For John, BLUF: There is a Priest shortage. We need some innovative solutions. Nothing to see here; just move along.
It is time to come up with new solutions to the "priest shortage" now being experienced in the United States by the Roman Catholic Church.
My preferred solution is increased orthodoxy—hewing more closely to the lines laid down by the Popes. That approach seems to be working in the Arlington Diocese of Northern Virginia, where new parishes are opening up, rather than old ones being closed. The growth in vocations, allowing for a growth in parishes, in Arlington springs from hewing more closely to the orthodox approach. For us in the Boston diocese there are two problems with this solution. The first is that it is long term. The second is that in many dioceses there will be resistance that will not be quickly or easily overcome.
Thus my alternate solution: We should consider a corps of educated elderly laymen ordained for the confection of the Eucharist and additional limited duties. These men would not be full time priests, but rather gap fillers, saying a few masses, doing some Baptisms when Ordained Deacons are not available and officiating at some weddings. Their job would be to allow Diocesian Priests to focus on those things they have been trained for and which no one else can do. For example, hearing Confessions.
The recommendation is that a select number of men, age 65 and older, be vetted for their new duties and then given specific practical training for what they will be doing. Limited training. I would think sessions several times a week over six months. Not long, grueling sessions, but short blocks of instruction in saying the Mass, something these men have been observing for decades.
The flow of the Mass these men know. Holding the Mass sacred will be second nature to them. For the Mass they need some specific instruction and then review and renewal training at six month intervals, just to make sure they haven't picked up any wrong habits. Where there will be potential problems is with regard to the homily at each Mass. As all Roman Catholics know, there are precious few good homilists in Holy Mother the Church. From my experience I remember three. Father Tsue, who was hard to understand, as he was from China, Father Tom Sandi, and our current Pastor at the Immaculate Conception Parish here in Lowell. It isn't quality I worry about. The odds are the average man over 65 will do fairly well at a seven to ten minute talk on the readings of the day. The danger here is a drift from orthodoxy, since these men will not have had years of theological training. How do we make up for that?
It would seem to me that the way to prepare these new Elder Priests to be satisfactory homolists will be to provide a homiletic service for them. Each diocese should ensure the new Elder Priests receive a number of prepared homilies for each Sunday, emphasizing different aspects of the readings, thus giving the Priests options to pursue. But, each Priest should be encouraged to follow the guidance from the Local Ordinary.
My recommendation is that some individual Bishop reach out to the Vatican and request authority to conduct a long term experiment in recruiting, screening, training and ordaining a corps of Elder Priests, to help bridge the gap in vocations in their own diocese. With permission, the local Bishop would embark on two paths, one regarding the Elder Priests and the other the Parishes, helping the members of the Parishes to understand why this is being done and understanding that these men, embarking on this new phase in their spiritual journeys, are not trained seminarians, but rather men called to the Priesthood because of their spiritual journey and their experience along that journey.
Good luck to us.
Regards — Cliff
17 comments:
More Babies.
Our priest shortage stems from a baby shortage.
Babies.
Thus the emphasis on Orthodoxy.
Regards — Cliff
Baby shortage? It seems to me that that ought to be demonstrable with data. Has anyone done that?
It seems to me, at least plausibly, that the rise in percentage of the non-religious might have something to do with it, no?
Yes, Mr Lynne on that part as well.
But most things will decline due to lower fertility rates.
When the total fertility rate was on average let's say 5 children per a woman, most people would have at least a cousin who would be either a nun or a priest.
Now the total fertility rate is below 2, so everything will reflect that.
More people are non-religious, and the less religious you are the likelihood of having children lowers.
People may complain about parish closings in Massachusetts, but people elementary forget that many elementary schools are turning into senior centers. That's a reality I accept, but I don't think many older Catholics can. Massachusetts is 'graying', overall.
Now 'gulp' I grew up in a suburban neighborhood, (late 70s/80s/early90s) where almost no one had more then two children. A third one may be a try to got that boy or girl. The trend was to get your boy and girl, then stop.
But then again, many couples fall into 'the two income trap', as Elizabeth Warren called it. Women with their new earning capacity, misuse their economic power to buy a 'more house/more stuff'. The family requires two incomes, which limits her choices of how many children we have.
We always lived off one income, easier when there was just two of us. But we learn to always budget, that any second income was that 'safety net'. Now I feel a little 'screwed' in this economy, personally, but if we based everything on two incomes, I would probably be divorced with a foreclosed mcmansion with one child living with my parents.
We made the right economic decision to live in Lowell.
When people have one or two children, ultimately it is an economic reality that is all that can afford. That isn't their fault, and I'm not going shame anyone for not having children.
I think that the demographics do show that after the Baby Boom the number of children has decreased. Immigration is an important factor in sustaining the magic replacement fertility rate of 2.1 here in the US.
As for the rise in the percentage of non-religious (about 10% of the population changed in the last 20 years), I would think it would be a proportional thing. Less Catholics (drop of 1.2% in the last 20 years) would decrease the demand for Priests.
