Santa Claus: To believe or not to believe?

It’s seems odd how troubling Santa Claus has become. Among religious and non-religious alike there are those who second guess, for various reasons (e.g., secularism, commercialism, honesty), whether Santa should be “invited” over for Christmas in the 21st century.

I can remember my two childhood confrontations with faith in Santa in the 1970s (before you could Google any doubts). I can’t remember the precise age but I can recall pushing my bed to a window overlooking another house. I tried to stay up until I saw him and his sleigh land on their roof. Without ready access to caffeine I failed. The next Christmas I set out a pen, paper, and inkpad with the milk and cookies and requested Santa’s autograph and a stamp of Rudolph’s hoof. It was my first real try at data collection. My handwriting analysis was inconclusive but I did know, even at that age, the difference between a beagle’s paw print and a reindeer’s hoof. But maybe Santa was in a hurry and my dog was nearby? (Others have had more success at collecting evidence).

Santa is certainly no St. Nicholas and whether one is Christian or not there was a time not long ago when most American children believed in him. Eighty six percent of Americans in the most recent survey asking such a question (…that I can analyze) said they believed in Santa as a child. This is highest among Catholics at 94%. Even most non-Christians and the currently unaffiliated (…”Nones” who may have been religious earlier in life) say they believed in their youth.

If you’re a parent you may be asking yourself does my child believe or are they just pretending to believe? If kids today are anything like we were in our youth they will likely begin to have doubts around age 10—the most frequently noted age for this. Nearly half of adult Catholics (48%) who believed in Santa say they stopped believing in the jolly old man before age 9. Overall, for American adults of all faiths, only about 2% of those raised to believe in Santa continue to believe in him as an adult (...comparatively speaking not a good “retention” rate). 

Even as very few believe as adults, six in ten Catholics (61 percent) say Santa Claus is still “somewhat” or “very” important to their holiday celebrations now as adults—more so than any other affiliation group. Minorities of Evangelical and Mainline Protestants say Santa is at least “somewhat” important to them this time of year. Some may find it surprising then that majorities of those who are of other religions or who have no affiliation say Santa is “somewhat” or “very” important to them. 

Is there an Evangelical Protestant “war” on Santa that I have been unaware of? A majority of Evangelical Protestants (55%) also agreed that the Santa Claus tradition detracts from the religious significance of the Christmas holiday. Fewer Catholics (47%) and Mainline Protestants (43%) agreed that this is the case. 

The Associated Press replicated the childhood belief in Santa question in December 2011. Data are not yet available for public analysis but the topline results are essentially the same at 84%. The earliest poll I can find that asked this question was conducted by ABC News in 1993. Here childhood belief stood at 86%. So belief in Santa seems quite stable. You still need to bake the cookies and put out the milk (or hot buttered rum). You never know…

Photo above courtesy of Bart Fields from Flickr Commons.

Tracking Changes… Accepted?

In August 2011, CARA released results of a survey that showed only about one in four adult Catholics and nearly six in ten of those who attend Mass weekly were aware of the changes to the English-language liturgy that would begin during Advent 2011. Now more than a year later, CARA has revisited the revisions to the Mass in a new survey that replicated some of the questions we asked in 2011. As far as I am aware this is the only “pre and post” national data examining Catholic reactions to changes in the liturgy (although note that these surveys use two different random samples, the same individuals were not interviewed in both polls). CARA conducted this research for Rev. Anthony J. Pogorelc, S.S., M.Div., Ph.D at the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America. He constructed the framework and questions and has presented the results for the study at the annual meetings of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Religious Research Association in Phoenix on November 9. Here is some of what we found…

In September 2012, nearly a year after the changes took effect, seven in ten U.S. adult self-identified Catholics agree that the new translation of the Mass is a good thing (with 20 percent agreeing “strongly”). Nearly a quarter “disagree” (23 percent) and 7 percent “strongly” disagree with this statement.

Catholics who attend Mass weekly are among the most likely to agree that the new translation of the Mass is a good thing. Eighty-four percent responded as such (47 percent “strongly” agree with this statement). By comparison, 63 percent of those who rarely or never attend Mass agree with this statement (only 4 percent “strongly” agree).

 

Regular Mass attendance levels remained the same in the 2012 survey compared to 2011 with both polls estimating that about a quarter of adult Catholics (24 percent) attend Mass weekly or more often (weekly Mass attendance levels of have been steady since 2000). However, there was a slight decline in the total percentage of Catholics saying they attend Mass monthly (i.e., once a month or a few times a month) from 25 percent in 2011 to 19 percent in 2012. However, this difference is just within the surveys’ margins of sampling error and thus may be due to random variations between two samples. CARA will continue to track Mass attendance in its polls to see if a new pattern is emerging. It is also the case that there have been no statistically significant changes in the numbers of Americans who self-identify as Catholic in the last year either. Thus, there was no identifiable exodus from the Church that could be related to the changes in the liturgy.

Respondents in the 2012 poll were asked, “During an average Mass, would you say that you have noticed that the language of the prayers that are said during Mass have (1) remained about the same, (2) changed to a small extent, (3) changed to a moderate extent, or (4) changed to a great extent?” Four in ten respondents (40 percent) said they had noticed the language of these prayers had changed to a small extent and 23 percent said these had changed to a moderate extent. Only 6 percent said they noticed changes to a great extent and 31 percent said that the language of these prayers had remained about the same as far as they noticed. Those who have perceived less change are those most likely to agree that the new translation is a good thing. Among those who feel the language was changed “to a great extent,” a majority disagree that the new translation is a good thing (65 percent). However, this group makes up only a small number of respondents (6 percent).

 

A series of agree or disagree questions were asked of respondents in both the 2011 and 2012 surveys. These are compared in the table below which shows the 2012 results and the percentage point change in agreement from 2011.

 

Respondents were less likely to agree with all statements in 2012 than in the 2011 survey. However, in most cases, the differences between the surveys is within the margin of sampling error. In one instance, respondents are discernibly less likely to agree at least “somewhat” with the statement: “The words of the prayers recited by the priest and people make it easier for me to participate in the Mass” (79 percent in 2012 compared to 86 percent in 2011). This shift may represent the learning curve some Catholics have experienced with the revisions.

Catholics who attend Mass more frequently are more likely to agree with all four of the statements regarding the Mass in 2012. It is also the case that among weekly Mass attenders there are no significant differences in responses to these questions between 2012 and 2011.

 

If there is one note of caution for the future in the data it is in generational differences. As shown in the figure below, Millennials (adults born after 1981) are more likely than older Catholics to “disagree” that the new translation is a good thing and less likely to “strongly” agree with that statement. These differences are beyond margin of sampling error. At the same time it is also the case that significant majorities in each generation agree with that the translation is a good thing.

