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.

3.08.2013

When in Rome


1) A bit of commentary on the media coverage
When the American media go to Rome do they lose memory of where they came from? When an ill, 85-year-old Pope Benedict XVI resigned (...after years of hinting that this would happen) the tone of coverage moved quickly from surprise to “the Church in crisis” and “the troubled papacy” even as he left office with a high approval rating. Now the drama-soaked coverage has moved on to the “suspicious secrecy” of the conclave. Forget for a moment why the deliberation process is something done outside of the view of the press and public (more on this below) and just ask yourself if decisions made behind closed doors are something that should spawn suspicion or even outrage. Perhaps not when one considers that much of American “public” policy in the last decade has been produced in a similarly “secretive” manner. For example, the Affordable Care Act was largely crafted (1, 2, 3) in back room deals with lobbyists (...remember: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”). For years now many of the most important decisions about federal spending and the budget have been made behind closed doors outside of public view. At least the Vatican has a budget! The U.S. Senate doesn’t even bother with these anymore. 

If the Church is in crisis what are we experiencing right now in the United States? This leads to a favorite excerpt from the coverage so far which attempts to explain the impact of what has come to be known as VatiLeaks: “The Vatican’s administrative shortcomings were thrust into stark relief last year with the publication of documents stolen from Benedict XVI’s desk that exposed the petty infighting, turf battles and allegations of corruption, nepotism and cronyism in the highest echelons of the Catholic Church.” So there is no “petty infighting, turf battles and allegations of corruption, nepotism and cronyism” in the highest echelons of Washington D.C. that should generate similar “scandal” coverage? Are there governments where these phenomena do not occur? (...there are at least 18 countries less corrupt than the U.S.!) If “VatiLeaks” is so damaging what should be made of WikiLeaks revelations of similar if not worse things about our own leaders (Republicans and Democrats alike)? The Pope pardoned the man who stole the Vatican’s documents. Bradley Manning is unlikely to get similar treatment. I also know that the Vatican’s “secrets” never included something like a “Disposition Matrix” from the Pope’s desk. Even on the more mundane things like data releases, there are times when I trust the Church’s numbers more than the U.S. government’s. I think I know how pretty well many Catholics were baptized in 2011 but I am not buying the methodology behind how many “green jobs” were created in the same year.  

Perhaps my concerns about the coverage of the Vatican are off the mark. Maybe the press is treating the Vatican with the “aggressive skepticism” that it should (e.g., the Church certainly deserves this when it comes to its handling of sexual abuse cases). Maybe the United States would be better off if we saw some of the same tone that is currently used in Rome used in coverage of our own government back here at home? If we did the Vatican would likely appear to be in a state of relative calm as the next leader of the Catholic Church is chosen. But some of the reporting in Rome now has moved beyond “aggressive skepticism” toward the ridiculous. From those expressing suspicion about how cardinals could be arriving so late to others shocked by how the Vatican has “muzzled” the cardinals (...again one could argue that the Church leaders are generally more accessible to the media than American presidents are and a term like muzzling might better describe what happened to Robert Gibbs). The decision to stop speaking to the press is part of the confidentiality expected of the process. 

The papacy is arguably the oldest existing governing institution of the Western tradition and the conclave is arguably the oldest existing form of voting for the selection of leadership. Although many Cardinals today speak of their choices being guided by the Holy Spirit, this has clearly not always been the case. Even Pope Benedict XVI, prior to his own election is quoted saying, “I would not say so in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope, because there are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked” (see John L. Allen’s Conclave: The politics, personalities, and process of the next papal election, 2002, p. 135). Not until 1059 (with a selection in 1061) did the selection of the pope rest solely on paper with the cardinals (…monarchs and emperors would still intervene in practice). In 1179 a 2/3 rule was adopted. Much later in 1458, Pope Pius II would remark of this change, “What is done by two thirds of the sacred college, that is surely the Holy Ghost, which may not be resisted” (Florence A. Gragg and Leona C. Gabel, Memoirs of a Renaissance Pope: The Commentaries of Pius II, 1959, p. 88). 

