"Headless" Catholics, A Trick and My Treat

Did you attend Mass this October? If you did not attend this month you don't need a costume tonight. You are already a "headless" Catholic. Most dioceses do October Mass attendance headcounts. This allows them to track the number of Catholics year over year going to Mass. Some dioceses publicize these. Others do not. While CARA and others track Mass attendance in national surveys, these are often done at different times of year. We know that nationally, Mass attendance has been steady for about a dozen years. But how does Catholic Mass attendance vary week to week?

Since we know so much about Mass attendance in October let's start there. Not only does CARA have its national surveys of adult Catholics, we also have in-pew surveys of Catholics, and surveys of pastors where we ask for their parish's October headcount numbers. These can set the October baseline of our week to week Mass attendance estimates. But then how do we know how many attend in February or June? There are a few other pieces of information we can use. CARA has asked about Mass attendance on Ash Wednesday and we've also asked about Christmas and Easter. Our national surveys estimate that about 45% percent of Catholics attend on Ash Wednesday and about 68% attend at Christmas.

To get estimates for other weeks we are taking a page from new methods used by hedge funds and the Centers for Disease Control for prediction and tracking. We've looked to Google Trends (...after first noticing the utility of this tool in 2009). You can learn a lot from what people are searching for on the most popular web site in the world. We arguably have never had so much data for what is on people's minds. Google Trends has been shown (1, 2, 3) to be predictive of car sales, opening movie box offices, unemployment claims, travel trends, the geography of Lyme disease, and so much more. Can it predict Mass attendance? Yes.

We tried several different combinations of Mass related search terms. In the end a simple two word combination worked best: "Mass times." There is a core of the self-identified Catholic population that attends Mass every week. What makes Mass attendance rise above this core are those attending monthly or only on days of obligation. When these individuals choose to attend they are often checking in with Google to see what time (and perhaps where) they need to go. What happens when we use Google Trends search volume data for "Mass times" to put our known October data points in motion? Something extraordinary. It "predicts" Ash Wednesday and Christmas attendance that is nearly identical to our survey-based estimates (...Easter is a bit lower than we expected. This may be related to Easter coinciding with Spring Break and vacations away from local parishes for some Catholics). It also shows the upticks we expect on other days of obligation. This is shown in the figure below (click to see full-size).

We use multiple years of U.S. Google Trends data to generate this figure. In doing so, we have made Easter an "immovable feast" for demonstration purposes (averaging Ash Wednesday and Easter attendance into single weeks). One can see that the lowest levels of Mass attendance are typically during February before Ash Wednesday and in November before Advent. Outside of Christmas, Easter, and Ash Wednesday the next highest level of of attendance is estimated to be in August for the Assumption of Mary. On average, across all weeks Mass attendance is estimated to be 26%. In October, we estimate that about 80% of self-identified Catholics are "headless." 

"A Trick"

Now for something completely different... Last week I gave a brief introductory presentation before a Georgetown viewing of The Exorcist. I am also teaching a class this semester on Catholicism on film and we spend a week looking at The Exorcist and other Catholic "horror" related films (...even though William Peter Blatty has said his intention was not to scare audiences).

What is most interesting to me is the historical connection between Georgetown and the film. Blatty, a Georgetown alum, became interested in the real story behind the film as a student. He like many others read this piece in The Washington Post by Bill Brinkley about the case in 1949 (documenting "one of the most remarkable experiences of its kind in recent religious history"). He ended up doing a thesis on the case and acquired a copy of the Jesuit case study for the boy named Ronald (this is often referred to as a "diary"). The film, and the book on which it is based, have little resemblance to the case study. Some of this was likely intentional to protect Ronald's identity (in the movie the child is named Regan and in real life the pseudonyms Robbie and Roland were often used). But other aspects, including much of the most gruesome horror and nearly all of the Georgetown connection was invented.

Here is an example of a story in the Catholic press that mirrors the "real story" that many people have come to know. This example was written in 1998. A year later, Mark Opsasnick, a local author and journalist, would uncover a very different story and even track down the adult Ronald living in Maryland and speak to him by phone (the last known public record related to Ronald is a 2006 traffic ticket) as well as one of the priests involved. Opsasnick's work has been used as a model for community-based investigative journalism in some college courses. He used phone books, property records, school yearbooks, and interviews with people in the community to track down a treasure of unknown details about the case. Like Blatty, he also came across a copy of the Jesuit case study. You can as well if you look hard enough. The copy I found is consistent with other descriptions I've read of the document but I cannot attest to its authenticity.