 

The 2012 survey was completed by 1,047 self-identified Catholics who were 18 years of age or older resulting in an overall sampling margin of error of ±3.0 percentage points. Sixty-seven percent of the GfK Custom Research (formerly Knowledge Networks) panel members invited to take the survey completed it. The survey was in the field from September 10 to September 18, 2012. The 2011 survey included 1,239 self-identified Catholics who were 18 years of age or older resulting in a sampling margin of error of ±2.8 percentage points. Fifty-seven percent of the Knowledge Networks panel members invited to take the survey completed it.

…On an unrelated note I apologize for having been on a mini-sabbatical from the blog of late with work, travel, and even a bit of vacation. I spent Election Day in Disneyland, which I hear may have been more of a “real” experience than watching what could be seen on MSNBC or Fox News that evening (...or thereafter)! Glad to see some voices recently calling out these networks for what they are (Wash Post, Huff Post, NY Times). I'll have more analysis of the changing Catholic electorate and a bunch of new CARA data on other topics to post here so be warned that the blog may take on a bit of an Advent calendar quality in the days ahead.

Were U.S. Catholics Raptured? ... Again?

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released The 2012 American Values Study last week, which looks at religious affiliation and election issues among those of different affiliations. The second line of the Executive Summary was a surprise:

“While Catholics and white mainline Protestants remain two of the largest religious groups in the United States, they have each experienced significant declines in membership.” [emphasis added]

There are fewer Catholics in the United States now than in the past? When was the population ever higher? The claim in the PRRI report is incorrect. As I understand it, this may have just been a poor choice of words rather than something that the PRRI researchers literally intended to say or believed. Regardless, it is the kind of thing that gets picked up and then repeated in error by a religion reporter (example). Then your pastor reads it and puts it in a homily. Your great aunt posts it on Facebook. Before you know it this suddenly becomes "conventional wisdom."

It is true that Catholicism, like all religious affiliations, does not retain all of those raised in the faith (although the Church's retention rate is higher than many others) but that does not mean that the overall number of Americans self-identifying as Catholic is in decline. Just look at the unaffiliated, the fastest growing (non)affiliation which loses more of it's youth (as they later become religiously affiliated), as a percentage, than the Catholic Church or any other major religious group (i.e., retention rates reported on pg. 9 of the PRRI report). PRRI researchers seem to have similarly relied on only part of the "ledger" of affiliation in that second line of the Executive Summary. Your bank account would likely have "significant declines in its balance" if you similarly did not pay close attention to how and when all deposits are made. The PRRI researchers later in the report provide a bit of a qualification:

“[T]he Catholic share of the U.S. population has remained relatively stable, despite losing a significant number of adherents (12%) and attracting relatively few converts from other religions (2%). The primary explanation for this paradox is an influx of Catholic immigrants, mostly from central and South America.” [emphasis added]

This already has become a classic of "conventional wisdom" in commentary on Catholic affiliation. You know, the Catholic Church is "hemorrhaging" members and their places are being filled by immigrants. Yet researchers rarely present data or do the simple math that would provide any evidence for how much immigration plays a part in the population dynamics. It just "has to be true." I have responded to different aspects of claims of membership decline and the effects of immigration in the past (1, 2, 3, 4) but I'll try to be more clear and present new data to show that this notion just does not add up the way it is imagined. It won't stop people from claiming this but maybe your great aunt will discover this post in a Google search and I can save her from making a misleading Facebook post. I try to do my part.

The figure below includes three of the highest quality long-term series of surveys that we have to study religious change over time (...and you need a "moving picture" to do this. A one-survey snapshot is insufficient. Some knowledge of demography and attention to how religious affiliation varies over the life-cycle is also important). The first is Gallup’s religious affiliation data (details). In Gallup's 2011 surveys, Catholic affiliation among U.S. adults was estimated to be 23%. In its first observation of the series, in 1948, Gallup measured Catholic affiliation at 22%. For the series overall, this averages 25%. The second source is the American National Election Study (ANES). This survey’s sample (details) is based on citizens so if immigration is so important to maintaining the stability of the Catholic population percentage we should see a big drop in Catholic affiliation here. From 1948 to 2010 the Catholic share of respondents in this survey averaged 23% with 21% self-identifying as such in 1948 and 19% self-identifying as such in 2008 (the most recent data point for the ANES. Another will be released in a few months). The final series (details) has a shorter range. This is the General Social Survey (GSS) which began in 1972. Here, Catholic affiliation has averaged 26% for the series with an initial observation in 1972 of 25% and the most recent observation in 2010 of 25%.  

Differences within all three series are generally within margins of error. You'll find recent survey estimates for the adult Catholic resident population percentage typically ranging anywhere from 20% to 26% with occasional outliers in either direction. Taking any one of these surveys within this range and assuming that it is showing a decline or an increase would be bad science. Margin of error really does matter (more on this below). Thus, each of the three historical trends represent the stability that you can see in the figure below. The black line running through the figure represents a triangulated aggregation (by average) of these three Catholic population estimates. This smooths out some of the random variations (i.e., sampling error and occasional outliers) in each source and provides a more reliable estimate than relying on any one source.

Of course a stable Catholic population percentage amidst a growing U.S. population means that the absolute number of adults self-identifying as Catholic over time is increasing. Even a decline in the population percentage does not always result in a decline in the actual population. A sub-group population can still be growing and adding net positive members but fail to grow as fast as the overall population and thus lose a percentage point or more. Below I will isolate changes since 1980, which coincides with the beginning of the most recent wave of immigration the U.S. has experienced. If immigration is the only thing "holding up" the Catholic population we should definitely see it clearly in the post-1980 period.

The U.S. Census Bureau provides population estimates by year and by age group for the United States (and other countries) in a publicly accessible database (details). I collected adult population totals (those ages 18 and older) from 1980 and 2011 and multiplied each annual total by the aggregated Catholic population percentage for each year from the figure above. This results in the trend you can see below. Don't make too much of the sharp waves in the figure as these represent fluctuations within the margin of error from the surveys measuring Catholic affiliation. With these data the adult Catholic population, as measured by self-affiliation, is estimated to have grown by 32 percent from 41.3 million in 1980 to 54.7 million in 2011. It is not possible to measure the change in the under-18 Catholic population. However, The Official Catholic Directory records 30.4 million infant and child baptisms between 1980 and 2011 with 17.8 million of these occurring since 1993 which are not yet "visible" to national polls that almost always use adult samples. Some of those baptized will no longer affiliate themselves as Catholic later in life as we know that a good chunk of those leaving the Church do so in their youth. Some return when they are older as "reverts." These reverts, as I will explain below, are an important part of the story of how the Catholic population percentage has maintained stability.

How much of this increase in affiliation is related to immigration? Another question frequently asked in surveys is country of birth and parents' country of birth. Below, I use these from the GSS and Pew's Social and Demographic Trends survey for 2011 to estimate the impact of immigration (Note: the GSS is not fielded every year and in recent years shifted to being done every other year. With the exception of 2011, I have interpolated any other missing year using data from the neighboring years. This is a reasonable method as the distribution for place of birth does not shift annually in the aggregate like attitudes can). The figure below breaks out the adult Catholic population into three stacked groups. The first are those born in the U.S. to native-born parents. The second are those born in the U.S. who have one or both parents born outside the U.S. The final group includes all those who are foreign-born.

