Another Signal From Kenneth's Frequency

As life continues to imitate Fringe, another incoherent signal has come over the Kenneth frequency, which I've been monitoring for something to do during the lockdown. I may need to call Walter Bishop and Agent Broyles. Here's the signal I got yesterday afternoon:

We have good statistical evidence that a large proportion of weekly-Mass attending Catholics think "Rome has got it wrong"

• 65% in favor of contraception
• 46% in favor of allowing cohabiting couples to receive Communion
• 45% in favor of women priests
• 37% in favor of the Church recognizing same-sex marriages

And as I pointed out to you last year, 37% of weekly mass attendees don't believe in the Real Presence.

Well, let's stop there. The statistics are from the Pew surveys, and Pew, like all foundations funded by the descendants of the robber barons (Pew is Sun Oil), it has a liberal, corporate-state bias. Among the questions I have, but don't see answered in the links, is the sample size, how Pew determined someone is Catholic, how they screen for sincerity when they say they go to mass "weekly", what kind of push questions are included in the poll, and how and where the poll was conducted.

UPDATE: Various visitors have pointed to methodology links on the Pew site, for instance here.

If they're pulling people aside as they leave mass, how rushed are the respondents? How likely are the respondents just to agree with the perceived views of the pollsters? How many of the respondents politely refused to be bothered? Or was this a phone poll? "If you're Catholic, press 1"? Pew doesn't tell us any of this. I simply have a hard time taking any such poll seriously, as polls have shown themselves less and less reliable.

Replying to yesterday's post on the Anglican Papalists complaining about "ghost" vs "spirit", a visitor commented,

I'm trying to raise a family, educate and form them in the saving faith of Christ; and they are worrying about whether to use ghost or spirit in a baptism formula when everyone, including God I presume, knows what is being asked.

The tail has wagged the dog on this deal for way too long.

Clearly anticipating this sort of reaction, the first visitor above, who'd come in on Kenneth's frequency, said,

Not that I'm endorsing the sentiments expressed on that Facebook group. People say all sorts of dumb stuff on the internet. But it's one thing to quibble about "Holy Ghost" vs "Holy Spirit" (I am indifferent), quite another to disagree with the Church about her non-negotiable teachings.

But if this visitor takes the Pew numbers seriously, as he must if he's presenting them to me as something that ought to change my mind about something, what does he propose to do about it? Dr Brand, in the paper I linked, feels the apostolate of the ordinariate laity will set a powerful example to other Catholics and renew the Church. Well, is it? Are schools an important part of this project? Then why is the only school in the ordinariate, which it inherited from the Pastoral Provision, on shaky ground?

Why have no new schools been started? If the communities haven't reached critical mass to do this, why not? One part of the Church's ongoing story is figures like St Francis of Assisi, St Catherine of Siena, or St Ignatius Loyola, who brought about renewal through their example and influence. How are these guys coming in on Kenneth's frequency -- "Please do not use my name" -- doing anything like this?

And this leaves aside the whole question of the sanctimonious types who know exactly how to answer all the Pew questions. Indeed, they and their families are first to the communion rail each Sunday to take the Sacrament kneeling, on the tongue, in both kinds, but they have secrets anyhow. Lots of secrets. Our Lord had their number in the gospels.