Surging Catholic Support for Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption (US)

[cbayer]

cross posted from Politics 2012 - thanks, hedgehog.

http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/08/01/surging-us-catholic-support-for-gay-marriage-gay-adoption/

August 1, 2012
By Terence Weldon
New research by the Pew Forum on religion and public life has confirmed once again that the tide of opinion is moving inexorably in favour of gay marriage. In 2oo4, supporters were outnumbered by opponents, by almost two to one (30% to 61%), but supporters now outnumber opponents, by 48% to 44%. The age split confirms that support will continue to grow: the only groups still opposed are those over 50, and the youngest is in favour by 63% to 32%. All this is familiar.

What is new in this poll, is its focus on the impact of President Obama’s declared support last May for the principle of marriage equality. Overall, Pew reports that there has been very little change in support since before the announcement – but that it has strengthened support in his Democratic base, and hardened opposition among his Republican opponents. This shift among Democratic voters (especially liberal Democrats) could have a beneficial impact on the gay marriage ballots this November in the Democratic and Democratic leaning states of Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota, and has been widely reported on in the major news media (see for instance, Huffington Post, SF Gate at the San Francisco Chronicle, or Seattle Post PI).

The strength of the Pew Forum research organization, as its name implies, is in its focus on religion and religious attitudes, and the extensive historical database of strictly comparable results, which is what I want to focus on here.

Catholics support for gay marriage is strong, and surging.

First, note that Catholic overwhelmingly support gay marriage, by 58% to 33% – a margin of 25%, and identical for both White and Hispanic Catholic groups. This degree of support is greater than that shown by any other Christian grouping (Jews and other faiths are not identified), it is substantially higher than that for the population as a whole).



more at link

[dmallind]

1. Yes well done

If Catholics had 50% more support and one fifth the opposition to gay marriage that this triumphal surge leaves them with, they'd have equally marginal homophobia as seen among nonbelievers.

Granted they are far better than the far more numerous US Protestants though. I remember smiling at the irony of a book I was reading this weekend that strongly linked the Protestant reformation to increasing rationalism and demystification of religious thought. Not that I disagree that it was such. Just that 500 years is time enough for a 180 degree turn, QED.

Religion's nothing to do with it though, I suppose.

[cbayer]

2. You are correct, but the trend is a good sign.

[dmallind]

5. Job gains are also a good trend. Celebrating them here gets short shrift however.

When you start completely immobile being able to move your pinky slightly is a good trend (this is not snark - it is true as I know first hand). It leaves you pretty much a useless hulk though, and much much more is needed before you are fit to function again.

[cbayer]

7. Sorry for what you went through.

I've watched it happen.

Sure, there's a long way to go, but moving that first pinky is sometimes just the sign everyone has been breathlessly waiting for.

[pnwmom]

3. Interesting. Of course, this won't change any minds

among the Catholic bashers here.

[cbayer]

4. But good information is harder to distort and use against others.

[dmallind]

6. Is pointing out that a bare majority accepting basic human equality is still poor now "bashing"?

How so? Is that percentage what it should be? Is it good, or even acceptable? How would a DU poll on the same topic fare? I think we both know it would be much better. Does that mean the general population here has something to teach Catholics or does it not, and why?

[pnwmom]

8. If it weren't for the increase in Catholic support, we wouldn't be close to approving

gay marriage in several states right now. It's no coincidence that Massachusetts was the first to have legalized gay marriage.

[trotsky]

10. Voters didn't decide in Mass.

The state supreme court did.

[pnwmom]

11. And the state supreme court includes Catholics. n/t

[trotsky]

20. Well that leads to a bunch of questions.

Were the justices ALL Catholic? If not, which ones? And how did they each vote?

And did they vote because of their Catholic faith, or because they used their legal knowledge and expertise to find that Massachusetts law could not discriminate against same-sex marriage?

You aren't seriously saying that BECAUSE there are Catholics on the Massachusetts Supreme Court, THAT'S why there is gay marriage in Mass. today, are you?

