Some Catholics are disturbed that Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, will be delivering a benediction at a convention at which speaker after speaker will vehemently condemn belief in the right to life of the child in the womb and belief in marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Obviously, this is a matter of prudential judgment, and I certainly understand (and share) the concern. The Cardinal’s appearance could be interpreted as implying that the positions on abortion and marriage embraced by the Democratic Party and the Obama administration are acceptable from a Catholic vantange point.
I think it is important, though, to recognize the considerations on the other side, too. Many people on the left, including many who will be attending the Democratic convention, have been working overtime to establish the proposition that the Catholic Church and other supporters of the pro-life position are “misogynists” who are conducting a “war on women,” and anyone who believes in marriage as a conjugal union is a “bigot.” The Cardinal’s appearance at the convention confounds their efforts. By prominently featuring an outspoken leader of the the right to life cause and the fight against redefining marriage, the Democrats concede that these positions are not mere reflections of “animus” and cannot legitimately be treated as “bigotry.” After all, would the Obama administration and the leaders of the Democratic Party feature a “hater” at their convention? Would they invite a “homophobe” and a “bigot” to invoke divine blessing on their political exertions?
September 1st, 2012 | 1:17 pm
“After all, would the Obama administration and the leaders of the Democratic Party feature a “hater” at their convention? Would they invite a “homophobe” and a “bigot” to invoke divine blessing on their political exertions?”
Well…yes. Remember Rick Warren?
September 1st, 2012 | 3:05 pm
Most Catholics agree with the Democratic Party and not with Dolan.
September 1st, 2012 | 4:23 pm
This is one of Professor George’s more confused and confusing efforts. Is he really arguing that the answer to the question of whether Cardinal Dolan is a bigot or not is no because those in control of the Democratic National Convention have invited Cardinal Dolan to give a benediction? Is Professor George granting those in charge with organizing the convention with the power to determine whether or not Cardinal Dolan is a bigot? Is Professor George arguing here that Cardinal Dolan has somehow been vindicated by the invitation, or needs to be? Or is he defending the Democratic Party by saying those Democrats who would call Cardinal Dolan a bigot and a hater don’t speak for the party, and the official Democratic party looks kindly upon Cardinal Dolan?
September 1st, 2012 | 4:40 pm
We’re still waiting for that pro-life speaker to be scheduled at the “big tent” of the Democratic Party. No , sarcasm is not a sin.
September 1st, 2012 | 6:01 pm
Maximilian, you’ve put your finger on the problem again! The Democratic Party is becoming a religion.
September 1st, 2012 | 9:53 pm
Maybe this presents an opportunity for Cardinal Dolan to offer prayers promoting the dignity of the human person, and the right to life of every person,no matter his stage of development. This could turn out something like the time Mother Theresa preached her pro-life message to a large audience that included the Clintons. Who knows what hearts may be touched and changed?
September 1st, 2012 | 11:57 pm
Dolan is allowing himself to be used as a tool of the DNC. He now serves as cover for the Obama campaign in duping Roman Catholics into voting for him again. Most people who vote in presidential elections pay NO attention to politics until, well, now, so all they will know is that Dolan delivered the benediction at both and assume equivalence.
September 2nd, 2012 | 8:27 am
“Many people on the left, including many who will be attending the Democratic convention, have been working overtime to establish the proposition that the Catholic Church and other supporters of the pro-life position are “misogynists” who are conducting a “war on women,” and anyone who believes in marriage as a conjugal union is a “bigot”. ”
And these people are apt to see the inclusion of Cardinal Dolan as pandering to Catholic Democrats who, although agreeing with leftist social thinking, are nonetheless troubled by the blinkered treatment of their church by the Obama administration.
September 2nd, 2012 | 10:03 am
I have read online the prayer Cardinal Dolan will offer at the DNC. It is nothing that will cause waves or ruffles. Dr. Beckwith, I understand there is a balancing of interests to consider, but “mixing it up” doesn’t seem to be the answer. If we are opposed to the DNC pro-death, pro-gay platform, then let us be against it every day, in every venue. Let us, and let the leader of the American Church especially, NOT join the platform in presence, while asking all to believe we and he does not join in perspective, and that militantly. Either these are ‘make-or-break’ issues, or they are not.
