Hours before being sworn in, many senators and representatives of the 116th Congress gathered inside St. Peter’s Catholic Church, just steps from the U.S. Capitol, for a multi-faith, bipartisan prayer meeting Thursday morning. Patrick Conroy, S.J., the chaplain to the House of Representatives, offered an opening prayer, which was followed by a number of spiritual readings from new and returning members.
Representative Susan Wild, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, read from the Book of Genesis. Representatives Phil Roe, a Republican from Tennessee, and Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, led the singing of “Here I Am, Lord.” There were readings from the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Psalms, the New Testament and Thomas Merton’s writings. Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, read an Islamic invocation. Members from both parties offered prayers and the 30-minute service concluded with the song “America the Beautiful.”
The service reflected a gradually rising religious diversity as Congress becomes a bit more representative of the U.S. population as a whole. But the institution still harkens back to a different time in the United States, with nearly nine in 10 members identifying as Christian.
The institution still harkens back to a different time in the United States, with nearly nine in 10 members identifying as Christian.
According to an analysis released on Jan. 3 by the Pew Research Center, about 88 percent of Congress identifies as Christian, compared with just 71 percent of all U.S. adults. Catholics now make up 30.5 percent of Congress; 21 percent of U.S. adults identify as Catholic.
Democrats, including newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, are more likely than Republicans to identify as Catholic. More than a third of congressional Democrats (35 percent) are Catholic, while just over a quarter of Republicans (26 percent) identify as Catholic. Compared with the two previous Congresses, which saw the number of Catholic Democrats and Republicans about equal, the new Congress sees a large gap, with 86 Catholic Democrats and 55 Catholic Republicans. But this change is mostly attributable to the Democrats gaining at least 40 seats in the House (with one race yet to be decided).
Catholics make up majorities of congressional delegations from six states—Alaska, Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont—and half of the delegations from Iowa, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Two Catholic Democratic women who lost Senate elections, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, were replaced by two Protestant Republican men, Josh Hawley and Kevin Cramer.
Of the 96 newly elected members of Congress, 78 are Christian, including 28 who are Catholic. Overall, there are 141 Catholics in the House, or 32 percent of the chamber; 22 of the 100 U.S. senators are Catholic.
Overall, there are 141 Catholics in the House, or 32 percent of the chamber; 22 of the 100 U.S. senators are Catholic.
The first two Muslim women elected to Congress were sworn in Tuesday, bringing the total of Muslim House members to three. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, and Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, join Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. There are 34 Jews in the new Congress, along with two Buddhists, three Hindus and three Unitarian Universalists.
|
But religious diversity in the new Congress is mostly relegated to one party. Republican members of the Senate and House are 99.2 percent Christian and 0.8 percent Jewish. Congressional Democrats are also mostly Christian, at 78.3 percent, but all 29 members who are non-Christian and non-Jewish, or who did not volunteer a religious affiliation, are Democrats.
A notable discrepancy between the new Congress and the general population has to do with those who are not affiliated with a church. Just one new member, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, identifies as religiously unaffiliated. That makes just 0.2 percent of the new Congress part of the so-called nones, compared with 23 percent of the U.S. adult population.
But Pew notes that 18 members of the new Congress, or 3.4 percent, are classified as “don’t know/refused.” They are all Democrats. Additionally, 80 members of Congress, or 15 percent, identify as “Protestant” but do not identify with a specific denomination, compared to just 5 percent of U.S. adults. Of that group, 51 are Republicans.
Just one new member, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona, identifies as religiously unaffiliated.
According to Pew, the percentage of Catholics in the last four congresses has remained stable, at around 31 percent. That is far higher than the 19 percent of Catholics who comprised the 87th Congress in 1961, just after the election of President John F. Kennedy. Six percent of Congress identify as Jewish, up from about 2 percent during the 1960s. The share of members who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is down in the new Congress to 10 members, the lowest since 1979.
