BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« The CD turns 30 | Main | Hypocrites of the west »

Monday, October 01, 2012

Surprise?! Poll shows Catholics favor legal recognition of gay relationships at higher than average rates

Rich Miller at Capitol Fax asked the Paul Simon Public Policy Center to run an analysis of Catholic sentiment on gay marriage based on data from its most recent poll.(.pdf)  The results:

image from capitolfax.com
Support for either civil unions or marriage equalty among self-identified Catholics is a striking 81 percent. Overall support, 75.4 percent, is fairly robust as well.

The support in Illinois for same-sex marriage appears, however, to be lagging behind the national trends. Here are the results of the four most recent polls on the question at pollingreport.com:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 8-12, 2012  --"Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?" -- Yes, 51 percent
AP-National Constitution Center Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. Aug. 16-20, 2012  "Should the government give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, or not?"  --Should, 53 percent

Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012.  "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"  --Legal, 53 percent
Public Religion Research Institute. June 20-24, 2012. "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?"  -- Favor 49 percent  (strongly favor 25 percent; favor, 24 percent). Oppose 44 percent -- (strongly oppose 26 percent, oppose 18 percent)



-- Well, they're just not True Catholics(TM). The Pope is infallible, so if god wanted gays to get married, he'd send a psychic message to the Ratz man, or maybe a message in a burnt piece of toast, and clear this whole thing up. But he hasn't, so no gay marriage for you!

@BrianE: You're really a stroke.

Very interesting poll, here's how I would interpret it:

While Catholics largely oppose gay marriage, it's mostly based on their religion's meaning of the sacriment. Overall, Catholics are more compassionate than the general population when it comes to the plight of the gay communnity.

Maybe this is too generous, but it does support my preferred solution: abolish government recognition of marriage for everyone and only grant civil unions. Thus, making marriage soley the pervue of your church.

Perhaps a great many Catholics believe their Church shouldn't have the right to force its beliefs and laws on others, including gays.

Chris, brilliant.
I've been saying that for years. Then the church can continue to deny sacraments to whomever they want to and the masses ( no pun intended) can continue.

Wrong sample. Who gives a damn what "self-identified" Catholics think? If you want to know what real Catholics think, you need a sample of weekly Mass attending Catholics, which these guys missed entirely. Most of the others are fallen away or "cultural" C&E types and therefore irrelevant as to what practicing Catholics think.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Wendy, do you have any one to talk with out there in left field?

I stand corrected.

MCN is telling me that Catholics aren't that compassionate.

(MCN, I'm just teasing)

Another interesting breakdown by religion:


@MCN, I have Andre Dawson hiding in the ivy...

--@Wendy: Sloppy question, which should be "should homosexual conduct be encouraged". That technical difference is a very big one.

What are you and Andre Dawson doing in the ivy in right field, which is the position he plays?

Was it right field? My mistake.

I think I mixed him up with the Sarge, Gary Matthews, who played left field.

Big difference between encouraged and accepted, which assumes homosexuality is a choice.

@Wendy: You confused him with Sarge.

I'm not assuming homosexuality is a choice. Except for lesbian porn stars and LUG undergraduate women.


That's a sloppy question, too. I'd answer the same way you would--"no"--not because I have any problem with homosexuality, but because I, like many people, don't think homosexual or heterosexual conduct should be encouraged or discouraged. IMO, whether the acts are hetero or same-sex isn't pertinent to the question of whether it might be a good idea or a bad idea to engage sexual activity. There are many considerations on a case by case basis, but gender of partners is not one of them.

A more specific question, relevant to today's public policy debate, would be whether one favors or opposes same-sex marriage.

Interesting results from Pew. Measured one year ago, in October 2011, Catholics favored same-sex marriage by 52%, with 37% opposed.

Among white Catholics, 57% favored and 35% opposed. Hispanic Catholics split evenly at 42-42.

The 2011 numbers represent a steep rise in Catholics favoring same-sex marriage from just 13 months prior when just 46% favored same sex marriage. All of the shift is attributable to changes in the attitudes of white Catholics. If the trend of the last few years continued over the past year, the number of Catholics currently favoring same-sex marriage would be even higher than 52% today.


Sloppy? You continue to accept people self-identifying themselves as "Catholic" when they are not.

--And MCN, you keep claiming the right to identify who is a Roman Catholic and who is not. By your standard, every poll on the planet is garbage without every person carrying an ID card verifying their gender, religion, ethnicity, income, number of children, etc, etc.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't think that's his point... I think what he's saying is that, definitionally such folks can't be Catholics, at least not good ones.

But they're still Catholics for statistical purposes.


"Sloppy? You continue to accept people self-identifying themselves as "Catholic" when they are not."

I'm not debating who should and shouldn't be considered Catholics. I was merely responding to your comment to Wendy regarding the question in the survey she cited. You didn't dispute the definition of Catholic in that comment. You criticized the question as "sloppy." I understood your point about the question and was explaining that the alternative question you proposed is "sloppy" (your word), as well. If you'd simply responded to Wendy with the observation that many of those self-identified Catholics aren't really Catholic, I wouldn't have commented at all.

It did occur to me that the Vatican is being sloppy in how they report on the number of Catholics on the Vatican Youtube page:


Someone should speak with them about that.