[pnwmom]

25. A Catholic justice on that Supreme Court

has a greater chance of supporting gay marriage than a Protestant justice would.

[Plantaganet]

31. Weird.

All this time I thought the gay community's progress was the result of coming out, community activism, hard work...

Nope. It was generous Catholics.

[pnwmom]

48. I didn't say that. But Catholics have been more open to gay marriage

than the other Christian denominations, despite the position of the hierarchy.

[Skittles]

101. OMG CATHOLICS ARE EVOLVING???

[trotsky]

37. So you can't answer any of the questions.

You can't say IF there were Catholics on the court, whether they supported gay marriage because of their Catholic beliefs, OR whether the law was clear and they had no choice. Do you at least have any surveys of Protestants vs. Catholics in liberal Massachusetts to back up your claim that it was more likely a Catholic justice would have voted in favor of gay marriage if it came down to their personal religious beliefs rather than interpreting the law? Anything at all?

Or do you just assume followers of your religion are morally superior to others?

Given national stats, an atheist justice would have been even MORE likely to support gay marriage than one of your religion. What do you think about that?

[skepticscott]

34. And if it weren't for vehement Catholic opposition to it

in the first place, where do you think the cause of gay marriage would be now? Just a wee bit further along, mayhaps? And how about if the Catholic church had been supporting it wholeheartedly for the past 20 or 30 years, with the same devotion and expenditure of resources that they've used in opposing it, or birth control, or abortion?

Sorry, no credit is due for gradually, grudgingly abandoning despicable bigotry that never should have been held in the first place, especially not from those who arrogantly declare their god to be the font of all that is good and moral. When the Catholic church and its minions are back to where any decent person should be, then come and talk to us about praise being due.

[mmonk]

66. We are going to be joining a gay affirming Catholic Church

run by the Franciscans. Not all Catholics deserve to be lumped together because the Bishops are the way they are these days. Myself, I haven't been to Church since 2004 except on Easter. This is a family compromise by myself and sons to attend Church with my wife. We were able to find a liberal leaning one that we felt comfortable with.

[skepticscott]

67. Well, yes they do deserve to be lumped together

Since there is one and only one Catholic Church, and it does NOT affirm gays. The fact that you needed to look high and low for a church that can still call itself Catholic, while flying under the radar in violating unalterable Catholic doctrine should be a message to you. Any support, financial or otherwise, that you give to any Catholic church, ends up accruing to Rome, whether you like it or not.

And does the priest in your new church openly advocate for marriage equality in the Catholic church or in general? Or does he just use cowardly code words like "affirming" or "open door policy"?

[pnwmom]

69. The hierarchy is largely (but not completely) against gay marriage,

but they don't speak for all the laity, and they never have. And the Church comprises all its members, not just the self-appointed hierarchy.

[skepticscott]

70. The laity doesn't make policy

or determine doctrine. In any way. They are simply people who voluntarily belong to and support an organization that champions causes they hate. And that support includes support of that "self-appointed hierarchy".

[pnwmom]

71. The laity determines which of the doctrine they choose to believe. For example,

the vast majority (more than 95%) reject the doctrine against artificial contraception, while accepting the social doctrines that Paul Ryan rejects.

We don't expect to agree with every position of the Bishops any more than we agree with every position of our political leaders.

[skepticscott]

72. And yet what influences

law and public policy? The laity or the hierarchy? Who gets their way about the distribution of family planning materials in empoverished third world countries? Who condemned untold numbers of people to death from AIDS by fighting against (and lying about) condom use?

Certainly not the alleged "95%".

[pnwmom]

73. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has had very little influence

on people's use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, just as they've had little influence on the use of contraceptives in the U.S.

Meanwhile, individual Catholics -- Melinda Gates, for one important example, and many Catholics in the medical professions -- have worked hard to encourage the use of condoms and other methods of contraception.

