A majority of U.S. Catholics, 56 percent, disapprove of how President Donald J. Trump is carrying out his duties, a new poll from the Pew Research Center has found. Just 38 percent of Catholics say they approve of the president.
The president fares better among white non-Hispanic Catholics, with 52 percent saying they approve of his job performance and 42 percent saying they disapprove.
Just 38 percent of Catholics say they approve of the president.
(According to a 2014 study by Pew, about 59 percent of Catholics in the United States identify as white. Thirty-four percent identify as Latino, a five point increase from 2007.)
Overall, 39 percent of Americans say they approve of Mr. Trump’s job performance and 55 percent say they disapprove, according to Pew.
Exit polls initially suggested that Mr. Trump had won a small majority of Catholic votes in November, but a more recent analysis found that rival Hillary Clinton may have eked out a slim victory among the religious group.
On some issues, some Catholic leaders see an ally in the Trump administration.
Catholic leaders in the United States have walked a fine line when it comes to engaging the White House. In the first few weeks after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a flurry of statements condemning proposals related to immigration, health care and the environment. At their spring meeting in Indianapolis last week, many bishops made public condemnations of Mr. Trump’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and pledged to renew their fight to resist what they say are inhumane immigration policies.
But on other issues, some Catholic leaders see an ally in the Trump administration.
Two prominent archbishops, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, head of the U.S.C.C.B., visited the White House last month for the signing ceremony of an executive order related to religious liberty. Earlier this month, Vice President Mike Pence received a friendly welcome at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, where he said the administration plans to support persecuted Christians in the Middle East. And in a letter on behalf of U.S. bishops to Pope Francis released last week, Cardinal DiNardo highlighted “the powerful encounter between Your Holiness and the President of the United States” that took place in May, and wrote that bishops “pray the seeds sown on the common ground of life and religious freedom will bear much fruit.”
The Pew poll also found that Mr. Trump continues to be popular with white evangelical Protestants, with 74 percent saying they approve and only 20 percent saying they disapprove of his job performance.
Americans who attend religious services each week are just about split on the president, with 48 percent approving and 45 percent disapproving. Those who attend services “less than weekly” have a more negative view of the president, with just 34 percent approving and 60 percent disapproving.
The poll was conducted June 8-18 with 2,504 adults.
This story includes updates.
You seem to have a knack for knocking the President or putting a negative spin on him personally or his policies every chance you get. This is a Catholic journal correct? I hardly recognize it anymore.
I find it very enlightening about most modern Jesuits by what America chooses to publish and not publish. I assume their publication agenda is reflective of the order in general especially in the United States. They hide behind emotional appeals to very dubious positions to either shame or scare one into agreeing with them. So they are unlike the Jesuits of history till just a short time ago who were the paragon of reason.
To understand modern US and European politics, the left's objectives are world government with a socialist economic system. That is why they advocate open borders, global warming, peace at any cost talking points. Each is meant to lead to the diminution of the United States and have it subject to world agreements. That is why they are upset over the Paris Peace Accord. It has nothing to do with climate. Trump is in their way and why he is hated so.
The Jesuits are all in on this and why their arguments are so politically skewed, emotionally crafted and devoid of reason.
That's quite a conspiracy theory. Some people are just trying to follow the example of the apostles in meeting needs before the wants of some are fully met, trying to let go of a mine-mine-mine mentality. Christ didn't tell us we would always have the poor with us as an excuse for not helping them but as a reminder to help them.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe.
Thanks for your comment. If Jesuits were about helping the poor then the content and tone of the articles would be completely different. The poor have been progressively getting better over the last 200 years through one basic economic approach and the Jesuits continually discredit this approach and never endorse it.
One thing that will not work is moving all the poor to a few countries. It will never be feasible and who gets in and who gets left out? Whats missing in any discussion of immigration, refugees and migrants is a sensible debate on what is possible and what is not. It is all emotionally driven to make one feel guilty if you object to any of it. Notice the photos they use in the articles.
