Poll on Notre Dame: Good news, bad news
Which is which may depend on where you stand on this divisive issue. A new survey from the Pew Forum (main graf at right) shows that Catholics in general approve of Notre Dame’s decision to invite and honor Obama at commencement by a nearly 2-1 margin–good news if you support the UND invitation.
But foes of the move may be pleased that weekly mass attenders disapprove by 45-37. (And they almost mirror white evangelicals.)
Interestingly, when asking just Catholics who have heard of the controversy, support for Notre Dame’s decision goes up to 54 percent, but opposition also gains, to 38 percent.
What I think is actually most striking is how many Catholics are following the issue–over half (52 percent) have heard a lot or at least a little, which is not inconsequential for any story, and especially one that has received relatively little play in the secular press.
On the other hand, just 19 percent have heard “a lot” about it, which makes you wonder what the numbers would be if the Catholic public were better and more deeply informed.
In general, Obama’s standing among Catholics remains high, as with the general public, though he is on increasingly shaky ground with regular massgoers.
Views on abortion and stem cell research, meanwhile, tend to mirror the general public, as has been the case.
I keep wondering why no poll of students or seniors.. no Polling Minor/Major at UND?
I thought the ‘Irish’ invented PR & Advertising.. on 46th St NYC (-:
For a long time I despaired that the only issue that could get Notre Dame people riled up was the misfortunes of the football team. Actually it’s good to know that core issues still apart from football matter at Notre Dame.
It also reminds me of when my daughter was entering the University of Chicago ten years ago. There were angry alumni with web sites wanting the president fired for betraying basic U of C values.
Each institution has its own hot button issues.
My concern is that at the June meeting of bishops, there will be an effort on their part to assume control over some aspects of the day-to-day running of Catholic colleges and universities. There would have to be a concerted effort by those same institutions to stand up to such efforts.
“Views on abortion and stem cell research, meanwhile, tend to mirror the general public, as has been the case.”
But, as with the Obama “controversy,” there remains a stark divide on these issues between regular mass attendees and those that attend less frequently. Whether that’s good news, bad news, or irrelevant, there’s consistency…
Weekly Mass Attendees v. “Attend Less Often”
Anyone else find it ironic that these have become standard polling categories for Catholic opinions?
I don’t see a strong correlation between frequency of attendance at Mass and the institutional, as opposed to sacramental, issues that have riven the Church. (Perhaps someone can enlighten me if I’m wrong.) So is the rising infrequency a function of rejection of the Mass itself, spiritual laziness, bad catechesis, something else? After all, the Mass and its Eucharistic celebration are indispensable to what it means to be Catholic, yet so many Catholics seem to regard regular attendance as optional, unnecessary, or even an inconvenience. It seems to me that it’s tough to be part of the Body of Christ if one refrains from regular participation in the most important collective celebration and rejuvenation of that Body.
As I read the poll I had the same reaction. I assume the polled population self-identifies as Catholic, but it would be interesting/enlightening to understand what that means…
Mass attendance is an interesting if understandable way of categorizing Catholics or any groups of religonists. It cuts many different ways.
Take torture, for example:
One can easily fall into the trap of trying to prove to validity of a belief by the behavior of believers. That’s always perilous.
“One can easily fall into the trap of trying to prove to validity of a belief by the behavior of believers. That’s always perilous.”
No disagreement here.
Is it any wonder that Catholics who are actually living their faith, rather than just “practicing” it, are on the right side of this issue?
Mr. Gibson, the poll you cite does not separate out Catholics who do and don’t attend Mass, so it’s not comparable. It does indicate, however, that the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the mainstream media may have had the unfortunate effect of defining torture down.
The inimitable Ted Hesburgh is on record as saying that the university is where the church does its thinking. So applicable and powerful are those words to the present situation. The main provaceteur in this imbroglio, the Cardinal Newman Society, probably thinks the less and persecutes thinkers more. Up to Vatican II it has been asiomatic that to be a Catholic is to not think. Which went along with not being allowed or encouraged to read the bible.
With the intense conflict that was emerging over Ex Corde Ecclesia, before the moral failings of the bishops preempted that movement, it was clear that thinking Catholics were the targets and conformist, submissive Catholics were rising. The Cardinal Newman Society was preparing extensive lists of independent thinking Catholics and the purge was on.
What vision Hesburgh and others had in formulating the Land Of Lakes Agreement. Which only thinking Catholics can appreciate.
