So nice to read this…as I worked for 10 years in a Catholic elementary school, and they too were “thinking Catholics”. Looks like Benny might not be as influential as he would like to think he is. After 2000 years things are going to change…and there is need for fresh air in the RCC. Reads like some fresh wind has already started to blow through.

Obviously a lot of American Catholics are smarter than their leaders and willing to stand on their own feet on these issues. Good for them.
And it says something, I’m not sure what, that they are smarter than the average other religious. Probably it says there are some really dumb religions in the US, which has been clear to many of us for decades.

Nnmns maybe it says that Catholic people are more honest and not afraid to say what they believe, as in comparison to the Mainline Prostestant Churches.

On a tangential issue, this AP story informs us that back in the 1950′s the clergyman in charge of rehabilitating pedophile priests warned the Pope and several US bishops that most of the abusers would abuse again and could not be cured and should be removed from any contact with children.
Since bishops and such claimed they had no idea there was a problem prior to the 1980′s, I foresee several more well deserved big court penalties. Those guys were warned of the consequences of what they did and they just kept doing it. Of course they didn’t have kids those priests were molesting so what difference could it make?

Henrietta that’s possible. I don’t know.

It’s not suprising to see that you people are yet again playing up this stupid, despicable false dichotomy between the “thinking Catholics” and the rest of them. It’s so nice to see the hypocrisy of you loving, accepting liberal “tolerance” for what it really is: hatred for anything that doesn’t agree with you and your liberal values.

“It’s so nice to see the hypocrisy of loving, accepting liberal “tolerance’ for what it really is: hatred for anything that doesn’t agree with you and your liberal values”. NateW
But NateW, we liberals LIKE the results of the survey. Personally I’m pleasantly surprised that the “thinking Catholic” catogory is so large. My compatriots at school weren’t robots…apparently they were not alone. Is good. But guess what? There certainly is no disrespect (at least on my part) for those that still follow as law the less liberal parts of the RCC.

I just thought, NateW, are there any liberal rules in the RCC?

nnmns, Pontifications has an article on the AP story you mentioned, in case you haven’t seen it yet.

If there’s no disrespect, pagansister, then you’d stop using the term “thinking Catholic” to refer any Catholic who deviates from the Vatican on any issue you don’t agree with, as if the very disagreement were a mark of being thoughtful and reflective, as if anyone who doesn’t take a liberal stance on the issues is just slavishly and mindlessly following some arbitrary laws set in place by a bunch of power-hungry church administrators. I know a lot of Catholics who think through their faith more than most people ever will–they’re my friends and colleagues–and yes, some of them happen to agree with the general Vatican stances on social and moral issues. To label the group who doesn’t the “thinking Catholics” is not only insulting, it’s downright dishonest, and it’s not helpful in the slightest towards fostering open dialogue among people of all sides.
I suppose I’m not a “thinking Orthodox,” either, because I happen to agree with my church’s prohibition of, say, abortion or having children outside of marriage. Never mind the fact that I spend 60 hours or so in the average week reading, discussing, and writing about theological, philosophical, ethical, and scientific texts that bear on the issues; I’m obviously just a slavish adherent to the bishops’ rules, not a “thinker”, because I haven’t come to accept the ideas that pagansister likes. And anyone who does agree with pagansist obviously is a “thinking Catholic,” or a “thinking Orthodox,” or whatever, because obviously being a liberal is an ifallible sign of impeccable rationality and reflectiveness.
Respect, pagansister? You want to show respect? Find a less loaded way to talk about people, rather than dividing the world into the thinkers and the non-thinkers. Until you’re willing to do that, your claims to respect us are just meaningless words.

There are those that “think” outside the RCC box and there are those that think “within” the RCC box (or whatever part of the church they belong to). My term (I’ve used for years, before B’net) of a “thinking” person of a religion is one who is willing to question and even disagree with some of the teachings, and still feel a part of the particular religion. Those who think about the teachings and find them unquestionably agreeable…fine and dandy. I have known “thinking” RC’s and those that are total followers. Like and respect both…whatever floats their (and your) boats. Happy you like what your are reading 60 hours a week and learning too. Are you a slave to the teachings? I don’t know. That is up to you to decide.
BTW the world is made up of thinkers and non- thinkers in all walks of life, not just religion. Have a good evening.

