Ministry Finances in the Midst of Pandemic: A Survey of U.S. Catholic Priests

This is the third in a series of posts CARA has prepared on the effects of the pandemic on the Catholic Church in the United States. The first post provided estimates on how the pandemic is affecting the amount of individual giving to parishes. The second post summarized U.S. Catholic Bishops’ views on how the Church is faring during the pandemic. This, third, post describes how the pandemic is affecting ministry finances from Catholic priests’ perspectives. The following is a summary of selected findings from a national survey conducted by CARA this summer (full report can be found here).

Financial Concerns Related to Covid-19 Pandemic
When asked about their biggest concern regarding the financial health of their parish, school, or other primary ministry, about 16% of responding priests indicated that they are doing fine financially and/or they are optimistic about the financial future of their ministries. Some of them attribute this good financial situation to the continued generous support of their parishioners, successful transition to electronic giving, receiving funds from the Paycheck Protection Plan, as well as financial and strategic support from their dioceses. A few priests stated that they are not concerned about finances, because they are putting their trust in God. A few of these comments are presented below.

• Electronic giving is helping, but people are very generous and continue sending checks by regular mail.
• The support of the parishioners has been nothing short of phenomenal. The parish will close the financial year (June 30) significantly ahead of last year.
• Honestly, I don't have big concerns. I trust in God.

However, the majority of priests expressed various apprehensions about the financial well-being of their ministries. Priests were often worried about declining revenue streams (in particular, collections and donations from parishioners). Among those most worried were priests overseeing Catholic schools who were uncertain about future tuition revenue. A few priests noted that they had to cancel fundraising events and, in some cases, suspend fundraising campaigns. Pastors in parishes getting a lot of visitors (e.g., tourists, students, or seasonal visitors) had to further adjust their revenue expectations. Some of these comments appear below.

• Many people only give when they attend Mass (especially those who give cash). So, that income is not materializing, until we have larger Masses again.
• (…) I have a concern that people do not understand that Church is not a pay as you go situation, but a real stewardship opportunity to show gratitude for what God has given us even in this time of refinement (maybe even especially during this time).
• My biggest concern in how many students, and how much tuition, we will lose if e-learning is what we are still doing (…).
• The largest fundraiser of the year is put on hold during a crucial time.

In consequence of declining revenue streams, priests were worried about their ability to continue on with their ministries. One of the chief concerns regarded the need to lower salaries/benefits and/or terminate/furlough staff. Many of the priests reported that they already had to take those steps while others anticipated that they will need to do so soon. Additionally, some priests expressed concerns about their ability to pay for expenses related to ongoing construction and maintenance. To some of the priests, the main concern was the ability to administer the Sacraments, to support the poor, and to keep schools open. Some examples are below.

• The biggest concern is to find ways, alternatives to support new ministries, pertinent to the “new situation” (pastorally) emerging from this pandemic.
• Although the financial health of the parish is of significant concern in as far as the physical plant and its maintenance depend on it, it is not, however, the most important part for the administering of the Sacraments, which is ultimately, the reason of being for a parish and the service of God's people.
• Our elementary / middle school has done a herculean lift of offering distance learning to all students. However, the poorest students (though provided w Chromebooks), they lack internet connectivity. How do we keep the school running for the next year without a guaranteed enrollment?

Instead of focusing on the financial challenges to their ministries, some of the priests focused on the financial and other problems of their parishioners. They were worried about the effect of the pandemic on the growing unemployment and/or lower financial health of parishioners. A few of them noted that their parish’s declining finances has affected their ability to support parishioners in need (in particular, families with children, old people). Some were worried about the effects of the pandemic on the long-term engagement of their parishioners.

• The fall out of unemployment, domestic abuse/ violence, alcoholism, suicide as a result of the lockdown.
• Biggest concern is the financial health of our parishioners and their ability to support the parish.
• Ability to continue meeting needs of families, especially those with children in school.

Actions Taken to Address the Financial Problems of the Parish
Catholic priests described how their parishes considered and/or acted upon various means of addressing the financial health concerns described above. Specifically, priests were asked to indicate in regard to seven specific actions whether they “considered doing so,” they “considered doing so, but decided against it,” they “are currently deciding whether to do so,” or they “have done so as a result of the pandemic.” Responding priests could also opt to leave the question unanswered, if they have not considered a particular option, or if this option was not applicable to them. The chart below shows the seven actions, ordered from those most likely to have been done to those least likely.