To be correct once baptized a Catholic your soul has been theologically marked as Catholic.In order to formally remove oneself from the faith a formal declaration of defection must be made, something very few ever do, though conversion to another faith by its very act would constitute such an action. Being a lapsed or non practicing Catholic would not meet the requirement so counting who and who is not a Catholic is pretty vague.

@Wendy: the Catholic Church like any has the right to proselytize and those within the Catholic faith can freely reject its message just as those outside of its community can accept or reject its message. No one as far as I know, believes the Church..." has the right to force its beliefs or laws on anyone".

Joseph J. Finn: Get stuffed, OK? Eric's reply is the point I'm making.

I agree with MCN but I want to get further behind the numbers of this poll because it doesn't feel right. If you polled white Catholics, or "Catholics," or students attending Catholic universities, then maybe you get to 81% but no way you get there if you include a representative sample of hispanic Catholics, which are a big percentage of the total Catholic population. Not a chance. I'm reconsidering my opposition to illegal immigration as I write this (not really but, ...).

@MCN - You call me a stroke but then proceed to make no other argument than what I inferred, i.e., no one is a True Catholic (TM). I may be a stroke but you are Catholic sheeple and kool-aid guzzler.

How pleasant, MCN.

--MCN's protests to the contrary, many of the people who fill the pews each Sunday do not buy into the entirety of what the bishops are selling, but remain Catholics in good standing. MCN seems to have won his battle locally, if Zorn is saying things like "definitionally such folks can't be Catholics, at least not good ones," which is very much not accepted as true, unless you are begging the question and claiming that anyone who disagrees about the definition of a good Catholic is not a good Catholic. In that respect, I'm reduced to an appeal to authority: a whole string of priests throughout my life have given me various definitions in line with @Richard Monahan's above: once you're a Catholic, you're a Catholic, and if you keep the commandments and go to church on Sunday you're even a good Catholic. You're allowed to disagree on anything that's not dogma (which, as a technical term, roughly refers to the kind of theological content that shows up in the Nicene Creed) without becoming not-Catholic.

It's become popular in some circles to vilify the dissenting opinions as coming from people who aren't really Catholics, but as @Dr X points out, that doesn't stop anyone from claiming the not-really-Catholics as Catholic when it comes to having numbers to throw around. Awfully convenient, isn't it? Lately I've been seeing the US bishops throwing around the fact that a quarter of the US population is Catholic when they're trying to push their political agenda---i.e. when it serves them to be "representing" a large number of people---and I figure that if they're claiming *all* the Catholics like that, then it behooves us to point out that *not all* of the Catholics agree with them.

ZORN REPLY -- To be clear, I'm not seconding or echoing MCN's view, I'm merely interpreting/channeling it. I really don't have a dog in the who's-a-Catholic fight.

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide definitive proof that 2 men or 2 women getting married in a Catholic church threatens my marriage. It doesn't bother me at all and I don't care if they move into the house next door right after their honeymoon.

The pouring of the water and the saying of the words makes a valid baptism.

The validly baptized are all catholic.

This is what I learned from the nuns in the early '40s; and you deny it at your peril (of your immortal soul, no less).

MCN, you are skirting HERESY (oy vey gevalt).
You need an intervention - get your spouse to read to you nightly from the Baltimore Catechism until you can respond reflexively to the standard questions.

I have hope for you my friend do not thwart me!



Yes, the bishops don't seem to get worked up about the finer distinctions when they're flaunting the numbers.


You guys are amusing. Has someone who has not attending Mass in twenty years a practicing Catholic? I doubt it.

Is someone who has divorced and remarried a Catholic? My recall (maybe rusty) is that is automatic self-excommunication.

Is someone who had an abortion without receiving absolution Catholic? Well, that's automatic self-excommunication also.

Is someone who disagrees with a dogmatic teaching a Catholic? Well, no.

Now, the sticky question: At what point does one disagree with a number of established though non-dogmatic teachings separate oneself from the RCC? Maybe one of you guys up there can help me out? There's a point at which one becomes some sort of ersatz Anglican.

There is a certain integrity required of being a practicing Catholic. Why even bother if you don't believe its teachings? One who spits on its moral authority still insists on membership? One who denies elements in the Catechism?

What kind of leavings are you guys selling here?

PS I'm not interested in what the bishops say or don't say when it comes to these political matters. What I WOULD like the bishops to say is: Get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat.

@j meehan: Thanks for the comic relief!

Michigan State Professor Strips Naked In Class, Shouts 'There Is No F--king God'

I hope this guy wasn't included in the survey.

I dunno. He makes more sense than some Cathlicks I know. At least he has an idea.

@MCN: Excommunication is, in a technical sense, not the same thing as becoming non-Catholic. If you are excommunicated (whether through act of bishop or latae sententiae), you are "out of communion" but still Catholic. The way that you come back into communion is to reconcile, i.e. confess your sins and perform a penance. Sacramentally, you don't need to get another baptism or another confirmation or anything.

This may seem like an overly-fine distinction, but again, the bishops seem perfectly happy to claim all those out-of-communion Catholics when they're making noise about how many people they "represent".

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group