September 2nd, 2012 | 10:59 am
John Hinshaw: We’re still waiting for that pro-life speaker to be scheduled at the “big tent” of the Democratic Party. No , sarcasm is not a sin.
What, you’re at it again? I named at least four anti-abortion speakers from 2008. Conveniently, you missed it and you continue making false claims.
September 2nd, 2012 | 11:00 am
Mike Melendez: Maximilian, you’ve put your finger on the problem again! The Democratic Party is becoming a religion.
I love how religious people use ‘religion’ as an insult. Regardless, if true, then surely, the evolution-denying and science-hating GOP is a cult.
September 2nd, 2012 | 12:16 pm
The invitation to Cardinal Dolan from Democrats was politically motivated. But then again, the invitation from Republicans was politically motivated. However, I don’t think Cardinal Dolan’s appearances at either convention will actually change anyone’s vote. And certainly Catholic Democrats who are unhappy with the tension between the Obama administration and the Catholic Bishops are not so fatuous as to heave a sigh of relief and say, “Now everything is okay!”
I think the most charitable conclusion (as well as the one that fits the facts) is that, while both invitations were politically motivated, Cardinal Dolan’s acceptance of them in both cases was not. A statement from the Archdiocese of New York said, in part, “It was made clear to the Democratic Convention organizers, as it was to the Republicans, that the Cardinal was coming solely as a pastor, only to pray, not to endorse any party, platform, or candidate.” Does anyone wish to charge the Cardinal or the Archdiocese with telling fibs?
September 2nd, 2012 | 12:54 pm
“Most Catholics agree with the Democratic party and not with Dolan.” Catholics are taught to refer to him as Cardinal Dolan as a gesture of common respect.
September 2nd, 2012 | 1:41 pm
Catholic prayer is addressed to God the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. God is therefore invoked and, so to speak, invited to join the gathering. God is also asked to act.
For Archbishop Dolan, who believes in God’s ability to act in the context of our common lives, any place, any time, any gathering is a place on which the blessing of God should be invoked because only good can come from that.
September 2nd, 2012 | 1:49 pm
While it should be said that Cardinal Dolan is not in any way a bigot and that it is foolish to say so, the answer to Prof. George’s question is yes, the Democratic party would do that. Before the 1960s, the Democrats were the party of segregation, and many a segregationist spoke at the DNC convention. Before signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, LBJ helped block several other civil rights acts as the president of the Senate in the 1950s. In 1924, the Ku Klux Klan and Northern Catholics fought for control of the Democratic nomination, leading to effigies of cross burning. This is not to allege that the Democrats are racists now. Things change. As a pure historical matter, however, bigots have been welcome at the DNC convention.
September 2nd, 2012 | 3:20 pm
Publius: Catholics are taught to refer to him as Cardinal Dolan as a gesture of common respect.
Since I am not a Catholic, I have not been taught any such thing. Also, I do not think that it is a sign of disrespect. I don’t call Obama “President Obama” either.
September 2nd, 2012 | 3:24 pm
John Williams: This is not to allege that the Democrats are racists now. Things change.
Indeed, they do. So let’s not forget that the worst of the lot, the Strom Thurmonds and Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwells of the world mostly went over to the Republican Party. No longer the party of Lincoln, but the party of Falwell.
September 2nd, 2012 | 7:20 pm
Despite allowing it to get gutted in committee, LBJ voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (which was passed into law). This is the same LBJ who the year before refused to sign the Southern Manifesto.
Compare this to my Texas’ John Tower, the first Republican to be elected to the US Senate since Reconstruction (1961), who voted against both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Which is to say that 1.) among Southern Democrats in the 1950s, LBJ presents a weak example of legislative racial bigotry, and 2.) that yes, members of the Republican party can and would do “that.” And it’s more than just party delegates throwing peanuts and insults at a camerawoman: let’s not forget the Southern Strategy.
September 2nd, 2012 | 7:41 pm
David Nickol, you seem to be overplaying your confusion here. Obviously George doesn’t think that the DNC speaking slate has any bearing on whether any person is a bigot; he’s just saying that it’s a good sign and good signaling for the Democratic party to give the Cardinal a hearing – it’s better than closing themselves off from anybody who disagrees with them on abortion and gay marriage.
