Determining a stable group - applying statistics

[JRKH]

I am not a statistician but am aquainted with some of the principles so I began wondering - - - - and came up with this.

Can statistical analysis be applied to determine the probable size of a stable group in a given diocese?
For instance -
(Background data) I live in the Cincinnati area. We have one church (in a poor area) where the TLM is said on Sunday at 11:30 am. Across the Ohio River in Covington is another Church where mass is said at 12:15pm. Dayton Ohio has a Church where mass is said earlier.

Now lets just look at the churches in the Cincinnati Archdiocese.
There are 2, one in Cinci and one in Dayton. These 2 locations provide the only TLM services for an archdiocese of 19 counties with a total population of over 480,000 catholics (data from the archdiocese website).

Given that these churches are not centrally located in the archdiocese (though they probably are central given population distribution) and that some of us have to drive past several other parishes to get there isn’t is logical to assume that there is some larger percentage of people who would attend the TLM if it were more widely available?

Let us assume that these two locations combined attract between100 and 130 families per week (200 to 300 total souls). These are the most devoted souls in their given area to the TLM, but are they the only ones interested? Of course not!! Many people who might be interested have other obligations/reasons for not making the trip.

OH heck - thinking about this stuff starts to give me a headache, but my point is that there should be a way to extrapolate a reasonable number of people who might make up a “Stable Group” for the purposes of Diocesen planning.

Are there any statiticians out there who can shed light on how this might work?

James

 

[Tomster]

I am not a statistician but am aquainted with some of the principles so I began wondering - - - - and came up with this.

Can statistical analysis be applied to determine the probable size of a stable group in a given diocese?
For instance -
(Background data) I live in the Cincinnati area. We have one church (in a poor area) where the TLM is said on Sunday at 11:30 am. Across the Ohio River in Covington is another Church where mass is said at 12:15pm. Dayton Ohio has a Church where mass is said earlier.

Now lets just look at the churches in the Cincinnati Archdiocese.
There are 2, one in Cinci and one in Dayton. These 2 locations provide the only TLM services for an archdiocese of 19 counties with a total population of over 480,000 catholics (data from the archdiocese website).

Given that these churches are not centrally located in the archdiocese (though they probably are central given population distribution) and that some of us have to drive past several other parishes to get there isn’t is logical to assume that there is some larger percentage of people who would attend the TLM if it were more widely available?

Let us assume that these two locations combined attract between100 and 130 families per week (200 to 300 total souls). These are the most devoted souls in their given area to the TLM, but are they the only ones interested? Of course not!! Many people who might be interested have other obligations/reasons for not making the trip.

OH heck - thinking about this stuff starts to give me a headache, but my point is that there should be a way to extrapolate a reasonable number of people who might make up a “Stable Group” for the purposes of Diocesen planning.

Are there any statiticians out there who can shed light on how this might work?

Statistician I’m not. But how about “where two or three are gathered in My Name.”?

James

 

[JRKH]

This poll was conducted a month or so ago and might porvide some useful data for the analysis.

View Poll Results: Preferences on TLM vs NO
N.O. = Satisfied. See no reason to change 27.27%
N.O. = Needs changed. Too stuffy 2.73%
N.O. = Needs changed. Not reverent enough 45.45%
TLM = Been to TLM and would like to see more use of it 56.36%
TLM = Been to TLM and don’t like it 6.36%
TLM = Never been to TLM. Would like to know more about it 11.82%
TLM = Never been to TLM and am not interested. 5.45%
No preference = Whatever they do is OK with me. I’m just there for communion. 3.64%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 110

 

[Tomster]

Statistician I’m not. How about “where two or three are gathered in My Name.”?

 

[IrishAm]

Sadly, there are those who feel anyone who wishes to experience TLM is “not stable” by definition.

 

[JRKH]

Statistician I’m not. How about “where two or three are gathered in My Name.”?

No argument or concern there. In fact our FSSP priest joklingly refered to a meeting they were having and the question came up as to determining what size constituted a stabel group and the answer was 2.

