Nineteen Sixty-four is a research blog for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University edited by Mark M. Gray. CARA is a non-profit research center that conducts social scientific studies about the Catholic Church. Founded in 1964, CARA has three major dimensions to its mission: to increase the Catholic Church's self understanding; to serve the applied research needs of Church decision-makers; and to advance scholarly research on religion, particularly Catholicism. Follow CARA on Twitter at: caracatholic.


Parish Reorganizations and Parishioner Giving

This post is the first of a series here, on CARA’s website, and CARA’s social media sites about a new landmark study of Catholic parish life in the United States, Catholic Parishes of the 21st Century (Oxford University Press, 2017). This volume brings together findings from multiple national projects that CARA researchers and Charles Zech have conducted in recent years to provide a 360 view of parish life today. It is an intentional update to the groundbreaking Notre Dame Study of Catholic Parish Life in the 1980s. It is available for order now. Stay tuned as there will be much more to come from this volume here and elsewhere from CARA.

Managing the typical Catholic parish’s finances in the United States is a difficult task. Many parishes are aging structures with significant maintenance and repair costs. Two out of three parishes in the country today were established before 1950 and more parishes have been closing each year than opening since the 1990s. The Church has been adjusting to a geographical realignment of the Catholic population for decades. Two-thirds of Catholics lived in the Northeast and Midwest as recently as 1985. Now, only 51 percent of Catholics live in these regions with growing numbers living in the South and West.

In the Northeast and Midwest, pastors often have had to deal with declining numbers of parishioners and increasing costs for maintenance in older parishes. Parish finances are heavily dependent on the giving of parishioners. With fewer people in the pews, pastors must do more with less. Bishops have noticed the shifts in the Catholic population as well and also often need to deal with declining numbers of active diocesan priests available to serve as pastors. So many dioceses in the Northeast and Midwest have either used Canon 517.2, entrusting the pastoral care of a parish to a deacon or lay person, or have reorganized by closing, merging, and clustering parishes.

One of the findings of Catholic Parishes of the 21st Century is that parishioners in a Canon 517.2 parish or in parishes affected by the creation of a new parish are more likely than those in the typical parish to give more to their weekly collections. Parishioners give less than the parishioner in the typical parish when their community is the result of a merger, is affected by a nearby closure of a parish, or when their parish is placed in a cluster or other partnership with nearby parishes.

The typical parishioner household in the United States gives just under $10 to the weekly collection at their parish. Imagine a small parish with the regular attendance of 500 family households and 100 single parishioners. Giving, $9.43, on average, this would result in a total weekly collection of $5,658. Multiply that by 52 weeks and the grand total comes to $294,216. Parishes have other sources of revenue but this would represent a significant chunk of the annual resources.

Parish communities that are merged, affected by a nearby closure, or that have been clustered often get bigger as multiple communities are brought together in some form. Canon 517.2 parishes are typically small parishes where a priest is unavailable but there are no nearby parishes where a merger of cluster is feasible. A parish affected by the creation of a new parish may lose some of its parishioners to this new worship site or actually be this new community.

Is giving by parishioners sensitive to the size of community? It appears so. Catholic Parishes of the 21st Century does show that giving in a parish with 300 households is higher than parishes with more than 1,500 households. In the smaller parishes the average given per week is $11.63 per household ($181,428 annual total). In the largest parishes the average given per week is $7.05 per household ($549,900 annual total).

When parish reorganizations take place, the sizes of parishes change in a dioceses. These parishes should expect changes in the amounts given by parishioners, perhaps in response to perceptions of need, given the size of the community. Some may also seek to express dissatisfaction with changes and give less, while others may look to support their community more given the changes that take place. The case of the Canon 517.2 parish is interesting. In these communities, parishioners likely used to have a resident priest pastor. They may have struggled with Catholic population losses and eventually considered the possibility they might have their parish closed. The appointment of a deacon or lay person to provide the pastoral care of the parish (i.e., including arranging for priests to be available for Mass and sacraments) may be a blessing to them as they get to maintain their community. This may lead them to give more to support it.