September 2nd, 2012 | 10:25 pm
Max, it is common decency to refer to someone by their title. But more importantly, since you say you are not a Catholic, the idea that people who support Obamacare and the denial of religious exemptions as well as abortion rights and homosexual marriage are “Catholic” is inaccurate. Yes, they are Democrats, but they are not Catholic, despite what they may think. I can call myself a heart surgeon or an astrophysicist or a surviving member of the Romanov family, but it’s sort of meaningless without some official sanction.
September 3rd, 2012 | 7:43 am
Max writes: I love how religious people use ‘religion’ as an insult. Regardless, if true, then surely, the evolution-denying and science-hating GOP is a cult.
Sorry, Max. I’m not a Republican. I do not consider disagreement the same as insult. You clearly do not distinguish religion (Cardinal Dolan) and a political party (the Democrats). And you confirm that above, equating the Republicans to a, presumably, religious cult. I know Republicans and Democrats who agree with you on that score. On the other hand, I would not be surprised to find that Cardinal Dolan is a registered Democrat. Father Neuhaus, the founder of this periodical was.
“Cult” has a variety of meanings. Usually, negative usage implies a human leader who is close to worshiped, think David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon. Who do you think meets the need in the GOP?
September 3rd, 2012 | 9:48 am
Maximilian, most Catholics do not agree with the Democrats on partial birth abortion, abortion on demand or just plain old abortion. As to what other issues they agree with I could’nt say but I can say that for those Catholics that take their religion seriously, that is those that receive the sacraments regularly, that is those that practice their faith do not agree with the democrats. In general you are talking about nominal catholics that are virtually indistinguishable from their secular brethren and whose catholicism informs their attitudes not one iota.
September 3rd, 2012 | 5:46 pm
Publius: Max, it is common decency to refer to someone by their title.
In this case, it is a title bestowed by a state in Central Italy. Now, do I have to refer to others who proclaim that they are ‘prophets’, ‘bishops’, and the like? In that case, I hereby grant myself the title of Byzantine Emperor.
Publius: the idea that people who support Obamacare
Being a Catholic is contingent on opposing a law passed by Congress in 2010?
Publius: and the denial of religious exemptions
What kind of religious exemptions? Denying Jehovah’s witnesses the right to deny their children life-saving blood transfusions?
Publius: as well as abortion rights and homosexual marriage are “Catholic” is inaccurate.
Or contraception. No, I wasn’t talking about the 3% of Catholics who reject contraception, I was talking about the 97%. If you want to reduce the Catholic Church to just that 3%, be my guest.
September 3rd, 2012 | 5:50 pm
Mike Melendez: You clearly do not distinguish religion (Cardinal Dolan) and a political party (the Democrats).
I misunderstood you. You were criticizing me. In that case, I specifically meant social issues – you’ll find that the Catholic Church is not in line with rank-and-file Catholics.
Mike Melendez: “Cult” has a variety of meanings. Usually, negative usage implies a human leader who is close to worshiped, think David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon. Who do you think meets the need in the GOP?
Probably Ronald Reagan. But the point was not entirely serious. I am used to religious people, for example, calling evolution or atheism a religion to disparage it. I thought you were making a similar point about the Democratic Party. Hence my argument, “if the Democratic Party is a religion, then” – the GOP being a cult would depend on that.
September 3rd, 2012 | 5:52 pm
Michael Currie: Maximilian, most Catholics do not agree with the Democrats on partial birth abortion, abortion on demand or just plain old abortion.
I am pretty sure we’d find a majority of Catholics supporting the legality of abortion. Certainly, the vast majority of Catholics oppose the Church’s no exception position.
Currie: As to what other issues they agree with I could’nt say but I can say that for those Catholics that take their religion seriously, that is those that receive the sacraments regularly, that is those that practice their faith do not agree with the democrats.
Then there are very few Catholics indeed, for one of those issues is contraception, which is used by 97% of adult Catholic women.
September 3rd, 2012 | 7:36 pm
@Maximilian: You would have to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinopole to approve you as Byzantine Emperor. He gets a say.
September 3rd, 2012 | 9:46 pm
Max, not only are you not Catholic, as you mentioned in a previous post, you are actually hostile to Catholicism with your reference to the Cardinal Dolan’s title being bestowed “by a state in central Italy.” Oh, how radical! Such a free spirit! The 1960s live!