The adult Catholic population born in the United States to native-born parents grew by 24% from 1980 to 2011 from 27.4 million to 34.1 million. This population is not in decline as many assume and continues to make up a majority of the U.S. adult Catholic population. The number of U.S. adult Catholics who are foreign-born or native-born children of at least one foreign-born parent grew from 13.9 million in 1980 to 20.6 million in 2011. This represents a 48% growth rate. Not all of this growth is directly related to immigration and some of this is linked to differences in fertility rates. For example, the 2011 birth rate (i.e., births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44) for Hispanic females was 17.5 compared to 10.8 for non-Hispanic white females. It is clear from the figure below that the Catholic population has gained some membership through immigration and the children of immigrants throughout the period (it should also be noted this statement would be true for most of American history in regards to Catholics and for some other religions in recent decades as well—including Nones. With native-born fertility rates falling below replacement, there are a variety of groups that now grow primarily through a combination of immigration and generational replacement). However, it is also the case that this growth is insufficient to explain the whole "paradox." More interestingly the percentage of adult Catholics indicating that they were born outside the U.S. is now in decline (since 2007) and the adult Catholic population percentage has continued to remain stable. This has occurred as immigration rates from Mexico have collapsed (1, 2).

The figure below shows the breakdown of the adult Catholic population by place of birth in 2011. About a quarter of adult Catholics (24%) are foreign-born representing 13.1 million individuals. This is up from 10% of Catholics being foreign-born in 1980. This is certainly part of the Catholic population growth story but it is also clearly not the only story or perhaps even the biggest story in the numbers. In 1980, 66% of adult Catholics were born in the United States to native-born parents. In 2011, this segment consisted of 62% of adult Catholics.

Also of interest is the declining numbers of Catholic adults who report that they are a child of a foreign-born parent(s) (i.e., 23% in 1980 and 14% in 2011). This may represent those who were children of the last waves of European immigration from the early 20th century passing away. The figure below shows how the proportion each group adds up to the total Catholic population percentage (i.e., summing the numbers equates the U.S. adult Catholic population percentage that was 23% in 2011. Note that the PRRI measurement of 22% is not statistically different from 2011). You can see there is a declining percentage for native-born Catholics due to their slower growth rate, but again the numbers of these individuals is growing in the aggregate population as shown above.

Immigration has contributed to the stability of the Catholic population percentage, as shown above, but not nearly to the degree argued by many (...Pew's 2007 data shows specifically that there are not enough foreign-born Catholics in the population to make up for the numbers of native-born Catholics who are estimated to have left. These data also document that a sizeable number of those who have left Catholicism are foreign-born. Note there is a difference between the results in Pew's report and what one can find in the data that are publicly available. No researcher is ever able to include a completely comprehensive analysis of their data in a single report). Thus, on the second statement highlighted above, I believe PRRI is simply putting too much emphasis on foreign-born Catholics to solve the paradox (...and they certainly are not alone in doing so). At the same time, I will reiterate that the PRRI statement is absolutely factually incorrect in claiming that the Catholic Church in the United States has experienced a decline in members (...even if one wanted to stretch to a "decline" in parish registration this would still be inaccurate as many young Catholics and Hispanic Catholics do not register but are still attending Mass with some regularity. We know this at CARA because we have surveyed more than 385,000 Catholics in-pew, during Mass to date). It is also incorrect when others make the assumption that there are fewer native-born Catholic adults with native-born Catholic parents now than in the past and that this group is declining in number (...someone let Robert Putnam know).

So what makes up the difference? Most pollsters don't think much about demography and seem to forget that there is an important population that is not often in our view. Polls are generally done with adults ages 18 and older. Here lies some of the briefly "disappearing Catholics." Consistent with CARA's own surveys, Pew notes that "Almost half of Catholics who are now unaffiliated (48%) left Catholicism before reaching age 18" (i.e., before they ever enter the population we regularly survey). Notice that PRRI estimates that those raised Catholic are equivalent to 31% percent of the population (p. 9) and Pew similarly estimates this to be 31.4% (p. 26 of the Religious Landscape report). Yet, as shown previously, the Catholic population percentage has never actually been 31% since the 1940s (...or in any earlier period of U.S. history). Some insight into teen religious affiliation can be seen in a recent CARA study. We conducted a national survey including an over-sample of 677 teens, ages 14 to 17, in Catholic households. Their Catholic parent(s) provided permission for their children to respond. Of this group CARA found that 174 or 26% did not self-identify as Catholic even though their parent(s) do and presumably some are unaware of a change in their child's affiliation. Many of the teens who leave their childhood religion grow up and continue to have no affiliation or join another faith. But as noted previously some come back to the Catholic Church later in their lives as "reverts" or returned Catholics (...and this is nothing new as Hoge et al. wrote about the topic in 1981). The complete solution to the "paradox" of the stable Catholic population percentage is a combination of immigration and fertility effects along with minors raised in the faith who leave as teens and later return to the faith most often in their 30s and 40s.

To better understand the revert process in more depth one would need a panel study which includes children or teens who are interviewed in their youth and again at later points in their life as adults. These surveys exist but it is unlikely that many include a religious affiliation question. If the U.S. Census asked religious affiliation this would also help us understand these life-cycle changes as well.

We do know reverts are in the Catholic population and in the pews. They tell us so when we ask. CARA surveys estimate there are more than 5 million Catholic reverts nationally (i.e., equivalent to 9% of all adult Catholics). PRRI or Pew don't "see" them because the structure of their questions do not allow them to. Both have asked for a respondent's current affiliation and the affiliation they were raised in. If I grew up in a Catholic household, stopped affiliating as such for a time, and later came back I would look like a "cradle Catholic" in their polls even though I had "switched" out for a time. Also there are many who were raised Catholic but who are now unaffiliated (leaving as minors) who will return to the Church in the future contributing to growth of the adult population (i.e., if history continues to repeat itself... and it may not. If it doesn't the Catholic population will likely be in decline).

We can see reverts in other Catholic populations as well. For example, Ireland asks about religion in its census. This is broken down by cohort in the table below across 20 years. The first row of the table isolates the cohort born between 1987 and 1991 who were under 5 in 1991. We can follow this group ten years later seeing their numbers when they aged 10 to 14 and finally can examine their population total when they are 20 to 24. The first four cohorts including those under 40 are all showing a decline in population. But then we see growth in the next three cohorts among those who are currently ages 40 to 54. Each cohort is lowest in numbers when they are in the 20 to 29 age range. The same thing happening again and again in the same way (i.e., unlikely to be related to something like changing patterns of immigration). Each experiences growth from their 20s into their 30s. For example, the cohort born between 1972 and 1981 showed losses as they reached their 20s and growth moving into their 30s. It's hasn't yet been enough growth to wipe out the losses from the 20s, but if this group is anything like those born 1962 to 1971 they should be back in positive territory in 2021 in their 40s.

