Miami, Fla., Jun 14, 2018 / 04:49 pm (CNA).- What some expected would be a brisk vote turned out to be a lengthy discussion at the USCCB general assembly meeting on Thursday, covering the future of the bishops’ guide to political engagement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
At the end of the vigorous discussion, when the bishops eventually voted on the action item June 14 in Ft. Lauderdale, 77 percent supported a measure calling for the production of a short letter to inspire prayer and action regarding public life, and a short video and other secondary resources — to complement rather than to replace the existing Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship document, and to apply the teachings of Pope Francis to our day.
Preceding the debate was a presentation by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, who chairs the bishops’ working group on Faithful Citizenship. The working group is already looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election, and wants to produce “user-friendly” supplements to the document.
Gomez noted that Faithful Citizenship “has lasting value” but is too long, and perhaps not particularly accessible to those in the pews. While it does an excellent job of conveying information, he said the document lacks the ability to inspire voters, “so the task before us is to motivate the people to pray and to act.”
Archbishop Gomez noted three priorities for the working group: reminding Catholics that faith is prior to partisan politics- that faith “shapes Catholics first”, and they are “members of a political party second (or third or fourth)”; that Catholics are called to be faithful citizens at all times, continually; and that public discourse should be always civil.
The first bishop to respond to the Los Angeles archbishop was Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, who said he planned to vote against the working group’s proposal, citing an apparent need to replace Faithful Citizenship with an entirely new document reflecting the “new body of teaching” from Pope Francis on issues including climate change, poverty, and immigration.
“The way he presents those is a body of teaching we need to integrate into what we’re talking to our people about,” the cardinal stated.
He also commended the bishops for their civility in pursuing debates, saying that “Our discussion, even argumentation over various issues we disagree about has the potential to model how public civil discourse should take place.”
Cardinal Cupich, who lost an election to chair the bishops’ pro-life committee to Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas in November 2017, was giving voice to a faction of bishops who have recently called for a significant reworking of Faithful Citizenship, though new revisions were adopted by the USCCB only three years ago.
Archbishop Gomez noted that producing an entirely new document to replace Faithful Citizenship would be a lengthy process, and that “the one we have is very good, theologically.”
Bishop John Stowe, O.F.M. Conv., of Lexington, said he supports the production of supplementary materials, but wants a new document, citing Cardinal Cupich’s concerns, as well as “the new context we find ourselves in after the last election”: environmental policies, immigration issues, nuclear proliferation, and gun control.
Bishop Michael Warfel of Great Falls-Billings echoed concern to include the perspective of Pope Francis in the US bishops’ citizenship guide.
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego charged that the current edition of Faithful Citizenship (last revised in 2015), doesn’t engage with current issues and “Catholic teaching as it is now.”
Since the 2016 election, he said, “legal and political institutions are being atrophied” and we are in “a radically different moment”, noting widespread opposition to immigration, profound racial divisions, and school shootings.
According to Bishop McElroy, Faithful Citizenship “doesn’t reflect the full-bodied teachings of Pope Francis,” mentioning in particular Gaudete et exsultate, saying that a wide variety of issues have “not a secondary, but a primary claim on conscience,” and that Faithful Citizenship “undermines that by its tendentious use of ‘intrinsic evil.’”
Bishop McElroy’s comments seemed to invoke the “consistent ethic of life,” or “seamless garment” approach of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Supporters say the “seamless garment” perspective served to raise consciousness among Catholics regarding a number of issues which threaten human dignity; while critics say that it implied moral equivalency between abortion and other issues, diminishing the significance of abortion, and suggesting that there was not room for a diversity of opinion on other economic and social issues.
This “seamless garment” approach seemed to be rebuffed by St. John Paul II, who identified abortion as a uniquely grave offense against human life, but it has been revitalized by some thinkers in recent years.
Archbishop Gomez responded to Bishop McElroy, praising Faithful Citizenship, and saying that it is already a particularly long document, and a new document addressing new concerns would be even longer.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark indicated he would vote against the proposal, echoing the need for new content in a revision or replacement of Faithful Citizenship, and expressed concern over the “chasm between faith and life,” in which faith has been privatized.
Bishop Robert Barron, an auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles and a member of the working group on Faithful Citizenship, noted that the document is long, and the group didn’t want to make it longer.
“We have to retain a lot of what’s in there now, and we would just be making a much longer document” if it included the “Franciscan shift.” He suggested that instead of a replacement document, video might be a much more effective means for conveying new priorities.
Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington responded that videos have to be quite short to keep people’s attention, and that “we need to rethink” Faithful Citizenship.
Bishop Jaime Soto chimed in to mention the “new paradigm” introduced by Pope Francis, including his encyclical Laudato si’, and said the proposal of supplementary materials might not take that new paradigm into sufficient account.
Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore suggested that the audience for Faithful Citizenship isn’t Catholics in the pews, but pastors and state Catholic conference staff members, and that the working group’s proposal to develop shorter, more consumer-friendly resources “would accomplish the goals I think we had set out for ourselves.”
Bishop George Thomas of Las Vegas called Faithful Citizenship lengthy and cumbersome, and said that it reaches state Catholic conferences and clergy but misses the mark in reaching the hearts of “ordinary people.”
He charged that the document has “serious lacunae,” and that there should be created a shorter, more user-friendly document which follows the model of Pope Francis.
In a carefully-composed piece of rhetoric, Bishop Thomas said the present pope has both substance (he “connects worship and compassion, liturgy and justice”), with an eye on the preferential option for the poor, and style (“he prefers dialogue over diatribe, persuasion over polemics, accompaniment over alienation”), and that the US bishops should take his example and “the content of his teaching” to revise or replace Faithful Citizenship.
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois voiced his support for the working group’s proposal, noting the importance particularly of video for reaching people today — on his flight to the meeting, he said, no-one was reading, they were all watching screens.
He urged that another lengthy document not be issued, and suggested a series of videos rather than a single one be produced, which suggestion was agreed upon by Archbishop Gomez.
Another Los Angeles auxiliary, Bishop David O’Connell, agreed with the proposal and suggested, “we need to take time to think about how Pope Francis’ teachings inform our pastoral practice.”
Bishop John Botean of the Romanian Eparchy of Saint George’s in Canton, was highly favorable to the use of video, but emphasized that “we need to know what will be said.”
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio suggested that the document underlying whatever content is put out is not the question, because “there was consensus” to get Faithful Citizenship adopted, and that the greater question is how to disseminate its message.
Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond indicated his support for the proposal, and added that individual bishops are able to issue pastoral letters themselves.
Intervening again, Bishop Botean suggested that the working group on Faithful Citizenship produce a third item: a new document that expresses current concerns, anxieties of our day, without revising or replacing Faithful Citizenship.
Then Bishop Coyne suggested the conference was not ready to vote: “we’re so divided right now, we’re unclear where we want to go.” He suggested tabling the action item, noting that some, himself included, want an entirely new document on citizenship.
He was supported in that move by Bishop Soto, who said the discussion had given the working group a lot to consider, so that they could return with a “more robust proposal” for the November meeting of the conference.
At this point, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco rose to note the dizzying number of alternative proposals, none of which had been clearly formulated.
A vote on Bishop Coyne’s proposal to table the discussion was held, with two-thirds rejecting his proposal. The discussion continued, focused on developing amendments to the original proposal which might satisfy those bishops with objections.
Cardinal Tobin emphasized that “a number of us are calling for a different source document” to replace Faithful Citizenship, which would inform the content of videos and other new media which the working group would produce.
Bishop Mark O’Connell, a Boston auxiliary, suggested that Faithful Citizenship could be revised, but not replaced, and that the wording of the action item be changed to reflect that.
Bishop McElroy suggested that all reference to Faithful Citizenship be removed from the wording of the proposal.
Bishop McElroy’s suggestion was rejected by the working group.
The working group did, however, concede to changing the language for the pending action item, which was amended to say that the short video and other secondary resources should “complement, rather than replace” Faithful Citizenship (the original had read “complement, rather than revise or replace”). The working group also added a clause saying that newly developed resources should also “apply the teachings of Pope Francis to our day.”
With the revised wording, the proposal came to a vote. The measure passed with well more than a two-thirds majority, though it required only a simple majority. 144 bishops voted in support of the action item, with 41 (just under 22 percent) opposing it.
The discussion was pointed, and took a great deal more time than was anticipated, pushing the public session of the meeting into the afternoon rather than ending before lunch. Faithful Citizenship continues to be the guiding document for civic engagement by Catholics in the US.
Amid repeated reference to “new teachings” of Pope Francis, the unexpected argument demonstrated a deep division among the US bishops.
[…]
An issue not addressed by the survey is contraception. Perhaps because they know the result already anyway. The vast majority of US Catholics do not disapprove of contraception. The Bishops typically sidestep this issue as they know how most people feel.