September 3rd, 2012 | 10:10 pm
But more importantly, since you say you are not a Catholic, the idea that people who support Obamacare and the denial of religious exemptions as well as abortion rights and homosexual marriage are “Catholic” is inaccurate.
Publius,
It’s the “not true Scotsman” argument again. By Canon Law, those who are baptized Catholics remain Catholic no matter what they do. If they go to Church only once a month, or once a year, or once every ten years, they are Catholics. You may want to characterize them as nonobservant Catholics, or bad Catholics, or cultural Catholics, but it is simply illegitimate and incorrect to say that Catholics who support same-sex marriage, or abortion, or anything else the Church officially condemns are not Catholics. It is illegitimate to make up definitions of Catholic that exclude the people you want to exclude and include only those you want to include.
If people were baptized Catholic, and the identify themselves to pollsters as Catholic, then they are Catholic.
September 3rd, 2012 | 10:13 pm
… “I am pretty sure we’d find a majority of Catholics supporting the legality of abortion.” These are “Catholics”? How can that be when the Catholic church is opposed to abortion? Oh, that’s right, people can call themselves anything they want…. And your 97 percent figure is a bogus number routinely trotted out by the anti-Catholic left.
September 4th, 2012 | 12:44 am
The substance doesn’t matter. The medium matters–if you want a catholic to vote one way or the other, put a picture up of a catholic cardinal at your event. Learning how to spin doesn’t confound the democrats, they are experts at it. The catholic clergy doesn’t seem to understand they are targets for being manipulated. I think Neuhaus wrote in FT about a regret for agreeing to an NPR interview, only to have it edited to twist his words.
Beth above mentions changing hearts, and this is what I am afraid of–Dolan’s appearance being spun to change the hearts of enough catholic voters to think it is OK to vote Democrat.
September 4th, 2012 | 7:17 am
Or contraception. No, I wasn’t talking about the 3% of Catholics who reject contraception, I was talking about the 97%. If you want to reduce the Catholic Church to just that 3%, be my guest.
Maximilian,
I agree with your point, but we have discussed this at length before, and it is difficult to have truly accurate statistics:
In any case, it is ridiculous of some people to narrow the definition of Catholics to include only those who go to mass weekly, agree with Church teachings on contraception and same-sex marriage, have never had an abortion, and so on. If people were baptized Catholic and self-identify as Catholic, then they are Catholic. And technically, if they were baptized Catholic and now don’t self-identify as Catholic, according to the Catholic Church, they are still Catholic.
September 4th, 2012 | 8:11 am
A Random Friar: You would have to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinopole to approve you as Byzantine Emperor. He gets a say.
Traditionally, yes. But that precedent dates from when the Catholic Church had the sole right to appoint priests and bishops. Now however, I see many people naming themselves ‘bishop’ without being invested by the Church, and if we have to respect that right by referring to him by the title they confer upon themselves, then I do not need the permission of the patriarch to name myself Emperor and demand that everyone call me by that title.
September 4th, 2012 | 9:57 am
Publius: Max, not only are you not Catholic, as you mentioned in a previous post, you are actually hostile to Catholicism with your reference to the Cardinal Dolan’s title being bestowed “by a state in central Italy.” Oh, how radical! Such a free spirit! The 1960s live!
And the point was that said state does not own the title of Cardinal. I can easily call myself a cardinal, and then demand that you call me Cardinal Max, on pain of being called ‘disrespectful’.
Publius: These are “Catholics”? How can that be when the Catholic church is opposed to abortion?
In all cases. So your point is that anyone who supports even exceptions for abortion is not a Catholic. Interesting. Let’s look somewhat further.
Publius: Oh, that’s right, people can call themselves anything they want…. And your 97 percent figure is a bogus number routinely trotted out by the anti-Catholic left.
You take issue only with the actual percentage, not with the idea that anyone who does not support contraception is not an actual Catholic.
In that case, there are precious few Catholics remaining – you need to favor making abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, and you need to oppose and not use contraception. I guess there aren’t 1 billion Catholics after all, more like 10 million (est.).
David: I agree with your point, but we have discussed this at length before, and it is difficult to have truly accurate statistics:
I recited the statistics from memory, and I yield to your source.
September 4th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Max writes: In that case, I specifically meant social issues – you’ll find that the Catholic Church is not in line with rank-and-file Catholics.