So if life-cycle effects are so important to explaining how the U.S. Catholic population percentage remains stable and how the U.S. Catholic population continues to grow, why isn't this a part of "conventional wisdom" yet? In part because I don't think there are many people who want to hear it. Most religion reporters ignore research that indicates growth in or satisfaction with the Catholic Church. For example, Pew did a study in August that showed "large majorities of Catholics are satisfied with Church leaders." Oh you didn't hear about that? Even within the Church many don't want to hear it. Both "progressive" and "traditional" Catholics want to be able to argue that the Church is losing members and can only regain them by urgently doing __________. Many would like to continue believing the Church is hemorrhaging members and that Mass attendance is declining even though neither of these claims can be found in the data (the Mass attendance trend can be seen here). Reality marches on whether we pay attention or not...

A final note... PRRI did not provide much information in the report about margin of error and statistical significance other than the overall N and margin of error. This N is printed under every figure even though this cannot be reflective of some of these (e.g., anything summarizing results for likely voters). I estimated my own sub-group margins of error for the report (here). There are several findings in the study where I really wonder about statistical significance. For example, the researchers really had to stretch the data thin to get to likely voters by religion and race and ethnicity. When a national random sample survey has 3,003 interviews it is difficult to drill down to the levels this report tries to get to without having to deal with very large margins of error. At the same time, I will note that this practice is not uncommon among some pollsters and social scientists (...it just makes it more difficult for readers to parse out the most meaningful findings). For example, the 2006 Faith Matters survey used by Robert Putnam and David Campbell in American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us includes a sample of only 212 Hispanic Catholics (sub-group Ns and margins of error were not published in the book). There was a lot made of differences between Hispanic Catholics and non-Hispanic Catholics in that book based on very few interviews and readers were never made aware of this (...I have noted my skepticism of some of their findings previously). 

I think any research organization that is releasing data that they intend to be read by the media and disseminated to the public needs to be very careful about what is put into print. Saying the the Catholic population has declined significantly is going to be something that catches the eye of religion reporters and regurgitated. When that statement is false and people are misled, even when it is unintentional, it can't effectively be "pulled back." Reporters don't write a new story and even if they issue corrections these receive little notice. Similarly I think it is important that researchers provide some context of differences and changes that are statistically significant and those that are not. Reporters and the public tend to take even the slightest differences within polling far too literally. Science is about helping people understand the realities of this world. We shouldn't cloud this with results that are incorrect or insignificant.

Photo above courtesy of Patrick Gage from Flickr Commons. 

Millions of Never-Married Catholics Have Considered Vocations

We've focused on Catholics' consideration of vocations before. But we've never had a whole survey devoted to the topic... until now. In winter 2012, the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned CARA to conduct a national poll of never-married Catholics ages 14 and older regarding their consideration of a vocation. CARA partnered with GfK Custom Research (formerly Knowledge Networks) to conduct the survey in May and June 2012. The survey was completed by 1,428 respondents (resulting in a margin of sampling error of ±2.6 percentage points).

The study, available online now, has many surprises. Although many speak of priest shortages and steep declines in the number of men and women religious, the survey reveals that there is no shortage of individuals who seriously consider these vocations among never-married Catholics in the United States. Three percent of men say they have "very seriously" considered becoming a priest or religious brother and 2 percent of women indicate they have "very seriously" considered becoming a religious sister. This is equivalent to 352,800 never-married men and 254,800 never-married women. Millions of never-married Catholics are estimated to have considered these vocations at least "a little seriously" based on the survey results.

This study identifies subgroups in the never-married Catholic population—including teens and adults—and compares those who have considered a vocation at least "a little seriously" to those who say they have not considered this or who say they did so, but not seriously. Overall, 12 percent of male respondents say they considered becoming a priest or brother at least a little seriously. Ten percent of female respondents say they considered becoming a religious sister at least a little seriously. The subgroups that are especially likely to have considered a vocation include:

• Weekly Mass attenders (now and in high school)
• Those who attended Catholic educational institutions at any level (excluding parish-based religious education)
• Those who participated in Church-related groups, programs, or activities as a youth or young adult
• Those who lived in households where parents talked to them about religion at least once a week
• Those who say their faith is the most important part of their life (now and in high school)
• Those who participate in prayer and devotional activities, groups, or programs (e.g., Bible study, Eucharistic adoration, retreats, or prayer groups)
• Those who pray the rosary at least weekly (alone or in a group)
• Those belonging to a group that encourages devotion to Mary
• Those who were encouraged to consider a vocation by someone else (e.g., family, friends, clergy, religious)
• Those who regularly read the Bible or pray with Scripture
• Those who personally know priests and men and women religious (in their extended family or outside of it)
• Those who have participated in parish ministry (e.g., Lectors, Ministers of Holy Communion, Youth Ministers)
• Those who have participated in World Youth Day or a National Catholic Youth Conference
• Those who have recently accessed religious and spiritual content in traditional or new media

The study utilizes a form of regression analysis to sort through these different influences (and more) to isolate those that are most important and influential. 

Consideration of Becoming a Priest or Religious Brother among Men
Among male respondents, after controlling for all other factors, those who attended a Catholic secondary school (grades 9-12) are more likely to have considered becoming a priest or religious brother. Compared to those who did not attend a Catholic secondary school, these respondents are more than six times as likely to have considered a vocation. Participation in a parish youth group during primary school years (grades K-8) is also strongly related to vocational consideration. These respondents are more than five times as likely to consider a becoming a priest or religious brother than those who did not participate in a parish youth group. Given that 75 percent of male respondents who have considered a vocation report that they first did so when they were 18 or younger, these two results provide some of the strongest evidence of a possible causal effect.

Encouragement from others is also important. Respondents who have one person encouraging them are nearly twice as likely to consider a vocation as those who are not encouraged. Each additional person encouraging these respondents increases the likelihood of consideration. The effect is additive. Respondents who had three persons encourage them would be expected to be more than five times more likely to consider a vocation than someone who was not encouraged by anyone.

Knowing someone who has become a priest, religious sister or brother, or seminarian also has a positive effect. Respondents who personally know one of these individuals are more than one and a half times more likely than someone who does not to consider a vocation themselves. This effect is also additive and knowing more of these individuals would be expected to increase the likelihood of a respondent considering a vocation.

Attendance at World Youth Day or at a National Catholic Youth Conference has a positive effect for male consideration of a vocation. Those who attended either of these events are more than four times as likely as those who have not to say they have considered becoming a priest or brother.

Finally, those who have recently used traditional media (television, radio, print) to access content about religion or spirituality in the 12 months prior to the survey are more likely than those who did not to say they have considered a vocation. Note however, that this media use in most cases occurred well after their initial consideration. Thus, what this more likely demonstrates is that people who have considered a vocation are more likely than those who have not to use traditional media to currently follow religion and spirituality content. Those who have used one type of traditional media in the last year are nearly twice as likely to say they have considered a vocation than those who have not used these media recently. The effect is additive, so use of two or three traditional media to access religious or spiritual content is associated with an even greater likelihood of vocational consideration. This finding is potentially useful in understanding how male never-married Catholics who have considered becoming a priest or religious brother can be reached now.

