A fabulous posting and so rich in information that I could comment on it (or generate questions!) to the point of being a nuisance! Well done.
This is one point that stood above so many others: "Believes bread/wine becomes the body/blood of Jesus -- 53.9%." What? To me and my understanding of Catholicism, this idea of the Eucharist is a defining theological tenet of Catholicism. How can a person be a Catholic and not subscribe to this most-essential Catholic sacrament? Hence, the essential role of the priest, who is the only person allowed to officiate at the observance of this sacrament. And only about 54% of Catholics believe it to so?
There is a dissonance, one of many on the table above, that makes me wonder if leaving the RC church has become easier than ever. The membership and attendance numbers sure seem to support this supposition.
Since converting to Catholicism, I've tried to make it more of a practice to find things to be grateful about every day. This morning, Ryan delivers with a widget that allows me to cross-tabulate Catholic conformity to my heart's content. Thanks, Ryan! I'm grateful for you.
Again, though, oh how I wish there were questions about whether one should follow the Magisterium on the Church's various social teachings, not just the stuff about sexuality.
How do Catholics instill such a strong sense of belonging and identity while still having a relatively low amount of conformity to Catholic belief and behavior? That question has baffled me for the better part of the last year. I think it’s fascinating that so many people will claim to be Catholic while not actually doing anything that is Catholic.
Also, the few times a Catholic has tried to convert me (a Protestant) they’ve always led out with trying to convince me that transubstantiation is true. But maybe I could convert to Catholicism and not believe in transubstantiation because so many others don’t believe in it!
Religions have always cycled in the demands the leaders try to make on people. There are even Biblical sources on this where Ezra, at the end of his Book found practice getting a little too loose and imposed standards to define who is in and who is out. We have historical events with breakaway sects of all religions expressing some dissatisfaction with their authorities. Since I am most familiar with Jewish history, in America we had Jews settling in Texas, the Rockies, and California in the 19th century. Did they maintain traditional practice? Mostly no. Did they keep identity? Big time. They would send for wives from Europe, purchase dedicated cemeteries, and those who achieved prosperity in relative isolation would establish communal organizations when their means permitted this. The identity never left, nor was it ever imposed upon them.
At one point I wanted to convert to Catholicism but I was told by a priest that I probably wouldn't be accepted based on my inflexibility on some issues. I had a similar experience with the OCA, except they led me on and I was a catechumen for 4 years before I realized that it wasn't going to lead to full inclusion.
It is wild to see from Ryan's data that the average Catholic looks more Protestant than me!
I think this a good legacy of Catholicism as the default religion in Europe in many countries. There are good Catholics and bad Catholics, but they are all Catholics. People are baptized and receive Communion in the Church and even if they leave for 30 years, all it takes is a confession to be back in grace like any other Catholic.
"So, it looks like the average Catholic extends a whole lot of grace and flexibility to their brethren.
…
They don’t defer to the Church’s authority on matters of public policy, and they don’t look askance at other Catholics who question the Church, either."
Oh dear.
I am afraid that takeaway may not hold. I can't speak for the general Catholic populace (the whole point of statistical analysis is that no one POV can do so), but my anecdotal experience is that my fellow Catholics are just as polarized — and often belligerent — about some hot-button issues like abortion, contraception, immigration, and LBGT+ issues, as Americans in general are. The difference is that if you disagree with them, they'll also throw in your face an accusation about being a "dissident" Catholic or being "disobedient to the Pope". And — this is crucial — you are equally as likely to be on the receiving end of such accusations regardless of which side of any issue you are on!
The wording of "Can Catholics disagree about Church teaching and still remain loyal" has two major problems. One is that "remain loyal", "loyalty to the Church", etc. just isn't how most Catholics, of any group or set, would word things; the awkward wording means that it's going to get a lot of fluffy interpretation from all around. Maybe that choice of phrasing is a carryover from a concept of how older, pre-Vatican II generations might have said things; maybe it was just a poorly thought out choice on the part of the pollsters; either way that's going to create some noise.
The more impactful problem is that the public perception of what constitutes "Church teaching" is heavily fragmented in a way that the American Catholic Laity Poll's questions cannot capture, and frankly, in 2017, they should have known better. (A poll in 1987 should have known better, for goodness' sakes!)