[skepticscott]

87. Hogwash

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/vatican_05-30.html

And many more.

Seriously? Sending out the message that condoms DON'T help prevent the spread of AIDS, in countries where it's rampant? If the hierarchy is having no influence, why is this even a problem that "individual Catholics" need to work to solve? Family planning aid from the US is essentially non-existent, in no small part due to the influence of the Catholic Church.

The bottom line is the same as the one you've tellingly declined to address elsewhere. How much further along would a lot of countries be in the fights against STDs and poverty if the Catholic Church were supporting, instead of fighting, the use of artificial contraception? If they were truly more interested in saving life and making it better over the long term than they were in making sure as much fertilization as possible occurs?

[demosincebirth]

76. Chew on this a while. The largest Gay Catholic parish in the nation.

I hope they work it out.

Most Holy Redeemer (SF) is at a crossroads
The Catholic church in the Castro district has arguably the largest gay parish in the nation, and controversial new decisions have members worried about leadership, policies - even that the church might be shut down.

And it all began with drag queens.

When the archdiocese refused to allow drag queens to serve as emcees for charity events at the church's community hall, it fed rampant paranoia about antigay sentiment. The decision was initially blamed on incoming Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage who has been championed by extreme conservative Catholic groups. Some read the drag-queen ban as a calculated slap in the face.

Cordileone doesn't start his new job until October, but clearly the issue is bigger than drag queens at a fundraiser. The decision calls into question the responsibility of a church in the community, of the acceptance of all walks of life and the tenets of religion.

"Paranoia is very high," said Supervisor Scott Wiener, who represents the district. "There are a lot of gay people for whom this religion is very important. It's just very, very sad."

Even the possibility of closing the church, despite its illustrious San Francisco history, seems real.

"The (incoming) archbishop holds the keys to this building," said church business manager Mike Poma. "He could close us any time."

And for some, the move to quell the drag-queen decision by declaring that Ellard Hall would be closed to community events only made things worse.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Most-Holy-Redeemer-at-crossroads-3791909.php#ixzz23kVvV196

[Plantaganet]

94. Case in point.

"A gay-friendly Catholic church in San Fransisco's Castro neighborhood . . ." There is no truly gay-friendly Catholic church. Many of them may be welcoming, many more are tolerant, but until they stand in defiance of what comes out of the Vatican, they are not friends of the LGBT community. This article only proves that. One friend does not say to another, "I love you and support you, but party line says I can't really have that much to do with you. Sorry."

[demosincebirth]

96. I love people like you that can read an authentic article and completely and totally turn it

around and put their own spin on it. My thirteen year old does the some thing.


By the way, in case you're dyslectic the article said "Parish" not Church Two different entities.


I can feel a headache coming on so A-Dios.

[Plantaganet]

99. I think you have a very intelligent thirteen-year-old! n/t

[demosincebirth]

106. She is, but she still has the intelligence of a thirteen year old and has a lot of growing up

to do.

[Plantaganet]

107. BTW there's no need to lash out at people with dyslexia. Kinda tacky, no?

[demosincebirth]

108. Lashing out? I never gave it a thought.

[Plantaganet]

109. That's certainly clear. n/t

[demosincebirth]

110. Look up the word "sarcasm."

Don't bother responding. I don't do fools well.

The Ignore button is a pretty handy tool. goodbye

[Plantaganet]

111. You're not giving yourself enough credit. I think you make an exceptional fool.

[mmonk]

75. You are an American, so did you support GW Bush's policies including invasion

and torture? The Franciscan Church openly states its support and inclusion. It's listed here in gaycurch.org's list (scroll down to Raleigh and you will find it) http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/united_states/us_north_carolina.htm

You can check the Church out here: http://www.stfrancisraleigh.org/

Doubt anything will be done to them since The Franciscan Order is over 800 years old and pretty much respected (would probably backfire).

[skepticscott]

83. The intellectual bankruptcy

Of comparing voluntary membership in, and financial support of, one church out of many, to citizenship and involuntary taxation, has already been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere.