Getting Into the Electoral College

On December 19, electors will meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President as the Electoral College. This institution was inspired, in part, by the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals. As most are now aware, the United States does not have a national popular vote for presidential elections. Instead, we’ve had multiple popular votes in the states, with Electoral College electors distributed by the size of the population in the state (which is reflected in its numbers of Congressional representatives. DC is treated as a state). The winning candidate must win a combination of states that gives them a majority of these Electoral College votes. In four elections, including 2016, the candidate winning more electors gained fewer total votes in the electorate than the candidate finishing second in the Electoral College. Is this because electors in the Electoral College are disproportionately allocated? This is part of it. Larger states tend to have a larger share of the voting eligible population (VEP) than their share of electors (see the states above the line in the figure below. Data are from Michael McDonald’s United States Elections Project). No matter how small the state, the fewest electors assigned is still three. This creates slight over-representation in small states.

The other more impactful distortion of the Electoral College is that in most states it is “winner take all.” The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, who use some smaller districts to divide up their electors. Hillary Clinton needed 26% more votes than Trump to win each of her electors. She had 269,414 votes per elector compared to Trump’s 199,976 votes per elector. Clinton also had more “wasted” votes than Trump. Because the winner in most states wins all the electors, there are many places where the votes for candidates did not result in any Electoral College gains. In all, 31.8 million people who voted for Clinton did not impact her standing in the Electoral College. This is a majority, 51%, of all her votes. By comparison, Trump’s wasted votes totaled only 20.7 million, 34% of the votes he won.

An alternative allocation method for electors could use proportional representation to assign electors and achieve Electoral College results that are more reflective of the national vote totals. Recall the smallest states have three votes. To proportionally assign electors we would likely only be able to look at the votes won by the top two candidates (i.e., using a 10% vote threshold for third party candidates). Doing so with the 2016 vote, if we use the two-candidate share of votes for both Clinton and Trump and then apply these to the number of electors in each state we can give each candidate electors in rough proportion to their share of votes won. First we allow this to occur fractionally. For example, in Alabama, Trump led Clinton in the two-candidate vote 65% (1,306,925 million votes) to 35% (718,084 votes). Alabama has nine electors. Thus, Trump would get 5.8 electors and Clinton would net 3.2. Because fractional electors are not possible we simply round to the nearest whole person. Trump six and Clinton three. This also means in California, Trump would win 19 of 55 electors. Keep doing this for each state and you get Trump winning 268 electors and Clinton winning 270—a near tie but enough for a Clinton win. But of course these are not the rules of the game that have been established and used in the United States.

As we noted in a previous post, winning the Catholic vote has long been a good indicator that a candidate will win the election. Then perhaps the Catholic population is closely aligned with the Electoral College? Not really. As you can see below, large Catholic populations are in California, Texas, and New York. As a share of all Catholics these populations are much larger than the share of electors each of these states has. On the other hand, Catholics in Florida potentially are more influential than their population size if they vote in one direction or another in large numbers.

Image courtesy of clemsonunivlibrary.


Leaving Earth?

According to physicist Stephen Hawking (a notable member of the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences), we have to figure out how to leave this planet because in the next 1,000 or so years a mass extinction event (man-made or natural) will likely end human life.

What happens when you ask people about the end of the world? CARA recently asked a national random sample of adults, “Do you believe the Earth’s demise is ultimately something we can understand and predict scientifically or something in God’s hands and therefore unpredictable?” More than six in ten believe it is in God’s hands. However, when you break that down by religious affiliation there is a big divide in opinion between Christians and those of other religious affiliations or no affiliation at all.

Only 6% of Evangelical Christians believe the Earth’s demise is something we can understand and predict scientifically. By comparison 34% of Catholics agree with this statement. At the other end of the spectrum, 82% of those without a religious affiliation (i.e., Nones) agree with the statement.

