I see. Where I am, it's common for politicians to make reference to their alma mater if it's helpful for their campaign. If they went to an ivy league school or other high status school, it'll be mentioned. If it's a local election and the candidate graduated from a local school, that will be mentioned as evidence of their local roots and community attachment. Against that background, I wouldn't be as surprised to see a political candidate make reference to their religion if it's valued by the candidate's intended constituency. But in a place where one's alma mater doesn't matter, it would indeed be off-putting to suddenly see reference to a religious alma mater. Got it. I was under the impression that it was more of a public statement. It depends on which RC person you ask. What happens "in the wild" is often quite different from what the RCC officially teaches and even quite a few priests understand that and don't push against it. The homilies I hear are about cultivating a loving, Christian heart in everyday life, not about any marital or procreation mandates. For the average RC person where I am, their personal beliefs about these kinds of issues are probably closer to Anglicanism; their everyday lifestyle might be less Christian-minded than many Anglicans. I've pointed out to some dissatisfied RC people that the beliefs they hold are more in line with Anglicanism, and that Anglican Mass feels very much like the RC Mass. They didn't express any interest in knowing more about Anglicanism, but seemed uneasy about the prospect of going to another denomination. I assume it probably isn't about doctrinal convictions or anything like that, but about their having always known RC as part of their personal and family identity. Again, most RC people probably see it the same way you do. I initially thought I might as well stay RC if most of the people in the pews are more, shall we say, balanced about these things. But my issue here is that it doesn't make sense to me look to a Church for pastoral care when its official teaching too often strike me as overly prescriptive and sometimes even inhumane. A great point to keep in mind. The family I grew up in wasn't seriously RC. For them, it was more about the RCC being a source of moral teachings that keep people in line. If when thinking about college I said I was discerned priesthood and wanted to go to seminary, it would have been a crisis. I would have gotten the talk about not taking religion too seriously, about most priests' (in the RC context) choice to take that path was probably rooted in dysfunction. The evidence for that would have been the life of celibacy and living rectories. If we were Anglican, discerning priesthood wouldn't had that baggage. My family would have taken RC priesthood as an embarrassment, but probably would have taken Anglican priesthood as something admirable (with the assumption that I'd still have a normal family life). Next time I get together with my father and sister, I'll ask them how they would have felt about that. I want to clarify here that I'm not saying RC priests should be regarded as occasionally helpful oddballs. I've known several RC priests who, while certainly not perfect people, were dedicated to their priestly vocation and were of immense pastoral value and just inspirational men. I was talking about the idea of how contentious a celibate, non-married priesthood can be to all but the most traditional of Roman Catholics.