Note that neither generation nor race and ethnicity are statistically significant in the full model. Thus, there is nothing about a person’s age or race and ethnicity that are associated with lower or higher likelihoods of consideration, controlling for all other factors. Any disproportionality in the race and ethnicity of men who decide to become priests or religious brothers are in part likely to be related to being less likely to attend Catholic schools or to be involved in youth groups, comparatively lower levels of encouragement, or not personally knowing clergy or religious. This could also be related to factors that are important after consideration of a vocation is made by individuals, such as meeting requirements for entry into a formation program.

Consideration of Becoming a Religious Sister among Women
Among female respondents, the model predicting consideration of becoming a religious sister includes many parallel results to the model for male respondents. 

Whereas secondary school is important for male vocational consideration, it is attendance at a Catholic primary school which is important for female vocational consideration. Female respondents who attended a Catholic primary school are more than three times as likely as those who did not to consider becoming a religious sister. Parish youth group participation is also important for female respondents. However, unlike males, it is participation during high school years rather than primary school years that has an effect. Women who participated in a parish youth group during these teen years are more than nine times as likely to consider becoming a religious sister.

Similar to male respondents, encouragement is also a positive factor. With nearly the same effect as is demonstrated among men, women are nearly twice as likely to consider a vocation when encouraged by another person to do so.

Also parallel to men, women who have used traditional media in the last year to consume or follow religious or spiritual content are more likely than those who do not to say they have considered a vocation.

Among the adults surveyed (excluding those ages 14 to 17 in the sample) who say they have considered a vocation, most report that they did so between the ages of 13 and 24. Additionally, one in four Catholic females who have considered becoming a religious sister did so before they were a teenager. 

Although most Catholics who are becoming priests, religious brothers, or religious sisters now are typically in their 30s or even older, it is likely that the roots of these vocations were established in their teen years or even earlier.

In Their Own Words
Respondents who said they had never considered a vocation were asked in an open ended question, “Why do you think you have never considered this?” Their responses to this question were coded into categories based on their content.

Among male respondents who have never considered a vocation as a priest or religious brother, the most common responses to the question were related to a general lack of interest (39 percent), celibacy (18 percent), not having a calling to seek a vocation (8 percent), having other life goals (8 percent), and having some doubts about their faith or not feeling religious enough to seek a vocation (8 percent). One percent of comments referenced the issue of sexual abuse of minors by clergy.

Among female respondents who have never considered a vocation as a religious sister, the most common responses were related to a general lack of interest (31 percent), celibacy (16 percent), not having a calling to seek a vocation (11 percent), discomfort with the lifestyle they would need to adopt (10 percent), and having some doubts about their faith or not feeling religious enough to seek a vocation (9 percent).

Twenty Years of Change and Stability: Lay Ecclesial Ministers in the U.S. Church

In August, CARA released a report profiling the demography, background, and views of the people who work for or who are volunteers in U.S. Catholic parishes as part of the Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership study. A revised version of that report is now available including breakdowns of the data specific to Lay Ecclesial Ministers (LEM). These are vowed religious and other lay people who are in parish ministry for 20 hours or more per week (most often paid and most often having had some form of professional training. Visit here for more about the background of lay ecclesial ministry).

The first national profile of LEMs was published in 1992 by Philip J. Murnion and was followed in 1997 by a study conducted by Murnion and David DeLambo. The latter author replicated these studies again in 2005 and CARA and Emerging Models released a new update for 2011 and 2012. There is a lot in the revised report linked above about how LEMs view their parish and their ministry. However, across the Emerging Models studies there is not a table that allows one easily to compare LEMs to the earlier Murnion and DeLambo data. But there is now one provided below:

The number of LEMs has grown by more than 16,000 in the last two decades (+76%) and these ministers now total nearly 38,000. The gender make-up of LEMs has been quite stable over time and most LEMs are female. However, there has been a big shift in how many are religious sisters. Two decades ago more than four in ten LEMs were vowed religious (mostly religious sisters with a small number of brothers serving in this capacity as well). Now, only 14 percent are religious sisters or brothers. 

One effect of this shift is that the percentage of LEMs with graduate or professional degrees has dipped slightly in the past decade (53% in 1992 to 46% now). The median age has dropped as well (58 in 1992 and 55 now). LEMs have also become more racially and ethnically diverse. About one in ten in 2012 self-identify as Hispanic or Latino.  

There are other interesting nuggets in the new data that cannot be compared cross-time with the earlier studies. For example, the median annual salary reported by paid LEMs is $35,000 compared to $28,000 for all others in paid ministry or service to a parish. Eight in ten LEMs (79%) say they are either "somewhat" or "very much" satisfied with their ministry wages or salary. Most LEMs are living in households with others earning incomes or they are working second jobs themselves (20% have other non-ministry employment outside the parish). Two-thirds (64%) live in households with a combined income of at least $55,000.

On average, LEMs work more than 40 hours per week in their parish and one in four (24%) agree "very much" that they often feel overworked. Half of LEMs say their overall satisfaction with their parish is "excellent" and 42% say this is "good."

Sixty-one percent of LEMs agree "somewhat" or "very much" that they wanted to be involved in parish ministry when they were growing up. Six in ten (60%) attended a Catholic primary school (K-8), 47% went to a Catholic high school, and 58% have attended a Catholic college, university, or seminary. Eight in ten (79%) entered ministry to be of service to the Church. Three in four (73%) say they did so answering God's call. Nine in ten (89%) agree "very much" that their ministry is a vocation and not just a job.

Spot the difference...

Recently I was contacted several times by a reporter at The Economist for some data. I’ve always felt that this is one of the last few intelligent magazines on the racks. But I also recall being concerned after speaking to this reporter and thinking, “he doesn’t quite get the Church.” He seemed stunned to find out that the Catholic Church in the United States doesn’t have a neat and tidy set of financials done annually. He felt the Church should be doing what any multinational corporation would do. I kept telling him the Church is not Walmart.

I just read the story in this week’s Economist and it has shaken my opinion of the publication a bit. I’m not concerned about any anti-Catholic “bias” or the rehashing of the financial fallout of the sex abuse crisis or diocesan bankruptcies. Instead I am concerned about the lack of understanding of what the Church is as an institution in the piece. Here’s a taste:

“[T]he finances of the Catholic church in America are an unholy mess. … The church’s finances look poorly co-ordinated.”

“[T]here are now over 6,800 Catholic schools (5% of the national total); 630 hospitals (11%) plus a similar number of smaller health facilities; and 244 colleges and universities. … All these institutions are subject to the oversight of a bishop or a religious order. The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). … For purposes of secular comparison, in 2010 General Electric’s revenue was $150 billion and Walmart employed roughly 2m people.”