If tonight is like many past Halloweens, some will gravitate to a lot on Bunker Hill Road in Mount Rainier, Maryland. This is thought by many to be the place of Ronald's childhood home. As Opsasnick has shown, no boy resided in this home and his actual residence in 1949 was in nearby Cottage City (pictured above). The house used in the film on Georgetown's Prospect Street was only used for its exteriors and its proximity to the famous stairs. You can also find a now well known picture of Ronald if you look hard enough. It's his senior photo from a famous D.C. Catholic high school (he was raised Lutheran but converted to Catholicism). The "real" story has a much happier ending than the film version. First, no Jesuits were killed or even injured (other than perhaps a punch in the nose). Second, Ronald went on to live a "normal" life, with a career and family (...not entirely normal as he has reportedly been contacted by a few fans of the film who have "connected the dots" from Opsasnick's research) .

What the film and the former version of the "real story" get wrong is the strong Georgetown connection. According to the Jesuit case study I am aware of, Ronald's mother asked Fr. Albert Hughes, a parish priest at St. James Catholic Church in Mt. Rainer for help. He suggested using blessed candles, holy water, and prayers. He sought permission from his archbishop to perform an exorcism (...in modern times, the Church has always viewed claims of possession with skepticism and required medical and psychological examinations). Ronald was admitted to Georgetown Hospital for evaluation. However, it was unlikely that Fr. Hughes had yet received any permission for exorcism (as noted below he would later receive this). There is no record of an initial exorcism at Georgetown in the case study (... thus, there is also no note of Fr. Hughes being stabbed in the arm with a bed spring at the hospital).

Ronald's family soon left to stay with relatives in St. Louis before anything else could happen in Georgetown. There, the boy came under the care of Jesuits at Saint Louis University. Permission was eventually given by the local archbishop to perform an exorcism. This did commence. At some point the family wished to return to Maryland. By this time permission had also been given locally for an exorcism. However, the Jesuit case study notes that the priests involved "tried several hospitals in Washington, but because of the nature of the case no one was willing to accept the burden." The family eventually returned to St. Louis and an Alexian Brothers Hospital and the exorcism was completed.

According to the case study, what the film and the real real story share is that the teenager played with a Ouija board and initially experienced "tantrum sleep" from which the boy could not easily be awoken. A variety of other strange phenomenon are reported in the case study but these were not directly witnessed by the priests (...however, the boy's family, his teacher and classmates, as well as Lutheran clergy did). During exorcism, Ronald is said to have exhibited "diabolical spitting" and "biting." There was "bed shaking" with "tantrum" where "strength beyond the natural power" of the teen was exhibited (in some cases it took three to five others to hold him down). Ronald used Latin, which he did not know, but it is noted that he may have been mimicking the priests. There was "violent shouting and fiendish laughter" including very foul and sexual language. There is one report of an object moving by the priests ("bottle from a dresser [moved] across the room"). Ronald said he had visions of a priest in the room being in Hell in the future. The case study reports "body markings" and "brandings." However, some possibility of these being produced by the teen is noted. There was no head spinning, levitation, or spider walking down stairs.

Hollywood frequently has to go over the top with history to make a film entertaining and compelling. However, if you read the journalism about the exorcism produced in the last decade it is just as fascinating in my opinion. For me, the most reassuring aspects of reading Opsasnick's research and the final notes of the case study is that Ronald went on to live a seemingly normal life. No matter what one's opinion is of this case, that seems to be the most important result.

I also find it weird that some Catholics seem to believe the film is sacrilegious. Blatty was and is a devout Catholic. Georgetown rarely gives permission for movies to be filmed on campus (e.g., St. Elmo's Fire was shot at University of Maryland). More so, the U.S. bishops are on record as not considering it "morally offensive." They note is is "strictly adult fare" and that it is "on shaky ground theologically" but Catholics are not in any way "banned" from seeing it... or digging a bit into history to see what really inspired the film.

To my surprise, reviewing survey data before my talk, I also found that belief in the Devil (and Hell) in the United States is actually on the rise. If this is occurring more specifically among Catholics as well this may foreshadow fewer headless Catholics in the future.