Why is that a surprise? The Church has never been a democracy any more than it is a business corporation. The Pope is not a CEO, but the chief conservator and final interpreter of what we believe was passed on to us by this fellow Jesus. The Pope is, first and foremost, a teacher. The laity are those who seek to learn about their chosen faith. For good or ill, but probably more out of being human, there are many who call themselves Catholic but don’t know what it means or, worse, make up what it means to suit themselves. In fact, I believe it is fair to say that such attitudes are part of the teaching of the Church: Romans 3:23 (again) and Matthew 9:12.
As to atheism being a religion, of course that’s absurd, but the claim of being atheist lays the foundation for a belief system that is often in opposition to other belief systems, in particular, religions. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that that claim is looked at with suspicion by religious people, just as different religions view each other with suspicion. In particular, I marvel at the claims that the Communist atheism behind the suppression of religions over the modern era is not atheism at all but really a religion.
As to the topic at hand, I believe many have substituted their politics for their beliefs and are no longer able to see the difference. That is a loss to us all.
If Regan were still alive, I think you might have a case for the “cult” label on the Republicans, but he passed away some time ago and left politics long before that. Moon’s passing likely means the Unification Church will begin to fall apart. The Republicans just keep stumbling along, not unlike the Democrats.
September 4th, 2012 | 11:08 am
“’I am pretty sure we’d find a majority of Catholics supporting the legality of abortion.’ These are ‘Catholics’? How can that be when the Catholic church is opposed to abortion? Oh, that’s right, people can call themselves anything they want…. And your 97 percent figure is a bogus number routinely trotted out by the anti-Catholic left.”
Great comment. Thank you Publius. The 97% is bogus. It comes from Guttmacher — not exactly a friend to Catholic teachings or the unborn.
One important fact that has been left out is Catholics who have had or have participated in an abortion have ex-communicated themselves. The ex-communication is automatic. So those Catholics that agree with the Democratic party’s full monty embrace of the culture of death may want to rethink their political affiliation.
September 4th, 2012 | 2:41 pm
Maximilian, You may be right about the no exception position however on abortion in general I think you are wrong. I have no hard facts to go on but some polls taken over the last couple of years seem to indicate that the majority of Americans identify as pro-life. I’m not exactly sure if this is true nor am I sure that if it is how solid or deep this identity is. I would extrapolate that what is true of Americans is true of Catholics. There is another element involved in this and that is whether one can be pro-life if one accepts any exception or pro-abortion if one accepts any restriction. Given that the Democratic party plank is for abortion on demand regardless of circumstance, even gender selection or partial birth abortion, I think I can say with confidence that most people, not just Catholics, do disagree with the Democratic party plank and yet many that do disagree will vote Democratic.
This is also true regarding the Republican party plank. In my earlier comment I was not saying that only those who practice their Catholicism were Catholic I was only meaning that serious Catholics were much less likely to vote Democratic. I would add that 100% of them would admit that they are sinners which entails not denying the truth of what they have sinned against.
Cardinal Dolan has and will give the invocation at both conventions and I think it is the right thing to do. It is his calling to witness to the truth and that is what he will do.
September 4th, 2012 | 4:35 pm
Maximilian,
“In that case, there are precious few Catholics remaining – you need to favor making abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, and you need to oppose and not use contraception. I guess there aren’t 1 billion Catholics after all, more like 10 million (est.).”
I keep seeing this argument from others and now from you; you seem to think it is a strong one for making one reconsider their argument. Why?
Are you more concerned with whether a position is true, or with how many share it?
September 4th, 2012 | 4:47 pm
Commenters who get tied up in knots over who can *properly* be called a Catholic are missing the underlying issue. Yes, the baptized Catholic is always a Catholic, in the same way that I am always one of my own family members, even if I refute and disown everything my family line stands for. I am still *technically* of that family – but does that mean anything? Does anyone remember Esau?
Really the question is getting more at the implications of Jesus’s statement uttered in Matthew 7:21.
http://bible.cc/matthew/7-21.htm
September 4th, 2012 | 6:12 pm
Commenters who get tied up in knots over who can *properly* be called a Catholic are missing the underlying issue.