Non-poll, non-representative sampling: The several newspaper reading, on top of things people I’ve queried about the UND fracas (some Catholic, some not), knew nothing about the whole dispute until I mentioned it. General reaction: why wouldn’t a university welcome the president, give him an honorary degree, and listen to his commencement address. As many of us suspect, this is a strictly parochial fight.
When The UND commencement is over, I propose a discussion on doing away with all honorary degrees everywhere and for anyone. Maybe if Jon Stuart did a cross-section of this year’s “winners,” we wouldn’t have to think about abolishment at all. Embarassment would do it!
David, thank you for posting this – it’s always good to have facts and numbers to give some perspective.
The numbers that really struck me are the ones that indicate that white Evangelical Protestants are nearly as tuned in to this controversy as Catholics are (72% to 78%), and that the white Evangelicals are more strongly opposed to the President’s appearance than Catholics themselves. It’s worth noting that the white Evangelical cohort in this poll is even larger than the Catholic cohort, a ratio that probably is roughly proportionate to the country as a whole.
One conclusion I would draw is that where people stand on this issue probably breaks down along party affiliation lines.
Another conclusion, of more interest to me, is what this may say about the national pro-life movement, and the role of Catholics in it. Perhaps I am reading too much into the numbers, but I see support for the notion that the Catholic approach to pro-life advocacy is not perfectly aligned with the Evangelical approach.
That is to say: Catholics as a whole may tend at least a little more toward prayer, engagement, dialogue and compromise, while Evangelicals as a whole might tend a little more twward the “cultural warfare” approach. I think we’re seeing some of this at Notre Dame.
I continue to think that our bishops have a real opportunity here to assert some leadership in the pro-life movement and influence its flavor and direction.
William C., I was wondering about some of the same things re: regular vs. irregular mass attendance.
My personal view on what mass attendance indicates is the degree to which the person feels connected to the church. I don’t mean that to sound judgmental. I think there are a myriad of reasons that people don’t attend mass, and I’m sure the issues you mentioned, e,g, poor catechesis, are some of the most important. I’ve observed that it’s also fairly common that there is some sort of “break event” that happens between individuals and the church that causes them to change their behavior, e.g. stop going to mass, stop giving money, switch churches. It might be that a member of the clergy was rude or insensitive at an important time in the person’s life. Issues related in some way to money can also be key.
“My concern is that at the June meeting of bishops, there will be an effort on their part to assume control over some aspects of the day-to-day running of Catholic Colleges and Universities. There should have to be a concerted effort by those same institutions to stand up to such efforts.”
Pierre, what do you believe to be the mission of a Catholic University? How can a Catholic University be autonomous and in communion with the Catholic Church at the same time? What are the truths, be it in Math, Science, History, Language Arts, Theology, Philosophy, etc., that contradict the Catholic Church’s Teaching?
“What are the truths, be it in Math, Science, History, Language Arts, Theology, Philosophy, etc., that contradict the Catholic Church’s Teaching?”
Nancy, just read a minimal amount of church history and you will find your answer if you are open to it.
Bill C.
Just a note on Mass attendance and why some folks don’t take part.
Take a look at Cardinal mahony’s seventeen challenges for ministry in his address to the National Federation of Priets Council.
There’s lots of stuff and complexity that’s causing problems.
After reading the challenges, I thought maybe it was a talk the cardinal should have guiven to his fellow Bishops and that at the Bishops” conference in June, these might be more suitable topics that touch the lives of so man yof God’s people rather than the current Obama at ND or other guest speaker foofaraws.
So we agree, Bill, there is no truth that contradicts the Catholic Church’s Teaching?
Bob Nunz mentioned Cardinal Mahony’s seventeen challenges. It’s a pretty good and thought-provoking list, and some of the points probably do have some connection to the topic at hand. Here is John Allen’s summary:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/mahony-ministry-headaches-holy-land
Bob N.–
I also found the same link Jim P. posted, and I assumed the summary by John Allen was about the speech you were referencing.
I think there are things in that list that can alienate parishioners. Jim also mentions some issues that can affect Mass attendance. I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I used to avoid a particular Sunday Mass in a former parish because the priest who always said that Mass would never use the collective “we” when talking about sinners. It was always “you must become right with God….”
I guess my point is that it’s a shame to let the human frailities of the members of the Church, including its leaders, preclude us from participation in the Mass and the Eucharist. Hopefully we wouldn’t avoid needed medical care because we disapprove of a particular doctor or what the AMA has decided about some medical policy. How much more we need the Mass and the Eucharist while prepping for eternity. ;)
I think there are things in that list that can alienate parishioners. Jim also mentions some issues that can affect Mass attendance. I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I used to avoid a particular Sunday Mass in a former parish because the priest who always said that Mass would never use the collective “we” when talking about sinners. It was always “you must become right with God….”