My point is more to the idea determining what is a likely population size for determining the needs for ministers etc.
Too often I hear others say that, because so relatively few show up for the TLM, that there isn’t that much interest. I know that there are many reasons for people not to go the extra yard to get to the TLM. Distance, health, children are just a few.

I’m sure that it can be shown statistically that within a given population there should be “X” number of people who would find the TLM beneficial if they were exposed to it.

James

 

[Rolltide]

OH heck - thinking about this stuff starts to give me a headache, but my point is that there should be a way to extrapolate a reasonable number of people who might make up a “Stable Group” for the purposes of Diocesen planning.

Are there any statiticians out there who can shed light on how this might work?

James

The point is moot, really, since Ecclesia Dei is about to make a ruling clarifying exactly this issue. There is an issue involving two different Latin versions of Summorum Pontificum. Father Z has an article about it on his blog. The long and the short of it is that the document may not require a stable group at all, since the word “stabiliter” (stable) on some versions of the document that was sent out is replaced with “contintenter” on the Vatican site. It seems that the Vatican released an earlier draft by mistake, and has the correct version posted on their website.

Here’s the link to the blog:
wdtprs.com/blog/category/summorum-pontificum/

In any case, the official clarification is to be announced in a formal document soon.

 

[universalindult]

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
How big must a group be for the Latin Mass?

Translation from the ever-excellent kreuz.net – Wie groß muß die Gruppe sein?

A prerequisite for the request for the old Mass is the existence of a “fixed group of believers.” The German Bishops are attempting to use this point against the Motu proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum’.

The latest edition of the German theological journal ‘Una Voce Correspondence’ has published an article with the title "A Canonical Note on " Summorum Pontificum “and its practical implementation”.

The author is the Right Revd. Father Wolfgang Rothe, Canon Lawyer and former Subregens of the Seminary of St. Pölten.

The paper deals with the question of how big a group of believers must be to request the old Mass, or whether such a group needs to be of a particular size.

Father Rothe also raises the problem, as to what is to be understood by the phrase “enduring existance” of this group.

Comparisons from the church law

The author notes that the term used “fixed group of believers” is vague. This finds expression in church law in different contexts:

• Canon 545, para 2 speaks of a " certain group of the Christian faithful of the parish [christifidelium coetu] ", for which given special pastoral concerns, a separate parochial vicar can be assigned.

• church rectors may according to Canon 560 of church law be instructed to open their churches to “certain groups of the Christian faithful [christifidelium coetibus], to conduct liturgical celebrations there.”

• For a particular group of the Christian faithful [coetus christifidelium] a special chaplain may be appointed, in accordance with Canon 564,.

Father Rothe noted that in the canons cited, as in ‘Summorum Pontificum’, a group apparently is meant that exists within a parish without a fixed form - “this is neither legally laid down nor can be precisely delineated.”

It is dealt with not as an association, but merely as a kind of group with common beliefs or in particular need:

“Their durability is not measured by the total number of their believers consciously belonging nor by the specific, actual composition dependant on the grounds for association, but simply on their actual existence” - says Father Rothe.

Three members

As to the size of this group, Father Rothe says:

“Neither in the Apostolic Letter” Summorum Pontificum "or even in the Codex Iuris Canonici is a minimum number indicated, as of a majority of believers, the group is a quality and the resultant rights take over, where it is pertinent to recur to the general legal principle, which reads: “Tres faciunt collegium” - German: **A group consists of (at least) three (people). "

Because this group is neither an association nor any other legally ascertainable grouping, no other conditions can be made of the people involved, before permanent membership of this group is determined.**

Of significance is merely that - at least permanently-three people together attend a celebration according to the old Rite.

If that is the case and the subsequent practice is not the opposite, the Papal condition for the use of the 62 Missal has been met:

“Whether it is always the same people or not, is irrelevant to the sustainability of the group.”

Criticism of Augsburg implementation rules

Accordingly, Father Rothe criticised the implementing provisions of the Bishop of Augsburg. This demands a minimum number of 25 believers for a celebration of the old Mass.