In terms of parishes’ efforts to mitigate the financial consequences of the pandemic, at the time of taking the survey in the summer of 2020, seven in ten priests reported that they have been encouraging parishioners to consider electronic giving for parish collections (72%) and that they applied to Federal or State assistance programs (Paycheck Protection Program, etc.) (70%). One in five priests furloughed some staff (22%) and eliminated one or more pastoral programs where they serve (21%). One in six priests reported that they decided to close their Catholic elementary school (17%) and to close the parish or ministry where they serve as a result of the pandemic (16%). And, one in ten priests (11%) laid off some staff as a result of the pandemic.

Catholic Vote 2020

An election poll that focuses on Catholics has been hard to come by in 2020. That is until this week. A Real Clear Opinion Research poll, conducted in October of 1,490 Catholics who are likely to vote, provides some interesting insights. The study, commissioned by EWTN, indicates a swing towards Democrat Joe Biden. The vote in 2016 was so close among Catholics it was hard to discern which way they had voted. Polls didn’t agree.

In the current poll, which has a margin of error of ±2.8 percentage points, 48% of likely Catholic voters recall voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and 46% recall voting for Hillary Clinton. In the upcoming 2020 contest, 52% of these likely voters plan on voting for Joe Biden and 40% for Donald Trump. Forty-five percent of respondents self-identify as Democrats and 36% as Republicans. Forty percent of respondents say they are conservatives, 36% liberals, and 24% moderates.

If accurate, these results could be a bad sign for the Trump campaign. The winner of the Catholic vote typically wins a majority of the popular vote, although the Electoral College may result in the candidate with fewer votes nationally winning the presidency. State-level results for the Catholic vote did play an important role in 2016. Trump won the vote of Catholics in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Florida. Trump’s lead among Catholics was a necessity for winning Michigan and Florida—two states he needed to be elected. Both were 1 percentage point races overall and Trump won Catholics in Michigan by 18 percentage points and by 10 percentage points in Florida. According to the Pew Religious Landscape study, 18% of Michigan’s adults are Catholic as are 21% of Florida’s adults. Thus, Trump would not have had the Electoral College votes to win the presidency without the votes of Catholics in Michigan and Florida.

In predicting the 2020 outcome, state polls may be more important than national surveys. There is also the possibility of social desirability bias affecting the polling. Some who may end up voting for Trump may not accurately share this intention with pollsters because they feel like this is socially undesirable in the current political climate. This happens most often when the poll is conducted with a interviewer over the phone or in person. Self-administered surveys tend to minimize social desirability bias. The Real Clear Opinion Research/EWTN study does show some social desirability effects but this is only observable in Mass attendance reports. Thirty-eight percent of respondents report weekly Mass attendance prior to the pandemic. Surveys conducted without interviewers find only about 22% of adult Catholics attends this frequently.

Biden's 12 percentage point lead is large and well outside the margin of error. It appears the Catholic vote may not be as close in 2020 as it has been in other recent presidential elections. 

Some of the other interesting findings from the survey include:

• When ranking items that are “very important” to them when considering who to vote for President this year, Catholics said the most important is their economic status (47% “very important”) followed by their political party (44%), their community (44%), their race and ethnicity (33%) and then their Catholic faith (32%).
• Forty-seven percent of Catholics approve of Donald Trump as president and 53% disapprove.
• Catholics are more approving of Democrats in Congress than Republicans (51% compared to 49%).
• Catholics top concerns in thinking about their presidential vote include: economy and jobs (73% “a major concern”), coronavirus (68%), healthcare (67%), and civil unrest (53%).
• More support than oppose the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court (46% compared to 28%).
• A majority say that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s remark “the dogma lives loudly in you” at Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing is “not appropriate” (51%) compared to 26% who felt this was “appropriate” and 23% who said they were “not sure.”
• More believe practicing Catholic politicians should follow the teachings of  the Catholic Church and oppose abortion than those who believe they shouldn’t (43% compared to 29%). Fifty-nine percent personally believe abortion is morally wrong.
• Eleven percent believe abortion should never be permitted. Eleven percent believe it should be allowed to save the life of the mother. Thirty-seven percent believe it should be allowed in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Eighteen percent believe it should be allowed in the first three months of pregnancy. Seven percent believe it should be allowed in the first six months of pregnancy. Fifteen percent believe it should be allowed at anytime during a pregnancy if a mother wants this.
• Catholics are supportive of non-violent protests (61% saying these do more good than harm) and are not supportive of protests that turn violent (82% saying these do more harm than good).