An unintended consequence of this new rule was that the decision moved more solidly behind closed and locked doors. The new electoral system led to longer periods of decision—often lasting months or more. In the mid-13th century, the people and civil leaders took it upon themselves to institute reform as they started locking the cardinals in until they came to a decision (...someone want to try this with Congress around budget time?). This did not always work. With the passing of Pope Clement IV in 1268 the papacy remained vacant for more than two years. As political scientists Josep Colomer and Iain McLean describe, “the public besieged the cardinals in the episcopal palace removing the roof and allowing nothing but bread and water go inside” (“Electing Popes: Approval Balloting and Qualified-Majority Rule,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Summer 1998, p. 12). These reforms had some negative effects as Colomer and McLean note that six cardinals died at the conclave in 1287. In 2013 the food and water restrictions are gone and the ceiling side of the roof is beautiful. Yet the locks remain.

2) A bit of analysis of malapportionment
One of the other themes that is getting some attention in the press is the disproportionality between where the voting cardinals are from and where Catholics reside around the globe (...we showed what this looks like in Vatican statistical regions in a previous post). Many assume this disproportionality is new or getting worse. Both assumptions would be incorrect. The regional disproportionality between the global Catholic population and the College of Cardinals in 2013 will be only slightly different than it was in 1958 and at both of the 1978 conclaves. In the figure below we show a commonly used measure of disproportionality (i.e., the Loosemore Hanby Index) for five world regions (e.g., Africa, the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania). If the percentage of voting cardinals from each region were the same as the percentage of the world Catholic population in each region, then disproportionality would measure 0%. In 2005, there was a disjuncture of approximately 27 percentage points between the voting cardinals and Catholic population across regions. Disproportionality was highest for the 1922 conclave (40 percentage points), when cardinals from the Americas were unable to make the voyage to Rome by sea in time to vote. The level of disproportionality for 2013 is just at the average it has been in nine previous conclaves in the last century.


Does it matter? To the degree that the College of Cardinals represents the spirit and will of the world’s estimated 1.1 billion Catholics one might make a comparison of the College of Cardinals as being the Vatican’s equivalent of the early U.S. Electoral College (prior to 1836). With this metaphor we would say that College of Cardinals is not truly representative of Catholics around the world as an assembly because it is “malapportioned.” The Electoral College has a slight tilt toward the smaller states because each state gets a number of electors equal to the sum of its delegations in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, and only the House is apportioned on the basis of population. Malapportionment in the College of Cardinals is more severe than it is in the U.S. Electoral College and slightly weaker than in the U.S. Senate (currently 35% using the percentages of the voting eligible population in each state and 2% of senators representing each state). The College of Cardinals under-represents some regions of the world, in ways similar to the how the United States Senate under-represents large states like California and New York. 

This disproportionality is often counter-weighted by other issues. For example, even though Italy has the most cardinal electors it also has more of the candidates considered to be a likely selection. Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown, notes that “current evidence…indicates that the Italian cardinals are split.” When this is the case it may be more likely for a non-Italian to be selected—even when they make up the potentially largest regional faction of voters. 

3) A bit of prediction
It is said (and often quoted) that “He who goes in a pope comes out a cardinal.” John Allen has argued that this is “actually nonsense” (p. 158). He does so in a book, written before the 2005 conclave, in which he does not include a Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his list of 20 frontrunners and reasons his possible selection as “improbable” based on his “informed observations” involving discussions with other Vatican experts, analysis of Church history, and his personal conversations with cardinals. Allen notes in this same book that sociologist Andrew Greeley had designed a more formal computer forecasting program to try to predict the outcome of the second 1978 conclave. This failed badly. None of the seven top “contenders” identified by the program, according to Allen, were seriously considered at the conclave (Allen did no better in predictions closer to the 2005 conclave).

I don’t have my own program but there are certainly a lot of easily accessible sources I can aggregate to come up with a meta-list of top “contenders” for 2013. Below is the compilation of candidates that are being most widely discussed by Vatican experts along with the favorites from betting lines (“wisdom of crowds”) and even an interesting “buzz meter” endeavor by New Advent measuring online activity about cardinals. Using this aggregated “model” it would seem that the likely candidates include (...certainly should not be a surprise to many at this point!):
As Greeley and Allen learned, such a list may not be very useful for predicting an outcome but I’ve posted it here for the record. The major problem with these lists is that they are entirely based on the opinions and actions of individuals who will not be inside the Sistine Chapel! No matter who is selected the choice is sure to be quickly converted into common sense: “Of course, the cardinals chose him because _________.” If they choose someone outside of Europe it will be because they wanted a pope from where the Church is largest in numbers. If it is someone from Europe it will be something about combating secularization. “Experts” who failed to predict the outcome (...and there is no shame in this) will be able to reassert their expertise by explaining to us all the logic of the choice. I think it is safe to predict, no matter what the outcome, that the conclave’s selection will be cast as a “disappointment” by many in the secular media.

