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

[Polak]

23% actually seems encouraging to me, considering officially pro-life Democrats have all-but vanished.

Don’t forget this is 23% of Catholic Democrats. For Democrats in general the number is much lower so officially pro-life Democrats probably have all but vanished.

I’m actually curious to see similar Pew research for Muslims and (religious) Jews in the USA. I get the feeling that Muslims in particular, not that there are that many in the US, are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, and certainly more likely to be pro-Biden than pro-Trump, who they probably believe doesn’t like Muslims. They have similar views on abortion to Christians though don’t they? It would be interesting to see if they too are as prepared to vote against their religious beliefs. I suppose it could be the same story as with Catholics, that many Muslims in the west have been liberalised or consider themselves Catholic but are not practicing.

 

[TK421]

@Polak

Muslims traditionally don’t believe ensoulment occurs at conception, no. They believe it occurs later at 120 days. Muslims are sort of stuck in the same boat as Catholics as they are adrift and don’t fit well in either party, but most of them vote Democrat if they do vote. The nuclear family is more intact in Muslim countries and abortion isn’t as common.

I think it’s a good thing that 23% of Catholic Democrats show opposition to abortion because it shows that the Church is to some extent getting through despite the party line.

 

[TK421]

@FiveLinden

While Catholics can and should be kind and welcoming to everybody, exclusivity on certain things is logically and charitably necessary. Math, marriage, and medicine are three good examples. If students are solving an algebra problem, the teacher doesn’t invite the class to celebrate their diverse feelings on what the correct answer is and hold each response in the same standing. If a hospital is diagnosing a sickness, it isn’t determined by everybody gathering together and sharing their feelings.

Historically, protestant denominations that concede on moral and social issues wither away. Many of the members that want to follow Christian morality leave, and the ones that wanted change often don’t attend anyway, so it results in an attrition on two fronts.

 

[Genesis315]

The carnal minded abound in the Church (we all need to be wary of falling into this in various ways, not just this one). The Church casts a wide net in the hope of saving some. Many are called, but few are chosen.

St. Gregory the Great

And it should not frighten you that in the Church the bad are many and the good few. For the Ark, which in the midst of the Flood was a figure of this Church, was wide below and narrow above, and at the summit measured but one cubit (Genesis vi, 16). And we are to believe that below were the four-footed animals and serpents, above the birds and men. It was wide where the beasts were, narrow where men lived: for the Holy Church is indeed wide in the number of those who are carnal minded, narrow in those who are spiritual. For where she suffers the morals and beastly ways of men, there she enlarges her bosom. But where she has the care of those whose lives are founded on spiritual things, these she leads to the higher place; but since they are few, this part is narrow. Wide indeed is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction; and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate that leadeth to life; and few there are that find it!

The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers - Google Books

And we live in a Liberal society that exalts autonomy, individualism, the accumulation of wealth, and a vision of positive law divorced from its source in the divine and eternal law (even if it happens to line up in some cases). Why are we shocked that Catholics immersed in this are influenced by it in various ways? The law often acts as a teacher which is why its not just individual catechesis that is need, but also needed is Catholics “permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life.” (CCC 899). It is a matter of social justice that “the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize [man’s] eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.” (St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris 59).

 

[Dovekin]

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.

This however is a question of political philosophy, not of faith or morality. The Church does not have quite the same record in her teachings on politics as she has on morality. There may be a moral teaching that influences this question, but the Church would have to for politicians for their insights on the question since they are the acknowledged experts.

And I think we all know asking politicians would not go well.

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

Really? Where do you get that?

 

[blackforest]

Not all issues are equal. Why even bother caring about housing and health care when you only believe these things should only be available to a certain class of humans - i.e. born and able-bodied? Why suddenly become such a humanitarian after somebody is born when you don’t care about them beforehand?

 

[mercyalways]

Dovekin, replying to a statement that “politicians who openly support legalised abortion and present themselves for holy communion should.be refused.” stated:
Really? Where do you get that?