The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities reported on Jan. 3 that 10 percent of Congress—12 senators and 43 representatives—are alumni of a dozen Jesuit colleges and universities. Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., counts 28 alumni in the new Congress, with another half dozen each from Boston College and Fordham University.
As for priorities important to Catholic leaders, it remains unclear if the new Congress, in which Democrats control the House and Republicans the Senate, will be able to make any progress.
The previous Congress, with both chambers controlled by Republicans, was largely sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s agenda, U.S. Catholic bishops issued a number of statements opposed to Mr. Trump and the Republican leadership’s policy proposals in immigration, health care and taxes. They were supportive of some measures that they said were in harmony with the church’s views on life issues.
With Democrats now in charge of the House, it is possible that bishops and other church leaders will find themselves shifting gears in terms of advocacy. House Democrats may seek to protect access to abortion, which church leaders oppose. But they may find more common ground when it comes to economic and immigration issues.
Quincy Howard, O.P., a government relations staffer for the Catholic social-justice oriented advocacy group Network, told America that her group feels “hopeful” and that there are some “solid allies to work with” in the House. She said Network supports HR1, a bill Democrats plan to introduce that includes several political reforms, including publicly financed elections, voter rights and anti-corruption measures. Network, which sponsored a bus tour during the election calling out members who supported the Republican-backed tax overhaul, said it will also advocate for immigration reform, an increase in the federal minimum wage and additional reforms of the criminal justice system.
Editor’s note: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story stated, “House Democrats may seek to protect access to abortion, which many Catholic leaders oppose.” The phrase “many Catholic leaders” was imprecise; it was not meant to refer only to church leaders, or to imply that some church leaders do not follow the church’s teachings against abortion.
“ House Democrats may seek to protect access to abortion, which many Catholic leaders oppose. ”
Should that not say ALL Catholic leaders oppose? How can you assert that you are Catholic and not oppose abortion?
There are worse things than abortion in this world. Think about pedophilia, war, torture, nuclear weapons, etc. Let's get off this one issue subject.
Hilary - irrespective of the motive, every abortion is an intentional killing of a child. Killing a child is the ultimate form of child abuse. When the unborn are old enough to feel pain, it amounts to torture (incredibly some Democrat "catholics" approve of painful abortions). When it gets into the millions of children killed, it rivals nuclear war.
Tim, Hilary is correct. Plus, this debate was settled decades ago with Roe V. Wade. I am tired of men weighing in on abortion rights. It's not our place to judge or take away someone's rights regarding their reproductive rights. Let's focus on helping the young children that are in foster homes, kids at our borders, etc....
Amen to that, Shelley. I agree with you. Another of my favorites is "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Shelley and Hilary argue for an abdication of justice. They essentially say that men should not oppose the choice of women to murder their children because most sex abuse of children is committed by men. This is identity ideology that is antithetical to Catholicism. I don't know how many children one would have to rescue from a bad situation to ever justify looking the other way when an innocent child is killed. 10:1, 100:1, 1000:1, 1000000:1. The answer is no amount of rescuing extinguishes the blot of a willful murder of an innocent child.
SHELLEY HIBBLER Give me evidence from the Old and New Testament that God ordained the having of babies to be solely under the dominion and control of Eve whether before of after the disobedience that ruined the relationship between God and the first parents.
What is this ridiculous notion, reproductive rights?
God has given freedom to, let us say, the right to, do all sorts of things.
We can choose to have other gods before him, we can call him to witness falsely, we can dishonour our parents and murder and lie and steal and fornicate and commit adultery. It is what is called the gift of free will.
He also requires that we refrain from doing any of the above: What relevance is civil or criminal law in the face of His dominion and His expressed commands?
There will be a reckoning - hell is real and no political argument or rhetoric will make the slightest difference to the fate of the evil doer because it is only deeds done freely willed that are judged.