Is that the best you have?

[mmonk]

91. No, just pointing out your similarity to the Bishops.

You have everyone figured out and into a box, If one is a Catholic, then they by default by still being a Catholic are in complete agreement, compliance, or contribute by default to the Bishops' causes. I can assure you that is not the case. Do you find it interesting that the Franciscan Church in question has a retreat under families called GLBT retreat for the fall of the year? Does this not contradict or fly in the face of the Pope and the Bishops? Yes or no.

[skepticscott]

95. Obviously not every Catholic

agrees with everything the Bishops say, but if you throw even one dime voluntarily in the collection plate, if you proudly call yourself a member of an organization that does so many hideous things, they you ARE contributing to and supporting them.

And yes, lots of RCC churches do things that fly under Rome's radar. Does that fact that you have to fly under the radar to do these things not clue you in? Or the fact that you have to have special lists of churches that AREN'T bigoted, rather than the other way around? When it is taken for granted that something that calls itself a church and a house of god treats and regards all people equally, and when it's churches that are otherwise that are the rare exception, then maybe you'll have something to crow about.

And I notice that web site says "We seek to affirm the intrinsic value and self-worth of all people and to welcome them into full participation in the faith community." That must mean you welcome women and people who are openly gays and lesbians as priests, right? Oh, what...you can't? Who DOES get to welcome women, gays and lesbians as priests? Hmmmmmmmm. And wouldn't being married in the Catholic Church be part of "FULL participation in the faith community"? How many gay marriages have taken place in this church in the past 10 years? If this church truly isn't afraid to thumb their nose at Rome over things that matter, why don't they just do it? They're Franciscans, after all..what would the pope dare do??

[mmonk]

98. We shall see I guess.

Me thinks the Bishops are going to create a schism. The Franciscans have already lined up behind the nuns Rome is leaning on. BTW, I found members of a western NC parish that have left the church and formed their own church led by a retired priest. Anyway, this is my and my sons compromise with my wife. We gave her a challenge and she met it. So we'll attend. She devotes a lot of her time working for Catholic Parish Outreach helping feed the poor. Me, I'm more along the lines of a Buddhist agnostic. But we will see how it works.

[skepticscott]

65. Still no answer..

The intellectual bankruptcy here is staggering...

[skepticscott]

68. Still no answer

who says the atheists here don't ask the hard questions??

[skepticscott]

74. And STILL no answer

Guess this must be one of the "hard questions" that atheists won't ask...

[trotsky]

9. When your church as an institution is no longer opposing gay rights...

and officially lobbying against pro-LGBT measures, and/or you stop giving money to them, I think you'll find the "Catholic bashing" to decrease significantly.

[pnwmom]

12. That doesn't change the fact that more Catholics support gay marriage

than any other Christian denomination. Except on paper and in their own minds, the Bishops don't represent the broader Church.

[ButterflyBlood]

13. But what are they doing with the money that those pro-gay marriage Catholics are donating?

That's all that really matters. This is kind of like some "moderate" Republican protesting that they don't agree with all of the insanity of the GOP but still keeps voting for them.

[pnwmom]

16. Ever hear of Catholic Community Services?

A lot more money goes into that than into anti-gay marriage initiatives.

[ButterflyBlood]

21. You can donate to other organizations that deal with that that don't also fund anti-gay propaganda

Hell even with other churches. Note these:

http://www.ecsmn.org
http://www.lcsnw.org

From two churches in my state that have endorsed to vote against the anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot, while the Catholic church has poured tons of money into supporting it.

It's not hard to leave. You don't even need to quit being a Christian. I didn't. But I could never be a Catholic. I renounced the church around age 14 and have never regretted it once. Trying to reconcile staying in that church with my views would be a form of psychological torture I wouldn't be able to endure. I even got baptized again earlier this year so my baptism doesn't "belong" to the Catholic church.

