POLL ALERT! WaPo, D.C. and Catholic Charities

The liberals have found the poll and are asserting their control.

__________________

Under another entry I wrote about something in the WaPo going on in Washington, DC.

WaPo has a POLL:

QUESTION: Should the city required the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?

I voted "NO" in this poll.

UPDATE 1631 GMT:

 

UPDATE 15 Nov 1632 GMT:

UPDATE 2311 GMT:

 

POLL ALERT! WaPo, D.C. and Catholic Charities
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in POLLS and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to POLL ALERT! WaPo, D.C. and Catholic Charities

  1. cuaguy says:

    It is now 53% No and 45% Yes!

  2. Melania says:

    I’ve already voted and have sent this out to friends and relatives. That should make a difference too.

  3. Thomas S says:

    Before we dramatically shift the percentages in this poll, it should be noted that it started with a strong majority against the Church. There is a SIGNIFICANT population out there, coupled with an ever increasingly vocal number of politicians who have no reservations about publically attacking and threatening the Church.

    We will be persecuted. We will be faced with martyrdom again. It’s not a question of if, but when.

  4. Nerinab says:

    And read some of the comments. There are some serious misunderstandings out there about the Church’s view on marriage (see Hillman1 for specifics). Also some lack of critical thinking skills. People can’t see beyond their pet grievances/causes to see the bigger picture. This attack will affect all Americans.

  5. Melania says:

    Thomas S: This is why we need to work hard to turn this culture around. For decades, too many people, including myself, have done little or nothing to challenge moral relativism. We can no longer afford indifference, not that we ever could. We have a fight on our hands and we can never let down or give up.

  6. Jordanes says:

    It’s now 66% No, 33% Yes.

    A better question would be, “Should the secular authorities be permitted to enact laws contrary to the natural and divine laws?”

  7. catholicmidwest says:

    The Catholic church needs to pull its money out of the slums of Washington DC until it can freely preach and practice there. People should NOT be given any money, procedures or care until they can be required to listen to get it. This should apply everywhere.

    If they want a sheer handout, there’s always the federal government.

  8. catholicmidwest says:

    The Church is NOT required to, and should NEVER be required to, just hand out money and procedures (ESP immoral ones!) to people just because they demand them. The church is more than a service organization. The fact that we’ve behaved the way we have is one of the factors at the root of these demands. We need to STOP and re-allocate our efforts & funds.

    We also shouldn’t be operating schools in ghetto areas where there are few to no Catholics and few to no conversions.

  9. catholicmidwest says:

    It’s one thing to care for the poor, and another entirely to be used while being treated like crap, which actually limits our message. They’re not the same thing, you realize.

  10. wanda says:

    It is now 71% NO and 28% Yes. Fr. Z., I don’t know how you find these things, but thank you so much.

  11. Supertradmom says:

    As seen in Massachusetts and Connecticut, there are Americans who truly believe that the Catholic Church should be controlled by the state governments. We need to watch this growing political idea, based on a false interpretation of separation of Church and State. Also, on EWTN last night, Raymond Arroyo interviewed two fellows concerning the CCHD boycott. This is connected with the idea that the Church should not be giving monies to anti-Catholic principles in action as seen in some of the groups. Here are the websites:http://www.reformcchdnow.com/
    http://bellarmineveritasministry.org/campaigns/cchd/

    The CCHD is speaking with both men represented by these groups, but have not tidied up the way grants are given. The same principle applies to the Washington, D.C. situation. Do people really want the Catholic Church pulling out of charitable work?

  12. Supertradmom says:

    http://www.reformcchdnow.com/

    I do not know why it was not highlighted in the last message.

  13. catholicmidwest says:

    I know, Supertradmom,
    It’s possible we could end up with a state/cultural version of catholicism as well as a genuine version, just like some other countries have done.

  14. catholicmidwest says:

    It’s not charitable work if it’s handouts with no necessity for recognition of the Church’s mission, Supertradmom. It’s just throwing money to make us feel better.

    The Church needs to keep its mission and its mandate in front of its face and act accordingly. We are not a substitute for the federal government and they are not a substitute for us. We have different goals, of course.

  15. Ogard says:

    “A better question would be,’Should the secular authorities be permitted to enact laws contrary to the natural and divine laws’”.