If 60% of Catholics view the horror of abortion favorably, I would put their favorability to contraception north of 90%.
Hard to grasp that Asians now outnumber by twice the black population. Although there continues to appear a quickly increasing presence of Asians in the media, in government. Hispanics remain the largest second to Whiteys. With the purposeful influx of migrating Hispanics including recent waves of Chinese, the Administration’s plan to overwhelm the electorate to Blue is going well. Also what needs to be accounted for is the ratio of births considered Catholics and the vast number continuing to decline practice that gives the overall figure for Catholics a starkly different value.
All is well on the Eastern Front in Rome the Pontiff’s laissez faire doctrine of amiable non demanding Catholicism washes away any thought of guilt among the apostate nominals. His Holiness can’t be faulted for a process that long preceded his pontificate, rather he deserves acclaim from Leftists and liberal Catholics for giving the movement his blessing.
It would be remiss if His Holiness is not recognized for contributing two crackerjack ideas to smooth the process, FS and the blessing of those in disordered relationships, plus DI and the eternal holiness of everyone.
Whiteys? Really?!
Thank you. I thought I was the only one…
Oh, here is a third…
Add me to the list. “Whiteys” is not acceptable.
Mrs Whitlock, although I’ve been called worse, I’m proud of being a Whitey. Guess my attempt at nuanced humor didn’t work.
The Pew research shows that there truly is no ‘Catholic’ church in the USA except for a small remnant who faithfully attend Mass and despise the murder of Holy Innocents in the womb. Much of this may be laid at the feet of our feeble ecclesiastical who only give mild lip service to this execrable Holocaust.
Second to Whiteys?You don’t sound like a real priest to me.
“Pew says, is that Catholics’ opinions about abortion tend to align more with their political leanings than with the teachings of their Church.” That statement is most concerning. I don’t understand how an individual would believe in a political party more strongly than they do their own church, as in The Church. This is a personal failure on so many levels.
Another way to look at it is that people who embrace Church teaching on her “not negotiable” doctrines have a home in only one major party, i.e., that’s why they are there and not the other way around.
Absolutely, Mr. Leonardi. I personally wish there was an alternate political party we could support. I’ve never really felt at home in the GOP, but it is what it is.
There is a party….it is called the American solidarity party….it’s platform id’s based on catholic social life especially pro life and pro family…..look it up
Thank you Ronald. Perhaps one day we’ll have a better choice of political party to affiliate with but I think it’s going to take some time to get momentum.
Whatever hope for reversing what is undeniable Catholic nihilism among willfully dumb Catholics from having been led by two intelligent popes for 35 years, has been obliterated by a Pope who says such childishly stupid things regarding Catholic morality like “The Church must no longer be a Church of No.”
“…. Catholics (28%) say they attend Mass weekly or more often … Protestants say they attend weekly service 40%.” I will argue that both Catholics and Protestant numbers are overwhelmingly too high. When it comes to self-reporting, we delude ourselves with how much TV we watch, how much we give to charity, how many calories we consume, and how often we attend church. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but there was a study done in a smallish NE Ohio town. They interviewed people on how often they attended religious services but then they counted cars in church parking lots on Sunday. Not even close. If you need to go somewhere and want to avoid traffic, go on Sunday morning.
I don’t like abortion, but I don’t make it a single issue when I vote. I do vote 100% Democrat. MAGA Protestants hate the Catholic Church and would like to ban us from the US if they could. There’s just too much of a divide between us for me to dance with the protestants. I’m also a pro-labor union Catholic and was a leader in my Federal employee union. I won’t vote for a fascist totalitarian just because that person opposes abortion. I prefer to live in freedom and to not impose my religious beliefs on anyone else.
“MAGA Protestants hate the Catholic Church and would like to ban us from the US if they could.”
I know quite a few such “MAGA Protestants,” and none of them hold a view remotely like this.
However, it’s quite clear that those who worship at the Altar of Abortion, Contraception, Homosexuality, and Transgenderism do indeed hate the Catholic Church and would happily destroy her if they could.
So, just saying…
Carl, do you forget that God gave people free will (re: abortion, contraception, homosexuality, transgender, etc. etc. etc.)? Why are you trying to take away people’s God-given right of free will?
You don’t have to agree with them, but it is not your God-given right to control other people or take away their own God-given rights.