The Catholic populace is full of people who are, for better or for worse, convinced that "Church teaching" says one of two opposite things about every single one of the issues questioned about, and more.
There's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, there's what their local bishop says, there's what the U.S. Conference of Catholics Bishops have said in their joint documents (not widely read), there's what the current pope has said, and there's what the previous pope (who for many, who don't keep up with papal statements, might as well be the current teaching) says. On a whole host of issues. And they don't all line up. Ever.
So what you end up with is a quadrant with two dimensions: X = What do you believe, and Y = What do you think the Church teaches? And the answer of whether they think they are agreeing with or dissenting from Church teaching will fall in one or another square, according to their personal background of knowledge and beliefs.
What I can tell you, as a practicing Catholic (in the Weekly+ Mass attendance and several times a year Confession cohort) is that I have personally witnessed others and/or been personally subjected to accusations of disobeying the Church on every possible issue, with no regard whatsoever to documentary evidence of what the Church teaches. There is no shortage of Catholics (probably, just by increased odds of contact, who are in the higher Mass attendance range) who are not giving much grace & flexibility and are very much looking askance at other Catholics with disagreements; but they are just as likely to judge one side or the other as the one that is "against what the Church teaches".
Most religions have a spectrum of observance and loyalty to doctrine. We Jews have folks with beards and black hats who not only keep their cars parked every Saturday but do what their Rebbe tells them to do. And we have more abundant congregations with secular members who hire a Rabbi to avoid pork and go to synagogue on Saturday so they don't feel personally obligated.
What makes the Catholic church unique is that it centralizes its churches, clergy, and doctrine. People cannot really shop for a church they find agreeable. Clergy are appointed, not hired through a Search Committee. Within that framework, religious, even core beliefs, become something of a buffet. The Catholic ecosystem extends far beyond their churches. They sponsor hospitals and universities where the users extend to the broader population. Accommodations take place by doctrine and by users. They may not prescribe contraceptives in the Student Health clinics, but they will find a referral source for women with PCOS or premature ovarian failure to get them as accepted medical treatment. Their sponsored institutions have chaplains, though not exclusively priests.
The more interesting question, not covered in the survey, may be the pipeline for young adults who choose the priesthood. The expectation of doctrinal adherence, which is just not very widespread, may limit which young men commit to this and account for some of the ongoing shortage of younger priests the Church currently experiences.
Yeah, and a big thing about Catholicism is that celibacy is a big commitment that people aren’t lining up to do.
As a Mainline Protestant, I count lots of pastors’ kids and lots of women among the pastors I know, and practically all them are married with families. We also have a clergy shortage, and it would be far worse if we only allowed men and mandated celibacy.
I think that the upcoming work-around for the RC Church is to allow clergy to marry. Hey, Peter was married -- "there's our precedent for optics sake!"
I read recently the account of a RC priest who left the priesthood. He said it wasn't about giving up celibacy for the sake of sexuality, but he wanted a family -- a wife and kids. So human! And healthy!
I have to disagree with the idea that Catholics don't church shop. Leaving aside Tridentine mass attendees, Catholics in urban and many rural areas have a veritable smorgasbord of different churches to go to with the the same essential mass in different flavors of music and emphasis. We often pick between them just for convenience (can't make 11 am at St. X, go to 12 noon at St. Z) and especially for music, sermon, and other preferences, occasionally and sometimes permanently. The nice thing is that no one will usually call out a stranger in a Catholic mass or can even tell who is a stranger. (It makes us less companionable than Protestant churches but in our own way very welcoming.)
Fascinating! Oh how I wish we could get this kind of data for TEC. TEC has a huge infrastructure….about the same amount when it had twice the # of members. My hypothesis is that when it comes down to beliefs most Episcopals would ignore the instructions….from the Bishops and all the Convention proposals on social and moral issues. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Another interesting article. I have Catholic friends and consider them believers (in my wide view of acceptance), though they may not consider me the same. But at what point does not following church beliefs mean you aren't part of that system?
Since the article mentioned it, JD Vance lecturing the Pope on Catholic teachings would be one example.
A fabulous posting and so rich in information that I could comment on it (or generate questions!) to the point of being a nuisance! Well done.
