Poll saying white Catholics embrace same-sex marriage than other Americans

[ltravis]

I just saw this news article about where Catholics stand on issues related to politics these days. Frankly, I shouldn’t be, but am surprised to read these parts, and have trouble making sense of them:

Half of white Catholics said they favor allowing “gays and lesbians to marry legally.” Only 38 percent opposed it. Both figures indicate that white Catholics’ attitude to gay marriage is more liberal than other Americans.

and

In addition, Catholics expressed liberal attitudes on the question of whether businesses should provide services, such as catering and flowers, to same-sex married couples. Fifty-seven percent said No while 40 percent said Yes.

How can I make sense of this? I could better handle it if 99% of the people found the teachings too difficult and simply walked away. However, they remain, continue to hear the teaching, and continue to embrace the opposite in spite of it. The church appears to be failing in promoting a matter of fundamental truth and importance. It can’t be, though, because then the gates of hell would be prevailing, right?

-LT

 

[JimG]

Catholic attitudes about such things indeed do not make much sense. Even from a secular perspective, same sex marriage (as well as widespread fornication and divorce) are bad for society as a whole. The sexual revolution seems to have darkened everyone’s intellect, which is one of the effects of sexual sin.

Maybe everyone would benefit from reading Msgr. Pope’s column on homosexuality here.

 

[kozlosap]

I just saw this news article about where Catholics stand on issues related to politics these days. Frankly, I shouldn’t be, but am surprised to read these parts, and have trouble making sense of them:

and

How can I make sense of this? I could better handle it if 99% of the people found the teachings too difficult and simply walked away. However, they remain, continue to hear the teaching, and continue to embrace the opposite in spite of it. The church appears to be failing in promoting a matter of fundamental truth and importance. It can’t be, though, because then the gates of hell would be prevailing, right?

-LT

The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it’s not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs’ teaching on this. At least I know that I’m far from alone in this struggle!

 

[JimG]

The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it’s not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs’ teaching on this. At least I know that I’m far from alone in this struggle!

And many Catholics have cohabiting family members and family members who married outside the Church, family members who are divorce and remarried. We tend to cut our family members some slack. That’s human nature. We don’t judge them personally. But none of that will change the Church’s teaching on sexual morality.

Men can be friends with men, men can be friends with women, women can be friends with women, women can be friends with men. But sex is only appropriate between men and women within marriage. That won’t change.

 

[Scottgun]

The problem is that it has become a hard teaching, not because it actually is hard, but because as another put it secularism has darkened the intellect of many Catholics, and instead of letting people walk away over a hard teaching as Our Lord did in John 6, everyone, including many of our leaders, have lost the virtue of fortitude.

 

[kozlosap]

What it’s so sad about the Churchs’ position on all things sexual, is that we should be much more concerned with racism, sexIsm, violence, etc instead of whom is in love with whom and if they are sexual active. Right now we are having this debate on the NFL players who are involved in domestic violence and child beating. I think that stressing teachings on anti violence and programs that help squelch physical violence is Much more logical and helpful than sitting back in our lounge chairs and feeling morally superior because we don’t believe in sex or love making before marriage and therefore we could never be a “fornicater”. I have read and understand what the Church teaches on sexual issues, but, sometimes we need to re-evaluate what our priorities are in society. I don’t believe that our world is ever going to condemn consenting adults for participating in sexual relationships unless you are living in Uganda or the ilk.

 

[ltravis]

What it’s so sad about the Churchs’ position on all things sexual, is that we should be much more concerned with racism, sexIsm, violence, etc instead of whom is in love with whom and if they are sexual active. Right now we are having this debate on the NFL players who are involved in domestic violence and child beating. I think that stressing teachings on anti violence and programs that help squelch physical violence is Much more logical and helpful than sitting back in our lounge chairs and feeling morally superior because we don’t believe in sex or love making before marriage and therefore we could never be a “fornicater”. I have read and understand what the Church teaches on sexual issues, but, sometimes we need to re-evaluate what our priorities are in society. I don’t believe that our world is ever going to condemn consenting adults for participating in sexual relationships unless you are living in Uganda or the ilk.

kozlosap, much of that is worth its own discussion, but for now could you tell me how you would have responded to those survey questions?

 

[manualman]

What it’s so sad about the Churchs’ position on all things sexual, is that we should be much more concerned with racism, sexIsm, violence, etc instead of whom is in love with whom and if they are sexual active. Right now we are having this debate on the NFL players who are involved in domestic violence and child beating. I think that stressing teachings on anti violence and programs that help squelch physical violence is Much more logical and helpful than sitting back in our lounge chairs and feeling morally superior because we don’t believe in sex or love making before marriage and therefore we could never be a “fornicater”.

You either haven’t read as much as you claim or you are dozing off during the reading then. It’s an unexamined ASSUMPTION on your part that domestic violence has nothing to do with unhealthy sexual behaviors - and an incorrect one.