    Answer: no, but subject to the consensus of the population as to what is “the natural and divine laws”. If there is no such a consensus the secular authorities have to enact laws which are workable, and not insist on laws which cannot be implemented.

    That is the reason why the notions “democracy”, “freedom of conscience”, “equal rights” etc. are a nonsense.

    The “democracy” would cease to be democratic and turned violent should the objectors to democracy, in a democratic way, win an election. Example: recent elections in Austria in which the Nazists got a majority.

    The “freedom of conscience” ceases to apply if a law requires from Catholics to act or cooperate (tax for abortions, education, hospitals etc, that violate moral law etc.). Is the Catholic Church free or not? If yes, then no law may apply to the Catholics in anything that would violate their conscience. Otherwise, it must be admitted that the freedom of Catholic Religion applies only if it is in conformity with the law as conceived by the anti-Catholics; in other words, the Catholic Church is not free.

    The “equal rights” is supposed to be applicable to all human beings. But the unborn do not have these rights, nobody is appointed by the state to defend them, and they can’t defend themselves. So, the law discriminates against them under the pretext that they are not human beings, although no evidence to that effect can be adduced save the majority vote. Thus the “equal rights” equals the majority rights, whatever the issue.

    The modern “democracies” are progressively turning into a dictatorship of dehumanised secularism.

    The future of the Church is in Gandhi style non-violent disobedience whatever the cost.

    To return to the introducing question, the better one would be: “Is the Catholic Church – in the states that style themselves democratic – free or not?”

    If yes, neither the Church as an institution nor individual Catholics may be compelled to violate, or cooperate with what violates, the Catholic Faith. – If no, the states should admit that their slogans, like “democracy”, “freedom of conscience”, “equal rights” are a cover-up for acts contrary to their own constitutions.

  16. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    I already had to explain to a close friend why Catholic Charities in Boston(from which she had been adopted) had stopped offering adoption services. I would hate to have to explain to more people why the church is put in the unfortunate situation of not being able to help those in need.

  17. lucy says:

    79% No
    20% Yes

    There’s still goodness in numbers !

  18. CatholicForLife says:

    Poll now at 20% yes – 79% no out of 904 Votes.

  19. catholicmidwest says:

    It would be pretty easy to explain that, Salvatore, if they were refusing to listen to the mission of the Church, and just wanted the cash.

  20. amylpav22 says:

    I think we should start paying taxes. But the logic (lacking logic, but stick with me here) displayed by a lot of the commenters, they seem to think paying taxes = a buy-in to your freedoms of speech and religious expression

    It’s not right, but that’s how they think.

    So if we start paying taxes, then we have satisfied their requirement that we “contribute” something in order to get our rights. In other words, if we START paying taxes, then just try to shut us up on issues like this.

  21. beez says:

    81/19 No/Yes with 1162 votes

  22. beez says:

    Actually, amylpav22, as of 2004, 57.5 million of 131.1 million income earning people paid no income taxes in 2004, and that trend has been increasing for many years. (The low point was in the late 1960s)

    By your logic (and the logic of those you attack), nearly half of all wage earners should have absolutely no voice in American politics. Also, this means that those who don’t earn income (retirees, for example, and those who receive earned income tax credits) should also be denied a voice in the public square.

  23. trad catholic mom says:

    I found this comment over there on the poll responses

    Quote: As others have pointed out, there are plenty of marriages that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize. Basically, any marriage not performed by the Church is considered invalid.

    So by definition all Jews, Hindus, Protestants, etc. have invalid marriages, according to Church doctrine.

    What an ignoramus? They really shouldn’t be allowed to comment when they clearly don’t know what they are talking about concerning Church teaching.

  24. ghlad says:

    81% no now. hehe

  25. “As others have pointed out, there are plenty of marriages that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize. Basically, any marriage not performed by the Church is considered invalid.

    So by definition all Jews, Hindus, Protestants, etc. have invalid marriages, according to Church doctrine.”

    Ignorance begets ignorance.

    Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

  26. Kerry says:

    In the same way as in the film Man for All Seasons, “Parliament hath not the authority” (to proclaim Henry VIII head of The Church). The DC council hath not the authority to proclaim the Church must set aside its moral position and accept their new(speak) secular position, i.e. it’s a ‘civil right’.