The global warming movement started with the Soviet Union as a way of mobilizing countries towards a socialistic approach to economics. After the Soviet Union fell apart it was taken up in the West by those who want to limit the economic outputs of countries not in the name of helping the climate or the poor but as a means of controlling economies. That is why they always go for the money or the control of it. No one believed the Paris Climate accord would affect the climate in any positive way. It was about power and economics
So if one is following the example of the apostles and trying to help others, then maybe a completely different approach is needed than what is advocated in America by the Jesuits.
45 is the antithesis of Christianity. Pretending otherwise is perversion.
How have you determined President Trump is the Antithesis of Christianity? Are you the arbiter of who is and is not christian? Are you just angry because his son will be attending a superior Episcopalian school and he will soon become an Episcopalian moving on from his Presbyterian background? You are not placed here in this world to judge others neither am I to judge you. It stands only he knows what is in his heart. This will be news to you but people do make mistakes. He is a good man and if you only knew his many charitable works you would be amazed. You would rather read the words of the national news rags than to learn the real truth.
How have I determined? By watching how he acts. I am at a loss to recognize one instance in which he as President has acted in a loving way--except for self-love, of course. He is not the shepherd; he is not even the wolf. He is the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse wrapped into a single package of gloating self-interest. Other than that, he's ok.
I could make a very strong argument that the Democratic Party is the antithesis of Christianity and that pretending otherwise is perversion.
They sure do have a great ability to go against the wishes of the majority of Americans. How can the Jesuits-so called elites of the church not understand that illegals are not immigrants. They are law breakers by entering the US without proper documentation. They deserve nothing from us and we owe them nothing on any grounds. There are plenty of people in the US who are in need. Why not care for them first? We should not support nations that hate us and want our destruction. The hate generated by the Jesuits who no longer support the United States and its values just fuel the fire of hate for our president. How about giving him time to get the job done and stand up and stop the attacks you promote. WE need to get rid of Obama care it does nothing but provide huge new charges for insurance where previously anyone who needed medical care could receive it at any ED or county hospital. Doctors are being paid so little for their work that they are leaving medicine and going into other work. It is time for us to stop the freebies to anyone who is not a legal resident. The illegals should be turned back to their own countries. That is the only way to get ourselves out of the morass we find ourselves in today. America hates President Trump? Bet they are thrilled with the Financial Markets new infusion of monies that were not there before our president took office. Time to get over it, you lost. Try again sometime. In the meantime why not try praying for our president and the success he desires in making this country great again. No doubt this reply will never see the light of day. That is okay as when you keep counting you just find more and more of us supporting the Trump Presidency. Take a look at this recent election.
I am not thinking very seriously of withdrawing all my support for Jesuit works and communities including my subscription to America. It has become a mouthpiece for the most liberal groups around.
Wow----you article would make a great project for actuaries. I am an active Catholic---involved in ministry for many years--Conservatives believe that Trump will improve markets---take moral positions and insure that America remains strong in this dangerous world. Trump is no Saint---but---remember Bill Clinton---Hillatry---with a trail of crimes and public sins---including an impeachment. Hillary's history is a documented series of mistakes, crimes, late term ABORTION and hatred.---You wasted your vote. (Bernie is, at least., honest)---
Pray for TRUMP----as he faces---terrorism, economic challenges, horror in the inner cities--liberal slander---and pro-abortion Catholics.
The majority of older white Catholics who voted for and support Trump, I presume, are the products of Catholic parochial education. Is this also the group claiming to attend church regularly? Anecdotally, not so among the people whom I know!
I’ve yet to attend a funeral Mass of late where the majority of attendees – young, middle-aged, or old - know when to sit, kneel, or stand. I’m not so sure that these poll respondents don’t “white” lie as well!
I am not so sure of the validity of the polls that show that most U.S. Catholics disapprove of President Trump's job performance.
You have got to admire an intended slur on parochial school attendees by using Trump as the foil. Do I detect a certain United Federation of Teachers agenda? I guess those products of the Sisters of yore were just never taught the correct liberal approach to life represented by today's textbooks. I suppose if they had been properly schooled they would have seen the light and voted for Hillary who told us all that ...among others Catholics are going to have to change their thinking.
But why did AMERICA even publish this article? After all the Catholic Approval/Disapproval percentages are practically identical to those perecentages for the entire US population. A guess it proves that Catholics are just like other citizens ....but this is news?