[pnwmom]

23. So now you're an anti-Catholic evangelist. Bully for you.

I'm an American who's not happy with all the ways our government spends money and I'm a Catholic who feels the same about our Church. But I'm not going to move to Canada or leave the Church. I'd rather keep working for change from within.

[cleanhippie]

30. You're projecting again.

[pnwmom]

45. No, I'm using my reading comprehension skills. n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

46. I'm curious what you mean

You seem to imply I've become some Jack Chick type.

[pnwmom]

47. You got a second Christian baptism because of your feelings against

the Catholic Church, and then you go around trying to tell other people to leave the Church. That's what I'm talking about.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. Actually I *probably* would've got baptized again even if my parents had me baptized Lutheran

I did it primarily because I didn't consider my confirmation and by extension baptism to be valid, having been done just to please my parents and without any actual belief or sincerity. I wanted to make a commitment for myself, and not for my parents. It's a common attitude, I know a girl who got baptized at 14 with her twin brother, but he later got rebaptized because he didn't consider it valid at the time because he didn't really believe, he just did it because she was and they basically did everything together. Besides I like what an adult baptism represents, it's more exciting and meaningful than sprinkling a baby, and since I had started going to a church willing to do it for an adult who had already been baptized as a baby, why not? If I have any kids I would not have them baptized even in a non-Catholic church because I'd give them the choice to decide to do it later. So it's ultimately just a standard and rather common theological disagreement.

I don't go around actively preaching at people to leave the Catholic church, I just explain why I did and my line of thought and reasoning as to why it's the best thing to do. In an odd twist I think I was a big factor in getting my mom to effectively do so (sort of planting the seed in high school when she started going to the nearby Lutheran church instead sometimes because of my protestations at going to a Catholic church and now going to that one far more often even with me having been out of the house a long time), but I'd say the local Catholic hierarchy has just as much to do with that. Anyone familiar with Archbishop John Nienstedt knows he's the worst thing to happen to the church in this area in quite some time, and probably the best recruiting tool for other churches.

[pnwmom]

51. After I pointed out that the church spends a lot more money on Catholic Community

Services than on anti-gay marriage initiatives, you suddenly changed the subject and started telling me how I could leave the Catholic Church and remain a Christian. I didn't ask for this information, but you went into an anti-Catholic evangelical speech:

"It's not hard to leave. You don't even need to quit being a Christian. I didn't. But I could never be a Catholic. I renounced the church around age 14 and have never regretted it once. Trying to reconcile staying in that church with my views would be a form of psychological torture I wouldn't be able to endure. I even got baptized again earlier this year so my baptism doesn't "belong" to the Catholic church."

You also said you got baptized again "so my baptism doesn't 'belong' to the Catholic church."

[trotsky]

53. Just curious - since you've decided not to answer any of the difficult questions posed to you...

Is there any criticism of your church that you will allow without labeling it "anti-Catholic" or "Catholic bashing"?

Could you give specific examples of speech you will allow?

[pnwmom]

56. To answer your first question, yes, but not from you. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

57. That sounds a little like bigotry.

Not sure you intended it that way, but you may want to think about it.

[trotsky]

60. I'm sorry you don't think I should be allowed to speak my opinion.

Tough shit. I'm going to.

[ButterflyBlood]

62. It's a relevant topic in this thread

Nothing I stated was incorrect. You can leave and still be a Christian. So I question why one would remain one with one of the most reactionary denominations of Christianity. I am not leafletting Catholic churches' parking lots.

I've explained the baptism thing above.

[trotsky]

38. How does that change from within work in your church?

Can you vote for new, liberal priests, bishops, and the pope, like here in the USA we can vote for new representatives, senators, and the president?

Oh yeah, that's right, you can't. The hierarchy of corrupt, conservative, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-progressive old men just perpetuates itself and there's nothing you can do about it.

But keep telling yourself you're changing it if that makes you feel better as you hand over more money to those old bigots.