When a man lives as if his sexual actions are irrelevant to the other aspects of his moral character, he becomes more and more blind to the decay of his overall moral character. The man who has sexual relations whenever and with whomever he feels like necessarily grows to see others as objects that are useful for his own gratification and when said objects are inconvenient or have needs of their own he easily becomes angry and prone to violence. When a man realizes the power of human sexuality and respects it by making life choices in accordance with the purpose of human sexuality in the first place, sexual intimacy is less prone to becoming an occasion of gratification and more likely to be one of self-gift.

I’m no social science observer, but I’d expect that if you looked into it, you’d find that men who have never had a sexual partner other than their own wives have an almost non-existent rate of domestic violence while men with a large number of sexual partners have sky high rates of domestic violence.

In other words, sin begets more sin. Always has, always will. You’ll always fail at trying to reduce the sort of sins YOU find loathsome if you simultaneously attempt to rationalize the sins you personally don’t object terribly too (or perhaps are personally tempted towards). The church HAS TO argue today with modern society when society attempts to relabel sins as virtues. Nobody is arguing that domestic violence is good, so there isn’t anything to argue about. But domestic violence arises largely out of objectification and lack of respect for women and you’ll never reduce it until men and required to respect the innate dignity of woman. That will never happen as long as society continues to treat women as self-propelled pleasure devices. That’s not about “feeling morally superior” it’s about actually doing something effective in the world instead of just hand-wringing.

 

[centerbe]

As a Canadian, we were on the fore front of the gay marriage issue. When they first became legal here I was dead set against them. Marriage was between a man and a women. I thought at one point governments should get out of the marriage business completely (leave this to churches that only permit heterosexual marriages) and only license “civil unions” whether they are gay or straight. This would be difficult to implement though with the many, many years governments have licensed marriages. The transition would be very messy and go on for years.

Over time I have altered my view in that we Catholics are rather harsh in banishing homosexuals to a life of celibacy with no options for companionship, intimacy and the love of another person to share your life with. Homosexuality is not something a person chooses; it is in their genes.

If gay marriage is wrong, then those in gay marriages can be judged before God when that day comes.

 

[manualman]

As for the OP, polls almost never say anything useful about catholic impact on society because they fail to differentiate between “catholics” who show up at Christmas, weddings and funerals and catholics who actuall attend mass weekly and go to confession at least a couple times a year. If you polled only those latter folks, you’d be polling those who actually CARE about what their alleged faith teaches. But few polls make such a distinction.

Making the matter worse, Catholicism differs from most protestant sects in that catholics still tend to identify themselves as such even if they’ve long effectively abandoned the faith. Most protestants will say “none” if polled for affiliation and they haven’t been to church in a few years. It’s a cultural difference.

 

[kozlosap]

You either haven’t read as much as you claim or you are dozing off during the reading then. It’s an unexamined ASSUMPTION on your part that domestic violence has nothing to do with unhealthy sexual behaviors - and an incorrect one.

When a man lives as if his sexual actions are irrelevant to the other aspects of his moral character, he becomes more and more blind to the decay of his overall moral character. The man who has sexual relations whenever and with whomever he feels like necessarily grows to see others as objects that are useful for his own gratification and when said objects are inconvenient or have needs of their own he easily becomes angry and prone to violence. When a man realizes the power of human sexuality and respects it by making life choices in accordance with the purpose of human sexuality in the first place, sexual intimacy is less prone to becoming an occasion of gratification and more likely to be one of self-gift.

I’m no social science observer, but I’d expect that if you looked into it, you’d find that men who have never had a sexual partner other than their own wives have an almost non-existent rate of domestic violence while men with a large number of sexual partners have sky high rates of domestic violence.

In other words, sin begets more sin. Always has, always will. You’ll always fail at trying to reduce the sort of sins YOU find loathsome if you simultaneously attempt to rationalize the sins you personally don’t object terribly too (or perhaps are personally tempted towards). The church HAS TO argue today with modern society when society attempts to relabel sins as virtues. Nobody is arguing that domestic violence is good, so there isn’t anything to argue about. But domestic violence arises largely out of objectification and lack of respect for women and you’ll never reduce it until men and required to respect the innate dignity of woman. That will never happen as long as society continues to treat women as self-propelled pleasure devices. That’s not about “feeling morally superior” it’s about actually doing something effective in the world instead of just hand-wringing.

LOL! I guess I should turn my BA & MA back in since I just don’t believe the same way that you do. I must live in another world here in Northern California than you do in Chicagoland, but women are not victims of continuous objectification. Consenting adults, are just that, not that poor stupid woman being used by that big bad man.

 

[Scottgun]

Over time I have altered my view in that we Catholics are rather harsh in banishing homosexuals to a life of celibacy with no options for companionship, intimacy and the love of another person to share your life with. Homosexuality is not something a person chooses; it is in their genes.

But they aren’t banished to a life of celibacy. They can be married just like anyone else: to someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual acts are sinful, period. And just as a man can love a daughter, that doesn’t justify incest. “Love” is not a magic word that makes sinful acts not sinful.

 

[Scottgun]

What it’s so sad about the Churchs’ position on all things sexual, is that we should be much more concerned with racism, sexIsm, violence, etc instead of whom is in love with whom and if they are sexual active.