Hello, Hilary. I believe that the deliberate killing of.almost 1 million innocent unborn human beings for any reason up until the time when the unborn infant (or fetus, which is Latin for "young one" ) is viable is the paramount issue of our day. However, I do agree that there are many issues that each one of us should be concerned about, and support efforts to deal positively with those issues. Without being immodest (I certainly know that many people give more to charity than me) each month I contribute to various charities. These include (among others SNAP (which provides support to victims of priest sex abuse), Cease Fire PA (a gun control advocacy group), a Catholic homeless shelter for men , Dawn's Place (a shelter for women who were victims of human trafficking), a Special Education school, a group that provides good for the hungry, Catholic Relief Services, Philadelphia Protestant Home (a nursing home), and modest contributions to my pen pal who's imprisoned for a serious crime . However, from our years of correspondence, I 'm convinced that he's reformed his life.
The dismemberment of sentient, i.e., capable- of- suffering- fetuses,and other "procedures" is as torturous a suffering to them as to born living beings.It is as murderous an act against such sentient capable of suffering humans as the deliberate premeditated taking of life is, when done to born humans. So no , there are equivalent but no worse things in the world then what is done legally to hundreds of thousands if not millions of unborn- capable -of- suffering human fetuses, with impunity and the full backing of the Constitution, in this country!
Vatican II says that abortion and infanticide are "unspeakable crimes." That sounds pretty bad.
HILLARY HUTCHINSON Take your pick, which of the following are irrelevant as well?
Lust – to have an intense desire or need: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking: “for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags” (Proverbs 23:21).
Greed - excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more” (Ephesians 4:19).
Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous: “The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway” (Proverbs 15:19).
Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1)
Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage: “Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Peter 2:1-2).
Pride - quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).
51% of American Catholics would vote yes to keep abortion legal.
I think you're right Colleen, and the number may actually be higher. Look how many American woman practice birth control - 90%? I'd like the men in the church to take care of the pedophilia problem, and quit worrying about women and their choices.
Hello, Colleen. I'll make several points, with respect. First, the precise wording of a poll question influences the results (not only regarding the violence of legal abortion but most other issues as well). Also, the Gallup poll, which is certainly a respected poll, for about 40 years has asked whether abortion should be legal in all circumstances, illegal in all circumstances, or legal under certain circumstances. To me, it's reasonable (and more likely to be accurate) to ask the question in this manner, rather than simply asking should abortion be legal. According to a Gallup poll (May 3-7, 2017) 50% of Americans support legal abortion "only under certain circumstances." ( Please keep in mind that due to Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, abortion is legal for any reason up until the time when the unborn infant (or fetus, which means "young one" in latin) is viable. Only 29% say abortion should be legal in all circumstances (out present legal situation). 18% of Americans polled say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Thus, 68% of Americans oppose our present legal situation. That is, over two thirds (68%) support legal abortion either only under "certain circumstances" or illegal under all circumstances .
Gallup also found that of those who say abortion should be legal "under certain circumstances" whether those should be most circumstances of only a few, that by nearly a 3-to-1 ratio Americans polled choose only a few (circumstances), 36% vs. 13%. Finally, people can and do change their minds about the whether or not an action should be legal. Prior to the civil rights movement beginning in the 1950's, the majority of Americans opposed civil rights for black Americans. However, after the Supreme Court ruling Brown vs. the Board of Education, in time the majority of Americans favored school desegregation as well as with the tremendous efforts of the civil rights movement the majority of Americans came to support civil rights laws.
Colleen - whatever the % in any given poll, those that vote for abortion are not Catholic in any real sense. They might self-identify as Catholic, but it is for cultural or familial reasons, like all those Christians who supported the Nazis or Communists in the past (or Democrats today). They either do not believe what the Church teaches or they don't practice what they preach. Their god is a lesser god than the one revealed by our Lord, Jesus Christ.