Hey Stuart,
Yes, my comment about Catholic schools was a swipe at them but not motivated by my public school career. Rather, I have consistently held to the point that Catholic schools are not successful if they do not produce CATHOLICS!
“The president fares better among white non-Hispanic Catholics, with 52 percent saying they approve of his job performance and 42 percent saying they disapprove.”
Most of the white Catholics that I know from childhood and my current parish went to Catholic schools. There were fewer non-white Catholics in parochial schools back then. I presume the percentage approving Trump matches that demographic. Anybody who went to Catholic schools who could support a candidate who denigrated the Pope during his campaign, who demonstrably engaged in misogynistic and vulgar behaviors, and who demonstrated the academic ignorance that he did, obviously didn’t learn much from the nuns who taught them! And that doesn’t even touch on the Catholic teachings that the President flouts regarding Matthew 25: 35 to 40.
I would presume that my analysis also applies in Rochester as well, unless the water up there proves to produce a better white Catholic than I know here in the NYC area!
Vince
Not in Rochester now, but as I recall the water up there didn't suffer from as many liberal contaminates. As a product of 17 years of Catholic education, I learned how to recognize an incomprehensibly lousy choice of Presidential candidates and to pick the lesser of the two evils based on the policies they avowed.
Now the simple fact is that we have seemingly traded a liberal elite and effete self centered President for an often boorish, bar room style egotist. In both cases most of the problem is in their use of language....the didactic vs the combative. The egos are sui generis. Now I understand why an East Coast liberal prefers the salon style linguistics of Obama over the Cab driver bellowing style of Trump, but I also understand why others think that is a lot of phoney baloney elitism .
But the focus is/should be on policies and intent ; government solutions for every problem vs market driven solutions for every problem. The former is invested with legions of bureaucrats and unions relying on government for their maintenance. The latter is newly replete with masses of lower middle class people who have discovered that the government control has a real price for them....a price they don't think reasonable. Trump publically speaks to them like a guy on a bar stool next them, full of vulgar references, exaggerations, big fish stories, etc. But the guys on the other stools understand fully the gist of his commentary and ignore the normal exaggerated street talk. That is a tough result for liberals who are used to hearing such street talk reserved for private conversations and the bar room. A good liberal of course practices very high brow, well phrased critiques and comments in in public. Remember the contrast demonstrated by Uncle Joe Biden's not so sotto voce comment to Obama......"This is a big F....king Deal" !......and all the pretend shock, and suppressed chuckles!
The fact that many of these newly found lower middle class Trump supporters are Catholic, either in name or practice, is really irrelevant as the statistics cited in this article demonstrate: Catholics approve and disapprove in roughly the same percentages as the national polls show for all Americans. That is why the above Article really has no point. The same comparative percentages were reflected the actual election results in November.
Moral of the story/facts seems to be that Catholics are just like other Americans : some are extreme left, moderate left , center, moderate right, extreme right. Hardly shocking in a society that practices secularism as the ultimate virtue.
The underlying struggle of "government vs private" goes on with ever changing adherents depending on whose Ox is about to be gored. If the Bishops, the Jesuits, and the Pope wish to be effective they need to preach the gospel to individuals who comprise these voting groups and not sponsor, support or chose any one group over another. Saint John Paul 11 made a great start when he told legislators that they couldn't separate their vote from their conscience. The fact that he got a bad reaction hardly proves him wrong.
It is unfortunate that most white U.S. Catholics do not reflect the values of Vatican II or of their own bishops as reflected in the social teachings of the Catholic Church and of Pope Francis. Many are strongly pro-birth rather than pro-life. They oppose their own fellow members of the Body of Christ who come to this country to find freedom from poverty, violence and oppression. Apparently many are climate change deniers as well. I get the impression that their real creed is the platform of the Republican Party.
Sad.
Well said Alfred. In fairness, I have to say that I think the majority of anglo Catholics are just as distraught by vicious ignorance as you are but I am shocked that it is, apparently, a slim majority.
There is more sexism, racism, ignorance and hatred in America than many of us had thought possible before
November 9, 2016.