Conclaves on the other hand, like a lot of collective social decisions, are inherently unpredictable (see Duncan Watts’ brilliant book, Everything is Obvious: Once you know the answer, 2011). I won’t be shocked at all if the selection is not one of the men listed above (...anyone recall a Cardinal Wojtyła?). But if I was considering putting money on a few of the candidates above the political scientist in me (for a variety of reasons) might lead me to consider Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Sandri, and Cardinal O’Malley for a wager (...the “prohibition” on a U.S. selection may now be a relic of the Cold War). Note this short list is entirely my own (...no predictions from CARA are forthcoming!). After gently “knocking” Greeley and Allen I thought I’d flatter them both with a bit of imitation. I fully expect similar results—especially when I have pointed to 3 cardinals when they chose 7 and 20, respectively. I’m being even more foolish. 

Photo above courtesy of Moyan_Brenn from Flickr Commons.
at

2.28.2013

All bets are off...


My pre-conclave post focuses on two “bets” about the future of the Catholic Church. On the first wager I wouldn’t even put something on the table (but I'll offer some advice) and for the second I am taking my chips off... 

1) The Next Pope
Who will be the next pope? Novelty betting lines overseas currently place the most favorable odds on Cardinal Turkson (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace) and Cardinal Scola (Archdiocese of Milan). My advice to anyone looking to put a wager on the outcome of the conclave is to find a wiser investment. However, one predictable pattern in the last 100 years has been that it takes, on average, 3 days for a decision with 7 ballots cast. It is interesting to see how bookies and journalists alike have framed the conclave as a likely choice between a European (likely an Italian) and someone from the Global South (likely Latin America or Africa). Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown offers up the following observation that may help guide some wagering: most of those choosing the next pope are Europeans. 

o

At the same time, nearly half of the world’s Catholics (47.6%) reside in the Americas. Sixteen percent live in Africa and 12% in Asia. This distribution of the population is the result of changes in the last century with falling fertility rates in the “developed” post-industrial world as these have remained higher elsewhere. Life expectancy rates have also risen across the globe (often with declining maternal and infant mortality rates). With these changes the population of the “developed” world has grown more slowly than it has in the “developing” world. One “side effect” of these demographic shifts has been a blooming of global Catholicism (...as measured by the Vatican’s ASE counts or Pew’s recent research on global Christianity). The framework of the Church has not always kept pace with these changes and continues to be “lean” toward Europe. Unlike most institutions, Church history spans millennia rather than decades. It operates on a different clock. I believe it will continue to shift gradually to meet the new realities that have emerged in the last century. The selection of a pope from the Global South would likely reflect a quickening of these adjustments. At a minimum I think it might be a safe to predict that this could be one of the last conclaves where a majority of the voting cardinals were born in Europe.

There was a time early in Church history when some of the laity (e.g., nobles, officers, judges) actually had a role in the selection of the pope. You can relive a bit of this history yourself in 2013 by taking part in a some research conducted by Canadian social scientists. Their site periodically shows results of their study and thus may also provide some insight into what social scientists refer to as the “wisdom of crowds” that may guide your novelty wagering (Religion News Service also has a voting site with result here).
 
Fr. Reese also highlights a myth in some of the media coverage of the conclave in the notion that American Catholics don’t really care about who the next pope is because “nobody listens to him.” Former New York Times food writer Frank Bruni has done his best to trumpet this line of reasoning (he even manages to work Top Chef into the column). Yet his imagination falls a bit short of reality as even simple Google search trend data indicate more U.S. interest in the last week in Pope Benedict XVI than other news story topics falling above the fold in many newspapers. It is also the case that data reveal that American Catholics have a much more complex makeup than Bruni’s caricature. For example, a recent Pew survey concluded that, “While about half of U.S. Catholics (46%) say the next pope should ‘move the church in new directions,’ the other half (51%) say the new pope should ‘maintain the traditional positions of the church.’” 

More important perhaps, no matter what U.S. Catholics may feel issue by issue, they generally like and approve of the leader of their Church. In fact, they like him more than their president—even as they may more consistently agree with the president on specific policy issues. Pew has a summary of some of the approval data for John Paul II and Benedict XVI here. I’ve added some CARA data and news media surveys to Pew’s publicly available data for Benedict XVI (...that I could analyze) in the figure below.