  27. Kerry says:

    Also, Dear DC council. Keep your laws off the Body of Christ.

  28. amylpav22 says:

    Actually, amylpav22, as of 2004, 57.5 million of 131.1 million income earning people paid no income taxes in 2004, and that trend has been increasing for many years. (The low point was in the late 1960s)

    By your logic (and the logic of those you attack), nearly half of all wage earners should have absolutely no voice in American politics. Also, this means that those who don’t earn income (retirees, for example, and those who receive earned income tax credits) should also be denied a voice in the public square.

    Actually, that was kind of my point.

    A majority of the comments over on the WaPo site have one thing in common: they all believe in “pay for play” when it comes to free speech and free expression. If you don’t pay taxes, the state can do whatever it wants to you. It’s ridiculous.

    So I would ask them, then, since so many people do not pay income taxes (and, therefore, by their logic, receive a “subsidy” from the government) should this prohibit them from participating in politics?

    I in no way think one’s right to free speech and free expression of religion is contingent on one’s wealth and ability to pay taxes. Ergo, I think the argument that because the church (along with dozens upon dozens of organizations) pays no taxes she cannot exempt herself from immoral laws is ludicrous.

    I believe in the free expression of religion; it’s the folks at the WaPo site (an alarming number of them) who don’t.

  29. DisturbedMary says:

    Georgetown chickens comin’ home to roost: David Catania, the first openly gay member of the DC Council, is a graduate of Georgetown Law. According to Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council:
    “During the committee proceedings many of the council members were openly mocking religious concerns and one councilman, David Catania, told those gathered that if people of faith refuse to comply with his demands, the city will find someone else to take over everything they do.”

  30. ghp95134 says:

    No: 82% [1328.4 votes]
    Yes: 17% [275.4 votes]
    Too Dumb to Form an Opinion: 1% [16.2 votes] [interpolated percentage & votes]
    Total Votes: 1620

  31. Patrick J. says:

    “We also shouldn’t be operating schools in ghetto areas where there are few to no Catholics and few to no conversions.”
    Comment by catholicmidwest — 14 November 2009 @ 12:15 pm

    Just what is your definition of a “ghetto” area. Please answer. How do you know there are little or no converts in those “ghetto” areas? (I can tell you, “no converts” is totally bogus). Could we substitute the word “spook” here, for “ghetto?” Sorry, to be provocative, but that comment strikes me as petty, anti-Gospel, anti-evengelical (as in evangelizing, sorry I must spell everything out – but here I won’t take chances). I find it odd that people feel so “safe” here with these kinds of statements, as if everyone here would just think, ooh, that it soo correct. Balderdash. What are your figures here? Do you know any Catholics from “ghetto” areas? (I mean, more than one or two.) What would they say to your pronouncement? I know at least one priest and a couple of deacon converts from “ghetto” neighborhoods. I hope they don’t read this. You know Job asked for just five “just” for God to spare the city. How low are you willing to accept?

  32. Patrick J. says:

    BTW,

    I see a lot more “poison” coming out of the college “educated” Northern (i.e.,white) United States with regard to the “modern” Church and its direction than almost anywhere else. (Though I am sure Canada could compete well here). These products of the modern “Catholic” Universities and to wherever they go with their influence and grand ideas is maybe where we ought to pull money and resources from, not the “ghetto.”

  33. Supertradmom says:

    As to ghetto schools, many wise Black parents who are not Catholic, but want their children to have an excellent education, send their children to Catholic schools is “ghetto” areas, rather than the local public school. I recently heard a mini-talk from a Black CEO who experienced a great education for which his mom worked really hard and long days. His mom knew that education was the way out of poverty. I myself, when a very young person, worked in a Catholic Montessori school in a ghetto. Most of the children were not Catholic. but were getting a great education from very dedicated Catholic teachers. As to conversions, that is up to the Holy Spirit. One can only plant seeds.

  34. catholicmidwest says:

    Patrick,
    A few years ago the diocese of Detroit Michigan closed a bunch of schools (and parishes) in Detroit city. There were almost no Catholic students in the schools and there were no converts to speak of coming out of the schools; the parishes were empty on Sundays and not able to pay their basic upkeep. Fundamentally, they were keeping the glass replacement businesses in town busy because of the vandalism.