JDD,
We’re not talking about who is saved and who is lost. We’re talking about public opinion polls. If somebody identifies himself or herself to a pollster as a Catholic, but one who doesn’t believe or follow what the Church teaches about contraception or same-sex marriage, the pollster doesn’t get to say, “Well, thanks for your opinion, but you’re not really Catholic, because you disagree with the Church.” Good polls will also ask questions about mass attendance and so on, and that helps separate the more observant from the less observant. But is just absurd to claim that the slightly more than 50% of Catholics who approve of same-sex marriage aren’t “really” Catholics. You can call them dissident Catholics, or bad Catholics, or apostates, or whatever you want. But in public opinion polls they count as Catholics. We’re not talking about Judgment Day here. We’re talking public opinion polls!
September 4th, 2012 | 6:19 pm
Mike Melendez: For good or ill, but probably more out of being human, there are many who call themselves Catholic but don’t know what it means or, worse, make up what it means to suit themselves.
Being a Catholic does not mean you have to follow the pope. It means that you are a member of the universal Christian Church. For example, Jesus never spoke about contraception, but popes will opine on the matter anyway.
Mike Melendez: In particular, I marvel at the claims that the Communist atheism behind the suppression of religions over the modern era is not atheism at all but really a religion.
They have all the perfidious elements both you and I dislike about religion, but I do agree, that does not necessarily mean that it is a religion. Communism bears strong resemblance to a religion, but it makes no transcendent claims. I would not call it a religion-proper, but I will say that both religion and communism are essentially totalitarian, and I dislike totalitarianism.
Mike Melendez: Moon’s passing likely means the Unification Church will begin to fall apart.
The death of Jesus did not kill Christianity, why should Moon’s death kill the Unification Church. I hope it does, but I am not holding my breath.
September 4th, 2012 | 6:23 pm
Currie: I have no hard facts to go on but some polls taken over the last couple of years seem to indicate that the majority of Americans identify as pro-life.
So I think. But self-identifying as pro-life does not mean that you wish to see abortion outlawed. Even South Dakota rejected such a law with exceptions 56-44, despite a SurveyUSA poll showing “pro-lifers” being in the plurality.
But the position of some people was that one cannot be a Catholic, unless one agrees with the Catholic Church on abortion – which is not outlawing abortion with exceptions, but outlawing abortion without exceptions. Even more so, using or supporting contraception makes one a non-Catholic. And no doubt the remainder have something about them that will disqualify a portion. In that case, one would have to say that there are precious few Catholics left.
Currie: Given that the Democratic party plank is for abortion on demand regardless of circumstance, even gender selection or partial birth abortion
I am not aware of that, but I do know that the GOP plank wishes to make persons out of fertilized eggs – a proposition rejected by the proud liberals and progressives of Mississippi.
September 4th, 2012 | 6:25 pm
JDD: Are you more concerned with whether a position is true, or with how many share it?
Not at all. I am just trying to point out the absurdity of the argument that if you disagree with the Church hierarchy on an issue, you are not a real Catholic. If they were to say that, yes, there are only 10 million Catholics in the world, then that would be a perfectly consistent position, but I think they will be unwilling to take their argument to its logical conclusion.
September 4th, 2012 | 6:47 pm
Max, nice deconstructionist take on you appointing yourself a Cardinal and asking to be addressed by that title, and noting that anything short of that would be disrespectful. I am pleased to see that you are finally admitting you are a nihilist.
September 4th, 2012 | 9:53 pm
Publius: Max, nice deconstructionist take on you appointing yourself a Cardinal and asking to be addressed by that title, and noting that anything short of that would be disrespectful. I am pleased to see that you are finally admitting you are a nihilist.
I am no nihilist, your belief that only the Catholic Church may bestow these titles is predicated on the idea that it is the one, universal church – a belief that I do not share.
September 5th, 2012 | 12:55 am
[David Nickol] “We’re not talking about who is saved and who is lost. We’re talking about public opinion polls.”
The point I’m making is that these opinion polls are only meaningful to a completely relativistic culture, and provide utterly useless information when considered with that Scripture. Would you agree that the title of a category is meaningless unless there are any un-arguable criteria at all for what goes into it? Even pollsters on some level seem to understand that there is an actual set of teachings that they automatically draw from, and measure against, when they frame their questions.