Even looking at Pew’s data (pg. 15) for all Americans (Catholic or not), the Pope has often had an approval rating higher than that of U.S. presidents. In light of these data it is interesting to read all the media narratives about the “Church in crisis.” For example, a recent story from The New York Times begins with the phrase, “In the waning hours of his troubled papacy...” If 74% approval among U.S. Catholics represents trouble in America, how should we characterize most recent U.S. presidencies given much lower levels of approval from the general public? Popes, perhaps rightfully so, are held to a much higher standard of approval than presidents. Can you imagine the media coverage if President Obama was ever able to achieve 74% approval? I don’t think we’d see too many references to a “troubled presidency” (...you don’t see this now with his approval at 50%).
 
But I also want to give The New York Times credit for putting a bit of sorely needed balance in its editorial coverage of the Church by publishing Paul Kennedy’s very thoughtful piece, “Which Catholic Church?”

2) The Latino Catholic Majority?
On to that second bet... At the same time many are contemplating the possibility of a pope from Latin America, something very odd and unexpected appears to be happening in the United States among those from Latin America or who have Latin American ancestry. At CARA we are often asked to “put a date” on when Latinos might make up a majority of the U.S. Catholic population. A few years ago, CARA’s demographic projections pointed to this possibly occurring around 2038. But an accumulation of new data all pointing in the same direction in the last few years has led me to take that bet off the table.

CARA has briefly alluded to some of these trends in previous posts (1, 2). In our national CARA Catholic Polls (CCP), the Latino percentage of the Catholic population peaked at 35% before the recession. It has consistently measured 32% in our polls since this time. The difference between 35% and 32% is within margins of error but with a consistent trend and other data “triangulating” these results it is likely that growth in the Hispanic Catholic population has stalled. Changing immigration patterns (1, 2), falling birth rates, and a decline in affiliation among Latino youth who are disproportionately becoming unaffiliated are all working together to forestall any possible Latino majority among U.S. Catholics in the near future. 

It may actually take something like the selection of a pope from Latin America to counter these trends (...although nationality is even more important. For example, Mexican-American Catholics may not be any more excited about a new pope from Argentina than they would otherwise be if he was from Italy). Perhaps even more worrisome than the Latino Catholic population failing to grow as it has in the past, is that many Latino Catholics are seemingly disconnected from the institutions of the Church in the United States (...even as they continue to identify as Catholic an practice their faith outside of these institutions).

In a soon to be released report for The Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership project, CARA will show results of surveys conducted in-pew in nearly 800 U.S. parishes involving more than 385,000 respondents (more than 14,400 of these respondents were surveyed as part of Emerging Models project. The rest are from CARA’s Parish Surveys). Even as 32% of U.S. adult Catholics self-identify as Hispanic or Latino in CCP surveys, only 17% of the teens and adults consistently self-identify as such in-pew, in their parishes, during Mass among the more than 385,000 people we have surveyed nationally. This likely does not come as a surprise to many pastors. In the first phase of the Emerging Models project, we asked pastors to estimate the racial and ethnic composition of their parishioners. When matched up against the realities of how the people responded in-pew the pastors’ estimates (red bars) turned out to be accurate (blue bars are Emerging Models in-pew surveys and the green bars are CARA parish surveys). This in-pew percentage is very similar to what we see in some other Catholic institutions. For example, in U.S. Catholic schools the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) estimates that only 13.9% of students in the 2011 and 2012 school year were Hispanic or Latino even as a much larger share of the school-age Catholic population is thought to be Hispanic or Latino (...estimates vary as national surveys of school-age children with a religious affiliation question are not easy to find).


The baptism trend data we profiled in a previous post along with connecting all of the recent data about Latino Catholics has put many of my bets on the future size and composition of the U.S. Catholic population on hold, awaiting more data… The first piece of which may be finding out who will lead the Church next.

Photo above courtesy of mag3737 from Flickr Commons.
at

2.12.2013

CARA Research on "State of the U.S. Church"

Update 3/13: With the election of Pope Francis here is CARA's spotlight on the Church in Argentina.