NateW. 9:56 PM 30 March ..response to your post. Respectfully, PS )

Nate-
IMO, there are “thinking” people on both sides of all the issues listed in the article. And IMO, there are non-thinking people on both sides of all the issues. People that simply repeat what they have been told…or, heard someone else say.
In most cases, my pov on the issue is identical with pagansister’s and completely opposite of yours. However, I do believe that you are a “thinking” person and I respect your pov…even though we rarely agree.
Peace!

The results listed in the article really do not surprise me. Most of the RCC that I know are more liberal that most of the non-Catholic Christians. That said, most of the Jews, pagans, atheists, and UU’s that I know are far more liberal than the Catholics that I know.
Peace!

By that definition, pagansister, it seems like you’d understand the wayward “bishop” Williamson and the rest of the SSPX as a “thinking Catholics,” because they question and disagree with Vatican II but still call themselves Catholics. Is that accurate? I would that if “thinking Catholic” is a label that could equally describe Williamson and, say, Charles Curran or Hans Kung, then perhaps a more appropriate (and less potentially offensive) term is in order. I believe “dissenting Catholic” is a term commonly used to describe those who protest Vatican teaching but still consider themselves faithful Catholics.
Another problem with the lable, I think, is that it’s a stretch to say that all the more left-leaning Catholics are people who have thought through their faith and have come to different conclusions than the Vatican. There are, after all, liberal parishes out there where certain liberal stances become an unquestioned orthodoxy, not something that all the parishioners have thought through for themselves; and of course, especially here in the Northeast, there are hordes of “cultural” Catholics who identity themselves with their Catholic heritage but often do not even know what the Catholic Church officially teaches on many issues. According to the results of this study, one some issues, specifically abortion, the “cultural” Catholics tended to be twice as likely to take a liberal position than the regular church-goers, while there was only a small difference between church-going Catholics and church-going non-Catholics on the issue. So it seems downright odd to think that the leftward lean of the Catholic church on the issue is the result of a bunch of thoughtful, reflective but also faithful Catholics coming to disagree with their church on the issue; the non-faithful cultural Catholics seem to be pulling a lot of weight here.
And you asked for a “liberal” moral teaching in the RCC…an example would be the denunciation of the death penalty, if you want to call that “liberal.” What’s interesting, according to the results of this study, is that the faithful churchgoers–the same group that leans more heavily against abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc.–are less likely than the non church-goers to think that the death penalty is morally acceptable. The cultural Catholics, in fact, were slightly more likely to accept the death penalty than were the church-going non-Catholics.

This is good. We’re getting a somewhat thoughtful discussion. I’ll try to contribute without lowering the thoughtfulnesss quotient.
I think I’m in agreement with ps, that a “thinking Catholic” would be one who’s thought about the issues their church tries to decide for them and have come to their own decisions, whatever they may be. I’d say it’s harder to tell a “thinking Catholic” who’s come down with the RCC on most of those issues than it is one who’s disagreed. But I can see Nate’s point that it’s an insulting term to Catholics who don’t see themselves in that category whether it’s meant that way or not. And the Williamson example is a good one; people can disagree with the RCC and be wrong, which sometimes we forget.
But I think “nonthinking Catholic” is a good term for the person who finds out what the RC’s position on an issue is and accepts it without thinking it through.
Nate you might be right about the effects on the poll of nonthinking liberal parish members, I wouldn’t know. I presume there are several nonthinking conservative parishes here and there too.
Is it not possible the RCC talks a bit more about responsibility to our brethren (and sistren) than a lot of the big Protestant churches, some of which seem to claim their god rewards goodness so if you aren’t rewarded you deserve it. I don’t spend much time in either (none, baring funerals). But if so the parishioners might have absorbed it and applied it better than their leaders.