This is one point that stood above so many others: "Believes bread/wine becomes the body/blood of Jesus -- 53.9%." What? To me and my understanding of Catholicism, this idea of the Eucharist is a defining theological tenet of Catholicism. How can a person be a Catholic and not subscribe to this most-essential Catholic sacrament? Hence, the essential role of the priest, who is the only person allowed to officiate at the observance of this sacrament. And only about 54% of Catholics believe it to so?
There is a dissonance, one of many on the table above, that makes me wonder if leaving the RC church has become easier than ever. The membership and attendance numbers sure seem to support this supposition.
Since converting to Catholicism, I've tried to make it more of a practice to find things to be grateful about every day. This morning, Ryan delivers with a widget that allows me to cross-tabulate Catholic conformity to my heart's content. Thanks, Ryan! I'm grateful for you.
Again, though, oh how I wish there were questions about whether one should follow the Magisterium on the Church's various social teachings, not just the stuff about sexuality.
How do Catholics instill such a strong sense of belonging and identity while still having a relatively low amount of conformity to Catholic belief and behavior? That question has baffled me for the better part of the last year. I think it’s fascinating that so many people will claim to be Catholic while not actually doing anything that is Catholic.
Also, the few times a Catholic has tried to convert me (a Protestant) they’ve always led out with trying to convince me that transubstantiation is true. But maybe I could convert to Catholicism and not believe in transubstantiation because so many others don’t believe in it!
Religions have always cycled in the demands the leaders try to make on people. There are even Biblical sources on this where Ezra, at the end of his Book found practice getting a little too loose and imposed standards to define who is in and who is out. We have historical events with breakaway sects of all religions expressing some dissatisfaction with their authorities. Since I am most familiar with Jewish history, in America we had Jews settling in Texas, the Rockies, and California in the 19th century. Did they maintain traditional practice? Mostly no. Did they keep identity? Big time. They would send for wives from Europe, purchase dedicated cemeteries, and those who achieved prosperity in relative isolation would establish communal organizations when their means permitted this. The identity never left, nor was it ever imposed upon them.
At one point I wanted to convert to Catholicism but I was told by a priest that I probably wouldn't be accepted based on my inflexibility on some issues. I had a similar experience with the OCA, except they led me on and I was a catechumen for 4 years before I realized that it wasn't going to lead to full inclusion.
It is wild to see from Ryan's data that the average Catholic looks more Protestant than me!
I think this a good legacy of Catholicism as the default religion in Europe in many countries. There are good Catholics and bad Catholics, but they are all Catholics. People are baptized and receive Communion in the Church and even if they leave for 30 years, all it takes is a confession to be back in grace like any other Catholic.
"So, it looks like the average Catholic extends a whole lot of grace and flexibility to their brethren.
…
They don’t defer to the Church’s authority on matters of public policy, and they don’t look askance at other Catholics who question the Church, either."
Oh dear.
I am afraid that takeaway may not hold. I can't speak for the general Catholic populace (the whole point of statistical analysis is that no one POV can do so), but my anecdotal experience is that my fellow Catholics are just as polarized — and often belligerent — about some hot-button issues like abortion, contraception, immigration, and LBGT+ issues, as Americans in general are. The difference is that if you disagree with them, they'll also throw in your face an accusation about being a "dissident" Catholic or being "disobedient to the Pope". And — this is crucial — you are equally as likely to be on the receiving end of such accusations regardless of which side of any issue you are on!
The wording of "Can Catholics disagree about Church teaching and still remain loyal" has two major problems. One is that "remain loyal", "loyalty to the Church", etc. just isn't how most Catholics, of any group or set, would word things; the awkward wording means that it's going to get a lot of fluffy interpretation from all around. Maybe that choice of phrasing is a carryover from a concept of how older, pre-Vatican II generations might have said things; maybe it was just a poorly thought out choice on the part of the pollsters; either way that's going to create some noise.
The more impactful problem is that the public perception of what constitutes "Church teaching" is heavily fragmented in a way that the American Catholic Laity Poll's questions cannot capture, and frankly, in 2017, they should have known better. (A poll in 1987 should have known better, for goodness' sakes!)
