Liberalism in the Pews

Dr Ayers explains why I, for one, am absolutely opposed to "synodality". If the average American layman voted on doctrine, goodbye Catholicism!

From Crisis

By David Ayers, PhD

No one should be surprised by one of the recent Pew Study's major findings, namely that “there are large divides between Catholics who attend Mass weekly and those who don’t.”

Traditional, orthodox Roman Catholic believers ought to be extremely grateful that American Catholics do not vote on Catholic doctrine, moral teaching, and ecclesiology. Because if they did, and if they got their way, much of the historic Roman Catholic Church would be swept away into the dustbin of history. This conclusion screams from the pages of a recent Pew Research Center survey report, “Most U.S. Catholics Say They Want the Church To Be ‘More Inclusive.’” Pew conducted the survey from February 3 through 9 with “1,787 Catholic respondents.”

Few of us would be surprised by one of the report’s major findings, namely that “there are large divides between Catholics who attend Mass weekly and those who don’t.” That is, the latter are astronomically more liberal. Nor would we be surprised that Catholic Democrats are far more liberal than Republican ones (Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi versus J.D. Vance, anyone?). 

Some might not have expected that Catholic women are more liberal than Catholic men, though this sex difference is something we see in national politics as well. Here, women were more progressive in the following areas: whether the Church should be more “inclusive,” the use of birth control, blessings for same-sex couples (66 percent, versus 54 percent for men), marriage for same-sex couples (55 percent, versus 45 percent for men), and allowing women to be deacons. 

Unfortunately, Pew did not explore the impact of marital status on women’s stances. My guess is that this would show that marital status, along with having or not having children, would matter a lot—with married women, especially those with children, being more conservative, as they are politically. We can infer this by the above-mentioned finding regarding the doctrinal differences between Catholic Democrats and Republicans, since single women are far more likely to vote Democrat.

Age mattered, but in surprising ways. Respondents who were 18 to 34 were often more conservative, in some cases by very hefty margins, than those ages 65 and older. This was true on the ordination of women as priests and deacons, whether priests should be allowed to marry, Communion for cohabiting Catholics, the use of IVF, and wanting the Church to be more “inclusive.” (I ignored findings where differences were only a few or less percentage points.) 

I could only find one area where younger respondents were more liberal to any significant degree, but it was an important one. Those 18 to 34 were more likely than those 65 and older to support marriage for same-sex couples (55 versus 49 percent).

Hispanics were more conservative than white non-Hispanics in some areas. These included whether the Church should be more inclusive, the use of IVF, Communion of the cohabiting, allowing women to be deacons or priests, and allowing priests to marry. 

As for trends over time, some Pew findings showed only slight changes between 2013, 2014 or 2015, and now. One exception was support for using birth control, which rose from 76 to 84 percent between 2013 and 2025, a shift of eight percent. Even this is not an astronomical change, though the percentage here is hitting close to a ceiling. Another was support for giving Communion to cohabiting Catholics, which rose from 61 percent to a whopping 76 percent between 2015 and 2025, a 15-point shift.

But by far the biggest demographic finding of this report had to do with the differences between Catholics who attend Mass weekly or more and those who do not. This would be better news for observant Catholics if not for other facts. First, as Pew also reported in 2024, only 29 percent of U.S. Catholics attend Mass at least weekly. This is less than a third. Second, Catholics who do go to church as least weekly are still pretty darn progressive about many major Church teachings. Allow me to detail just how liberal weekly church attending Catholics really are, again noting that they are clearly much more conservative than Catholics who attend church less often.

Over 70 percent of weekly church attenders support Catholics using birth control or IVF. Fifty-nine percent are OK with cohabiting people receiving Communion. Another 54 percent want female deacons. Forty-nine percent believe that the Catholic Church should allow priests to get married, versus 48 percent opposing this. This is a fifty-fifty split.

Even where the majority of weekly church attenders do not take more progressive positions vis-à-vis Church teaching, the percentages in favor of the latter are still pretty hefty. Forty-six percent want priests to bless same-sex unions (almost half of weekly church attenders want the Church to bless sin?), while 31 percent want full Church recognition of the same. Forty-one percent want female priests (priestesses?).

One interesting survey item mentioned above asked if the Church should “be more inclusive, even if that means changing some of its teachings,” versus saying that it should “stick to its traditional teachings, even if that means the church gets smaller.” Forty-two percent of weekly church attenders chose the former option (compared to 58 percent who attend only once or twice a month and 69 percent of those who attend church even less often).

The odd thing about all this is that being “more inclusive,” as most folks understand it, would not make the Church larger, including drawing the liberal and non-observant back to the Church, at least not in long run. In all probability, it would produce just the opposite. Simply looking at the fate of mainline Protestant denominations that have chased inclusivity by being “modern” and “relevant” makes that clear. Sold under the guise of pragmatism (we have to keep up with modern times, we have to change with the larger culture if we want to remain popular), this strategy has consistently failed to stanch the loss of adherents. 

A better argument is that more progressivism helped to cause these losses. Growth Christian denominations tend to double down upon, not abandon, their core teachings. Increasingly, turning back to more traditional approaches to Christianity is even happening among young people. This is clear in the above findings on age differences among Catholics. People attending church regularly, or otherwise more deeply committed to their churches, are not looking for “flavor of the month” teachings. They are looking for clear moral and ecclesiological guidance, stability, and historical grounding.

Besides, when has religious “success” been about numbers? When did Jesus Christ ever adjust His teachings to appeal to the crowd? When did Sts. Paul or Peter do so? What happened to understanding Christianity as a narrow way? Why were so many faithful, orthodox Christians martyred over the centuries? For chasing relevance?

The Pew findings may suggest that there needs to be more apologetics for the most contested Church teachings blended into homilies and other avenues for teaching among American Catholics. For example, the Church’s stances on IVF and birth control rest on an abundance of theological, scriptural, ethical, practical, and philosophical grounds. These teachings do not just represent the out-of-date thinking of clueless old men anxious to undermine human happiness. But how many American Catholics have even a cursory understanding of the foundations for these teachings? The Catholic Church needs to remedy this.

Last point. Conservative Catholics are not the only ones facing serious challenges with even the regular church-attending brethren in their midst. Many Christian denominations outside the Catholic fold are suffering similarly. For example, in recent years I have documented the same types of sliding among even regular church attenders in American Evangelical churches, with similar hard, survey evidence.

A few implications of all of this are sure. First, faithful Catholics should thank God that Church teaching is not determined by the votes of American Catholics. Second, it is past time for Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals to recognize doctrinal drift among their charges and begin rolling this back with clearer and more frequent teaching (not to mention example) targeting these areas under dispute. 

Finally, in this generally hopeful time following the installment of Pope Leo XIV, faithful Catholics should appreciate the enormity of the problems he faces growing the Church while holding the ship steady in terms of historic doctrine, theology, and moral teachings. If the problem is this bad in the United States, how awful must things be in Europe—and probably also in Central and South America? If he is to succeed—and it is vital that he does—he will need our constant prayers, not to mention support and encouragement, as he almost certainly deals with the drift among the laity documented by Pew.