“Where that money comes from is hard to say (the church does not release numbers on this either). Some of it is from the offerings of the faithful. Anecdotal evidence suggests that America’s Catholics give about $10 per week on average. Assuming that one-third attend church regularly, that would put the annual offertory income at around $13 billion.”

I am guessing The Economist does not have a copy of the Code of Canon Law. Even a glancing read of the Code would have revealed that the Church is quite clearly not run like a multinational corporation such as Walmart or General Electric and I for one am glad it’s not. The sole objective of the modern corporation is to extract and grow profits and in doing so it creates economic growth, wealth, and products and services we desire. But it sadly has no capacity for social justice. Even if a corporate CEO did devote corporate resources for a “good cause” shareholders could sue for neglect of fiduciary responsibility. As many Americans have learned in the last four years of recession and recovery, the modern corporation is no paragon of transparency and ethics (…as a great documentary, The Corporation, demonstrates these institutions really are “people” under the law. The kind of people that would likely be diagnosed as psychopaths using The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

Why don’t the people and institutions that make up the Church in the United States take the time to communicate their budgets and revenue together in an annual hierarchical manner so the Church can produce a financial report that The Economist needs for its story? Because it would be an extraordinary waste of the Church’s resources and time. The Church is not in the business of generating profits like a corporation. It provides ministry, charity, and service to the communities it exists in. It also has no legal obligation to provide what The Economist desires.

As an institution, the Church is nearly 2,000 years old and its structure was fashioned well before modern communication. This reality required significant local autonomy. Priests were responsible for parishes, bishops for dioceses. This same feudal-like structure persists. Add on to this the development of colleges, schools, hospitals, and charities that were often associated with religious orders. Separate aspects of the Church operate for the most part independently—with their own leadership, budgets, revenues, and obligations (perhaps some of the frustration from The Economist comes from the realization that financials do exist for each of these institutions and organizations but it would take forever to collect and tally them all).

I hate to break this to The Economist but there is no “U.S. Catholic Church.” However, one of the best descriptions of all that is the Church in the United States can be found in The Official Catholic Directory. If you are listed in it you are an official part of the Church and you are tax exempt. CARA and Georgetown University are in the OCD under the Archdiocese of Washington. However, we don’t share our financials with Cardinal Wuerl (...we have annual audits and answer to a Board of Directors). He in no way dictates day to day operations nor does he have any direct administrative role. Yet he is, importantly, the pastoral leader of all Catholic entities in the Archdiocese.

What The Economist doesn’t appear to get is that the institutions of the Church are incredibly decentralized—operating as individual entities under the pastoral umbrella of the Church. The pope is not a CEO sitting in the Vatican with a big map saying “build a parish here, a hospital here, and close that school over there.” Yet this is what The Economist wants the Church to be (maybe they’ve watched The Da Vinci Code a few too many times?). Throughout The Economist’s story there is an underlying tone or belief by the reporter that the Church has this information but is withholding it—“the Church does not release such figures.”  The reporter fails to understand that the Church does not have these figures (e.g., aggregated annual spending by all entities of the Church, all donations to Church entities) because it has no apparatus to collect them.

The little data collection that does go on in the Church broadly (e.g., the Vatican's Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae or Annuario Pontificio) is related to what the Church does—it’s about ministry (i.e., numbers of baptisms, marriages, ordinations). I understand the natural skepticism and cynicism of The Economist but I can also attest that if you want to get rich, working for the Church would be a lousy idea. The $10 per week, on average, given by parishioner families is just enough to keep the lights on in most U.S. parishes. The most common reason for a Catholic school to close is their inability to generate enough revenue to keep the school operating. Nearly half of all individuals providing ministry or service in a U.S. parish are volunteers. Among those who are paid, the median annual wages or salaries amount to $31,000. The pastor is typically among the lowest paid members of the staff (…although he does receive free housing). By canon law, each parish (and diocese) is required to have a finance council that oversees the dollars and cents of its operations—most often composed of parishioners with financial experience. How many Walmarts have a community council including customers helping to make decisions for the local store? 

I was sure The Economist doesn’t have a copy of the Code of Canon Law when I read the that the Church has “17,958 parishes run by 39,466 priests and 16,921 married deacons.” Not all priests and deacons are in parish ministry. Not all deacons are married. No deacons technically “run” a Catholic parish. Ultimately, all parishes are administered or supervised by priests. Most people helping a parish operate are neither priests nor deacons. In a small number of parishes, under Canon 517.2, the pastoral care of the parish may be entrusted to a deacon—more often to a lay person—but these parishes remain under the supervision of a non-resident priest. The vast majority of deacons (married or not) are not serving in this capacity. In fact, the ministry of deacons, who are not paid, is oriented toward service, not administration.

Parishes may be the heart of the Church, but as The Economist also found, much of the economic activity of the Church occurs in hospitals (they estimate 57% of all spending is health related. The other largest component of spending is said to be within colleges and universities at 28%). Here again, as with universities, these are institutions that are for the most part operating independently under the pastoral umbrella of the Church. There is no bishop sitting in these hospitals going over patient bills or setting the costs for procedures. This is not what bishops do. 

If the aim of this article was to encourage the Church to be more like Walmart I personally remain unconvinced. I don’t know any person or institution that is not without its sins and The Economist’s story correctly notes many of the Church’s recent failings. But I would also counter that there are many corporations who really, really need to find a way to adopt some of the charitable focus of most non-profits (religious or secular) more than the Church needs to adopt corporate accounting practices on a unified global scale. I know the Church does a lot more good in the world than Walmart or General Electric (the latter being a for-profit that is magically “tax exempt”). Would it be able to do this better with more financial oversight? I agree it would. But I’m not sure the effort that it would take to create an annual summary of the Church’s finances for every parish, school, hospital, and charity around the world would be the best use of its time (...costs would exceed benefits). I also think that such a device would not prevent, reduce, or deter any illegal or abusive activity, just as it fails to do so in the corporate world.

Update (8/19): I’ve examined the math a bit more in The Economist piece and discovered a significant problem. The story overestimates annual Catholic Church offertory by $4.6 billion or 50% because they assume Mass-attending individuals give an average of $10 per week (for data see pg. 43) rather than households. Also, The Economist’s claim that Catholic parish giving has declined in the last decade is incorrect. As shown in the figure below, the average amount given per week, per parish household increased from 2000 to 2010 (peaking in 2005; declines are likely more related to the effects of the recession than anything else). Because the Catholic population has grown and the average amount given per household has increased the total offertory in 2010 is actually 23% larger than it was in 2000 (even after adjusting for inflation).