I don’t understand why “live and let live” is the most difficult concept for Catholics to grasp. Just because you see something or someone is doing something you personally don’t like, that does not mean you get to boss them around or control their choices. You would not like it if anyone did that to you. Why do you think it is your place to do it to others?
Please explain to me why you think it is your place to control people. I want to understand.
Micha, don’t you think taking away an innocent life is about control?
True God gave each the gift of free will to chose between good and evil, the good to follow Him in obedience to His Way, His Life and His Truth or the evi, to sin, to go their own way from God. Yes, you are totally free to chose but remember choices have consequences intended and unintended in the here and now as well as the then and forever. The best we can hope and prat for you is to chose wisely every so wisely. Your soul is a terrible thing to lose. It is not the Catholics who shall judge you in the end but God. The best that the Catholic community can do is rebuke your sinful choices in the here and now with sufficient time for you and other to return to God. Good luck with your choices.
This is not worth replying to, but…. The absence of any standards or morality in a society , which is the basis of civilization, results in chaos. It can be argued the world was a happier safer place a few generations ago, when most people went to church and lived their lives according to moral principles. The spread of the early Catholic church was in large part responsible for a civilizing effect on the Roman empire, especially in terms of personal behaviors and what was acceptable ( a hard no on adultery, infanticide, wife beating, etc). Secularists like yourself would love to eradicate religion. How well has that worked out in places like China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea,and much of the Middle East?? Why, it would appear that their people have no rights at all, and their leaders not only tell them what to do, but have he power of life and death over them. Women in the Middle East are especially disposable. But we are starting to see here the result of less religion: the rapid increase of violent crimes, random physical attacks on mostly women by strangers, antisemitism, flash mob thefts,transgender surgeries on children,a rise in drug related deaths,serial casual sexual partners and broken families, abortions through the 9th month, and on and on. How are these good things again? People are making their choices, right?? So that should be great. These are all things opposed by the church for good reason. Many of these behaviors (adultery lets say), impact others such as the adulterer’s spouse and children. “Live and let live” or as some of us will say “anything goes”, has a major impact on society all around us. What we do in almost any action DOES affect others, for good or ill. For us to choose Good, as God would have us, we need a framework of knowledge and rules to help us understand how to behave. Which is why the juvenile perspective of “why cant I just do what I want?” does not work. It is the death of civilization, and the epitome of selfishness.Further, a quick reading of the Bible indicates that in addition to free will, God does favor some rules. Ten Commandments and all of that.
Its not about control of another person graced by God with free will. It about admonishing another who is placing their soul in jeopardy of damnation. It is what is termed a spiritual work of mercy. If the admonishing “pinches” perhaps it should be taken ever more seriously.
“It about admonishing another who is placing their soul in jeopardy of damnation.” Why do you believe it is your place to admonish anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe? They are exercising their God-given right to free will and you are 100% encroaching upon that.
Usn’t it up to God to do the “pinching” and for YOU to mind your own business?
Some people don’t want to be converted. Some people don’t want to share in or practice your religion. Some people have their own set of beliefs.
So why do you feel like it is your place to force your beliefs on others? That is you attempting to control others and denying their right to free will.
Hypocrisy is not and will never be ok.
Your whole question seems to center on the topic of sexuality. That smacks of wanting to justify doing any sexual activity you wish. Is adultery OK? Is Pedophilia? What about incest? What about bestiality? And if you think bestiality DOESN’T ever happen I will suggest you see some of the horrifying literature sent to me by animal rights groups. To address other topics, is stealing ok? Is murder? Are lines only drawn where they are convenient for YOU?? What about the ways your behavior impacts others? And what we do ALWAYS impacts others, even if unintended. Again, a society as a whole needs established rules and limitations and for much of civilization that has been derived from religious belief. These rules echo back to rules which GOD has handed us for a reason, to prevent injury to ourselves and others.Believers accept the idea that God created us, supports our every breath,and loves us, and thus we owe him worship, love and obedience in return.This is really not that hard to figure out.There are of course people who think this path is not for them.As you suggest, free will allows them to reject God and God’s laws, as they wish. Such folk usually do not believe in heaven or hell or an after-life. The real issue is, what if they are wrong?? An eternity separated from the God of all goodness seems like a really bad choice.
“Live and let live…”
Tell that to the pro-abortionists. They don’t want to let unborn babies live.
Even a ten-year-old can grasp that concept.
Did you learn you sense of moral logic from Charles Manson?
Those who practice contraception hate the Church? Nonsense.