Right. One should not be put off by presbyteral idiocies. They know not what they do.
Mass attendance will at least give some indication, though imperfect, about what a person believes. This is why polling of “Catholics” is always troublesome. The reality is that most Catholics are not Catholics in the same way that Evangelicals are Evangelicals. If you ask people if they are Evangelical and they say yes, that carries with it some indication about what they believe. If you ask people if they are Catholic and they say yes it may mean they share beliefs, but it just as likely means they are named O’Hara, or Rizzo, or Jakowski. If you don’t attend mass you have already rejected the first precept of the Church.
I will venture what will surely be an unpopular opinion here, but for all the reasons that people list for the lack of mass attendence – and there are many – it is things exactly like giving an honorary degree to Obama at ND that are at the center of it. When being Catholic, or being a Catholic university, really doesn’t mean being anything different than anything else, why bother? When the Church’s leaders are indifferent to the implications of what they do regarding the Church’s teachings, why should average people care?
I even see this when it comes to so-called “break events” discussed above. Certainly, some priests and other people in the Church can drive people away, but a lot of times it is simply that a person is told what the Church teaches or requires, and they don’t like it. Classic examples – parents bring first born to priest for baptism, priest explains that bringing a child to baptism carries obligations – like going to mass and teaching the child the faith – parents walk out because they “won’t be bossed around” – mother comes with daughter to priest to arrange wedding and say they want a ceremony on the beach, or at a country club and the priest says it must be in the church unless he gets permission to do otherwise – they leave the church.
Maybe the priest could handle these situations better, maybe not, but more the root of the problem is that when Father A tells them what the Church requires, they know that Father B in parish X married their friend’s son in the ballroom of the Marriott. I would venture that more people drift away from the Church because of what they see as the indifference of its leadership and members to what it means to be Catholic.
The priest that brought me back from indifference was exactly the kind of priest that I am sure “drove” some people away. That was my first reaction – he rubbed me the wrong way – sometimes made me feel guilty. Then a friend of mine said, “That’s how I felt about Father Bob, but then I realized, he’s just doing his job. When a priest can’t make you think about those uncomfortable things, when a priest doesn’t talk to you about what the Church teaches and your obligations – who else will?”
“If you don’t attend mass you have already rejected the first precept of the Church.”
Some might say that the first commandment of Christ, whose priority to the Church I asume you recognize, is “Love God” and the second is “Love your neighbor”. But perhaps vague nonsectarian chatter like this is driving people away.
Sean, do you realy think Catholics ‘walk away’ because Obama et al get honorary degrees ?
Some academics on this blog seem to have placed an inordinate value on ‘paper’ that’s relegated to a basement draw. The ND honorary degree will not be hung in the oval office.
As for those clergy who ‘drive them’ away .. they forgot John Paul’s admonition in Familiaris Consortio ‘.take them where they are’ .It’s called the pastoral approach.. a good shephard does not throw the strayed sheep out of the herd… As one who helped prepared over 2000 couples for marriage.. I’ve worked with too many couples who were told at the rectory door.. ‘I have never seen you at Mass in this parish. Stand back, I’m going to slam the door’… just a thought..maybe the couples who walk away from your Fr. Bobs don’t feel as guilty as you did..
Ed,
No – but the invitation is symptomatic of the larger problem. Indifference to the Church’s teachings.
There is a difference between taking people where they are, and not trying to take them to where they should be. So, while I agree you don’t slam the door on people, you also don’t tell them that going to mass doesn’t matter. That’s not taking them where they are, that’s letting them stay there comfortably.
Sean, very good stuff.
FWIW, I do get asked to do weddings at the club, or to baptize infants where there is no “founded hope” (think that’s what the canon says) that the parents will rear the child to live a Christian life. My bishop expects me to follow the rules and regs for these sorts of things, and if I flout the rules, even in the spirit of “meeting them where they are”, what kind of favor am I really doing for them – not to mention setting myself up for some deserved disciplinary action?
The trick for people like me is to figure out how to meet people where they are – and help usher them in to where they need to be. For a wedding, that’s inside a church building. And it probably won’t be this summer, if there are previous marriages that need to be examined first. For a baptism, it’s at the baptismal font, and from there to a genuinely Christian life.
My experience is that some people do walk the longer/harder/more expensive path to matrimony or baptism in the church, and some don’t. For those that walk away, try to find a way to keep the door open.