    A big cry went up from the residents (who had little good to say about the Church herself since they refused to be members) about the Catholic church deserting the city, but the diocese did it anyway. I agree with that decision. We are not primarily a social services agency for the hard-hearted but grasping. We have a mission and those schools in Detroit were not fulfilling that mission so they were closed. It was a good decision and one that ought to be considered as a good strategy anywhere a similar pattern presents itself. That picture certainly is presenting itself in DC and this article is an instantiation of that picture.

  35. catholicmidwest says:

    Patrick,
    Race has nothing to do with it. It’s a matter of the church not being suckered by those who want to run it as their pet political machine and benefits dispenser.

  36. Patrick J. says:

    I can’t think of a broader stroke brush than what you are using. Would you please stop hiding behind no specifics. “A big cry went up from the residents (who had little good to say about the Church herself since they refused to be members)” Wow, I am almost speechless. Right. Sure. Did you talk to them? You are prejudice or a complete ignoramous. Anybody who has worked in these neighborhoods knows better.

    You did not answer my question as to what constitutes a ghetto. Why not?

    BTW, converts come later, sometimes, did you think of that? I know converts from the areas I think you are referring to. So your story doesn’t hold water. All second hand poppycock.

    I don’t like the term “ghetto”, as you might get by now. It is condescending and speaks of a time when people were forced to live, for whatever reasons, (especially pre fair housing laws – in this country)in certain areas, and completely populated by one group. We have much less ghetto-ized areas now. Let’s call them neighborhoods. Your “neighborhood” might be more of a “ghetto” than those to which you are referring. Come into the twenty-first century.

    I think the fact that there “are no converts” speaks more about a certain state of affairs within Catholicism than upon those who “refuse to be members.” Think about almost every Catholic depiction of “holiness” (especially angels and most saints)you’ve seen. How many look like the would be converts in the “ghetto.”

  37. Patrick J. says:

    BTW,

    @catholicmidwest and interested others:

    Look up Alex Jones, to see all the “nothing” that is coming out of Detroit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y01DPA0detQ

  38. Sixupman says:

    The UK Parliament is presently considering the application of current sex discrimination laws to the churches – main target being the Catholic Church. Non-comliance could open-the-door to claims for compensation from women, homosexuals, et al – let alone fines levied by the government. You do not have to jail them anymore, just fine them out of existence. The Bishops’ Conference has already failed to challenge that law relative to adoptions – merely closing the process or back-door complying.

  39. Patrick J. says:

    I meant “Lot” and not “Job” – who asked for God to spare the city of Sodom – I think we could use an “edit” button.

  40. trad catholic mom says:

    I second the edit button, I realized I put a ? mark at the end of a sentence that should have just had a .

    LOL

  41. Kimberly says:

    Kerry – I second your thought!

  42. robtbrown says:

    Patrick et al,

    There are various types of Catholic schools in the US.

    1. Primary schools are generally built and financed by a parish (or parishes). When the Church was vocation rich, they were usually staffed by religious orders. Admission to those schools was a function of being a member of the respective parish(es). Sometimes there was little or no tuition.

    2. Secondary schools obviously were primarily for Catholics. Most were diocesan, but some were built and maintained by religious institutes. The latter have tended to be more exclusive and high level college prep–the Benedictines with boarding schools and the Jesuits with day schools. Admission was via completive exam, and the higher tuition (esp with the Jesuit schools) was partly to finance qualified but needy students, some of whom were not Catholic.

    The diocesan high schools were often financed by a tax on the parishes within the school’s area.

    3. It is very important to note that the lack of religious vocations means that Catholic schools are now mostly staffed by lay people. That has raised teachers’ salaries, which of course increases the price of tuition. The increased tuition has made it very difficult for many middle class Catholics to send their children to Catholic high schools.

    4. The demographic changes in certain heavily Catholic areas of US cities, has meant the closing of many of these schools. My understanding is that finances are the biggest reason–no large parishes to finance the school and few families able to pay the tuition.

    4. Patrick seems to advocating a kind of missionary school for the inner cities, an idea I have liked for years. Unfortunately, there are two roadblocks. First, the religious orders that could run them on the cheap don‘t have vocations. Second, there isn’t the money to maintain them.