I've also had some emails from people responding to this blog. One individual who works in the Church said, “Trust me the church is run by lay incompetents and they desperately need to adopt modern management practices.” As I note in the post, I believe some changes would be good. I’m just not sure the Church needs to refashion itself into a multinational corporation. Another individual who expressed a lot of anger with the Church regarding the sexual abuse of minors by clergy said, “You fail to make any connection between the Church’s lack of transparency and cover-ups and failings, and its multifaceted structure and operation that you emphasize so much.” I would agree with the John Jay criminal justice researchers who cited organizational factors (see pg. 4) as causes of the abuse crisis. The Church has taken some steps to alter its structure in the last decade and these reforms are evaluated annually on a national level and these data are released to the public for review. Still much remains to be done to heal the wounds caused by abuse, if this is even possible. The post does not focus on the issue of abuse because the errors of the The Economist story are in failing to report accurately on how the Church operates financially.

Above photos courtesy of rosebennet and seanbirm at Flickr Creative Commons.

Perspectives from Parish Leaders: U.S. Parish Life and Ministry

Results for the second phase of a comprehensive three-part study of U.S. parish life are being released today. The focus for this part of the research is on the people who keep parish life vital: staffs (ministry and non-ministry), councils, and volunteers. Collectively these are the Church's parish leaders.

In 2009, the Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership project, a Lilly Endowment Inc. funded collaboration of five Catholic national ministerial organizations, commissioned CARA to conduct a series of surveys in parishes nationwide. The first of these was a single informant survey (pastors or parish life coordinators/PLCs under Canon 517.2) sent to parishes to develop a portrait of parish life in the United States today (the full report for this survey, released last summer, is available here: The Changing Face of U.S. Catholic Parishes). That survey was in the field from March 2010 to December 2010 and included a total of 846 parishes (margin of sampling error for the survey is ±3.3 percentage points). The second survey, the focus of the research released today, includes responses from 532 parish leaders in 246 of the parishes from the first survey (margin of sampling error of ±4.2 percentage points). This survey was in the field from May 2011 to April 2012. Some of the major findings fro this study are noted below.

Characteristics of Parish Leaders
The average age of parish leaders is 59. A majority, 54%, are members of the Vatican II Generation (those born 1943 to 1960). One in five is of the Pre-Vatican II Generation (those born before 1943). Nearly one in four is of the Post-Vatican II Generation (those born 1961 to 1981) and only 3% are Millennials (born 1982 or later). The average age when parish leaders say they first felt the call to ministry in any setting (e.g., parish, school, hospital) is 29. 

Current parish leaders of the Millennial Generation have answered a call to ministry a bit before the norm of previous generations. Those in ministry now are “early adopters.” If the past repeats itself we can expect many Millennials to be called to ministry in this decade.

Nearly nine in ten parish leaders self-identify their race and ethnicity as Non-Hispanic white. Six percent self-identify as Hispanic/Latino(a), 2% as Asian or Pacific Islander,  2% as black, African American, African, or Afro-Caribbean, and 1% as Native American. This distribution is strongly related to the typical ages of parish leaders and the racial and ethnic composition of the Catholic population within these generations. In parishes identified by the project as multicultural (i.e., those with more racial and ethnic diversity among parishioners) there are greater numbers of non-Anglo parish leaders.

About one in 20 parish leaders were born outside of the United States. One in ten reports their mother was born in another country and a similar number report their father was. Thirty-eight percent have at least once grandparent who immigrated to the United States. Nearly all parish leaders—98%—say they use English in their ministry. One in ten also use Spanish. One percent indicates use of Latin. Two percent report some other language such as French, Creole, Italian, Tagalog, Polish, Czech, German, or Portuguese.

Eighty-five percent of responding parish leaders are lay persons (excluding men and women religious in ministry). Fifty-seven percent overall are female (including lay women and women religious).

Leaders are very highly educated. Nine in ten have attended college or university at some point in their life and more than a third have graduate degrees (35%) and two-thirds have an undergraduate degree (67%). This high level of education may be part of why 97% of leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” in the survey that they feel adequately prepared now for ministry and three in four said, similarly, that that they were adequately prepared for their ministry at the time they began it.

Leaders are most likely to say they feel “very much” prepared for the following aspects of parish life:

• Communicating (56%)
• Facilitating events and meetings (51%)
• Administration and planning (50%)
• Collaborating (48%)
• Providing ministry to others (45%)

 Leaders are least likely to indicate they are “very much” prepared for: 

• Managing conflict (24%)
• Working in a multicultural environment (19%)
• Counseling (18%)

Fifty-one percent say they earn a salary or wage for their ministry or service to their parish. Of those who do, the median annualized earnings for this are $31,000. Respondents with higher education degrees in ministry, religion, or theology earn more, on average, than those without these. Eighty-four percent of those who are paid say there are “somewhat” or “very much” satisfied with what they earn.

Of those who are paid for their ministry or service, nearly one in five have other employment outside of their parish as well. Among those volunteering for their parish, half have paid employment elsewhere. Parish leaders provide, on average, 23.2 hours of ministry or service to their parish weekly. Pastoral ministers provide an average of 26.3 hours. Sixteen percent of parish leaders provide ministry and service to at least one other parish as well.

Most feel secure in their parish role. Nine in ten agree “somewhat” or “very much” that they have sufficient job security in their ministry. Most also indicate they have access to what they need. Ninety-three percent agree at least “somewhat” that their parish provides them with the resources needed for their ministry. However, Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders are among the least likely to agree with this statement (76%). Anecdotally, this may be related to needs for bilingual and Spanish-language resources.

Answering the Call to Ministry
Most leaders, 76%, indicate they began their ministry or service to the Church in the same year they felt the call to do so. Others indicate more of a lag time—most often for acquiring formation or accreditation, as well as placement. Overall, the average time between when one feels the call to ministry and begins ministering is 1.2 years.

Seven in ten parish leaders were members of the parish they began ministry in. Those involved in pastoral ministry are less likely to report this (61%). Two-thirds were recruited initially as volunteers. However, those who are currently paid for their ministry or service are less likely to report this (49%). Younger parish leaders are less likely to indicate being recruited as volunteers. This may reflect their coming of age during a period in which paid ministry is more of a norm whereas previous generations may have begun ministry in a time where volunteering was more prevalent.

Respondents were most likely to say the following first led them to enter ministry:

1. To be of service to the Church (75%)
2. As a response to God’s call (56%)
3. A desire to be more active in parish life (55%)
4. To enhance their spiritual life (51%)

Those involved in pastoral ministry were especially likely to say they did so in response to God’s call (70%). Those not involved in pastoral ministry were especially likely to emphasize they entered ministry at the invitation of their pastor or the parish life coordinator (50%).

A majority of leaders indicate they entered ministry after being encouraged by a priest (53%). Others noted encouragement from fellow parishioners (34%), friends (29%), and spouses (27%). Millennials are less likely than others to note encouragement from a priest (39%) and were more likely to note receiving this from friends (54%) or a teacher or professor (46%).

One in four parish leaders say they were inspired to enter ministry by a specific movement or program within the Church. This was most often reported by men (31%) and Millennials (33%). Among the movements and programs most often cited by respondents are RCIA, Cursillo, Knights of Columbus, RENEW, and Teens Encounter Christ.

