Statistics are 95% accurate to their margin of error. This means that there is a 95% chance that anywhere between 48% and 58% of weekly-Mass Catholics support SS’M’ and female ordination. So there is a fairly high chance (probably > 85%) that a majority of weekly Mass Catholics support them.More info on that ‘poll’.
*From September 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,776 American adults with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. The survey includes 392 Catholics with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
**The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research.
*
This whole thing is based on one WEEK and 1776 people, of whom all of 392 were Catholics, and from that they posit a MAJORITY of US Catholics?
Pardon me while I try to stop my eyes from rolling.
It seems to me that there are others who question the results of the poll also, including Bill Donahue from Catholic League, so I am not too sure about the results.Statistics are 95% accurate to their margin of error. This means that there is a 95% chance that anywhere between 48% and 58% of weekly-Mass Catholics support SS’M’ and female ordination. So there is a fairly high chance (probably > 85%) that a majority of weekly Mass Catholics support them.
If you don’t understand statistics, please don’t criticize a poll’s methodology. 392 is a high enough number for +/- 5% MoE.
As to the topic, I’m not really surprised. I know a lot of people who go to Mass weekly (mostly under-30s) who see no problem with SS’M’ because they grew up thinking their parents’ views were outdated. It wouldn’t surprise me that between them, the parents who have gay children, and those who have close gay friends and family members, many people would misunderstand the Church’s position and change their own view of SS’M’ in violation of it.
So obviously you approve of same-sex (faux) “marriage” and women’s ordination, even though your bishops and Rome have spoken against both in official documents, including encyclicals.Not surprised at all.![]()
Statistics are 95% accurate to their margin of error. This means that there is a 95% chance that anywhere between 48% and 58% of weekly-Mass Catholics support SS’M’ and female ordination. So there is a fairly high chance (probably > 85%) that a majority of weekly Mass Catholics support them.
If you don’t understand statistics, please don’t criticize a poll’s methodology. 392 is a high enough number for +/- 5% MoE.
As to the topic, I’m not really surprised. I know a lot of people who go to Mass weekly (mostly under-30s) who see no problem with SS’M’ because they grew up thinking their parents’ views were outdated. It wouldn’t surprise me that between them, the parents who have gay children, and those who have close gay friends and family members, many people would misunderstand the Church’s position and change their own view of SS’M’ in violation of it.
Bill Donohue comments on a Quinnipiac poll released today:
There are more than 78 million Catholics in the U.S. and Quinnipiac interviewed 392 of them. The actual number of Catholics who go to Mass on a weekly basis that they interviewed was 153. Most polls ask self-identified Catholics if they “attend church weekly”; “attend church nearly every week or monthly”; or “seldom or never attend church.” Not this one—there were just two choices: “attend weekly” or “less.” In other words, the poll does not distinguish between those who attend monthly and those who have stopped going—they’re lumped together.
They are lumped together for a reason, and it is a dishonest one: Every poll ever taken shows that the more practicing the Catholic is, the more in line he is with the Church’s teachings. In this poll, 60 percent of the Catholics questioned said they do not attend church weekly. Keep in mind that many of these never attend! To what extent can a person be considered a Catholic if he never practices his religion? About as much as a teetotaler can be considered a boozer.
Last March, Quinnipiac interviewed 497 Catholics; this poll is even worse. The margin of error in the poll released today is plus or minus 5 percent; this is worse than the 4 percent figure in the March poll.
The data on abortion are particularly interesting. It is being reported that 36 percent of Catholics think abortion should be legal in most cases. But the figure drops to 20 percent for Catholics who attend church weekly; it is 45 percent for those who do not. Fully 61 percent of practicing Catholics think abortion should be illegal in most cases, while only 29 percent of non-practicing Catholics think this way. These differences are huge, but don’t look for the media, or Quinnipiac, to trumpet them.
catholicleague.org/quinnipiac-poll-is-flawedMaurice Carroll, the director of the poll, delights in saying how Catholics differ with the “pulpit thundering” perspective they are offered. Spoken like a man who hasn’t seen a pulpit in decades.
Nothing from that link refutes the poll. Again, small samples can be extrapolated, but have a margin of error to 95%. There is a 95% chance that the number is between 48% and 58% of weekly-Mass Catholics. Just saying “oh no there’s only 392 total, that’s such a small number,” as Donahue does, shows an ignorance for statistics. Use the statistics as encouragement for better catechesis; don’t deny them.
I’m not surprised in the least either. We have not taught or preached the full truth in at least two generations.Not surprised at all.![]()
You would give approval to the secular culture while opposing the teaching of Christ?Not surprised at all.![]()
Your statement is so very true, Deacon, but I’m afraid I’m losing patience with the dissidents aka the progressives, and therefore, the “enlightened ones.” Most of them know exactly what the Church teaches and want nothing to do with it because it differs from their own opinions.I’m not surprised in the least either. We have not taught or preached the full truth in at least two generations.![]()
No, that’s pretty standard polling methodology and backed up with sound theory. It’s the same methods they use to predict (usually with great accuracy) the results of national elections.More info on that ‘poll’.
*From September 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,776 American adults with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. The survey includes 392 Catholics with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
**The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research.
*
This whole thing is based on one WEEK and 1776 people, of whom all of 392 were Catholics, and from that they posit a MAJORITY of US Catholics?
Pardon me while I try to stop my eyes from rolling.
You can find different polls by different polling groups on Catholics views on marriage and/or abortion and they have totally different resultsNothing from that link refutes the poll. Again, small samples can be extrapolated, but have a margin of error to 95%. There is a 95% chance that the number is between 48% and 58% of weekly-Mass Catholics. Just saying “oh no there’s only 392 total, that’s such a small number,” as Donahue does, shows an ignorance for statistics. Use the statistics as encouragement for better catechesis; don’t deny them.
Also, as for the comment on “lumping together” non-weekly-Mass Catholics, that doesn’t affect the 48-58% number at all, regardless of its accuracy as an argument.
pewforum.org/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-termsAbout three-quarters (74%) of white Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week consider having an abortion morally wrong, compared with four-in-ten white Catholics (40%) who attend services less often. However, Hispanic Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week do not differ significantly from those who attend less often in their views about the moral acceptability of abortion.