For what it’s worth, I consider Nate to be a thinking, Orthodox, Catholic. I consider myself to be a thinking Noncatholic. There are politically liberal viewpoints that I do not share. I would guess that there are politically conservative viewpoints that Nate does not share. And if everyone were “thinking” we would all be better off regardless of our positions.

How’s this for a compromise: instead of using the term “non-thinking Catholics”, howabout “non-questioning Catholics” for those that believe/accept the dogma as is?

I have long preferred the word “reflective” over the more coarse “thinking” and “reactive” instead of anything that includes an explicit variaton on “non-” or “un-”. Also I think surveys like this would benefit from including a matrix Catholic Heirarchy / Catholic laity; reflective / reactive. The heirarchy seems to prefer the laity to be reactive and not reflective. I am awed quite often by the reflective laity and heirarchy – and that is as true with the Orthodox as the heterodox and all the other dox. The reactive sort simply make rules with the expectation they be followed. Some people need this sort of life (see the Myers Briggs Type Inventory – “judging” types, which are a dominant presence in our culture). The reflective sort enjoy posing questions and listening to the responses. They tend to chaffe at only one way of doing/thinking things.
That being said, it seems that reflective people tend toward liberality and reactive people tend toward conservatism. People in a heirarchical roles tend to prefer reactive roles up and down the strata. Reflective heirarchy tneds to be an oxymoron. This is neither good or bad; it is what works in different people’s lives.

NateW: I’d have to say that using my term “thinking Catholic” (even though I disagree with Williamson’s stance on the Holocaust)and others of “rank” yes, they would fit into my term. They thoughtfully disagree with the the RCC. Do I agree with all thinking Catholics? No. Do I agree with all “following Catholics”. NO. But then I don’t agree with all of any organized religions teachings…I use what works for me. No “religion” tells me what is the correct way to live, or believe.
Also yes, like all religions, there are liberal parishes and conservative parishes thus influencing the followers. However, if a conservative goes into a liberal parish, I think they’d be uncomfortable and would leave for one they’d be comfortable in. But if they chose to stay in the liberal parish, maybe they’d start thinking about those rules and stances and either stick with their conservative leanings or gradually become more liberal.
I accept the death penalty’s use in certain cases. Apparently some Catholics agree with it’s use also.

nnmns,
Your use of “thinking” and “nonthinking” there sounds totally acceptable and inoffensive to me, since it acknowledges that thinking through one’s faith needn’t necessarily mean rejecting large chunks of the tradition or adopting a more “liberal” stance.
And you’re right, there are certainly non-thinking “conservative” parishes out there. But this is just one of the things that I think makes any kind of easy “thinking-vs-non-thinking Catholic” distinction kind of silly. It seems to me that many Catholic (and non-Catholic) churches, whether they’re “liberal” or “conservative”, are actually less Christian than they are liberal or conservative. That is, the people are bringing the “culture war” into the church; they take their secular American liberalism or conservatism and “baptize” it. This, in my experience, is usually less a matter of having spent many agonizing years in deep reflection on one’s religious tradition and more a matter of not really having a strong grasp on the riches of the faith tradition one claims. One becomes a “cultural Christian”, and the liberal or conservative shape of one’s subculture plays a huge role in determining how one understands one’s own faith. So you’ve got “conservatives” who pay no heed to traditional Catholic stances on issues like just war or the dignity of the poor, and you’ve got “liberals” who entirely disregard the Church’s concern for the unborn–neither, in quite a lot of cases, having seriously grappled with pertinent theological questions, but instead just importing the values of their “conservative” or “liberal” subculture into their local parishes.
This is not to say that no one who disagrees with traditional teaching in any direction has thought things through, but that there’s no way to make a judgment about which group has and which group hasn’t, no matter what your own convictions are.
And to Your Name @8:55– Yes, there are quite a few instances where I deviate from political conservatism, at least as it’s presently practiced in the US–more points of dissimilarity than similarity, I think. I do not consider myself a political conservative, but neither could I ever be at home within liberalism. If there’s one thing I don’t want to be, it’s predictable.