"My Treat"
I won't be needing any candy tonight. I already have the treat I need in the photo below. I grew up in Denver Colorado in the 1970s which afflicted me with Bronco super-fandom. The best man at my wedding in his toast noted he had seen me at my happiest twice; marrying my wife and in the minutes after Super Bowl XXXII. Imagine my surprise yesterday seeing this:

This is the wife of Broncos Def. Coordinator Jack Del Rio, Linda, giving Pope Francis a football signed by the Denver Broncos (...oddly enough one of my Georgetown students, doing an independent study on the Vatican and in my film class as well was present with this group, The Patrons of The Arts in the Vatican Museums). I know Pope Francis is a fan of Club Atlético San Lorenzo de Almagro. American Football is not his game. But perhaps handing a ball off to Pope Francis for a moment could be a sign of more happiest moments to come (...we tried Tim Tebow and he only got us one miraculous playoff win, "The 3:16 game").

"Headless" image courtesy of Ben in CHI. Pope Francis image courtesy of Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums.

Divorce (Still) Less Likely Among Catholics

There are few topics in the social sciences that create more confusion among the public than divorce. The conversation usually begins like this... "If half of all marriages fail how can your survey find that only 12% of Catholics are divorced?" The root of this problem is that there are so many ways divorce and "divorce rates" are measured, calculated, and discussed (...not to mention that the "half of all marriages" notion borders on urban legend status).

The U.S. National Vital Statistics System measures a crude rate. This is simply the total number of divorces in a year per 1,000 of the population. Using this measure one can conclude that divorce is becoming less common in the United States. In 2011, there were 877,000 new divorces or 3.6 per 1,000 of the U.S. population. In the 1980s this measure peaked above 5 per 1,000. The primary reason this number has declined is because fewer are marrying in the first place. The crude marriage rate in 2011 was 6.8 new marriages per 1,000 of the U.S. population. Just a dozen years ago this figure was above 8 per 1,000. In a longer view, it is important to remember that in the 1970s nearly three-quarters of the adult population was married. In 2012, only 52% of U.S. adults were married.

The easiest (and certainly not the best) way to measure "divorce odds" is to divide the crude divorce rate by the crude marriage rate (e.g., 3.6 / 6.8). Using this simple method one could estimate that "53% of U.S. marriages end in divorce" with the most recent data. However, this is quite unrealistic and sloppy as the number of marriages and divorces in any single year are for the most part unrelated (with the exception of those who divorce only a few months after marrying). To more accurately measure divorce odds one would need a longitudinal study involving a nationally representative panel of married couples followed over many decades. That takes time and money and many prefer the quick and the crude way of measuring divorce odds (...not to mention that a longitudinal study provides results that are likely to be dated by the time the project ends).

One other figure often used in the discussion of divorce is the percentage of Americans who have ever divorced. This is different from the percentage who are currently divorced as many who go through divorce remarry later in life. As shown in the figure below (using decade aggregated data from the General Social Survey 1972-78, 1980-89, 1990-98, 2000-08, 2010-12), the percentage of Americans ever experiencing divorce rose in the 1980s and 1990s but has remained more stable since then. Differences between religious affiliation groups are small. About one in five Catholic adults have experienced divorce in their lifetimes (this is consistent with CARA's recent research on the topic) and about one in ten currently describe their marital status as divorced in surveys (i.e., some remarry after divorce with or without annulment. More on this below...).

The problem with this measure is that again it does not account for changes in the number of Americans marrying. Without marriage you won't ever get divorced! The second figure below, using GSS data again, estimates the percentage of Americans who have ever married that experience a divorce. This is still just a series of snapshots and not the longitudinal panel one would prefer but it does provide the most accessible view of something close to "odds of divorce." It still does not provide us with "the percentage of marriages that end in divorce" as the unit analysis is the individual and not the marriage (e.g., someone could be widowed, marry again, divorce, and marry again...).

Currently, using the last two waves of the GSS for 2010 and 2012, this measure of divorce stands at 36% for the adult ever-married population. Adult Catholics stand out with only 28% of the ever-married having divorced at some point (...struggling most with "being faithful." A previous post examines religious affiliation and infidelity). By comparison, 42% of American adults without a religious affiliation (i.e., "Nones") who have married have divorced at some point. Notice the difference between the two preceding figures. Those with no religious affiliation are among the least likely to ever divorce in the overall adult population. Yet those with no affiliation are also among the least likely to marry in the first place and once one isolates those in this group who have married, the data take on a much more dismal outlook.