So part time "Catholics, " Those who attend services “less than weekly”", disapprove of President Trump and undoubtedly disapprove of any number of Catholic teachings as well. When they do go to Church do they honestly recite the Creed and the belief on One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church or do they stand silent or cross their fingers? Apparently the Pew Pollsters had to include such 'part timers' to get the desired results.
Do you really believe that? As one who attends regular Mass, attended Catholic school, and is engaged and involved in my Catholic community, I find 45 to be an embarrassment and against the basic principles of human decency, let alone Christianity. Most of my fellow parishioners agree. But of course we have the benefit of the education that 45 seeks to deny all but the wealthy.
but----many of your fellow parishoners do not agree with you. They heard Hillary on abortion--on the Little Sisters--on same sex marriage--on LGBTQI DISTRACTIONS---on her hatred of groups of Americans--- (deplorables)---and---by the way---45 won! Take a deep breath and pray for his success--as he deals with foreign threats--failing schools---dying inner cities--terrorism--Demo-party hatred squads ---drug problems............
I pray that when 45's reign of terror ends we still have a semblance of liberty and justice. Perhaps the ridicule he brings will have a positiv outcome. Through God all things are possible.
Of course I believe it as the Pew Research is one of the most liberal pollsters and I deal in facts not emotions. Not sure about you and your fellow parishioners if you all are Clinton voters who is the antithesis of Catholic beliefs and moral principles in every respect. For the record exactly how is the Trump administration attempting to deny anyone of an education and provide the factual proofs?
Pew methodology is 48% approval by Catholics who attend weekly Holy Mass
The scope, sampling, and questions posed by the poll are not given. So how can one evaluate, agree or disagree with the article?
I'll be brief but I'm not sure i can be charitable. Rich irony considering catholics overwhelming voted for him. Guess they'll just have to deal with it.
Kathy H
To be brief as well: your statement that " Catholics voted overwhelmingly for him(Trump)" is utterly false.
AMERICA magazine reported first that Catholics voted for him by a very slim margin and later corrected that to say it appears that Catholics supported Clinton by a very slim margin.
52% of non-Hispanic Catholics, and only 31% of America as a whole, approve of Trump. This is no accident. The Church has a lot to account for.
Neil
What gives with all these references to "white" Catholics or code word "Non Hispanic Catholic".?..... if these terms were bandied about with respect to blacks or Muslims or Jews or any other group the liberal left would be demonstrating in the streets and boycotting something. It's not the Church that has a lot to account for. It is the people who keep parsing every act in terms of race, color , or creed who should be called to account. Catholics can't even be treated as a unitary category because the result is unfavorable. Hence we have "white Catholics"; "non Hispanic Catholics", " church going Catholics/ non church going Catholics"; "black Catholics"; "parochial school Catholics/public school Catholics" ; etc etc So much slicing and dicing to get a preferred result. The simple fact is Trump won and the establishment in its shock and dismay thrashes about seeking explanations and issuing condemnations.
I am shocked that 38% of Catholics find a reason to approve of Trump's performance. What is there to approve of? Now that his lawyers seem to have put a stop to most of his tweeting, I am waiting for the hammer blow that is being hidden by silence.
Well-rounded journalism could include a reference to the fact that the polls have been "off" and misleading. Who cares about polls anymore? The value of polling might rather be an interesting article topic for the next America issue.
48% of Catholics attending weekly Holy Mass approve of Trump (Pew methodology)
President Trump's approval ratings are higher than both Democrats and Republicans in Congress (29%). Then again, the internet news media are far worse with a shrinking 16% confidence .
http://www.gallup.com/poll/212852/confidence-newspapers-low-rising.aspx
With any luck the Editors will drop click/bait political headlines items and return to the Good News of Jesus Christ.