[ButterflyBlood]

41. Erm what? I'm not an evangelist.

I go to an evangelical church yes (one of which is actually far more liberal than your average evangelical church...and the Catholic church too for that matter), but I'm not openly involved in evangelizing or preaching in any way.

And how do you change the Catholic church? Do you get to vote on the Pope or your bishops? There is no democratic institution there. Quite frankly if someone offered me free Canadian citizenship I'd take it in a heartbeat but at least the US has a democratic process for change, the Catholic church chooses its leadership the same way the Soviet Union did.

[trotsky]

19. And that's fantastic.

But your money (and the prestige of your church due to its large membership which is such a source of pride for you) are working against LGBT rights. Of course the bishops don't represent you - you didn't vote for any of them. That's how your church works!

[cbayer]

39. And the subthread proves your point.

Who would have guessed?

[trotsky]

40. Could you please specifically point to key words, phrases, or sentences...

that you consider to be "Catholic bashing"?

Your silence in response to this question will be taken as an admission that there are none, and you are just making nasty personal accusations.

[skepticscott]

43. How about this very poster

saying that much of what the Catholic Church has done is "indefensible"?

[trotsky]

52. An excellent point.

No wonder there's been no response.

[skepticscott]

42. Since the subthread

and you have provided no reason for us to gush over an anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-birth control, anti-choice, unliberal, unprogressive, child-rape enabling all-male heirarchy, that totally disrespects all other religions, yes, who would have guessed?

And you're the one who has stated that the Catholic Church is indefensible. So how are you not a basher too?

[ButterflyBlood]

14. Now imagine what would happen if those Catholics put their money where their mouth is

And got out of the church. Not only would the message finally be sent in a way that the heirarchy couldn't ignore, they'd have a lot less money to fund their bigotry as well.

[cbayer]

15. They can, and many are, giving their money to specific Catholic organizations and causes.

They can, and many are, supporting the nuns who are pushing back.

Leaving is not the only option when one disagrees with a group they are affiliated with, particularly when one has strong reasons for staying.

Leaving may be the easiest, but not necessarily the bravest thing to do.

[ButterflyBlood]

22. But it would be the most effective

And I really just can't get "strong reasons for staying", since as noted I have never once regretted renouncing the Catholic Church. One of the easiest decisions I've ever done. I'm hardly the only one, even on the Catholic half of my family, there are currently no adults amongst the grandchildren who are practicing Catholics and only two that potentially might be, who are ages 7 and 10. Any Catholic tradition in my family has clearly fallen to shreds, yet no one has been too bothered by it. My Catholic aunt had no problem attending my baptism in a different church and filming it at the request of my Catholic mother who had no problem sponsoring her niece in a Lutheran confirmation because her sister also left the church and isn't raising her kids Catholic. And that's not even getting started on the tons of people in my church who were raised Catholic and left...

[cbayer]

24. But your experience is yours and yours alone.

Others have had profoundly different experiences. Their lives may have been saved. The church may have given them solace during devastating periods of grief. Some of the most wonderful events in their lives may have been celebrated and blessed there. They may have strong personal feelings about specific rituals, priests, schools, nuns and childhood groups.

Just because it was easy for you and you felt it was the right thing to do, that may not be the case for others. Why would you presume that your experience would reflect the experience that others might have?

[demosincebirth]

77. Leave a Church many of us have known since birth ? I don't think so. The majoitry of catholics

don't walk in lockstep with the hierarchy as many seem to think. We still support our parishes and continue to support our local, national and international charities that benefit the poor and homeless regardless of their religious affiliations or lack of.

[cleanhippie]

92. Known, or indoctrinated into?

Methinks that had you not been programmed to believe and instead had your ability to reason and question unchained, you would not be saying such things. Or maybe you would, but at least you would have made a conscious decision to believe on your own, and of your own free will.