There are a few other religious wrinkles to examine. It takes two to marry and there is evidence that more Americans are marrying someone who does not share their faith. Does this matter? A 2010 survey conducted for Naomi Schaefer Riley's `Til Faith Do Us Part (Oxford University Press, 2013) estimates that 29% of married couples where both spouses are Catholic experience a divorce. The General Social Survey and CARA's Catholic Polls (CCP) indicate that about seven in ten married Catholics have a Catholic spouse (remaining steadily between 68% to 72% since the 1970s). This remains the case in the GSS even when one is measuring the faith of the spouse at age 16 (to control for possible conversions to a partner's faith during marriage). As we've shown in a previous post, the likelihood that a Catholic marries someone of their own faith in a Catholic parish is largely dependent on factors in their community.

As shown in the figure below, calculated from a national CARA survey on marriage conducted in 2007, Catholics who marry someone who has no religious affiliation or a Protestant affiliation are more likely than those marrying a Catholic or someone of another affiliation to experience divorce with this person. Note this CARA survey estimates that 32% of ever-married Catholics had experienced divorce compared to the more recent GSS estimate of 28%. This difference is within margins of error. Schaefer Riley's survey, with fewer Catholic respondents, estimates lower odds of divorce for Catholics married to someone without a religious affiliation (...CARA's survey uses scientific probability-based random sampling. Schaefer Riley's survey was completed with YouGov, which uses a self-selected opt-in internet panel).

In the CARA survey we also asked Catholics who had experienced divorce if they had ever sought an annulment. Only 15% indicated that they had. As shown in the figure below, requests for annulments have declined in the United States along with marriages in the Church. In the most recent year with available data there were 6.5 marriages celebrated in the Church for every single case for declaration of nullity of marriage introduced by Americans. It is important to note that 49% of Church annulment cases introduced globally in 2011 were from the United States followed by Poland (6.4%), Brazil (5.6%), and Italy (5.1%).

The National Vital Statistics System estimates that there were 2,118,000 marriages celebrated in the United States in 2011. That puts the 2011 data in the figure above in grim context. Only 163,775 marriages were celebrated in U.S. Catholic churches in that year. That's just 7.7% of all marriages celebrated in the country. Catholics make up nearly a quarter of the population and are no less likely to marry than those of other affiliations. This means that Catholics marrying these days are just as likely, if not more likely, to celebrate their marriages at the beach or country club than in their parish (...also something we've covered in a previous post). What impact does being married outside of the Church have on divorce odds? We don't know. We need another survey!

Although the Catholic "divorce rate" is lower than the U.S. average it is still a daunting figure (...yet far shy from the oft quoted "half of all marriages" myth). It is important to remember that the percentage represents more than 11 million individuals. Some are likely in need of more outreach and ongoing ministry from the Church.

Image above courtesy of jasoneppink at Flickr Creative Commons.  

If You See Elephants (or Donkeys) When Looking at the Church Remove Your Goggles

 

In these deeply partisan times some may be tempted to place every institution and individual cleanly on the left or right of the U.S. political spectrum. However, there are some that may not easily fit these stereotypes—that cannot be seen clearly while wearing partisan-tinted goggles. The Catholic Church opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. This would seem to make it a natural "ally" of the Republican Party in the United States. Yet, the Church is clearly "out of place" on some other issues from this perspective. As some have recently noticed, the American bishops are supporting immigration reforms being put forth by Democrats. This appears to be creating some anomie among the media and a growing sense of urgency for a nested games "explanation" of the Church's actions, which as far as I can tell led to the following string of events:

1) The New York Times recently revealed in the middle of a good story on the proposed reforms that "Catholic leaders..." "say they are motivated by the Bible’s teachings and by the reality that many Latino immigrants are Catholics and represent a critical demographic for the church." No problems here, but an actual source would always be nice. Many Latino immigrants are indeed Catholic and the Church certainly wants to be sure that its members are treated with dignity and fairness. But then things start to get weird...

2) The Pew Research Center's FactTank blog (...normally very well done and just plain cool) followed-up by posting an entry saying the Church had "acknowledged to The New York Times that demographics are a factor" in their support of legislation. In Pew's defense they were providing some good data on the topic of immigration reform. However, the original title of the post (now changed) rather unfortunately appeared to highlight the role of demographics as a sole motivation—as if the Church was just looking to "pad" its numbers (...I don't think this is what they intended to communicate). This headline drew the attention of The Drudge Report, which linked to the post over the weekend.