"Quinnipiac University. June 22-27, 2017. N=1,212 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.4.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
6/22-27/17
29 64 7
5/31 - 6/6/17
28 63 9
5/17-23/17
28 63 9
5/4-9/17
34 58 9
4/12-18/17
29 63 7
3/30 - 4/3/17
34 57 9
3/16-21/17
30 60 10
2/16-21/17
32 59 8
2/10-15/16
28 65 6
12/16-20/15
28 65 6
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
I converted to Catholicism in 2014 largely because of the integrity and credibility that was clearly evident in the faith of Pope Francis. That being said, it saddens me to read some of the comments below. It is clear that some seem willing to discard the credibility and integrity of the faith of the Church, in order to justify the abhorrent actions (well documented and usually verified with his own words) and extremely uncharitable positions of our current President. Having served for 25 years in the Army under both Republican and Democrat Presidents, this is the first time I've ever been so very scared for the service members still serving and, indeed, for the very welfare of this nation. Our current President has squandered the good will that has been carefully established between this country and our allies. He has abandoned our leadership on supporting basic human rights and he has completely rejected the foundation of this country being a country of the people, by the people and for the people. He gave away his own sense of integrity, credibility and trustworthiness long ago and doesn't even attempt to be serve from a position of any level of moral decency. He has aligned himself with the strongman dictators of the world and admired the strength of some of histories most monstrous characters ( He acknowledged himself that he kept a volume of Hitler's speeches on his bedside table.) I honestly have a hard time understanding how any person of faith can continue to defend this man.
Bill
Thank you for your service. It is much appreciated.
While pondering the current state of affairs you might consider the choice of candidates that was presented to us in the past election. Only Ms Clinton could have lost that election and the absolutely wild search for how and why that could have happened is now creating its own combative ethos.
The view seems to be that there must be/has to be some ulterior explanation for how this unthinkable result could have ever happened. A person who never held elective office; who never ran anything resembling a political campaign; who spent less than half of his opponents amount of money ; who had a staff size that was 25% of that of his opponent; who was rejected by the Gurus of his own party; who was rejected by every newspaper and national media channel as a buffoon ...he nevertheless won. How? ......consider his opponent and her record!
Actually, I've pondered quite a bit on the question of why Sec. Clinton lost the election. What is clear is that the main reason she lost was because we still use the archaic electoral college to elect our Presidents. Second, after spending a day at the Holocaust Museum in 2015, I was reminded of just how powerful a propaganda machine can be. Your assertion seems to be that Sec. Clinton was a poor choice for President, however the on a factual basis, the evidence indicates that she was probably the most qualified candidate to ever run for President. I imagine you would point to the 25 years worth of accusations of corruption that she has had to endure, however, each of those accusations had been investigated ad nauseam, and at the expense of millions and millions of dollars, just to find out that in each case, Sec. Clinton was vindicated. A case in point was this ridiculous "e-mail" scandal, which I can tell you really was much ado about nothing. (I make that statement having held a Top Secret security clearance for the past 25 years and having trained my unit on security protocols. A credible fact check regarding affair will support my conclusion) Contrarily, our current President, by his own admission, has spent his entire life wheeling dealing, lying and cheating (truthful hyperbole) bullying and reneging on contracts, and living a life of unearned privilege. He is a master of propaganda and he ran his campaign of propaganda masterfully.
Bill
You may like Mrs Clinton and her record but if you look at the map of the vote in 2016 , there is a sea of Red with narrow borders of Blue in the coasts. It was expected to be and should have been a a runaway election of Clinton. It is a total cop out to try and blame the electoral college whose vote allocation was part and parcel of Hillary's strategy and her allocation of resources. Trump was not elected .....Clinton was just plain rejected! Any analysis of the vote will demonstrate that Trump picked up big percentages of groups and ethnic divisions where he was given no chance and expected massive blocks For Hillary never materialized.
Trumps flaws were and are still blazingly apparent and still he won. I realize that in your view the unthinkable has occurred but blaming it on a fundamental system that has governed over 200 years of presidential elections is more than a reach.....At some point you need to start analyzing why despite Trump's lack of experience, ineptness and bar room style Clinton still lost.
1. My point was that Mrs. Clinton is immensely more qualified then our current President. 2. Looking at the Electoral Map to make your point. Granted, to the person who does not understand where the population lives in the U.S., the map may be eye-popping, but when you then understand that Wyoming for instance has less than 600,000 in population, you begin to understand the absurdity of the Electoral College. Each vote in Wyoming is worth over 3 times of each vote in California. And, btw, the same holds true for the Federal Dollar. Most of the red states are in the center of the U.S. are welfare states, contributing far less economically then they receive in federal dollars. Yet their votes are worth more? How does that make any since. And there is no way that framers of the Constitution envisioned this kind of inequity in representation.