This article in the National Catholic Register talks about that:

2020 Candidate Joe Biden Identifies as Catholic, But Breaks With Church Teaching| National Catholic Register

It includes these facts:
And on Election Day 2008, Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Florida, wrote a letter to Biden after it was disclosed that the vice-presidential candidate had received Communion th
e previous Sunday at a Mass he attended at a church in Bishop Ricard’s diocese.
Bishop Ricard’s letter cited relevant passages from the U.S. bishops’ 2004 document “Catholics in Political Life,” regarding reception of Communion by those in public life, indicating that someone with Biden’s position on abortion should not present himself for Communion.
In his letter, Bishop Ricard praised Biden’s positive contributions to public life but added, “I also observe, by your support for laws that fail to protect the unborn, a profound disconnection from your human and personal obligation to protect the weakest and most innocent among us: the child in the womb.”
In 2016, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, condemned the University of Notre Dame for honoring Biden with the Laetare Medal due to his support of abortion.
“I believe it is wrong for Notre Dame to honor any ‘pro-choice’ public official with the Laetare Medal,” he said in a statement, “even if he/she has other positive accomplishments in public service, since direct abortion is gravely contrary to the natural law and violates a very fundamental principle of Catholic moral and social teaching: the inalienable right to life of every innocent human being from the moment of conception.”

 

[o_mlly]

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

It could be possible to affirm Catholic identity and at the same time disagree with some of its teachings.

One of the four marks of the Catholicism is oneness or unity in our beliefs. On the matter of this thread, direct abortions (and all other acts taught as intrinsically evil), there is no room for dissent.

 

[Elf01]

Question is “How can we possibly be loving God if we ignore almost everything he said?”

This is truly disheartening. Makes me wonder how many people will be in the pews once churches go back to normal and there are no longer dispensations.

As far as I’m concerned losing those people would be a good thing.

 

[Randolph]

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’.

You are a self-professed non-believer who, for a very long time on this forum, have claimed to want to have “conversations” with Catholics regarding the tenets of the Catholic faith. That’s fine and good. I, along with many other posters here, have no problems with that—as we believe the fullness of truth is in the very Church that Christ founded. Now, you are giving us “advices” to disagree with the teachings/doctrines of the Church which the Church and Christ Himself bound us to believe.

Do you still have us believe that your presence here is not to seed doubts and develop fault lines among Catholics in the Catholic faith? Be frank with us. Have your persistent efforts been about creating doubts and conflicts so that there would be separation between Catholics and Christ?

 

[Randolph]

One of the four marks of the Catholicism is oneness or unity in our beliefs. On the matter of this thread, direct abortions (and all other acts taught as intrinsically evil), there is no room for dissent.

Amen…

 

[Randolph]

As far as I’m concerned losing those people would be a good thing.

People in their own free will are free to do and to think as they wish. The shepherd always reaches out to find the lost sheep—given that the lost sheep want to be found and want to come home.

 

[MNathaniel]

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

Hi. Yes.

As a convert to Catholicism it was made perfectly clear to me coming in the door that I’m morally obligated to believe or affirm literally everything the Church teaches as obligatory for me to believe or affirm. I don’t need to necessarily know everything that’s taught, all at once, but I do need to be able to affirm that I have come to a place of trust in the Church where, if the Church teaches something as infallibly true, I will agree with it.

No, there are no exceptions where a Catholic is permitted to ‘not accept’ something.

I’m talking in terms of magisterially infallible teaching, of course. Not areas where legitimate debate is permissible.

Obviously, of course, abortion is not one of the areas open for debate. Being the direct murder of innocent children, and always immoral.

 

[Randolph]

I’m talking in terms of magisterially infallible teaching, of course. Not areas where legitimate debate is permissible.

Obviously, of course, abortion is not one of the areas open for debate. Being the direct murder of innocent children, and always immoral.

Amen to that too. Thank you.