Three in four leaders (75%) agree “very much” that their ministry or service to their parish is a calling or vocation rather than just a job. Those involved in pastoral ministry were especially likely to respond as such (86%).

Evaluations of Parish and Ministry
Half of all parish leaders (50%) evaluate their overall satisfaction with their parish as “excellent.” Another 41% say this is “good.” Non-Anglo parish leaders were more likely to evaluate their parish overall as “good” rather than “excellent’ (48% compared to 36%) and more in this group provided “fair” (13%) and “poor” evaluations (4%). Just three in ten leaders (31%) in the smallest parishes, those with 200 or fewer registered households, evaluate their parish overall as “excellent.”

Leaders are most likely to evaluate their parishes as “good” or “excellent” for the following aspects: celebration of the sacraments, Masses and liturgies, efforts to educate parishioners in the faith, and promoting important Church teachings and causes. 

The area where respondents were least likely to provide a “good” or “excellent” or evaluation is in their parish’s effort to spread the Gospel and evangelize.

Leaders in multi-parish ministry parishes were especially likely to provide an “excellent” evaluation for their parish’s sense of community (55%). Hispanic/Latino(a) parish leaders were among the most likely to give their parish only “fair” or “poor” marks for this aspect of parish life (22%). At the same time, leaders in Midwestern (51%) and Southern (48%) parishes were more likely than those in the Northeast (37%) and West (28%) to evaluate the sense of community in their parish as “excellent.”

Others differ on their parish’s sense of hospitality as well. Only 38% of Millennial leaders and 41% of Hispanic leaders provide an “excellent” evaluation for their parish’s hospitality and sense of welcome. A majority of Millennials (54%) say this is “poor” or “fair” (46% “fair” and 8% “poor”).

Younger leaders—those of the Millennial Generation—are much more positive about one of the most important aspects of parish life. They are among the most likely to provide an “excellent” evaluation for their parish’s Masses and liturgies (69%).

Others are more pessimistic about sacraments in their parish. Non-Anglo and PLC parish leaders are among the least likely to evaluate their parish as “excellent” for the celebration of sacraments (58% and 55%, respectively). In PLC parishes, this may be due to these parishes having a lack of priests in residence.

Turning to more specific aspects of parish life, leaders are most likely to say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at managing parish finances, recruiting and retaining ministers and staff, communicating with parishioners, and educating parishioners in the faith.

Leaders are least likely to indicate their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at celebrating cultural diversity, providing Mass in preferred languages, ministering to young adults, outreach to inactive Catholics, and ministering to recent immigrants.

Millennial leaders are among the more negative in evaluating some these aspects. They are among the least likely to say their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at: communicating with parishioners (69 %), welcoming new parishioners (54%), listening to parishioner concerns and input (54%), ministering to young adults (40%), celebrating cultural diversity (39%), collaborating with other parishes (39%), and outreach to inactive Catholics (25%).

Non-Anglo leaders are among the most likely to say their parish is “very much” successful at celebrating cultural diversity (50%), providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations important to parishioners (53%), providing Mass in preferred languages (52%), and ministering to recent immigrants (21%).

There are several sub-group differences in parish evaluations of these aspects related to parish structure: 

• Leaders in consolidated parishes are the least likely to say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful in recruiting and retaining ministers and staff (50%). On the other hand, these leaders are among the most likely to say their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at ministering to those in financial need (76%) and outreach to inactive Catholics (64%).
• Those in multi-parish ministry parishes are the most likely to say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at welcoming new parishioners (95%).
• Leaders in PLC parishes are among the least likely to indicate their parish is at least “somewhat” successful at listening to parishioner concerns and input (77%), effectively using committees or councils (68%), ministering to the elderly (63%), providing social activities and programs (61%), and collaborating with other parishes (53%).
• Those in multicultural parishes are among the most likely to say their parish is “somewhat” or “very much” successful at celebrating cultural diversity (71%), providing cultural, ethnic, or national celebrations (75%), and providing Mass in preferred languages (67%).

About half of all leaders agree “very much” that their parish has undergone significant changes in the last five years. However, most do not see this as a change for the worse with just 13% of leaders agreeing “very much” that things were better in their parish five years ago.

Leaders in PLC parishes are most likely to agree “very much” that significant changes have occurred in their parish (67%). Yet only 4% of these leaders agree “very much” that things were better in their parish five years ago.

Half of all respondents agree at least “somewhat” that their parish is multicultural. As one might expect, this is more common in parishes identified as being multicultural by the study (73%). Non-Anglo (74%) and Hispanic/Latino(a) (75%) leaders are also very likely to agree at least “somewhat” that their parish is multicultural. More than half of leaders (55%) agree at least “somewhat” that parishioners of different cultures participate in parish life together. Leaders in multicultural parishes (65%) and PLC parishes (67%) are more likely to respond as such.

Parish Restructuring
Leaders in parishes that have experienced reorganization in the last five years (i.e., transition to multi-parish ministry or consolidation) were provided with a separate set of questions specific to these events. Of these leaders, 63% had experienced the reorganization themselves and responded to these questions.

Only 22% indicated that their role in ministry changed before or after the transition. Remarkably, these respondents also reported relative stability in a variety of different aspects of parish life. As shown in the table below, however, some reported less support from their diocese. Some also note a decrease in the willingness of parishioners to volunteer and to generally be involved.

Yet, many reported increases in the sense of community among parishioners and collaboration among parish leaders and staff. More personally, nearly three in ten reported an increase in their personal effectiveness. However, this may have led to working longer hours for some who noted increases in time spent on administrative responsibilities, their primary ministry, and on planning and coordination.

Few indicate they received any specialized training before these reorganizations. However, those that did tend to consider this to have been useful. In an open-ended question about best practices they could recommend the second most common recommendation were related to preparation, of which a common sub-topic was training (the most common topic noted in responses was about the need for communication).

In considering what was difficult about the reorganization, leaders were most likely to agree at least “somewhat” that the following have been an issue since reorganization: unhappiness of parishioners (50%), finding enough volunteers (43%), and interaction of parishioners from other parishes (38%). A majority, 54% agree only “a little” or “not at all” with the statement that there was little opposition to the changes brought by the reorganization (just 7% agree “very much”).

Use of Technology
More than three in four parish leaders agree “somewhat” or “very much” that their parish uses new technology and media effectively (36% agree “very much” only). 

Leaders in larger parishes are more likely to indicate this—likely because they may have more resources to use new technologies and media.

Ninety-four percent indicate their parish has a website and among leaders in parishes that do, half report that they provide content for the website. This is more common among younger (77% of Millennials) and female (61%) parish leaders. Two-thirds (66%) indicate their parish provides them with an email address. This is less common among non-Anglo parish leaders (52%) and those in PLC parishes (37%).  

Use of new media and social networks for ministry is most common among the youngest parish leaders. Nearly four in ten Millennials use Facebook (39%) and YouTube (39%) for ministry in their parish. Three in ten Millennials use blogs (31%) and Twitter (31%).

Visit emergingmodels.org to download the full report.