With the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, CARA's phones were busy Monday. A lot of reporters were writing the same overview stories about the Church in the United States and had very similar questions. Part of CARA's mission is to help them and others find data that can answer these questions. This post, an idea from CARA researcher Melissa Cidade, serves as an index of sorts for CARA's recent research profiled on this blog which speaks to many of the questions we receive (...another great place for answers is CARA's Frequently Requested Statistics page):

Catholic Population Changes
The Catholic Church is growing, affiliation has been stable for decades, and the Catholic population is becoming more diverse. However, since the recession, growth in the Hispanic/Latino(a) Catholic population percentage has stalled. Another worrisome sign is a decline in Catholics entering the Church as measured by infant baptisms.


A Micro-scoping View of U.S. Catholic Populations
Pies, damned pies, and statistics: Is the Catholic population growing?
The Future of Religious Affiliation in America
The Reverts: Catholics who left and came back
Mystery of the "Missing" Catholic Infants
Were U.S. Catholics Raptured? ... Again?
Coming Home?
Diversification
A Portrait of Black Catholics in the United States
Update 2/28: The Latino Catholic Majority?

Mass Attendance
Although Mass attendance fluctuates by region, nationally it has remained stable since 2000 when CARA began tracking this in random-sample surveys of the adult Catholic population. Mass attendance increases with age and we see this rising over time, even among young adult Catholics as they enter their 30s and 40s (i.e., life-cycle effects).


Sunday Morning: Deconstructing Catholic Mass attendance in the 1950s and now
We Know What You Did Last Sunday (…We read your diary)
Reigniting Sacramental Activity: There may be a devil in the details
“C and E” Catholics Decoded
Is there any Catholic Left in “Lapsed" Catholics?
The Ghosts of Christmas Past and Future
The Nuances of Accurately Measuring Mass Attendance

Vocations
Priestly ordinations have been rising slightly in recent years. However, these remain behind the pace needed to replace aging priests. Although significant numbers of Catholics express interest in priestly or religious vocations there are many hurdles for them to overcome to live out this calling including discouragement from family and friends and issues related to education loans.


Millions of Never-Married Catholics Have Considered Vocations
Author Meets (Online) Critics: CARA Vocations Study 
Spotlight on Vocations: Interested but Discouraged
Data in Context: New Ordinations and Seminarians
Student Loans: A Drag on Vocations

Parish Life
After a decade of closures and consolidations parishes are serving ever larger communities. More and more Catholics are choosing the parish they prefer rather than attending their territorial parish. A growing number of lay ecclessial ministers are serving in these parishes.


Perspectives from Parish Leaders: U.S. Parish Life and Ministry
Parish Drive By
Twenty Years of Change and Stability: Lay Ecclesial Ministers in the U.S. Church
Who Will Be Behind (Parish) Door Number One?
The Supersizing of U.S. Catholic Parishes

How the Church Works
Far too many seem to believe in a "Dan Brown Novel" version of how the Catholic Church works. The Church is not a multinational corporation and is not the rigid hierarchical structure many assume. The reality is that it operates as a much more decentralized institution with considerable local autonomy. At the same time these institutions still tilt internationally a bit more towards Europe and North America (e.g., numbers of voting-eligible cardinals), even as the Catholic population has become much more globalized.


Spot the difference...
The College: Re-growth in Numbers but Not Necessarily in Geographic Diversity
Which is more difficult, closing a parish or establishing a new one?
Update 2/28: All bets are off...
Update 3/08: When in Rome

Catholics and the “Nones”
Many young American Nones (i.e., those without a religious affiliation) are former Catholics (...some of whom are likely to rejoin the Church later in life). Most Nones are not atheists! There has been no measurable growth in the U.S. atheist population percentage in recent decades (self-identified, beyond margin of error). More so parents trying to raise atheists kids are much more likely to "lose" them to a religion than parents of Catholic kids are to "lose" them to "Noneness.

 
The Schisms of the Religiously Unaffiliated 
Secularization, R.I.P.?
The New “Catholic Vote”: The Quiet Rise of the None/Others
 
...Of course some journalists will be simply captivated by the "Next Pope" question. I think John L. Allen, Jr. said it best in noting that "The trash heaps of history...are littered with supposed experts who tried to predict the next Pope." Conclaves are inherently unpredictable. I think the closest thing the Church may have to a Nate Silver-like figure is  Rocco Palmo (...using a bit different of a methodology for a different topic). But to duplicate Silver's work one would need surveys of voting-eligible cardinals (good luck!). This is something the world will just need to wait for...
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

© 2009-2017 CARA, Mark M. Gray. Background image courtesy of muohace_dc.