[demosincebirth]

97. I love people who think they can always tell others what they should or shouldn't do

with their lives. For your information, I have made a a conscious decision to stay in my Church since I was an adult. I don't walk in lock step with what the church teaches on certain issues, but I love my church. I know it's beyond your comprehension as I see from your posts that it doesn't sit well with you.


A-dios

[cleanhippie]

100. I love people who make shit up out of thin air to make themselves feel better.

You keep loving that church of yours, its doing a great job.

[demosincebirth]

105. and I will continue.

Peace.

[2ndAmForComputers]

17. It's a known fact that Catholics in the US, historically, tend to be more tolerant than other Xians.

Now, the clerics, on the other hand...

By the way, do you notice which two groups manage to have even better numbers than Catholics in the chart you posted?

[cbayer]

18. Of course I noticed. Those numbers have always been the highest.

[2ndAmForComputers]

26. Indeed they have. That means something, don't you think?

[cbayer]

27. What are you getting at here? What do you think it means?

[2ndAmForComputers]

28. That is left as an exercise for the reader. Have a nice day.

[cbayer]

29. Wow. Sometimes things just get bizarre around here.

See you around the campfire.

[MissMarple]

32. Do you think the higher Catholic rate could be linked to level of education?

Also, do you think American Catholics are more likely to separate from the Vatican or to keep on like they are, hoping the Church will evolve, which could take centuries?

[cbayer]

33. This is what the author speculates:

It could, I suggest, be associated with a Catholic commitment to justice and inclusion for all, or with Catholic respect for the value of family (all families, including unconventional ones). But some of the associated findings in the latest Pew research suggest another – that Catholic thinking is more firmly rooted in the reality of homosexual orientation.

White Catholics, along with White Mainline Protestants, strongly agree that homosexuality is innate, and cannot be changed – by margins that almost exactly match the degree of support for gay marriage, and for gay adoption.

[MissMarple]

35. Thanks, The link won't work for me.

I get in, then it blocks the article.

[cbayer]

36. That's too bad. It's got lots more information and polling data.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Atheist rock!

Fuck yeah!

[scheming daemons]

103. i would like to meet the 6% of atheists that are against and say

"WTF?"

[dimbear]

49. I'm concerned that folks whose religious views are 'nothing in particular' have some

self esteem issues.

[cbayer]

55. Why would you be concerned about that.

It's the fastest growing subgroup.

[dimbear]

58. Say we were out wine tasting. They would be the ones asking for a

sample out of a box.

[cbayer]

59. Hey, what do you have against boxed wine?

[rexcat]

54. One has to consider the hierarchy of the Catholic Church...

If I am not mistaken it is a top-down organization and it will take the church leadership hundreds of years to reflect the values of its laity and at that the values of the Catholic laity can be suspect at times.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

61. I mentioned this in another thread

Cardinal Newman wrote an article, "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine" -- you can find it on-line at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-faithful.asp -- which says that in the Arian controversy of the Fourth Century, a majority of the bishops actually supported arianism. It was the laity which kept the orthodox faith. Needless to say, this did not make him popular among the bishops of his day.

In fact, the laity is often well ahead of the hierarchy in its views. As a general rule, innovation does not come from the hierarchy (Pope John XXIII was the exception, not the rule), but from the laity. All too often, the attitude of the hierarchy is best expressed by the line from the movie Blazing Saddles, "We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen."

[rexcat]

63. I find religion in general...

and the Catholic Church specifically to be appauling, as an atheist.

on edit: if someone needs religion to get by in this world by all means go for it but don't drag me into the mess (and no reflection on your post).

[cbayer]

64. Welcome to the Religion Group Fortinbras Armstrong!

Glad to have you aboard.

[Dawson Leery]

78. This does not change the fact that the midevil patriarchy

is actively working to keep discrimination against LGBT legal.