3) Now, two steps and several days removed, The Economist (...yes that Economist) has stepped forward to "explain" and answer for us all, "Why is the Roman Catholic Church supporting immigration reform?" They provide a solution to this mystery by noting (and citing Pew, citing the Times): "One possible reason why the Catholic church is keen to cultivate Hispanic migrants could be that, if some of the immigrants are more socially conservative, their voices could become louder on topics such as contraception and abortion, over which the church has clashed with the Obama administration. Welcoming more Hispanics into the country would also swell congregations, extending the church’s influence from pulpits to polling stations" (...never mind that Hispanic Catholics lean heavily Democratic. Maybe some of Pew's data doesn't make it across the pond?). So there it is. All the dots are now connected. It's all probably a vast right-wing conspiracy. Now I get it! Thanks Economist.

Wait... The Economist is a European publication. You'd think they would know better with the Catholic Church also strongly and similarly advocating for the rights and well-being of immigrants in Europe. A recent Los Angeles Times story profiles this reality under the headline, "In Italy, protecting immigrants crosses the faith line." Here the story notes that: "In Europe, as in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church has assumed a leading role as a protector of, and advocate for, immigrants. But whereas the largest bloc of migrants to the United States are Catholic, the majority of European immigrants are Muslim." What "underlying motivations" can The Economist possibly uncover here? What was that about demographics again?

There really is no mystery or conspiracy to any of this. No need to look next at the symbology in da Vinci paintings for more answers. Instead I'd recommend "The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” available on the Vatican website (...The New Testament would work as well). The Church encompasses a global faith that was around for many hundreds of years before the U.S. ever appeared on a map and 94% of the world's more than 1 billion Catholics live outside of American borders. If a number of Catholics move from country A to country B, the number of Catholics in the world does not get any larger! The Church has no interest in amassing the faithful in any single country for political purposes or any other reason I can think of. What it is doing is supporting people, Catholic or not, who are vulnerable and in need ("harbor the harborless"). The sanctuary and support the Church provides to people often living on the margins is at the center of its mission in the world (...Am I the only one really following Pope Francis on Twitter?).

With that said there is certainly a lot more material for journalists to work with beyond immigration. Who will uncover the "conservative-leaning" conspiracies behind the Church's support for state social welfare programs, just wages, gun control, and labor union rights? What is really behind the Church's opposition to the death penalty? How long until some hard working journalist discovers the secret Church document that outlines the real and complete political agenda of the Church in the United States (or this online stash of copies of actual correspondence sent by bishops to government leaders)?

Even Church involvement in foreign affairs is coming under the careful microscope of American journalism. Some are now highlighting the Pope's seemingly "anti-Obama" stance opposing military intervention in Syria. Mark Phillips of CBS News lamented that Pope Francis has been "uncommonly active" using "strong language" and had "taken sides" as he "entered into the world of partisan international politics" in a manner that is "music to the Russian president's ears." One more conspiracy down. Everyone already knows the Church is highly motivated to support a former KGB officer. Makes perfect sense. On top of that, CBS referred to the Pope's widely attended prayer vigil as a "religious street protest," as if the Pope had organized a Tea Party rally. Mark Phillips really can't recall the Catholic Church ever opposing war in the past? Did it support U.S. military intervention under Republican administrations?  

My advice for reporters would be that if you are writing a story and you think you have identified some hidden agenda behind the Church's decisions or actions reach out to someone in your newsroom who really knows the Church well (e.g., the religion reporter on staff or someone else who regularly writes about the Church). Air out your theory with them before it goes to print. The Church will rarely fit well in the elephant or donkey costume. As Ross Douhat over at The New York Times recently noted:

"The cycle is familiar: A pope says something about a controversial issue that doesn’t fit the media’s semi-informed preconceptions about Roman Catholic teaching, a firestorm of coverage follows, and then better-informed observers are left to pick up the pieces and explain that no, actually, the pope is just reasserting an idea — an openness to Darwinian evolution, the possibility that nonbelievers might go to heaven, pick your controversy — that the church already accepted or believed or allowed to be considered."

Well said.

Image above courtesy of Dhammika Heenpella at Flickr Creative Commons.