This would have significantly reduced the opportunities provided by the Motu Proprio.

That is not only unacceptable, but it appears from an examination of Canon 33 para 1 also that the implementing rules-at least as far as the required minimum number is concerned, have no legal force.

They should therefore neither be followed nor should they be cited by any ecclesiastical authority.

 

[otjm]

One can argue about statistics all day long. The decision will be made elsewhere, though.

Part of the equation which has not been defined is who is able to say the EF. Estimates range form someone who was not trained in the rubrics having to go back to a year or more of training (not likely) to someone who can pronounce the words correctly in Latin but has no idea whatsoever of what they mean, in terms of knowing Latin (also not likely - certainly not what used to be required prior to Vatican 2).

And from the mix of that and whatever Rome finally decides is a stable group or a continuing group, there is still the need for priests. Parishes that lack enough priests to be able to meet the needs of the parish in terms of the OF and be able to add one more Mass to a Sunday schedule are not likely to see the EF on Sunday; for example, if there is sufficient need for three Masses in the OF currently and one priest, there is no way to add the EF to the schedule. A priest can say Mass once a day; twice a day with need and permission, and 3 times a day with great need and permission. That is where it stops. This does not mean that the EF cannot be said, but that it will most likely end up on a weekday.

Trying to show anything by statistics of one issue is to miss the points of the MP itself.

Time and demand will resolve the issue. People tend to be impatient and want immediate change, and in the life of the Church over 2000 years, immediate is not really the operating word. In time things will sort out. What happens in one area of the country will not necessarily happen in another area, if for no other reason than different demographics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For whatever my opinion is worth:

I think “stable group” or whatever the proper terminology might be, is going to be determined by what the bishop of the diocese wants, absent powerful pressure from Rome. In my own diocese, the bishop has said he will “never” allow the TLM in this diocese. So I think he can be counted on to wiggle and dance and temporize and evade until either he is forced to comply or, more likely, until his replacement comes. (He is already past the retirement age and has, as required, submitted his resignation.)

In other places, like Kansas City, for example, where Bishop Finn is sympathetic toward the TLM, it will likely be a matter of available priests.

I truly don’t understand this business about “how long it will take” for priests to learn to say the TLM. I served the TLM as a boy, and we memorized our Latin prayers and responses. The priest read all of his, except for the prayers at the foot of the altar. It doesn’t take long to learn what they mean, and one doesn’t have to be able to converse fluently in Latin to speak it and know what it means. I think the difficulty is 'way overblown.

 

[cam100]

Are there any statiticians out there who can shed light on how this might work?

As an analyst, I know something about statistics and market research. However, this issue is also more than just raw statistics, as some posters above pointed out. If you are ambitious enough, however, you could poll the Catholics of the area churches to see how many would be interested in regularly attending the TLM. If the parishes publish directories, you could use the phone numbers or addresses to contact people about this.

Ideally, the availability of the TLM shouldn’t be about numbers, but in reality, a church needs financial support, and the diocese is more likely to provide the type of masses that will attract a certain number of people. So being able to demonstrate support for the TLM probably will help your cause.

If you actually want to try doing something like this and need any advice regarding specific aspects of it, feel free to contact me directly through the forum. (Do you know how to do that?)

 

[JRKH]

As an analyst, I know something about statistics and market research. However, this issue is also more than just raw statistics, as some posters above pointed out. If you are ambitious enough, however, you could poll the Catholics of the area churches to see how many would be interested in regularly attending the TLM. If the parishes publish directories, you could use the phone numbers or addresses to contact people about this.

Ideally, the availability of the TLM shouldn’t be about numbers, but in reality, a church needs financial support, and the diocese is more likely to provide the type of masses that will attract a certain number of people. So being able to demonstrate support for the TLM probably will help your cause.

If you actually want to try doing something like this and need any advice regarding specific aspects of it, feel free to contact me directly through the forum. (Do you know how to do that?)