I never met a contraceptivite with sufficient honorability to learn a thing about Catholic moral theology while not ridiculing it.
If you chose to abstain from contraception, fine and dandy. Just do not try to prevent others from employing contraception. It might be wise to stay out of married couples bedrooms.
Sometimes Mr. Baker those folks are not informed. Even just from a health & environment angle, many people have come to realize the risks of hormonal contraceptives.
One of my children taught NFP & consulted healthcare professionals. Some of the women who came to learn about NFP were not Catholic nor even people who believed in God. But learning about how miraculously we are made by our Creator can lead some people to Faith.
Women have turned their gift of natural fertility over to pharmaceutical companies to control & regulate.
I believe this as well. Good to see someone point it out.
John Paul II said a society that does not protect its most vulnerable cannot survive.
As an Evangelical Protestant for 47 years until I converted to Catholicism (and I attended Evangelical Protestant in which some of the best writers and pastors in the U.S. grew up; e.g., John Ortberg), I disagree with you that MAGA Protestants hate Catholics. First, I think the numbers of “MAGA” anything are greatly exaggerated. Also, I see nothing wrong with think and praying, “Make America Great Again.” But my main reason for disagreeing with your comment is that in the 47 years that I was a Protestant, I saw so much support and love for Catholics. Many of the missionaries I knew (and still know) work alongside of Catholics, especially in medical settings, in their country of ministry. Many Protestants first became aware of the evils of abortion when they worked and attended protest rallies and prayer meetings alongside of Catholics–and they also learned to respect, love, and even admire the Catholic dedication to ending abortion! Finally, great authors like Chuck Colson (R.I.P.), along with Father Richard Neuhaus (R.I.P.) started Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and there are other Protestants who have become involved with Catholics in various groups. Go talk to Protestants, please.
As a Catholic,I have traveled in largely Protestant circles in some personal and family affairs. I have never encountered an anti-Catholic person face to face. Maybe because in much of the country Catholics are so numerous. However in reading things online which allow public comment, I have run across more than a few comments by Protestants who must be on the fringe and say things like Catholics are not really Christians, or they say false things about Mary. I would NOT say these people are the majority of Protestants at all.
Nor have I EVER heard Protestant MAGA supporters attack Catholics. For that matter, they want to live and let live and I dont hear them attacking anyone, regardless of religion. I have voted Trump twice and will do so again, even if I have to write him in on the ballot.
I hope our Jewish brethren, who largely vote democrat, have had their eyes opened by the Biden administration’s attempts to undermine the Israeli war effort of late. Its time for them to support the Republicans.
Well I was raised Catholic and I’ve come to learn the teaching is All wrong! You are supposed to confess to God,not man! Jesus is the One and Only mediator not Mary! And it doesn’t matter if you go to church because our bodies are the church! Our mouths are supposed to shout how great Our God is and Our hearts are to be like Jesus and be kind to Each and every soul! Not judging and dividing because of race, religion or a political preference! But Catholics know this right? 🤔
Here is a little Bible 101: John 20:23 “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” And for extra credit read James 5:16 Gabriel, in all seriousness and love, I pray you sit in on a good RCIA program and reconsider The Church.
Gabriel, if you were to pray for me you would be a mediator yourself.
🙂
If Jesus is the one and only mediator, why didn’t he simply come to earth without Mary??
Our bodies are the church ONLy because the Church has the Body of Christ with which she may transform us INTO Christ’s body THROUGH Christ’s body which was made IN the power of the Holy Spirit, WITH MARY’s agreeing to be God’s intermediary and partner and helpmate in His Incarnation.
You would be better be served if you could serve God with your mouth closed until He helps you open it again in the Reconciliation Room. After that at your next Mass you could open your mind and your mouth to beg of Him to mediate your membership into Christ’s body. Then you could be made intelligent, good and beautiful by and through and with Him made through Mary and the Holy Spirit. READ SCRIPTURE silently. There you’ll find your friend, your faith and your Catholic Church again.
Jesus performed his first public miracle at Cana at the request of His mother. And as he was suffering on the cross he took the time to put his mother in the care of John the Apostle with his dying breath. Its very sad that Protestants feel so threatened that they feel the need to disparage our Lord’s mother.
Thank you to Ron (above) for quoting John 20:23— Jesus speaking to the Apostles: ” Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them and whose sins you retain they are retained.” Well, you could not have sins either forgiven or retained unless you TOLD them to the Apostles, correct?? Funny how Protestants like to skip over passages which do not fit their narrative. You can and should ask God to forgive you for sins ( hence the Act of Contrition). But Jesus gave us a process He wished us to follow.For Catholics that is Confession.