"How can you assert that you are Catholic and not oppose abortion" - How can you be Catholic and not oppose the death penalty? How can you be Catholic and not oppose cutting environmental protections that will save billions? How can you be Catholic and deny Climate Change, which will kill billions? How can you be Catholic and support rampant, unchecked Capitalism built on the suffering and backs of the poor?
I do not oppose the death penalty under appropriate circumstances, it worked for God when people touched the Ark when they were forbidden and when people Ananias and wife Sapphira lied about giving all the proceeds of selling everything to the poor. Struck dead by God. Jesus Himself recommended death by drowning for certain offences committed against one of his little ones.
I confidently and trenchantly deny the false campaign assertion that by using fossil fuel the human race is endangering all life on earth and significantly changing the climate. I know from University level Palaeontology, Geology, Oceanography and Astronomy that God has been limiting the climate between quite tight boundaries for millions of years and has not declared His surrender of this task to mere humans.
I deny that the use of purchasing power as investment for economic productivity and wealth creating is anything but wonderful and has liberated multiple millions of people over many generations to live free from malnutrition, famine, infectious disease and the comforts of modern civilisation. The parochial myopia revealed by praising "environmental protection" I simply ignore.
I oppose abortion totally except for the minuscule number of very unusual medical crises where either the mother and baby are certain to die and the mother has a good chance of living if the pregnancy is terminated. In 51 years as a doctor I have not seen one case like this, but heard of a couple.
Let's hope they show better Catholicism than did Speaker Ryan.
There are lots of Catholics in this world, and most of them don't wear funny-looking hats. Whose church is it?
Maybe they will denounce the two senators who said a person cannot be a member of the Knights of Columbus and be a good judge. I wonder where the editors of America are on this? Radio silence!
"Maybe they will denounce the two senators who said a person cannot be a member of the Knights of Columbus and be a good judge. " Why would they do that? That's a correct assertion when a KoC member will put their religious beliefs above the law of the nation. If you put your religious beliefs first instead of following the laws and constitution, then you're pretty much ISIL. People who cannot put the law first cannot be a judge.
Thank you, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Essentially you have said that a Catholic cannot be a judge. Tell that to the five Catholic judges on the Supreme Court.
Not sure why the church doesnt take action against Nancy Pelosi and others who seek to actively advance abortion, for example use federal dollars to pay for them. At a minimum deny them communion to signify they are not in union with the church's position on this issue which the church deems "Inherently evil" and "non-negotiable". Personally I would not be opposed their being excommunicated.
No one is "pro" abortion. No one is "actively advancing abortion". Some people are pro-choice. If you could get pregnant, you'd probably understand this issue better.
Yes they are pro-abortion. It's called crass (flagrant and willful) ignorance. If a bush moves and you are uncertain whether its a deer or human being, the moral standard is "do not shoot."
If a being is in the womb the moral standard is to determine whether it is a human being, not kill it and determine it later. Prochoice is pro-abortion as it crassly ignores a scientific fact that this being in the womb is a human being. If it doubted that, whether morally, philosophically, or scientifically, that being deserves protection until the doubt is resolved.
For the Catholic it effectively demonstrates the loss of faith, since as a matter of faith the Church teaches that it is human life deserving of respect. Abortion also denies the child the possibility of baptism, which is a greater evil, for a Catholic to support, than abortion itself.
Finally, in order to defend abortion, the Catholic, or the citizen, ultimately must abandon all logic, and even common sense, since facts and reason are the enemy of abortion, and instead make specious arguments about choice, pluralism, and having to be a woman in order to make moral judgment about the dignity of human life.
Colin, If you had a biology or physiology degree, you would realize what a zygote, a parasite, etc is which is NOT a human. A human being has a definition too. Image result for when does a fetus become a humanblogs.plos.org
A fertilized embryo is not a human—it needs a uterus, and at least six months of gestation and development, growth and neuron formation, and cell duplication to become a human.