[cbayer]

80. No, it doesn't, but it's still very good news, imo.

[Dawson Leery]

86. It also does not change the fact that Karl Ratzinger has appointed a subversive:

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/catholic-bishop-goes-off-script-about-religious-liberty-warns-of-u-s-despotism/

[cbayer]

90. No, it doesn't, but it's still very good news, imo.

You can put up posts all day long about what the hierarchy is doing wrong and I won't dispute them.

[HockeyMom]

79. The divorced and civilly remarried

Maybe that has something to do with it. The Catholic Church considers divorce and remarriage as much of a SIN as gay marriage. Perhaps Catholics can see the correlation? They know so many divorced people who remarry in a civil ceremony. The church doesn't have to recognize or marry them. So maybe they can understand better the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage?

[cbayer]

81. I think there is a lot of truth in that.

It's very similar to what the author concludes:

It could, I suggest, be associated with a Catholic commitment to justice and inclusion for all, or with Catholic respect for the value of family (all families, including unconventional ones). But some of the associated findings in the latest Pew research suggest another – that Catholic thinking is more firmly rooted in the reality of homosexual orientation.


White Catholics, along with White Mainline Protestants, strongly agree that homosexuality is innate, and cannot be changed – by margins that almost exactly match the degree of support for gay marriage, and for gay adoption.

[rug]

82. The RCC does not consider divorce a sin.

Often, it is recommended spouses separate, especially in cases of abuse.

The sin is considered to be the remarriage. If the parties originally had a acramental marriage, it cannot be dissloved and a remarriage is considered adultery.

The entire annulment process is an examination of the originl marriage to deternine if it was valid in the first place, or whether any impediment, such as age, mental incapacity, etc. existed.

In the case of same sex marriage, the RCC holds that parties of the same sex cannot enter into a valid sacramental marriage, that that is a per se impediment.

What is often missed in these discussions is that a straight couple, unmarried, or a straight couple remarried without an annulment, and a gay couple, married through the state or another religion, are, ironically, equally invalid.

[HockeyMom]

84. Yes, it is the remarriage

BUT it does not apply just to Catholics to them. Any Non-Catholic couple, married religiously, or even civilly, they consider married for LIFE and cannot remarry until the death of the other spouse. They do not recognize divorce and REMARRIAGE for anyone. These couples are living in sin and adulterers to the Catholic Church.

You do know that, don't you? Their rules apply to EVERYONE not just Catholics.

[rug]

85. They come into play only when a nonCatholic wishes to marry a Catholic in the Catholic Church.

At that point, yes, it looks into the nonCatholic's prior marriage. The RCC does hold that other Christian marriages can be sacramental and in that case they are subject to an annulment examination.

For prior nonChristian marriages, the Pauline and Petrine priveleges apply.

Canon Law on marriage has developed over centuries. I sometimes wonder how anyone, straight or gay, can have a valid marriage under it.

[skepticscott]

88. No, the annulment process

is simply a tortured way to allow people who are important enough to divorce and re-marry, while remaining "Catholic" and keeping their support flowing. If it's wanted badly enough, some "impediment" can always be ginned up. It's not like the RCC ever has trouble looking itself in the eye for being dishonest.

In the end, an annulment walks like a divorce and talks like a divorce...

[rug]

89. And so speaks the voice of biased ignorance.

Do your homework. You're flat out wrong. Your biased opinion does not constitute fact.

[cleanhippie]

93. My FIL converted to a catholic when he remarried...

His bride to be was a lifelong catholic whose husband died. She had to have her marriage to him (of 23 years), that was done in the church, annulled so that she could remarry. It was granted on the condition that her husband to be, my FIL, had to convert and they had to marry in the church...and make a donation.

[dflprincess]

102. A widow or widower does not need to have a prior marriage annulled.

Had she and her first husband had been divorced the church would have considered them married until he died but once the spouse (or ex-spouse) was dead she would have been free to marry in the church again.

One of my cousins was divorced and married her second husband in a civil ceremony. After the ex died she & #2 were remarried in the church.

[rug]

104. And canon law does not require a nonCatholic to convert to marry a Catholic.