    The first educational obligation of any diocese is to see that Catholic education is accessible to all Catholics. As I noted above, the lack of vocations has priced secondary education out of the range of many Catholics.

  43. jonvilas says:

    At the moment 82% no againts 18% yes. Thanks to Fr. Z

  44. I updated. Pretty good showing for the correct position!

  45. Clinton says:

    “During the committee proceedings many of the council members were openly mocking religious concerns and one councilman, David
    Catania, told those gathered that if people of faith refuse to comply with his demands, the city will find someone else to take over
    everything they do.” Disturbed Mary @ 8:35 pm.

    Here in the US, the Catholic Church is a provider of social services second only to the federal government. Councilman Catania and his
    like-minded friends in bureaucracies across this nation are delusional if they think that they can just “find someone else to take over
    everything they do”. Especially in this economy. However, I suspect that Mr. Catania and others like him aren’t interested so much in
    the availability of services as much as the government (i.e. them) being the only game in town.

    When Mexico had its socialist revolution about a hundred years ago, one of the first things the new bosses did was to shut down the
    charities and services offered by the Church. However, the new regime hadn’t the means to run all its newly acquired charities, so
    it simply closed them. Hospitals, orphanages and schools were shut and the occupants simply dumped on the streets. While the
    Mexican people suffered, the new government did succeed in ensuring that no one could look elsewhere than to it for assistance.

    It is incredible that the David Catanias of this world would threaten a major source of social services in the name of ideological
    purity, and disregard the fact that there is no one to “take over everything they do”. But as we see, it has all happened before.

  46. MikeM says:

    robtbrown said: “4. Patrick seems to advocating a kind of missionary school for the inner cities, an idea I have liked for years. Unfortunately, there are two roadblocks. First, the religious orders that could run them on the cheap don‘t have vocations. Second, there isn’t the money to maintain them.”

    While I know the lack of vocations is a serious roadblock to a lot of things the Church could otherwise do, I sometimes wonder if the approach we’ve taken to dealing with the problem is exacerbating things. Priests have been pulled out of a lot of their roles in contact with Catholic children and with the community at large. When that starts to happen, though, I think it’s inevitable that priestly vocations decline further.

    If there were successful “missionary schools,” one would hope they could provide the next generation of religious they need internally.

  47. smeej says:

    At 5200, the Yeses are dominating 62-38. What happened?

  48. Supertradmom says:

    Re: the idea that the government of any state or nation can put the Catholic Church out of the business of taking care of the poor, the sick, the aged, and the young, just look at the history of England after the Revolt of Henry VIII. At the closing of the monasteries and convents in most areas the hospitals, schools, and homes for the aged, which had been staffed and supported by the Catholic Church for centuries were closed down. Literally, people died on the streets. In the area of education, under Henry’s son, Edward, who was basically pushed around by the Protestants in the court-the Seymours and the Dudleys-who had an agenda against the RCC. Edward was England’s first truly Protestant monarch. Some schools managed to exist and become “his” royal schools only by conforming. Examples of homes for the aged are more rare, as most of those were destroyed.

    Once the Catholic Church was not allowed to do charitable works, the state stepped in over time. The secularization of charity led to the socialization of medicine in England, as the mindset of the people was to let the state do what the churches were denied for centuries.

    To this day, Catholic schools in England which were re-established after the Catholic Re-establishment Act of 1850, are few and far between. I, personally, do not know of one Catholic hospital in England, Wales or Scotland, except for one in Glasgow, which I do not know still exists.

    History repeats itself, if we are not paying attention.

  49. Steve K. says:

    You know, with regards to race, Patrick’s original comment has a good point (“I see a lot more “poison” coming out of the college “educated” Northern (i.e.,white) United States with regard to the “modern” Church and its direction than almost anywhere else.”). This is in fact true, and this aggression against the Church is at heart driven by white elites, in fact the sorry moral state of our society in general that has led to things like SSM, abortion, and so forth are part of a revolt of the elites against traditional Christian culture.

  50. DisturbedMary says:

    4:20PM 72% Yes. 28% No. Homosexuals comin’ home to roost.