The Catholic populace is full of people who are, for better or for worse, convinced that "Church teaching" says one of two opposite things about every single one of the issues questioned about, and more.
There's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, there's what their local bishop says, there's what the U.S. Conference of Catholics Bishops have said in their joint documents (not widely read), there's what the current pope has said, and there's what the previous pope (who for many, who don't keep up with papal statements, might as well be the current teaching) says. On a whole host of issues. And they don't all line up. Ever.
So what you end up with is a quadrant with two dimensions: X = What do you believe, and Y = What do you think the Church teaches? And the answer of whether they think they are agreeing with or dissenting from Church teaching will fall in one or another square, according to their personal background of knowledge and beliefs.
What I can tell you, as a practicing Catholic (in the Weekly+ Mass attendance and several times a year Confession cohort) is that I have personally witnessed others and/or been personally subjected to accusations of disobeying the Church on every possible issue, with no regard whatsoever to documentary evidence of what the Church teaches. There is no shortage of Catholics (probably, just by increased odds of contact, who are in the higher Mass attendance range) who are not giving much grace & flexibility and are very much looking askance at other Catholics with disagreements; but they are just as likely to judge one side or the other as the one that is "against what the Church teaches".
Most religions have a spectrum of observance and loyalty to doctrine. We Jews have folks with beards and black hats who not only keep their cars parked every Saturday but do what their Rebbe tells them to do. And we have more abundant congregations with secular members who hire a Rabbi to avoid pork and go to synagogue on Saturday so they don't feel personally obligated.
What makes the Catholic church unique is that it centralizes its churches, clergy, and doctrine. People cannot really shop for a church they find agreeable. Clergy are appointed, not hired through a Search Committee. Within that framework, religious, even core beliefs, become something of a buffet. The Catholic ecosystem extends far beyond their churches. They sponsor hospitals and universities where the users extend to the broader population. Accommodations take place by doctrine and by users. They may not prescribe contraceptives in the Student Health clinics, but they will find a referral source for women with PCOS or premature ovarian failure to get them as accepted medical treatment. Their sponsored institutions have chaplains, though not exclusively priests.
The more interesting question, not covered in the survey, may be the pipeline for young adults who choose the priesthood. The expectation of doctrinal adherence, which is just not very widespread, may limit which young men commit to this and account for some of the ongoing shortage of younger priests the Church currently experiences.
Yeah, and a big thing about Catholicism is that celibacy is a big commitment that people aren’t lining up to do.
As a Mainline Protestant, I count lots of pastors’ kids and lots of women among the pastors I know, and practically all them are married with families. We also have a clergy shortage, and it would be far worse if we only allowed men and mandated celibacy.
I think that the upcoming work-around for the RC Church is to allow clergy to marry. Hey, Peter was married -- "there's our precedent for optics sake!"
I read recently the account of a RC priest who left the priesthood. He said it wasn't about giving up celibacy for the sake of sexuality, but he wanted a family -- a wife and kids. So human! And healthy!
I have to disagree with the idea that Catholics don't church shop. Leaving aside Tridentine mass attendees, Catholics in urban and many rural areas have a veritable smorgasbord of different churches to go to with the the same essential mass in different flavors of music and emphasis. We often pick between them just for convenience (can't make 11 am at St. X, go to 12 noon at St. Z) and especially for music, sermon, and other preferences, occasionally and sometimes permanently. The nice thing is that no one will usually call out a stranger in a Catholic mass or can even tell who is a stranger. (It makes us less companionable than Protestant churches but in our own way very welcoming.)
Fascinating! Oh how I wish we could get this kind of data for TEC. TEC has a huge infrastructure….about the same amount when it had twice the # of members. My hypothesis is that when it comes down to beliefs most Episcopals would ignore the instructions….from the Bishops and all the Convention proposals on social and moral issues. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
I agree
Another interesting article. I have Catholic friends and consider them believers (in my wide view of acceptance), though they may not consider me the same. But at what point does not following church beliefs mean you aren't part of that system?
Since the article mentioned it, JD Vance lecturing the Pope on Catholic teachings would be one example.
Is anyone aware of a Catholic parish surveying its members on their adherence to beliefs and then successfully working to narrow the gaps?