those who personally are anti abortion but not willing to push for that on others?

The church teaching, of course, is ALSO about whether iabortion should be legal, not just whether individuals should have them - and the answer is an emphatic no, it should.not be legal.

In fact the Church says politicians who openly support legalised abortion and present themselves for holy communion should.be refused.