  51. catholicmidwest says:

    Steve, that’s true, but there’s a reason for it. The people who are in revolt near the boundaries of the Church (inside & out) are almost completely ex-cradle-Catholics who bear animosity toward the church. People who’ve never been Catholic are oblivious to her, for the most part, unless they are in a position to want something for themselves from non-religious contact (ie. non-catholic parochial school students). This may sound strange to those who’ve always lived within Catholic families, but there are huge swaths of this country who have never set foot inside a Catholic church, and for whom catholic habits and customs might as well be from Mars as from the house of the catholic family down the street. There are millions of people in this country who can’t state 3 facts about the catholic church without looking it up on wikipedia. And that includes people of all social stratifications–high and low.

  52. catholicmidwest says:

    And in the larger sense, there is a turning away from the traditional Western European culture, but it’s not directed primarily or squarely at the Catholic church alone, although it might seem that way if you’ve only always been Catholic. The two–turning away from the Church & turning away from Western culture– are related to each other in cause, but they’re not synonymous.

    The turn away from Western culture is driven by a certain broad group of “progressive” and internationalist mindsets. They are by no means all white or all “elite”–nowhere near it. And “globalism” (no matter what your definition of it is, and there are many competing ones) contributes mightily too.

  53. wanda says:

    Is the poll still up? I can’t seem to get at it.

  54. emily13 says:

    A commenter has alerted everyone to Fr. Z, a “Catholic priest with too much time on his hands”, apparently, and his blog is a “poll-pumping machine”. Commenter also seems to allude to statistical validity being ruined by such a thing, even though the poll had no statistical validity to begin with.

    From the WaPo website:
    Just so people here know, Fr Zulhzdorf at his blog is sending people here to pump this poll:

    Fr Z does this regularly for polls of this sort. His blog is a regular poll-pumping machine, if you review it over time. Of course, these polls have ZERO statistical validity, and they don’t even inform the Post of what its readers think. Then again, how a Catholic priest has free time for this activity is another question.

  55. Jordanes says:

    For one of these polls to turn back around that quickly, you’d wonder if somebody hacked in and added several thousand fake votes. Either that or a whole bunch of homosexuals and homosexualists got together and voted within just a two-hour window. But my guess is it’s been hacked. Notice that the “Not Sure” votes have entirely vanished, and the vote now is EXACTLY 75% to 25%. I think the poll has been corrupted.

  56. trad catholic mom says:

    When I was on it the other day you could easily vote more than once, not that I did. There is no statistical validity to the poll as a result.

  57. stgemma_0411 says:

    I always enjoy reading comments from Catholic-bashers. It really does show their ignorance of the law and how it relates to a proper and just society. You would think, by how these people act, that the U.S. wasn’t founded on political and religious freedom/tolerance. It really is quite amusing to see people rail against the only bastion of hope that is offered in a world as un-relenting and un-forgiving as ours. I cannot imagine living in this world without my faith. I feel nothing but pity for the people who are so dead-set against any religion. It must be an empty existence.

  58. chorst01 says:

    Be advised the system appears to allow you to vote more than once. Use it! They do in Chicago — that’s how Jack Kennedy got elected.

  59. Tantum Ergo says:

    Do we really want to follow the example of the (probably 5 guys)in D.C. voting over and over and over? This “poll” has no meaning.

  60. Steve K. says:

    Jordanes – that or the poll owners themselves are responsible.

  61. Dan G. says:

    The site that seems to have pumped in so many “Yes” votes mid-day today is here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_poll_on_the_catholic_opposit.php If you follow the comments, you can see them tracking the percentages moving, over a period of a few hours. They seem to be the truly effective “poll-pumping machine.”

  62. mdillon says:

    “And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free.” LIBERTAS (35)
    ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII, ON THE NATURE OF HUMAN LIBERTY

  63. Athelstan says:

    Hello Dan,

    Yes, that’s P.Z. Myers’ (the famous atheist professor from Minnesota) blog. He gets some decent traffic, so that might explain how it shifted so quickly.

    At the end of the day, at any rate, I think this is becoming an object lesson that Catholics, and indeed religious groups in general may have to take to heart: He who pays the piper calls the tune. Faith-based funding is not the unmixed blessing many had thought it would be, at least given the current political zeitgeist.