I appreiciate the responses from everyone, and especially from you cam100. I’m afraid I don’t know enough about this type of statistical work to try to tackle it in any meaningful way but I appreciate the offer to help. Obviously this is a very complicated issue and my post only addresses one piece.
My background is in the Quality Assurance profession and so my statistical knowledge is limited to Histograms, Paretos, and SPC work.

My intention in posting was to address the situations some find themselves in where a bishop flatly declares that there isn’t sufficient interest in the TLM etc. This obvious ploy on their part should be counterable by a legitimate understanding of the preferential norms in a given population.
By this I mean that, within any given population, there will be a range of preferances from “ultra-liberal” to “ultra-conservative” with the majority falling somewhat in the middle. Many of those in the middle will hold no strong opinions one way or another, either out of disinterest, dis-information, or from mis-understanding/mis-information.
These things rely mainly on a study of sociology and the statistical tools applicable to populations which is far outside of my expertise.

If I have given some folks something to consider in their efforts to promote the TLM then my post served it’s purpose.

James

 

[otjm]

I truly don’t understand this business about “how long it will take” for priests to learn to say the TLM. I served the TLM as a boy, and we memorized our Latin prayers and responses. The priest read all of his, except for the prayers at the foot of the altar. It doesn’t take long to learn what they mean, and one doesn’t have to be able to converse fluently in Latin to speak it and know what it means. I think the difficulty is 'way overblown.

I was in the seminary in the mid 60’s, while Latin was still required. You had to have two years of college Latin and at least a C average (and I won’t even get into how grading may or may not have slid downhill since then) to be able to continue. Couldn’t get Latin? Couldn’t graduate to Theology.

Will the same requirement be in place? I have no idea. However, reading the letter the Pope wrote that accompanied the MP, he doesn’t seem to think that a weekend bootcamp of Latin is going to be the prerequisite. While else would he say “The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.”

If one wants to look at the issue from the perspective of getting more of the EF available say, in the next 6 months, then I would suggest that there is more difficulty than those anxious for the EF are willing to admit. If we put the issue in terms of several years - a mere blip in terms of historical time, but seemingly an eternity to those who are anxious - the problem will self - correct (not to mention that those bishops who try to waltz around the issue will have had time to find out what tune is on Rome’s dance card).

One does not have to speak flluently in Latin (we weren’t taught it as a spoken language - that’s a whole 'nother story), but we certainly had to know more than the parrot responses that we all learned as altar boys. We actually had to know Latin, not memorize words and phrases as a seminarian. Many, but not all of us had had Latin in high school, and Latin in college was a bit more of a challenge for those who had not had any than it was for those of us who had had Latin in high school; but even those who did have high school Latin did not sail through the class. It was serious work.

 

[cam100]

…
One does not have to speak flluently in Latin (we weren’t taught it as a spoken language - that’s a whole 'nother story), but we certainly had to know more than the parrot responses that we all learned as altar boys. We actually had to know Latin, not memorize words and phrases as a seminarian. Many, but not all of us had had Latin in high school, and Latin in college was a bit more of a challenge for those who had not had any than it was for those of us who had had Latin in high school; but even those who did have high school Latin did not sail through the class. It was serious work.

You bring up a serious point. A priest really has to be able to UNDERSTAND what he’s saying in latin if he’s going to say the TLM. As you said, for priests that don’t know Latin, this requires a lot more training than a crash course. Altar boys might get away with just repeating the words they learn. A priest needs a deeper understanding.

 

[universalindult]

A priest really has to be able to UNDERSTAND what he’s saying in latin if he’s going to say the TLM.

It may be a good time to recall this:

His Emnience Edward Card. Egan, Archbishop of New York made a statement last month on the Motu Proprio summorum Pontificum. It is a surprisingly chatty. His Eminence is a canonist of note and his Latin credentials are very fine indeed.

…

II. Priests who choose to celebrate Mass in the “extraordinary” form must have a sufficient knowledge of the Latin language to pronounce the words correctly. [Excellent. The priest does not have to be an expert Latinist. He must have sufficient knowledge to pronounce the words. That is what idoneus is all about: it is minimum qualification, not expertise.]