 

[FiveLinden]

Have your persistent efforts been about creating doubts and conflicts so that there would be separation between Catholics and Christ?

No.

Now, you are giving us “advices” to disagree with the teachings/doctrines of the Church which the Church and Christ Himself bound us to believe

Wrong. I said:

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

I advised discussion about including those who disagree within ‘Catholic identity’.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

It could be possible to affirm Catholic identity and at the same time disagree with some of its teachings.

One of the four marks of the Catholicism is oneness or unity in our beliefs. On the matter of this thread, direct abortions (and all other acts taught as intrinsically evil), there is no room for dissent.

That didn’t asnswer the question though. Which was: Do you have to believe literally everything the church teaches to be considered a Catholic?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

Hi. Yes.

As a convert to Catholicism it was made perfectly clear to me coming in the door that I’m morally obligated to believe or affirm literally everything the Church teaches as obligatory for me to believe or affirm. I don’t need to necessarily know everything that’s taught, all at once, but I do need to be able to affirm that I have come to a place of trust in the Church where, if the Church teaches something as infallibly true, I will agree with it.

No, there are no exceptions where a Catholic is permitted to ‘not accept’ something.

I’m talking in terms of magisterially infallible teaching, of course. Not areas where legitimate debate is permissible.

Obviously, of course, abortion is not one of the areas open for debate. Being the direct murder of innocent children, and always immoral.

Ah, but this does. And it’s a genuine question - it’s just never come up in conversation before.

Obviously you became a Catholic because you felt the Catholic faith best represented what you believed to be true. So most of what it teaches you’d already believe.

As regards ‘affirm’, I take that to mean that you will agree to accept the teaching of the church even if you have yet to come around to agreeing with it 100% on a particular matter. That you will defer to the church on such matters. So you might say: ‘I’m personally unsure about X as we stand but the church says this about it and I will defer to the church in regards to that matter’.

Am I being reasonable there?

 

[Pattylt]

One thing I will point out…if 77% of Catholic Dems agree with abortion, I doubt all 77% are CINOs or cafeteria Catholics…some percentage of them are Mass attending faithful believers and that really has me baffled. All I can assume is that they justify supporting abortion for the general society while personally being opposed to it? Not a proper catholic response nor a true antiabortion stance but they are out there!

Now, I’m wondering what proportion of that 77% are devoted Catholics otherwise? Well, and how they justify their stance?

 

[Diaconia]

I am quite certain if we held such a poll here at CAF, we wouldn’t see large numbers of people who don’t believe in the Real Presence, nor would we see lots of people who approve of abortion.

Nor would you see those kinds of results if you took a poll during Mass.

Including people who are technically Catholic, but neither understand basic Catholic teaching, nor ever go to Church, isn’t a good measure of anything.

The trouble with the modern Democrat party is that is has forced pro-lifers out:

• Governor Casey was forbidden from addressing the DNC because he was pro-life.
• Worse yet, Tom Perez, current head of the DNC has said clearly: You must believe in abortion to be in our party. Being pro-choice is a requirement. And you certainly will not get any support from the party if you’ll want to run for office and are pro-life.

It’s is both tragic and despicable to see what the platform has become: a laundry list of all the non-negotiable issues for Catholics - pro-choice, so-called gay marriage, euthanasia.

JFK, our only Catholic President, would turn over in his grave if he saw what the party has become.

Deacon Christopher

 

[Pug]

One thing I will point out…if 77% of Catholic Dems agree with abortion, I doubt all 77% are CINOs or cafeteria Catholics…some percentage of them are Mass attending faithful believers and that really has me baffled. All I can assume is that they justify supporting abortion for the general society while personally being opposed to it?

I’ve met weekly Catholic mass attenders who support abortion. They exist in my parish, and my parish is one of the more conservative in the diocese. They just don’t tell people what they think (usually).

I’m guessing they do believe in the real presence and that is why they come. Either that or their spouse does, or they have been here forever and why would they leave.