Just a thought.
Regards — Cliff
I'm not Catholic, so I hesitate to throw in my opinion....and perhaps I should hesitate. But, I suspect that the growing agonies of the Catholic church may well influence the desire for many to enter the priesthood. It would be quite interesting to see demographics on priesthood accessions in each of the Catholic communities, perhaps world wide. And, perhaps that is an unfair categorization. Catholicism seems more today to be a wide umbrella term, much like Protestantism....and underneath...groups who subscribe to the general tenets of the "faith" but vary widely in their practices.
Finally, I am doubtful that there is any "growth" in non-religious folks. I am not sure what that label really means however. It is a HUGE umbrella term. Atheist? Agnostic? Unaffiliated but a deep believer?
There will not be growth in non religious people, but as demographics change they will very well be the majority as populations decline.
So odd for myself to have over 25 cousins (who are much older then me), but my children have none!
I expect when "But most things will decline due to lower fertility rates" that the demand for priests would decline in proportion. If it's out of proportion then that might show a shortage in supply relative to demand. But talking about declining birth rates is insufficient to conclude anything about demand for priests, which is why I was asking for the data.
The growth of the 'nones' is real and there have been many polling studies on the subject of religion in general that all show the same trend. The main driving force of the trend is generational - younger people are far more likely atheist, agnostic, or unaffiliated.
http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx
http://www.wbur.org/npr/169164840/losing-our-religion-the-growth-of-the-nones
"There will not be growth in non religious people, but as demographics change they will very well be the majority as populations decline. "
This is a strange statement to me. If there are more (over time) in terms of real numbers as well as in terms of percentages, in what way can that be construed as not 'growth'?
Because overall the population us declining.
There is no growth with population decline.
Not only decline of fertility, but divorce.
If your parents are divorced, less likely religious. People will still have a child or two, but see their marriage as isn't life long vocation.
If marriage isn't seen as a vocation, that why would joining a religious order/priest/deacon be valued as one.
"Because overall the population us declining.
There is no growth with population decline."
That's not able to be assumed as an axiom. If the overall population is declining at some percent there exists some percent of growth a subset may have that would result in not only proportional growth but real growth.
"If your parents are divorced, less likely religious."
I can understand why that might appear to make common sense, but I can also see where that might be a misleading assumption. Again it begs for back-up.
All that said, I still fail to see how anyone has demonstrated that there is a shortage that can be tied to population decline. Shortage isn't just a state of supply but a state of supply and demand simultaneously. While I would plausibly expect (but not assume) a declining population of priests in a declining overall population, it does not follow that there is a shortage - you'd have to also measure demand, which I would also plausibly expect (but not assume)to be in decline owing to both a declining population as well as a declining religiosity overall.
It very well may be that there is a shortage, but I haven't seen anybody demonstrate it thus far.
Children of Divorced Parents More Likely to Switch, Pull Away from Religions via Science Daily
"Adults whose parents were divorced are more likely to switch religions or disassociate themselves from institutional religions altogether -- but growing up in a single-parent family does not have any effect on private religious life, including praying, according to a study by a Baylor University sociologist."
More from the sociologist..
"The findings also suggest that being a child of divorced parents is not in itself as important a factor in one's religious life as previous research has indicated, according to Jeremy Uecker, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology in Baylor's College of Arts & Sciences and lead author of the study, which appears in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
"You have to take into account the context," Uecker said. "People who are less religious are more likely to get divorced. And if the parents are of different religions or differing levels of religiosity from one another, they also are more likely to divorce. So if we ignore that, we're overstating the effects of divorce itself on religious outcomes."
---------
Interesting personal note, I was running through my mind and informal inventory of people I known/known through out my life and people I choose to associate with.
In comparison to the general population, I actually have connection to a diversity of people of different ethnicity/family structures WITH AN EXCEPTION.
I avoid divorced people. I don't have close friends/family who are divorced, and I have very little in common with divorced people as acquaintances/extended family. They fall off my personal grid of connections.
I'm a divorce-o-phobe.
Cool find.
Interesting personal tidbit there. Do you find your avoidance behavior to be a conscious decision or an unconscious one? I wonder if it's actually a logistical result - if you typically associated with the couple as a couple it creates 'social dissonance' to associated with them as divorced individuals. Of course for that the be whats happening you'd have to typically be associating only with couples who've never been married before.
I would say logistical, with my current social group. Most of then are never married parents, who live in Lowell and tend to not to have graduated from college.
Friends from the past, I went to school with, if they get divorces tend not to live in Lowell. Rather they choose to live in a Condo in the outer-suburbs/ try to keep the house after the divorce.
It's just a mess, I can't relate to. Divorce is messier then unmarried couples breaking up.
I want my wedding/shower gift back too.... and I paid a baby sitter to attend as well.
I take it personally, because when you invite me to your wedding. I have expectations, absent fault/neglect/abuse for the couple to work it out.
Post a Comment