    For those Catholics who still understand and appreciate the Church’s traditional teaching about the social kingship of Christ, this is a bitter pill to swallow. The faith has a social dimension. It is not meant to be entirely privatized. The ideal still remains the confessional state with a Catholicized culture, the societas perfecta. But with the larger culture seemingly shifting against the Church, it is left to fall back on earlier modes of survival as it becomes again what Pope Benedict has called a “creative minority.” It is coming to the point where Church institutions – charities, schools, hospitals, universities – may soon have to make the hard decision to forgo state funds rather than sacrifice their principles.

    Such a choice will involve very real sacrifice – all of these entities have come to depend heavily on government funds in some form – but it may end up being a lesser evil.

  64. Timbot2000 says:

    Athelstan:
    The “societas perfecta” model is and always has been a forlorn, and dare I say foolish, hope, considering that our polities are, and until the Last Day will be, Cities of Men ruled by Libido Dominandi. The enemy offered Our Lord all the kingdoms of the Earth because they are his to offer. I say give Ceasar his 40 pieces back.

  65. Jordanes says:

    Athelstan said: Yes, that’s P.Z. Myers’ (the famous atheist professor from Minnesota) blog. He gets some decent traffic, so that might explain how it shifted so quickly.

    But that wouldn’t explain how the “Not Sure” votes vanished into thin air.

  66. Jordanes says:

    Ah, I see there are some “Not Sure” votes again. Maybe they weren’t visible because they were statistically so few as not to register.

  67. Athelstan says:

    Hello Timbot,

    It’s a model that has never been renounced by the Church – and through which the Church achieved some of its greatest glories. It is not a utopia, and too often results in the throne, not the altar, in the driver’s seat. I don’t disagree about the distinction between the Cities of God and Man, and neither does the Church.

    I also don’t disagree that it’s probably best to give Caesar his silver back now. I just wouldn’t want to make that a universal rule.

  68. Frank H says:

    Why would the color bars assigned to yes and no switch positions and colors?

  69. Kimberly says:

    I had voted yesterday, so I went in to see if I could vote again. Yes, you can – that is what is happening, someone is just sitting there hitting the yes button over and over. Must be nice to have that kind of time.

  70. cgdouglas says:

    ‘Why would the color bars assigned to yes and no switch positions and colors?’

    Comment by Frank H

    Yes, that has me somewhat flabbergasted, although the more confusing is why the names that are going along the y-axis are keep changing positions.

  71. catholicmidwest says:

    There’s no statistical validity to these online polls in the first place. They violate just about every rule there is for setting up experiment designs. I set up experiment designs for a living. I can tell you that online polls are nothing but entertainment, or perhaps attempts to sway public opinion among the very average thinkers amongst us.

  72. anthtan says:

    Assuming that the poll is generally accurate (which it may not be, I know), this could show that when the poll is on an internal “churchy” matter, orthodox Catholics are clearly in the majority. However, when the poll is on an issue that concerns non-Catholics, on a website that is read by everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, orthodox Catholics (and probably Catholics for that matter) are in the minority.

  73. Hamburglar says:

    What happened here? At 1631 GMT, 2269 votes, 408 of which were Yes. At 1632 GMT, a minute later, there were all of a sudden 6575 more votes, 6225 of which were Yes. Something fishy is going on.

  74. Melania says:

    The poll appears to be closed and voting stopped.

  75. Dr. K says:

    Hamburglar, it is indeed very suspicious.

    I remember checking earlier on, and we had a significant lead (several thousand votes). I went back the following day, and suddenly ‘Yes’ was ahead by over 8,000 votes. I can’t find any liberal site out there that might have linked to this poll. If anything, perhaps the Post stuffed the ballot box, or counted voters from this blog in the ‘Yes’ column.

    I don’t believe that the Wash. Post would have anywhere near 16,595 readers.

  76. john 654 says:

    I wouldn’t trust WaPo’s articles or polls.

  77. MKubes says:

    I really wouldn’t be surprised if people kept deleting their browser’s cookies to pump up the ‘Yes’ side. This happens on the CBC’s comment section all the time where readers can vote as to whether they agree or disagree with a comment. It’s far from scientific – not that we should care what internet polls say anyways!