“I don’t like abortion, but I don’t make it a single issue when I vote. I do vote 100% Democrat”.
So why are you voting for Democrats who 100% LIKE abortion, often up until the moment of birth?
I’m a pro-life MAGA Catholic (yes, we exist) and let me just say that Joe Biden using the Catholic Faith as cover for his stance on abortion is despicable.
Christ is Risen, everyone. ☦️
Pro-life Catholic Democrats need to realize that the single most important social justice issue today is opposition to abortion, and that is upheld currently by the Republican party. When a nation ends the killing of its unborn, other social issues will be easier to address because people will no longer be viewed as objects.
Females (not women only) ages 9 to 50+, are raped, have life threatening pregnancies, live in dire poverty, etc. aren’t their lives of any value? Life is not so clear and simple as anti abortionists view it. It’s complicated and compassion and understanding are vital components for understanding how this is a life and death issue for the females and medical personnel involved.
Rape victims represent an exceedingly tiny percentage of pregnancies. And a clear majority of Americans, even pro-lifers, are generally supportive of a woman having access to abortion in the event of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, propaganda from the left notwithstanding. Even in RED states which are trying to tighten up availability of abortion, a woman would still have a few months to make a decision. Pregnancy is NOT a disease to be eradicated. It is a normal bodily function. Women who “can’t ” become pregnant for whatever reason should think a little harder before they jump into bed with someone. There are too many repeaters at abortion clinics, and too many who push into the second and third trimester to do it. What the left wants is the most extreme abortion availability in all states at all times. Some of us would advocate for the exercise of more responsibility.
So why are pro-aborts so completely devoid of compassion and understanding? Why are pro-aborts completely, without a single exception, unwilling to operate a crisis pregancy center that provides aid and support to women seeking to save their child in difficult circumtances such as those thousands operated by pro-lifers, people whom pro-aborts, operating from a lack of compassion and understanding, with adolescent insistence call “anti-abortion?”
Jean, yes any girl or woman past puberty can become a mother. That’s just the way our biology works.
We don’t punish children for the crimes of their fathers. Feticide is not a treatment for sexual assault and is just a secondary violation of the mother.
Life itself may be complicated but Catholic moral teaching about the innocent child in the womb is pretty clear. I’d really recommend learning more about that and why every life has value, no matter what the circumstances are behind our conception.
Nice propaganda piece. There is no such thing as being “anti abortion.” People who oppose the destruction of life because it’s inconvenient are pro life. There are no “life and death issues.” That’s just histrionic emotional reasoning.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea to conduct these surveys with distinctions between Catholics who are Catholic and Catholics who are anti-Catholic bigots.
Fact 10. Catholics in the US are not very good Catholics!
Some of the commentors to your articles refer to homosexual acts as homosexuality. That usage is confusing and misleading. Homosexuality is not sinful, it is a heavy cross, it is an unwilled condition. Homosexual acts are sinful, the condition of homosexuality is not.
This article leaves out the most important fact;
No one with an I.Q. over 100 would ever be catholic.
Mr. Harper sets out to prove he is both a troll and a simpleton. Mission accomplished.
At geni.com we find a broad list of famous historical geniuses and their estimated IQs. A quick scan for known Catholics among them gives this roll call:
At the “bottom” are Masaccio, Bernini, Thomas A. Kempis, Columbus and de Tocqueville all at 140. Meister Eckhart 145. Gutenberg 150. Titian, Savonarola, and John Kennedy 155. Tertullian and Bottichelli 160. Cardinal Richelieu, Boccaccio, Mendel, Chaucer, Marconi and Mazzini 165. Thomas Aquinas, Origen, Pierre Curie, William of Ockham, Spengler, Rochefoucauld, and Coulomb all 170. Pasteur, Paracelsus, Campanella and Thomas More 175. Alberti, Brunelleschi, Duhem, Nicholas de Cusa, Augustine, Marie Curie, Michelangelo, Wolsey, Napoleon, Roger Bacon, Lavoisier, Teilhard de Chardin, Alexander Pope, Montaigne, Bossuet, Hugo, Beethoven all 180. Erasmus and Pascal 185. John Neumann 190. Descartes and Galileo 195…and some guy named Leonardo de Vinci at 200.
I was in a hurry, but don’t recall seeing either David Harper or myself on the list.