If you had an inkling of molecular biology, you would realize that a fertilized egg has a distinct genetic make-up, with characteristics of both parents and some unique in and of itself.
If you had an even modest understanding of theology and ethics you would regard that life, now potentiated, is sacred.
Hello, Shelley. With respect, I must disagree with you that a zygote isn't a human being. It's a fact, based on the science of biology, that a new human being comes into existence at conception. I certainly agree that a unborn human being needs a woman 's uterus in order to grow and have his or her life sustained. However, Each one of we born human beings required our mother's uterus in order to continue living. But human beings at different states of life require different levels of care. For instance, a newborn infant, although (normally) is able to breathe on his or her own, and so forth, needs tremendous amounts of care to continue living (much as a human zygote needs his or her mother's uterus). A newborn infant must receive care from another which includes being fed, having his or her diaper changed, being clothed, bathed, and given shelter. Also, I was a Special Education teacher who instructed children with brain damage and physical disabilities, some of whom had behavior disorders. These children were legally recognized as persons, but I can assure you from personal experience that each one required tremendous care, in some cases the amount of assistance to continue to live as an infant.
The definition of human is political. PBS had a reporter saying ISIS were not fully human. People said ms 13 were not fully human. For the latter though not the former there was push back. Dehumanization of groups is a tactic used to justify legalized murder. Which is the rationale the Supreme Court used to justify the legalization of the killing of unborn humans.Implantation does not change the biology of the embryo any more then where you are determines your humanity; your[human] genetics does.The biology of the embryo and or the zygote is human biology.Living. Do not conflate fetuses capable of suffering , and embryos whose[human] hearts do beat, with zygotes which are a clump of[human] cells. Being alive[ the beating heart of the human embryo] , and being capable of suffering [fetuses] is sufficient to classify the unborn as humans.The Supreme Court has equated being human with being viable. That is arbitrary. As is denying humanity to a being because it is not implanted in the womb.Needing to be in the womb does not negate its presence as an already living being.
SHELLEY HIBBLER You know nothing - from the union of the egg and the single sperm the body of the living creature is human, 100% human, body and spirit and has the power to grow into a baby, be born and live up to a century if not killed. All the DNA, all the mitochondrial RNA, all the essential proteins and fats and organelles are characteristically and specifically human.
A foetus needs a womb, a baby needs a mother, a child needs parents, an adolescent needs other adults to teach perception and thinking and language and social skills and the distinguishing of danger from safety and other adolescents to learn peer relationships and a spouse to make a family and a family needs an economic community of diverse skills and capabilities - NO PHASE OF HUMAN LIFE IS INDEPENDENT.
Stop with the semantics; the suffering- unto- death- of unborn innocent fetuses is the issue.That it is legalized murder, legalized torturous murder, is the offense that rightfully many are appalled at! if you support its legalization; abortion on demand , not, lets be clear just the aborting of zygotes but sentient- heart- beating- capable- of- suffering- already- existing -beings - in the womb, then you are pro i.e FOR the continuation of such brutality and barbarbic murder of fellow humans!
Are you really so ignorant of the origins of planned parenthood and the beliefs of those which started it off?
"deny them communion" - You don't have that right. You do not know what is written on their hearts. Only Christ knows. Shame on you.
Yes, we should have started denying Communion (which is what excommunicate means) right back in 1973, when William Brennan signed on to Roe et al. v. Wade, when other "Catholics" in the House (including Robert Drinan, SJ) voted for abortion, and when Mario Cuomo was taking his pseudo-theologian act around to Catholic universities to provide cover for pro-abortionists. And, yes, we should ask how the theological justification for doing that got sidetracked at the USCCB in pretty clear language from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, buried by Theodore "Teddy Bear" McCarrick..
Duplicate comment. No provision for deleting.
Not sure why the church doesnt take action against Nancy Pelosi and others who seek to actively advance abortion, for example use federal dollars to pay for them. At a minimum deny them communion to signify they are not in union with the church's position on this issue which the church deems "Inherently evil" and "non-negotiable". Personally I would not be opposed their being excommunicated.
