When Mother Teresa accepted her Nobel Peace Prize, she stated that legal abortion and contraception are crimes comparable to genocide. This is quite reasonable on the basis of her beliefs, supported by church doctrine and dogma. The Catholic church is content to state these things as dogma, with the benefit that the Pope is infallible in spiritual matters and speaks as God's representative on earth, they have no need to really *explain* why these things are so terrible, and why preventing the typically accidental happening of human birth is necessarily the same as murder. The fact that so many Catholics I know ignore these proscriptions means that their arguments are not really persuading people, and the church authorities don't feel like really pressing the matter by excommunication.

I think before you judge Hitchen's angry dismissal of Mother Teresa, you should at least look at his movie "Hell's Angel". Her center for the dying was not a nice place, and she funneled her money into convent after convent instead of doing something simple, namely making the center for the dying into a proper hospital, rather than a dark cave where nuns looked after souls rather than bodies.

It's quite curious that most common response you read or hear about this poll comes from the religious, the self-styled religious leaders for the most part.

And it's all trying to explain away the inevitable conclusion one reaches - believers are ignorant people. Certainly not all of them, those who maintain these beliefs despite being well-read, perhaps even intelligent -- these are the people most troubled by the results.

Denial is in full force. But this is not an unfamiliar place for them.

Atheists commonly claim that ignorance is sufficient reason to explain the prevalence of primitive superstitions in the modern world, and are routinely blasted by the believers for say that.

Well?

It has always been this way. Ignorance of reality among the stupid, denial of reality among the intelligent. Believers have just proven our point for us.

But Sally Quinn, atheists, liberals, furious anti-Papist, &tc. have seized upon it because it reinforces their bias that Catholics are stupid. They’re not. But they cannot ‘pass’ a test that emphasizes knowledge they cannot know. Mary_Cunningham

The vast majority of atheists that I have seen commenting on this poll have not been calling religious people stupid. They haven't even been particularly gloating over their own performances; the quiz wasn't all that difficult. By far and away, the theists' relatively poorer performance has been attributed to an insular worldview. After all, what does a member of the one, true church need to know about any other religion - other than it's wrong?

That doesn't explain, however, why 45% of Catholics didn't know what the doctrine of transubstantiation meant. It's a central doctrine of their faith; it's one of a handful of doctrines that separate Catholicism from most other Christian denominations; it's the reason they go to mass and perform Eucharistic adoration. How could any Catholic not know what it meant? Since we agree that Catholics aren't necessarily stupid, how would you account for that theological boner?

Additionally, I've had experience with telephone polling (which the Pew was) insofar as the respondents' views are concerned and quite simply telephone surveys are full of errors. The best political pollsters have abandoned this methodology & instead choose a 'focus' group and visit them throughout the campaign. If we cannot depend on a telephone poll for a viewpoint, why, in God's name, should we depend upon it for knowledge , which is much harder to gage?

For example: looking at one religious policy knowledge: "According to rulings by the Supreme Court, a public school teacher cannot lead the class in prayer". This was the one statement Latino Catholics got correct. Why? Because the USP (unique selling point) of Catholic schools is that prayer is allowed . They did not know the other questions because they and their children probably went to Catholic schools , as I wrote below.

And what is a 'world' religion? isn't Catholicism a 'world' religion? Isn't the Church, above all, Catholic? Why--if you believe yours is the true one-- learn about others except for curiosity's sake?

Finally: teaching the Bible as literature? Literature ? The Bible is the word of God, God's Revelation to man. OK, the psalms are gorgeous, but a lot of the Hebrew Bible is full of anger and smiting and gore. Some of the New Testament can be confusing; Christ spoke in parables much of the time. So the Bible's not literature . If you want classic Spanish, read Don Quixote, classic English: Shakespeare. Not the Bible.

The test was badly designed. Latino Catholics would not know the questions on public school religious policy (which should not even belong on a religious knowledge test) because

• first generation Latinos mostly went to Catholic school in Latin America (How could they know public school policy in the US?)

• second generation went to Catholic school in the US

• Catholic schools teach knowledge of Catholicism not other religions. (Since parents send their children to Catholic schools to learn about Catholicism the schools are responding to the parents' needs).

