The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionMore on Catholic Attitudes on Gay Marriage
by Michael Sean Winters on Mar. 25, 2011
Earlier this week, I reported on a new survey of polling data about Catholic attitudes towards gay and lesbian issues conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. The key finding of that survey was that Catholics are more supportive of gay rights than other Christians, although there remains some ambivalence about the specific issue of gay marriage.
It was unsurprising that some people would greet these findings with all the acumen of an ostrich. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Civil Rights issued a press release that claimed, among other things, that “Catholics who are Catholic in name only can be expected to entertain a secular vision of morality, i.e., one that prizes radical autonomy. Those who are serious about their religion look to more authoritative sources for guidance.” He cited the findings in the poll which indicated that those Catholics who attend Mass more regularly are less likely to support gay marriage. “In other words, there is a positive correlation between Mass attendance and adherence to the Church's teachings.”
Of course, Donohue goes on to claim that polls are not good indicators of public sentiment, even though he just used the poll to fortify his position. Data is data Mr. Donohue. A poll is either a good poll or not. To say, as he does, that he agrees with those findings that support his position but the rest can be dismissed is not what normally passes for intellectual rigor.
Such intellectual rigor would also require that we acknowledge what sociologists have long known: Those who attend religious services more regularly tend to be older and support for gay rights tracks age closely. The younger a person is – whether they are Catholic, or Evangelical, or if they claim no religious affiliation – the more likely they are to support gay rights including gay marriage.
The survey indicated that many Catholics support civil unions instead of same sex marriages. If you lump them with those who support gay marriage, a majority of Catholics support it. If you lump them with those who oppose gay marriage specifically, most Catholics oppose gay marriage. But, the pollsters went deeper and asked if people’s attitudes towards gay marriage would change if they understood gay marriage to be a strictly civil affair, “like you get at city hall.” When framed that way, a clear majority of Catholics, 71%, support gay marriage, a 28% increase. This would indicate that there would be widespread support for conscience protections for the Church to ensure that they not be forced to perform gay marriages.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The Church has done a very bad job defending its position in the public realm. Recently in Maryland, those state senators who had been on the fence on this issue said that what made the decide to support a gay marriage bill in the legislature was the testimony of those who oppose gay marriage: They were so hostile, dismissive and bigoted in their testimony, those state senators saw the issue not as a matter of society deciding it was a good thing to privilege traditional marriage but as in instance of bigotry. The state senators said they did not want to be associated with such bigotry.
On the press call during which the survey was released, Professor Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University, contrasted the Church’s response to liberalized divorce laws with the Church’s response to Roe v. Wade. In the first instance, the Church recognized the futility of the fight and focused mainly one teaching its own about why divorce was not permitted. On abortion, the Church recognized that the law must change. Today, on the issue of gay marriage, the Church must decide which approach it wants to take. It can continue to focus on the laws, and it will lose, or it can focus on teaching its own co-religionists about the value of traditional marriage. As I have said to any one who asks, it seems that we lost the battle for traditional marriage in the ambient culture when we acquiesced in liberal divorce laws. Divorce remains a much greater threat to traditional marriage than any legal recognition of same sex unions.
Americans, and Catholic Americans, are ambivalent on the issue of gay marriage. Our sense of fair play demands that lifelong partners be allowed to visit each other in the hospital, bequeath property to each other without penalty, etc. Our concern for the culture requires that we not redefine such a central institution in our society without thinking about the consequences. When the issue first arose on the national stage after the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in 2004, I voiced a different concern than most. Of course, marriage has changed through the ages: Before Trent, there were no nuptial Masses, for example. But, changes in central social and cultural institutions usually happen slowly, over time. There was something disturbing, even Orwellian, about the idea that a court could change the meaning of a word. My concern was not widely shared.
The Catholic Church should not bury its head in the sand as Donohue seems to want it to do. Our approach to this issue, like our approach to many issues in this increasingly secular culture, must be to foster what Pope Benedict has called “creative minorities” in which we live what we believe and hope the beauty our lives evidence will attract others. Allowing ourselves to be lumped with anti-gay bigots is not the answer. We must ask ourselves: Why do others not see the beauty of a lifelong marital commitment? Why do others not see Christ as a part of their marriage? And, why should we be in the business of trying to prevent gays and lesbians from achieving some level of legal stability and protection for their unions? These are not easy questions, even though the loudest voices on both sides of the issue treat them, if they treat them at all, as easily answered.
A final note. Some commentators have suggested that it is better to ignore Mr. Donohue. I fear that allowing his broadsides to go unquestioned will leave the impression that he speaks for Catholics. That is the very essence of cultural disaster. People should be able to Google “gay marriage” and “Catholics” and find opinions other than his own. In the public square, we must answer critics, not ignore them.
Regarding: "Some commentators
Regarding: "Some commentators have suggested that it is better to ignore Mr. Donohue. ... In the public square, we must answer critics, not ignore them."
-True, indeed by civil discourse clarity of response is increased. We know that writings of people like Mr. Donohue do no damage to the orthodox, but because his writings mislead the under-informed or increase the ignorance of the uninformed there is a catechetical imperative to offer fraternal or sororal correction.
Regarding: "The Church has done a very bad job defending its position in the public realm."
- After Archbishop George of Chicago's exercise of failed leadership of the USCCB it is now clear that the mistake the bishops are making is thinking that civil law is the lever of a just society. However the lever for a just society are people convinced of the probity of the ethics founded in Christianity. Ignore the people and what they are saying and the bishops confirm that they do not listen to the church they serve and teach, which is the church that teaches them.