What I'm wondering, is what it says about the state of the nation where the people can be so taken in by a reality show star, who proudly states that he could stand on the corner of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose a single supporter. And keep in mind, that still holds true. He's not running against Hillary anymore, so it has nothing to do with her. His supporters still support him, even though he has made over 400 false claims (well documented and fact checked by independent sources) in the 180 days he has been President. He has insulted and alienated our allies and he allied himself and praised our adversaries. He has refused to abide by even the most commonly accepted standards of ethical conduct. How can this be?
Bill
There would be no United States without 1) equal representation of the States in the Senate ..two Senators per State and 2) The Electoral College for President which counts both House Membership and Senate Membership for each State. None of the small population States at the Constitutional Convention was willing to surrender control of the legislative body or the election of the President / chief executive to Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania. This issue was initially fought out in the context of the creation of the Senate and the the House of Representatives and the form of the Electoral College followed that solution. The concept of a Democracy was explicitly rejected in favor of a Federal Republic of Equal States, all founded in the concept that "government " was there to protect the individual's liberty against "the tyranny of the majority". The Electors were /are appointed by the State Legislatures or under a system approved by each such Legislature and not by a national popular vote....precisely to further insulate the control of the presidency from direct popular vote. In short The Founders fully contemplated the design you decry. The problem you identify of the distribution of tax receipts/government programs is not a result of the electoral College design but rather of the government control morphing into a direct invasion of the States areas of control which is an erosion of the very States rights and individual liberty the Founders sought to ensure. This welfare $$$ disparity /vote inequity is Not "a symptom" of a disease of the Constitution; your observation is rather of the disease of federal government expansion into areas of state's primary concern.
As to the Trump /Clinton problem ; what I believe you are witnessing is a loss of public confidence in either of our two parties to serve the public good......a sense that a political class has grown up that is self perpetuating and self serving. Think: " Bush dynasty"; "Clinton Dynasty"; the number of long term Senators who never made over $190,000 per year having a net worth in multiple millions despite having to maintain two residences. Trump was rejected by "the establishment of both parties" . The voters rejected the establishment and Ms Clinton was, among other issues, the quintessential establishment nominee.
What I believe I witnessed was a large group of people who were willing to abandon the tenets of their faith as well as the very values and principles that have made this country great - all to cast a protest vote. What were they protesting against? They were protesting against the "establishment" which when put into perspective has "established" a pretty good standard of living for the citizens of this great country.
Bill
What a very large group of voters observed was the continued and growing prosperity of the the Establishment Political Class while their own condition was declining. It would have been great if there had been two worthy candidates , or even one worthy candidate in this past election but there wasn't. I submit that it was far easier to vote "Against" either one of the choices than to vote "For" one of them.
Interestingly, 48% of those Catholics who attend weekly Mass approve of Trump's performance while 45% disapproving.
It would be interesting to see how the poll numbers breakdown by Democrats versus Republicans as most of the Hispanic population vote Democratic.
'Approval or disapproval' is important regardless of Mass attendance or political party affiliation. However, Trump's approval rating is far greater than the approval rating of Congress or the Media. I wonder how the Catholic population would approve of Clinton's performance had she been elected.....which I agree is pure speculation at this point.
Make no mistake about my comments. I don't like the way Trump conducts himself as POTUS. However, I do agree with most of his economic plans, his general approach to our nation's security (save for some of his previous and corrected use of language), and so far on foreign policy. It is obvious that the Media is going all out to destroy him by exaggerated conspiracy theories and over-the-top news stories that are often selective and deliberately misleading. In some cases we have 'fake news' that has undermined the integrity of the press. Of course, the bias of the Press and the mainstream Media has been going on for decades.
I'll give Trump another 6-12 months and make up my mind about him. For now, the Republicans are no better than the Democrats. Washington is broken and so are both political parties. If Trump was perfect, nothing would be done if Congress does not act. That is what we have now. We need Congressional leadership focused on compromising for the good of the American people.