Note: If you are a regular reader of this blog you already know that I (CARA researcher Mark Gray) am a political scientist and pollster who is profoundly apolitical. CARA is also an independent non-partisan research center. I am not registered to vote nor will I be. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. In political analysis and forecasting I always try to stick solely to the data.

Some of the Highest COVID-19 Death Rates Are in Majority Catholic Countries

Looking globally at the most recent COVID-19 death rates per 100,000 population in countries with available data, it becomes apparent that some Catholic countries have been hit harder than others. As of yesterday, 17 countries had more than 30 deaths per 100,000 people. More than three in four of these countries have Catholic majority populations (as measured by the Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae and Pew Research Center estimates).

The only countries that are not majority Catholic in the 17 hardest hit are the United States (47.93 deaths per 100,000), the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands. The latter two countries have not embraced masks and lockdowns as other countries have. The US and UK have reportedly lagged behind other countries that more quickly adopted tracking and tracing. Many other factors are certainly important.  

So what about the cluster of majority Catholic countries with comparatively higher numbers of deaths per 100,000 of their populations? There is one outlier. San Marino, a micro-state surrounded by Italy, has a population of only about 33,785. With 42 deaths its deaths per 100,000 calculates out to 124.32 (the principality of Andorra also has only 77,006 residents). Among the rest of the Catholic countries are states in Europe and Latin America where COVID-19 infections have been among the most widespread.

There is too much to untangle to know why this cluster of Catholic countries has been heavily affected. One would need to control for many other aspects. How old is the population? Are there underlying health conditions like obesity that might factor? Were enough hospitals available and prepared? What are the policies for lock-downs, testing, tracing, and use of masks? How well are people cooperating with these policies?

In the tradition of Max Weber or Émile Durkheim one might hypothesize that some aspect(s) of faith may be involved as well. While I really doubt this, it is the case that Catholic Masses involve a lot of interaction between parishioners and the distribution of Communion involves others touching something people consume (attending large religious services is considered a high risk environment). At the same time, these factors would be present in many non-Catholic religious gatherings. Did something about Catholic culture and the response to the sick or people in need factor in? We just don't know enough to even really generate good hypotheses yet.

It is also far too early to dive deeply into these questions. The pandemic is ongoing and it could just be a coincidence in how the virus has spread around the globe that deaths per 100,000 of a country's population are higher in some Catholic countries than many others. Once sufficient time has passed and we have a better understanding of how the pandemic spread and ended we can control for many of the factors discussed above to more closely examine the impact on majority Catholic countries. Note that nearly three fourths of majority Catholic countries are not in the cluster with more than 30 deaths per 100,000.

Another way to look at the impact is also to analyze case fatality rates, or the percentage of confirmed cases that result in death. However, this is tricky because there are too many differences between countries in testing for good comparable data on confirmed cases to be reliable. Also with so many asymptomatic cases the actual "fatality rate" (this would be measured by the infection fatality ratio, or the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals) is difficult to establish. However, in the data that are available, some of the highest case fatality rates are in majority Catholic countries. These include: Italy (14.1% confirmed cases resulting in fatality), Belgium (13.9%), France (13.3%), Hungary (13.1%), Mexico (10.9%), and Spain (9.3%). The only other countries with similar or higher rates are: Yemen (28.8%), the United Kingdom (15.1%), and the Netherlands (10.9%). The confirmed case fatality rate in the United States is currently 3.3%. The best estimate for the infection fatality ratio in the United States is 0.65%. 

While COVID-19 is something that one might say should be left to doctors and virologists, without an effective vaccine or therapeutic treatment, social scientists become important. The virus is easily transmissible when people are involved in behaviors that bring them into contact with many others indoors. Creating new ways to work, vote, learn, and just live with this reality will also involve the work of economists, political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists. Here at CARA we continue to research how the pandemic is affecting the Catholic Church and how it can best provide what people need to continue to worship and live out their faith.