Here are some further
Here are some further statistics just issued this past week. Note the changes in just 5 years. All the trends, in this poll and most other polls indicate that when the question is asked about gay marriage alone or a combination of gay marriage and civil unions, that more people are for gay marriage than are against.
In the poll linked below by ABC NEWS / WASHINGTON POST when asked “do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?” 53% of people agree (favor legal gay marriage -- some stronger than others), 44% oppose (3% no opinion). Support grew 21% since 2004 mainly among CATHOLICS, moderates, 30 and 40 year olds and men. Those under 30 favor by 68%. 33 percent of seniors favor gay marriage, up from only 18% 5 years ago (2006).
NOTABLE: WHITE CATHOLICS FAVOR BY 63% (INCREASE OF 23), non-evangelical Protestants favor by 57%.(increase of 16) and non-whites by 54% (increase of 20). Evangelicals are the most opposed. Still, their support for gay marriage is up by double-digits from 14 to 25% (a huge increase of 78% if I calculated correctly),
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1121a6%20Gay%20Marriage.pdf
FURTHER DISCUSSION:
Note that this question only asks about gay marriage. It doesn’t offer separate identities for gay marriage or civil unions. I do realize many people support civil unions but not civil gay marriages. When the two are combined in the same survey it usually takes a decent percentage away from the pro-gay marriage camp to where about 1/3 are for gay marriage, 1/3 are for civil unions and 1/3 are against gay marriage. But, the important thing to note is that I think we have seen the end of the days when a majority of those polled are against gay marriage -- including in the Catholic Church. I haven’t seen a single recent poll where more people were against gay marriage than they were for. When civil unions are added to the polling questions, the numbers of those against gay marriage usually only hover between 25% to 33% against.
Two other notable polls that asked the question only about gay marriages and not civil unions were these. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll from August 2010 indicate 52% say gays and lesbians favor gay marriage. A similar poll conducted about the same time by Associated Press and the National Constitution Center indicated about the very same results.
Great article, and spot on!
Great article, and spot on! Yours seems to be a reasoned and faithful voice. Thank you.
You may be right about not
You may be right about not ignoring Donohue, since others cover him. Grover Norquist is also best ignored, but can't be. Good job anticipating what people would post about.
The Church is not just concerned with what happens with civil marriage. Every priest knows the extent to which the celebration of the sacrament follows what happens in civil law. They are rightly concerned that Catholics with gay children (or parents) will demand that religious weddings be held. Major donors are also more liberal than the average Catholic, mostly because they are better educated. Major donors demanding such weddings likely keeps most bishops up at night.
It is not Orwellian to say that Courts should have the power to change the meaning of the word. Indeed, inventing the term civil unions to create something exactly equal to marriage but which is not is much more Orwellian than including gays in what is essentially the chief right of adulthood.
"Major donors demanding such
"Major donors demanding such weddings likely keeps most bishops up at night."
Bishops break out in a cold sweat in the face of ambiguity; laity live with it each day in their homes, jobs and social life.
Thanks lots for
Thanks lots for discussing/clarifying these knotty issues. Your contrasts between divorce and RoeVW were illuminating. The whole antigay business really comes across as scapegoating, probably because in most cases for a while now, it really is and has been, scapegoating.
If energized/committed Catholics really wanted to protect traditional marriage, and ditto here for the leadership cadre, they would be focusing on three other major issues, instead of attacking committed queer couples (many of whom are parenting, according to the data) for wanting the support frameworks of legal civil marriage.
One thing that would really dig deep to protect marriage is to campaign for a national child care policy. USA is nearly the last of the western democracies to ignore how spotty childcare impacts society and family life? Next, people who really care about traditional marriage could address the multiple economic forces which have so deftly moved us towards the wide necessity which requires a whole lot of families to exist, only by having two wage earning parents, neither of whom can focus only on home and children? Too many extended families have also been rendered fairly powerless/impoverished when faced with these economic pressures, so the extended family as resource and backstop to the money and other woes that ravage immediate/original families has weakened greatly. Finally, if folks really wanted to protect marriage, they would do something positive about the negative-stressful modes through which most of the couples now divorcing, separate. It is a rare occasion when the children come into view as anything but a prized trophy to be won in a very bitter, nasty fight between separating parents. And afterwards, it is also a rare occasion when any one divorced parent supports or protects the other parent's contact and parenting after divorce?
Has no Catholic lay person or leader noticed that these three changes impact families, much harder, more negatively, and more deeply than any queer folks forming committed couples/parents and seeking civil marriage?
Alas, Lord have mercy.
It seems pretty obvious that
It seems pretty obvious that you're in favor of gay marriage.
Why don't you just come out and say it? You could lay out your reasons clearly so that a real debate could be held. But as it is, you don't articulate a position of any substance.
It seems pretty obvious to me
It seems pretty obvious to me that the author, rather than articulating a position, is throwing out ideas for our consideration, and what is so wrong with that? Surely there are enough people articulating dogmatic positions on everything?
"when we acquiesced in
"when we acquiesced in liberal divorce laws."
When was that, Michael? and How?
And how do illiberal divorce laws preserve challenged unions, rather than making in ipse tragic situations unlivable?
Should not our clergy have some role in resolving such anguish, in facilitating some spiritual progress, rather than hiding out wherever they do?
Should not our distinctly Catholic columnists, rather than producing hollow pompous commentating?
Society (and church, for that
Society (and church, for that matter) needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young people. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves -- as a civil-rights violation.
Post new comment