But Sally Quinn, atheists, liberals, furious anti-Papist, &tc. have seized upon it because it reinforces their bias that Catholics are stupid. They’re not. But they cannot ‘pass’ a test that emphasizes knowledge they cannot know.

That so many Catholics would get the question on transubstantiation incorrect is all the more embarrassing considering that the entire RCC celebrated the Year of the Eucharist just one year ago. On top of that, one can't ever hear the word Eucharist on EWTN from any commentator without it being immediately being followed with the phrases "true presence" and/or "body, blood, soul and divinity".

If some Catholics don't know what they're supposed to be receiving at the communion rail, does that invalidate the sacrament for them? If yes, perhaps that would explain why it seems to have so little discernible effect on so many regularly-receiving Catholics.

As a Catholic I did manage to get all the questions correct, with only the last question relating to US Constitutional issues giving me pause. Most of the questions dealt with very minor issues of religion, which makes me wonder about the religious upbringing of the people who designed the survey.
About Francis of Assisi, his connection to animals is based on a legend that when the people of a town would not listen to him preach, he went to a nearby grove, began to preach, and found himself surrounded by the local fauna. I have read that Francis would be appalled at what became of his Order, which has fractured more than any other Catholic religious order, because he did not want them to own anything, even to having central housing, but to ONLY live off the charity of others. Those that follow his example fractured, in part, over their ability to live only on charity.
Many Protestant groups still have devotions to pre-Reformation saints.

John Dickert
Mount Vernon Farms

Catholicism has always been a cult of ignorance.

You didn't help your readers by not defining "mulier qui." I know some Latin but I can't figure out what those two words are supposed to mean in this paragraph. "Woman who ..."? Who what?? Did something get left out?

And I'm baffled by the reference to the Methodist Church in Stroudsburg. Why that Protestant church among the millions that have statues of St. Francis in their gardens? St. Francis has long been a sort of Johnny-Appleseed folk hero for many other people besides Catholics.

One of the features of the theological and religious-historical ignorance throughout a wide range of churches today is that everybody "knows" that St. Francis was a sort of a hippie who loved animals, birds and nature, but precious few of those church members who will be bringing their dogs and cats to church for a blessing this Sunday (St. Francis' Day is October 4) know that his signature commitment was to radical poverty, or that among his many provocative acts was reaching out to Muslims at a time when Muslims and Christians had been more or less constantly at war (the Crusades) for two centuries.

religion w/o knowledge is absurd , knowledge, vice versa, w/o religion is abrupt

God Bless Mother Teresa and her Sisters of Charity order. They are in over 100 countries taking care of the disabled and sick orphans.
http://www.vanessakachadurianarmeniansoc.blogspot.com

Its better to have ignorant and uneducated people in the pews, because they won't have as many questions and they'll give more money.

> Religion is essentially a matter of practical living rather than intellectualized grasp of facts and dogmatic beliefs.

Agreed. And I'd bet atheists/agnostics would do at least as well as Catholics in a test of "practical living."

Life without knowledge is existence without purpose. This may be fine for the huddled masses, but I seek meaning in my earthly journey.

The one thing the Catholic Church will never do is to teach an historically correct chronicle record of the founding of its religion and the antics of its dozens of popes and quirks from the last two millenia.

What percent of USA RCCs fully beleive in the church teachings of the ones that they know? What percent of USA RCCs ever ask a religious question to a priest and get a good ancer? After the communion is taken in the body, when does the GOD portion leave the material portion? How many USA RCC know the history of the RCC to date? Why was the truth of the current child sex abuse cases silented to protect the image? There is so much to ask but thoes RCCs that are happy with blind faith, I say more power to them but so many RCC are not in that boat. It is time for a new pope and then Vatican III.

Respectfully, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, as someone who works with the Hispanic Catholic community, I disagree with you. What the Church believes about the Body and Blood of Christ is one of the main things that distinguishes us from the evangelicos. It IS important that we know what we believe as Catholics. I also found it dismaying that not even half of Hispanic Catholics could answer any of the simple questions about the Bible. Again, this is why the evangelico congregations are able to draw our faithful away. As the saying goes: "Catolico ignorante, futuro Protestante."