Barring divine intervention, it turns out there really are some things that are rather predictable about the possible “end of the world” in the long-term. The easiest is related to that brightest thing up in the sky we call the sun. Like any other star it has a lifespan and when it dies it will expand and take the Earth with it. The bad news is that, much earlier, in about 1 billion years it will be much hotter than it is now (regardless of any human activity) and Earth will no longer be a hospitable place for humans. With that in mind we asked Americans, “Scientists believe that in 4.5 billion years the Sun’s lifecycle will come to an end. Much earlier, in about 1 billion years, the sun will have become hotter and increased Earth’s temperature beyond a level where life, as we know it, is possible. Therefore, the long-term survival of humans may depend on space exploration and colonization. Do you believe that the destiny of human life is somewhere other than Earth or here on Earth?”

Hearing this reality, opinion is divided with 28% of adults saying human destiny is here on Earth and 27% saying this is to be found elsewhere in space. Most, 45% say they don’t know. Once again the opinion of Christians differ from others. Forty-one percent of Evangelicals believe the destiny of human life is on Earth compared to only 15% of those without a religious affiliation. Twenty-eight percent of Catholics say the destiny of human life is on Earth and 24% say it lies somewhere other than Earth (48% say they don’t know).

If Earth is doomed and human life can find a way to outlast it, then space is the place for the future. Seven in ten adults believe human exploration of space will be important (“very” or “somewhat”) in the future. Only one in ten say it is “not at all important.” Yet again, there are religious divides. Seventeen percent of Evangelicals believe space exploration to be “very” important compared to 41% of those without a religious affiliation. Thirty-six percent of Catholics believe it will be “very” important.

One might wonder why it matters if your religious affiliation is related to your views about the distant future, the ultimate demise of Earth, and space exploration. James Poulos, writing in Foreign Policy has argued, that Elon Musk, who has pledged to get humans to Mars soon, isn’t religious enough to colonize the red planet.

As you may have heard, Elon Musk (among others such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Nye), believe that reality, as we know it, may be a computer simulation. As Musk notes, “There’s a one in billions chance we’re in base reality.” What is interesting is that many of these individuals are atheists or agnostics. They believe there is no God but also think it is possible or likely that everything we know is a simulation built by a creator? Am I the only one who finds this amusing? While some Christians may be the least inclined now to explore space, they could be the most able because they are also unlikely to believe reality is a complex video game and that reaching Mars would be an achievement rather than a pre-programmed outcome. Poulos writes, “Musk, and his Silicon Valley backers, are right that humanity’s destiny might be to extend life to other planets. But Musk’s seeming belief that we’re already stuck in a simulated world leaves only dubious reasons to endorse his understanding of what destiny means — and who ought to fulfill it.”

In the bleakness of space or the harsh environment of another planet, believing in a creator and an afterlife just might be what space explorers would need to be successful. On the other hand, as we have explored before, practicing religion in space will not be easy. “Do not go gentle into that good night...”

About the CARA Catholic Poll (CCP)
CARA partnered with GfK Custom Research (formerly Knowledge Networks) to conduct the survey. Interviews were conducted with 1,927 respondents between May 16 and May 26, 2016. The primary sample includes 1,010 self-identified Catholics (margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points). Additionally, 917 non-Catholics were interviewed. Of the non-Catholics, 311 are Evangelical Christians (margin of error of ±5.6 percentage points). Another 357 have some other Christian affiliation (margin of error of ±5.2 percentage points). A total of 76 had some other non-Christian affiliation (margin of error of ±11.2 percentage points) and 167 had no religious affiliation (margin of error of ±7.6 percentage points). Six respondents declined to state a religious affiliation. Statistical weights, created by GfK, are used to approximate the results for the U.S. adult population.

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

© 2009-2015 CARA, Mark M. Gray. Background image courtesy of muohace_dc.