John, Federal dollars don't pay for the abortion. The federal money is just a small part of planned parenthood so there's counseling, birth control, etc. Until you walk in someone's (female) you shouldn't pass judgement on anyone.
Unfortunately, many will leave their religious beliefs in the coat room as did Nino Scalia.
Unfortunately, many will leave their religious beliefs in the coat room as did Nino Scalia.
Isn’t that exciting? 👎 I’m warm and fuzzy all over just knowing that we have a new crop of people whtwant it their way or the highway. What really has changed? Now we have minority people seeking their own self interest. That is not different from the kind of government we have almost always had.
"CATHOLIC" unfortunately has almost as many implications as persons claiming the description. Particular life issues find many politicians hesitant to BE "Catholic". I wonder if the claim to identity by Democrat individuals has a connection to the cultural identity of Hispanics who are becoming a larger portion of the electorate.
I wish all members of both parties refered to the beautiful Corinthians reading proclaiming "LOVE IS..........etc" and let it determine the discussion in Congress rather than the vitriol and condemnation of those who share other views. When political discourse becomes "patient and kind" and "does not rejoice in evil", maybe the labels we attatch to persons will make some sense.
"CATHOLIC" unfortunately has almost as many implications as persons claiming the description. Particular life issues find many politicians hesitant to BE "Catholic". I wonder if the claim to identity by Democrat individuals has a connection to the cultural identity of Hispanics who are becoming a larger portion of the electorate.
I wish all members of both parties refered to the beautiful Corinthians reading proclaiming "LOVE IS..........etc" and let it determine the discussion in Congress rather than the vitriol and condemnation of those who share other views. When political discourse becomes "patient and kind" and "does not rejoice in evil", maybe the labels we attatch to persons will make some sense.
Could anyone please describe about Christian and catholic what is and difference between both of them? I have to Write My Thesis Paper For Me I need little information.
Nope. Christians are simply splittists who believe themselves and their own projective interpretations of the Bible while Catholics follow thousands of years of theology and understanding of Christ's teachings and God.
This article doesn't answer its opening question. But, it highlights the vacuity of self-identification as a determinant of religious belief. The Democratic party has become antithetical to Catholic morality and intolerant of any observant members having positions of power in their party. So, one may as well provide the statistic on how many Nazis were catholic in the 1932 Reichstag general elections. It could have been a similar proportion to the current Democrat party. Most Catholic voters didn't vote for the Nazis in 1932, but those who did found a way to persuade themselves that Church teaching could be kept private. 10 years later, millions were dead. Plus ça change...
Challenge for "Catholics" in Congress (Democrat or Republican): make a real and honest effort to end perpetual wars around the globe and funding for Planned Parenthood. Exposing and severing ties to both bloody industrial-military complex and Big Abortion would make great advances against the Culture of Death and save God knows how many lives.
New House passes spending bill with pro-abortion rider
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=18661
Is the author implying that identifying as Catholic somehow makes politicans more righteous? I think history has disproved that time and again. No need to quantify by how much...
Is the author implying that identifying as Catholic somehow makes politicans more righteous? I think history has disproved that time and again. No need to quantify by how much...
The numbers are only that, and say nothing about how religious faith actually guides political conduct. I am particularly bemused and confused by how a “Catholic” elected official can support abortion, or even passively evade the moral issue. The label is meaningless. If a central and critical article of the faith is the sanctity of human life at all stages, then failure to speak out boldly to change the law indicates the official’s status may instead be Christian, subcategory: Catholic in rebellion.
I am proud of these Catholics. I hope they are pro-choice. Most of the old men who post on this site live in an altered reality. These men are continually feeling threatened, posting about nonsense, living in the past. These guys have an exalted sense of their own importance. Quite simply, The Church will either change or it won't survive.