To me the Pew Survey indicates that the more knowledge one has about a religion, the less likely one is to belong to one.

And the point of this article seems to be that actual knowledge about your religion is unnecessary to lead a good life.

In the Bronze Age, religion supplied the answers that science could not.

While few today are willing to admit out loud that religion has become irrelevent, the evidence is becoming hard to hide.

Buddhism teaches without STUDY there is NO Buddhism. Perhaps the same can be said of Catholicism and Christianity, as well.

Knowing and understanding are two different positions.

Knowledge is the pump and water is the Wisdom, without knowledge wisdom is hopeless. No pump no water.

Faith without any understanding is dangerous, perhaps even fundamental in nature.

All Christians know that if a person's "Christian faith" does not inspire charitable works then it is not truly Christian faith. But that statement does not detract from the Church's insistence on compiling, organizing, analyzing, and understanding its knowledge of Christianity. Without that knowledge, the Church would be unable to even know what, precisely, to preach, and what to refrain from preaching. You can't have faith without knowing in what one is placing one's faith.

I wonder if a poll would show that at least 75% of Catholics know that their Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops are still hiding known pervert priests from civil prosecution.

Or maybe they think some of their little boys have been raped by immaculate conception.

This is the worst excuse for justifying
the filthy child molesting Roman Catholic
"Church" that could possibly be given.

It can be summed up by simply stating
that thinking for ones self and knowledge
are immaterial but following blind carnal
doctrine is O.K.

It's not hard to see why this University
of Ignorance, The "Church", is losing so
many members !!

Dream on Mr. Stevens-Arroyo. Bask in the
ignorance of your self centered, perverted
domicile for the feeble minded !!!!!!

This is the worst excuse for justifying
the filthy child molesting Roman Catholic
"Church" that could possibly be given.

It can be summed up by simply stating
that thinking for ones self and knowledge
are immaterial but following blind carnal
doctrine is O.K.

It's not hard to see why this University
of Ignorance, The "Church", is losing so
many members !!

Dream on Mr. Stevens-Arroyo. Bask in the
ignorance of your self centered, perverted
domicile for the feeble minded !!!!!!

"Flunking the Pew test is unimportant as long as Catholic America doesn't flunk the faith."

Not understanding why you eat certain crackers each Sunday may be harmless enough.

But do the Mexican people understand why they're supposed to have so many kids their economy can't provide with jobs?

I wouldn't much stock in the survey. The poll questions focus on knowledge of basic facts somewhat related to religion and countless religions at that. Indonesia's religion, Johnathan Edwards, court cases?. I knew those questions (I did have trouble whether Catholics, Protestants, both or neither believed in salvation by faith. I thought it was a trick question as both have held a nuanced position for 300 years now) but you expect a nation that struggles to name Joe Biden or locate Iraq or Oklahoma on a map to know these questions. Maimonides would be named a Pokemon character by most Americans.

It's then not surprisingly that the results mirror the education attainment of certain groups, atheists/agnostics more likely to be exposed to these general and arcane facts, Latinos and Catholics less so.

Ref: Transubstantiation - it helps to have a thorough understanding of quantum physics, inflation theory, and that Big Bang moment. It was nothing then, and forever shall be - nothing. Mother Teresa's atoms were the very same atoms that comprised the Bodhi Tree under which the Buddha had his seminal sub-atomic moment....it was here, there, and everywhere.

Gotta' love Crosby, Stills and Nash - we are starlight.....ain't it the truth!

Shine on.......

"Obviously, there is limited Catholic familiarity with the term "transubstantiation," which was taken from Scholastic theology in the Middle Ages to explain that Jesus' presence was not just symbolic. "
So because it came from the middle ages (though debated ad nauseum since then and never officially redefined otherwise) It is what, less than true? suspicious? To be taken, as they say, with a grain of salt?

re: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 - 2004 editions: "In transubstantiation the protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc., that is, the entire agglomeration of substances constituting the bread and wine, are converted into the body and blood of Christ."

That's pretty current, and specific.
At what point did the infallable, unchangeable church recant or reverse the decision to make transubstantiation NOT the official interpretation of the ritual?

Just curious.