[David Nickol] “If somebody identifies himself or herself to a pollster as a Catholic, but one who doesn’t believe or follow what the Church teaches about contraception or same-sex marriage, the pollster doesn’t get to say, ‘Well, thanks for your opinion, but you’re not really Catholic, because you disagree with the Church.’”
Why doesn’t the pollster ‘get’ to say this? Agreed, they don’t say it – but they indeed should if they want to get a meaningful answer. Otherwise it’s akin to asking a bunch of apples how they feel about being oranges.
Maximilian was suggesting that – look out – there might be a lot less Catholics than you might think who believe as you do – all you Catholics might want to re-evaluate which horse you want to back! I hinted that I don’t. I’m also perfectly willing to ‘take the argument to its logical conclusion’.
[David Nickol] “Good polls will also ask questions about mass attendance and so on, and that helps separate the more observant from the less observant. But is just absurd to claim that the slightly more than 50% of Catholics who approve of same-sex marriage aren’t “really” Catholics. You can call them dissident Catholics, or bad Catholics, or apostates, or whatever you want. But in public opinion polls they count as Catholics.”
And then what exactly does that poll actually tell you? Now I know your position on same sex marriage already – no need to re-state all that. David, you have the heritage, but you’re not oblivious to the teaching that you’ve rejected, so you’re not a fully practicing Catholic. You’re a fully practicing something that needs a different title. That’s not meant to be a mean statement. It’s simply pointing out that it’s intellectually incoherent to say that Catholics can believe both “A” and “not A” in any article of faith whatsoever. I hold to the teaching lineage that comes to us through Peter. You don’t even believe in that, by your own admission – but you’re then going to have to explain what your own teaching lineage is; like it or not, somebody taught you, somebody formed you, you accepted someone else’s foundational principles. I’m pointing out that to lump us both together in the same category in a poll – and then for all intents and purposes have our two data points neatly ‘cancel’ each other – “Polls say Catholics are evenly divided on the issue…” is silly and worthless as real data.
September 5th, 2012 | 10:38 am
JDD, very well put. But those intellectually incoherent Catholics who pick and choose which elements of their faith they believe in will never concede your point.
September 5th, 2012 | 11:56 am
JDD and publius,
For purposes of public opinion polls can you give me, say, five questions (or as many as you like) the pollster should ask to determine if a person who self-identifies as a Catholic is “really” a Catholic?
Georgetown University did some surveys not too long about what Catholic believe and don’t believe. Of Catholics who attend Mass once a week or more, 91% believed in the Real Presence and 9% believed in some kind of symbolic presence. Are people who self-identify as Catholic and attend Mass once a week or more not “really” Catholic if they don’t believe in the Real Presence?
September 5th, 2012 | 12:56 pm
If Publius and JDD be right, then I suppose that there are more Jews and Catholics in the world.
September 6th, 2012 | 10:14 am
[David Nickol] “For purposes of public opinion polls can you give me, say, five questions (or as many as you like) the pollster should ask to determine if a person who self-identifies as a Catholic is “really” a Catholic?”
Sure, here’s a few, asking essentially the same thing in a few different ways:
Do you believe Jesus left us a way to know what is his true teaching, other than just our own noggin?
Did Jesus do anything or say anything to indicate he was going to pass on teaching authority?
A three-parter:
- At the time when Jesus was on Earth, who would you have asked to find out what Jesus taught?
- Right after Jesus ascended into Heaven, who would you have asked to find out what Jesus taught?
- This evening, who would you ask to find out what Jesus taught?
The question “Are you Catholic” can never be reduced to a set of doctrinal points – even one as central as the Real Presence – without reference to the fact that we follow a Person, Jesus Christ. We therefore follow all he did and taught, including his decision to establish earthly shepherds. We are not a faith purely “Of the Book” so to speak, although Scripture is our highest written form of teaching. Teaching will always need to address new human developments as they arise – IVF and so forth – therefore Jesus established a living, teaching church. Any poll question that does not address the nature of teachers is simply asking people what do they personally *prefer*.
September 6th, 2012 | 10:17 am
Maximilian,
Maybe it’s just too early for me this morning, but I don’t understand your post.
September 6th, 2012 | 2:41 pm
Neither would I, had I not known what I intended to write. I meant to say that there would be more Jews than Catholics, in case you and Publius are right.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact