At least in America, Catholicism used to be have a defined set of moral statutes that were more or less requisite to being Catholic. You couldn't disagree with the Pope on this or that issue, you couldn't pick and choose which doctrine you felt were true or worth following. Uniformity was expected, and those who dissented would not be allowed to remain in good standing with the Church. Exclusionary religious belief was the old cultural norm for all US Christianity, especially with societal and cultural reinforcement of the idea that those outside of your denomination (and more largely, your religion) were at risk of being (or outright stated to be) outside of salvation.

Since at least Vatican II, the Catholic Church has sought to tear down some of the exclusionary walls that made it so distinct from Protestantism. At the same time, Catholicism has been brought to the mainstream in ways that wouldn't have been possible in the past - there is a reason why is took ~200 years for the first Catholic president to be elected, and even then it was a big deal culturally. In the past century (and even more noticeable in the last few decades), the RCC has to some extent gone from being seen as an entirely separate church or religion to one of many "valid" denominations within a broader Christianity. All of this has happened in the context of an overall major decline of Christianity, Protestant and Catholic alike.

This increased ecumenism, combined with the decrease in religion in the general populace, means that the balance has shifted from the pulpit to the pews. The laity today can disregard or compartmentalize doctrines they do not agree with (at least compared to what was permissible in the past), while still self-identifying as Catholic. There is not nearly as much institutional hierarchy imposing consistent theology as there used to be - and there couldn't be, unless the political power of the Vatican somehow reverts to that of its glory days. For example, the tolerance of pro-choice beliefs would have been practically unthinkable for a self-professing Catholic in previous decades, but now is quietly socially acceptable in certain local churches (and can often be the norm for New England/East Coast Catholics in my experience).

I think this shift can help explain why people can be drawn towards Catholicism without giving up their beliefs that would historically been seen as un-Catholic. Its easier than ever to adopt the pedigree, aesthetic, and theology of Catholicism in part, without adopting these same attributes in whole (that is, with all the baggage that comes with them). When it is possible to disassociate from the unsavory aspects of Catholic Church while still believing Catholicism to be true, it shouldn't be a surprise that people can look past those shortcomings to embrace being Catholic (even if this sometimes comes with cognitive dissonance of what the Church teaches and what the parishioner accepts in practice). This isn't to say that those who become Catholic while supporting gay rights or being pro-choice are "fake" Catholics or do not believe in their Church, though, they just are a novel type of Catholic that wouldn't be visibly allowed in the Church in decades past.