Global Survey of Catholic Women Finds Significant Support for LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Church

A worldwide survey of Catholic women released this spring has found respondents to be largely supportive of LGBTQ+ inclusion, though not as much for sacramental marriage equality.  In addition, georgraphical differences show varying levels of support.

The “International Survey of Catholic Women,” published by Australia’s University of Newcastle, solicited responses from over 17,000 Catholic women in 104 countries, timed to coincide with the global synod process. The bulk of responses were from Western countries, such as the U.S., U.K., and Australia. Just 20% of respondents were under age 40.

The survey touched on a range of issues, such as women’s ordination and leadership, experiences during the Covid pandemic, abuse in the church, and climate change. The findings leaned heavily towards the need for church reform with 84% of respondents saying change generally was needed. There were only two questions about LGBTQ+ people, one about general inclusion and one about sacramental marriage equality, though the report notes this issue came up frequently in answers to open response questions.

Respondents were asked how strongly a person agreed or disagreed with the statement, “LGBTIQ persons must be fully included and respected in all church activities.” To this, 59% of respondents overall strongly agreed with another 22% agreeing, showing that 81% of respondents overall were supportive. Just 13% of respondents disagreed with the need for full inclusion.

Geographically, the countries with the highest support were, unsurprisingly, Germany and Ireland with 92% either strongly agreeing or agreeing, while South Africa (38%) and Poland (46%) had the lowest numbers saying they agreed. Interestingly, France and Australia led in those respondents who “strongly disagree” or “disagree” being respectively 16% and 21%.

By age, the highest levels of support were found by older respondents. 70% of people over 70 years old strongly agreed with inclusion, while another 23% in that age bracket agreed. The lowest support, though still with a majority, was 26 to 40 year olds of whom 64% expressed support for inclusion, while 26% opposed.

The second question asked how strongly a person agreed or disagreed with the statement, “The sacrament of marriage should be extended to same sex couples.” Support for sacramental marriage equality was lower than general inclusion with just 54% of respondents overall agreeing, though 38% felt strongly about their support. 31% were opposed, while notably 16% said they were “not sure.”

Geographically, the highest levels of support for same-gender sacramental marriages were in Germany (78%) and Spain (67%). Again, the lowest support was found in South Africa (38%) and Poland (24%), but in a number of countries there was somewhat equal division, as in Australia where 46% support while 42% oppose. Interestingly, while just 16% of respondents overall said they were unsure, in several countries, this “not sure” response was a significant percentage of responses, as in France (24%), India (21%), South Africa (21%), Ireland (21%), Poland (20%), and the U.K. (20%).

By age, the pattern was similar as with general inclusion, with people over 70 being most supportive (63%) and those 26 to 40 years old least supportive (37%). Among those aged 18 to 25, 49% strongly disagreed with sacramental marriage equality, as did 45% of those aged 26 to 40. For comparison, just 7% of Catholic women over 70 strongly opposed it.

The survey’s authors—Tracy McEwan, Kathleen McPhillips, and Miriam Pepper, all of whom are Australian—provided some context for the age-related results, writing:

“Older respondents were more likely to be fully supportive of the respect and inclusion of LGBTIQ+ persons than younger respondents, a trend that was mostly due to a strong age pattern among respondents from Western English-speaking countries. . .A trend of increasing support with age did not remain when respondents from the Western English speaking countries were removed from the sample. In the sub-sample without respondents from the Western English speaking countries there was majority support in all age groups.”

The authors included representative responses from the open answer portion of the survey related to LGBTQ+ issues, noting, “Many respondents rejected church teachings on homosexuality alongside other teachings related to sexual and reproductive rights.”

Among the open responses were some from LGBTQ+ Catholics describing their experiences of harm and exclusion, as with one person aged 26 to 40 from Italy who wrote:

“I am polyamorous and bisexual. I would like my identity to be accepted and recognised by the Church. I feel out of place.”

Another, identifying as a theologian and church worker, stated:

“It is a love that often hurts. At some points, church and I don’t seem to fit at all (I’m a lesbian), at others we fit. I’m here. I’m church too!”

The authors note in their commentary that a minority of respondents wanted only conditional acceptance for LGBTQ+ people, often premised on forced celibacy, and rejected any church recognition of same-gender relationships. A woman aged 41 to 55 from South Africa, who supports women’s ordination, said it “would be enough for me to leave the Catholic Church” if the church married same-gender couples.

At the end of their report, the authors offer 20 key findings and 14 recommendations touching on the wide range of issues raised in the survey. Finding #9 was that inclusion “was identified and valued as a central Christian ethic,” followed by finding #10 which stated:

“Respondents conveyed concern for those who are marginalised by Catholic theology, doctrine, and liturgical pracitce, including LGBTIQ+ Catholics, divorced Catholics, and single parent Catholics. There were different interpretations of what inclusion of LGBTIQ+ Catholics means in the life in the Church. A slim majority of respondents supported same-sex marriage.”

Among the recommendations, recommendation #7 calls for the church to “develop and enact practices and guidelines to respect the dignity and equality of all people in church contexts and to challenge all forms of discrimination and prejudice, including sexism, racism, and ableism.” Recommendation #10 reads:

“Develop and enact changes to Catholic theology, doctrine, and liturgical practice to ensure women, LGBTIQ+ Catholics, divorced and remarried Catholics, and young people and families are valued and fully included in all aspects of church life.”

Finally, on a methodological note, the survey seemed to include the possibility of Catholic trans women from participating, as one of the screening questions was, “Do you self-identify as a woman?” Such a screening does, however, seem to exclude people of other marginalized identities like nonbinary people. The question of transgender inclusion has been contested in some liberal Catholic women’s spaces in recent years, mirroring larger societal disputes between trans-inclusive feminists and trans-exclusionary women. A similar Catholic survey with a more expansive understanding of gender would be an interesting next step.

The results from the “International Survey of Catholic Women” re-affirm other polling that shows many Catholics globally support LGBTQ+ equality, not only in society, but in the church, too. The question on sacramental marriage, however, reveals that while general inclusion is lauded, narrowing to specific issues can become more contested.

Inclusion is indeed a value to be lauded; yet, unless inclusion is realized in concrete practices, it remains just a nice concept. There is hope, though, as the question on sacramental marriage also shows that a not insignificant number of Catholics are unsure and could become more LGBTQ-positive with the right encounters and education. Overall, this survey is something Catholic LGBTQ+ advocates can celebrate while recommitting to the work left undone.

—Robert Shine (he/him), New Ways Ministry, May 19, 2023