Respectfully, this is nonsense. Here’s how a typical conversation on this subject goes around here:

Non-Catholic: “Is it ok if my girlfriend and I [insert unchaste sexual act]?”

Catholic: “No.”

Non-Catholic: “What!? Why are you so obsessed with sex!?”

The obsession is entirely on the side of people who want to do nasty things with their genitalia. Our responses are entirely proportional to the cultural onslaught to normalize offenses against Chastity. But if there is ever a Thieves’ Pride Parade, I assure you there will be more Catholic commentary on the wrongness of stealing.

 

[ltravis]

As a Canadian, we were on the fore front of the gay marriage issue. When they first became legal here I was dead set against them. Marriage was between a man and a women. I thought at one point governments should get out of the marriage business completely (leave this to churches that only permit heterosexual marriages) and only license “civil unions” whether they are gay or straight. This would be difficult to implement though with the many, many years governments have licensed marriages. The transition would be very messy and go on for years.

Over time I have altered my view in that we Catholics are rather harsh in banishing homosexuals to a life of celibacy with no options for companionship, intimacy and the love of another person to share your life with. Homosexuality is not something a person chooses; it is in their genes.

If gay marriage is wrong, then those in gay marriages can be judged before God when that day comes.

Bear with me on this, ok…

I take it you believe the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is simply incorrect then, am I correct?
Do you believe the Church is correct in seeing this issue as a core fundamental truth?

If you believe the church is wrong on a fundamental issue, or is wrong on what it even understands is a fundamental issue…how to you accept the Church as being true? I guess, DO you accept it as true (i.e. of Christ himself)? If not, where do you “go” for what’s true?

Please, understand these questions are in charity, and that I really want to know your (or anyone else’s) thinking on them.

-LT

 

[centerbe]

But they aren’t banished to a life of celibacy. They can be married just like anyone else: to someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual acts are sinful, period. And just as a man can love a daughter, that doesn’t justify incest. “Love” is not a magic word that makes sinful acts not sinful.

Why would someone marry a person of the opposite sex they have no attraction (or ever will) to? Would you? Getting married on this basis is a recipe for a lifetime of misery.

 

[Scottgun]

Why would someone marry a person of the opposite sex they have no attraction (or ever will) to? Would you? Getting married on this basis is a recipe for a lifetime of misery.

First, never having an attraction is a dubious claim. There are examples of homosexuals getting real marriages (i.e. to someone of the opposite sex) and leading happy lives. Second, celibacy may be difficult, but it is not the worst thing in the world. Same-sex wathchamacallits are not marriages and pretending they are is crueler than telling the truth. One cannot be truly in communion with Our Lord and His Church and support homosexual “marriage”.

 

[centerbe]

Bear with me on this, ok…

I take it you believe the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is simply incorrect then, am I correct?
Do you believe the Church is correct in seeing this issue as a core fundamental truth?

If you believe the church is wrong on a fundamental issue, or is wrong on what it even understands is a fundamental issue…how to you accept the Church as being true? I guess, DO you accept it as true (i.e. of Christ himself)? If not, where do you “go” for what’s true?

Please, understand these questions are in charity, and that I really want to know your (or anyone else’s) thinking on them.

-LT

My view is that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality really provides no other option than a life of celibacy for homosexuals who are brave enough to admit they are gay. They can only be married in the Church by denying who they are and marrying someone of the opposite sex. Life is too short to go down this road.

 

[ltravis]

As for the OP, polls almost never say anything useful about catholic impact on society because they fail to differentiate between “catholics” who show up at Christmas, weddings and funerals and catholics who actuall attend mass weekly and go to confession at least a couple times a year. If you polled only those latter folks, you’d be polling those who actually CARE about what their alleged faith teaches. But few polls make such a distinction.

Making the matter worse, Catholicism differs from most protestant sects in that catholics still tend to identify themselves as such even if they’ve long effectively abandoned the faith. Most protestants will say “none” if polled for affiliation and they haven’t been to church in a few years. It’s a cultural difference.

This is a good point, and I wonder what the specifics of this poll sample was. However, even if it included only nominal Catholics, you would think that their opinion would match the rest of non-Catholic Americans. This poll indicates they are more liberal than the rest of America. I wonder what’s up with that?

 

[Scottgun]

This is a good point, and I wonder what the specifics of this poll sample was. However, even if it included only nominal Catholics, you would think that their opinion would match the rest of non-Catholic Americans. This poll indicates they are more liberal than the rest of America. I wonder what’s up with that?

One of the liberal conceits is that they are poor little David fighting Mean ol’ Goliath the Church with nothing more than a sling and underwear. If they actually stop identifying with the Catholic Church, nobody cares. Just another EpiscoPresbyLutheran. Dale Price called this the Matthew Fox Effect: the tendency of the press to drop people who actually leave from their address books.

 

[ltravis]

My view is that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality really provides no other option than a life of celibacy for homosexuals who are brave enough to admit they are gay. They can only be married in the Church by denying who they are and marrying someone of the opposite sex. Life is too short to go down this road.

So is the Church right?