Lies or Reliable Statistics?

[mark_e_rhodes]

I’ve encountered two statistics several times lately. 1) 90 % of American Catholics regard the homilies they hear as poor. 2) 30 % of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Do these statistics sound credible to you?
If not, do you have more reliable ones?
If the primary mission of the priest is to preach the Gospel and celebrate the Eucharist (-and it is), what does this say about American Catholic priests today? What might improve the situation?
Curiously,
Mark

 

[silkycath]

mark_e_rhodes:

I’ve encountered two statistics several times lately. 1) 90 % of American Catholics regard the homilies they hear as poor. 2) 30 % of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Do these statistics sound credible to you?

Well I think so. And I think that’s one of the normal risks for having such a large amount of members within the Catholic Church. Yet we have to follow Christ’s examplary mission to earth… to preach the Good News and search and take care of the lost sheeps…

mark_e_rhodes:

If the primary mission of the priest is to preach the Gospel and celebrate the Eucharist (-and it is), what does this say about American Catholic priests today?

Nothing much… I think the Priests usually have a rather dense fixed-schedule and they’re quite busy working on it…

mark_e_rhodes:

What might improve the situation?

While I think they should do more house-to-house sort of “socialisation” of the Faith such as regular visitations to members of the parish, etc., we cannot just leave the hard work to Priests alone… since the “call” to evangelise also applies for us all.

:: ~Edward~ :: :bible1:

 

[tee_eff_em]

2) 30 % of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Do these statistics sound credible to you?
If not, do you have more reliable ones?

I have no insight into homilies, but I think this one is misleading, and cannot know its reliability without more information.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly poor catechisis. When I have seen this more fleshed-out, the answers indicate many people misunderstand the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence. If you asked them if they believed what the Church believes, they might (mistakenly) say “yes”. That is: I don’t think they go in with the intent to deny Church teaching, but rather they think they believe as the Church, but are so poorly catechized that they don’t know they are mistaken.

However, I believe the primary problem with this survey is: ***Who *is Catholic? **Many people self-identify as Catholic, but (eg) only attend church on Christmas and Easter (if that). I would bet that such “cultural Catholics” skew this survey.

In fact: Another statistic I hear bandied about is that each weekend the typical Catholic parish receives collection envelopes from 25%-30% of their registered membership. Hey, that matches pretty well with the Real Presence statistic above! Maybe that survey does not reflect the beliefs of the Catholic-in-the-pew so much as it does those Catholics-outside-the-pews (or more precisely: reflects the opinions of both without distinction)?

:twocents:
tee

 

[cameron_lansing]

mark_e_rhodes:

I’ve encountered two statistics several times lately. 1) 90 % of American Catholics regard the homilies they hear as poor. 2) 30 % of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Do these statistics sound credible to you?
If not, do you have more reliable ones?
If the primary mission of the priest is to preach the Gospel and celebrate the Eucharist (-and it is), what does this say about American Catholic priests today? What might improve the situation?
Curiously,
Mark

Well, Mark, how rigorous do you want to get?

To assess the credibility of the statistics and their reliabililty, it is necessary to know the source and the methodology behind them, who sought the results (to determine possible bias or agenda), the language and manner in which the questions were framed, and the composition and size of the sampled population.

Once those factors are provided, you would be able to obtain more useful feedback, I think.

Until then, any attempt to respond would be like nailing jello to a wall, and providing more reliable studies might be a somewhat moot endeavor.

Responding to the closing questions would also depend on taking the statistics that you have become acquainted with as true. Since they are still open to examination and judgment, that would be begging the question.

So I guess my question is, what could you tell us about these statistics, etc.? Is there a site or article that you might be able to direct anyone toward?

 

[Ted_CharlotteNC]

As with most things, people hear what they want. If the parish needs something, and the priest prepares a homily based on the need, I think the statistics will bear out 90% didn’t like a homily based on active participation. I am aware that only about 10% are active. The rest (the 90% that didn’t like the homily) don’t materially support the church/parish anyway.

Are these just American Catholics? Are these Catholics that go to mass once a week, twice a year, go to confession every 5 years?

As far as the 30% and belief in the real presence, I am surprised it is that low. It takes faith to believe it and I really don’t think 70% of Americans that call themselves Catholic have that much faith. I would venture that statistic is probably not based on active parishioners who rely on the Eucharist to live and breath

 

[silkycath]

tee_eff_em:

Part of the problem is undoubtedly poor catechisis.

This is absolutely undeniable… How would we prevent this?

:: ~Edward~ :: :bible1:

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

Tee,
Most parishioners I know agree with the homiliy stat. That doesn’t make them right, of course. I grew up Southern Baptist–there, if you can’t preach, you get fired, or rather, don’t get hired in the first place–so I’ve often thought my judgment may be skewed by early experience. That’s why I wanted to know what cradle Catholics thought of the preaching they heard. Bishop Dolan, the auxialry for St. Louis and former rector of the North American College in Rome, has argued (see PRIESTS FOR THE THIRD MILLENIUM) that the inability to preach should be seen as an impediment to orders.
I agree that catechesis is poor. That won’t be fixed anytime soon, I’m afraid.
The question ‘who is Catholic’ is easy enough to answer once one distinguishes being being a Catholic and being a practicing/informed one. Once you’re baptized Catholic, you’re Catholic until you officially separate from the fold (-or the fold formally separates from you!).
In Rodney Stark’s FOR THE GLORY OF GOD, he argues (briefly; it’s not the main argument) that we overestimate the faithfulness of Catholics in the Middle Ages. (We think of the saints first, and almost none of them were members of parishes! Nearly all belonged to religous orders.) He says that THIS, our age, may be the age of faith.
Hopeful thought, isn’t it?
Mark
Mark

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

cameron_lansing:

Well, Mark, how rigorous do you want to get?

To assess the credibility of the statistics and their reliabililty, it is necessary to know the source and the methodology behind them, who sought the results (to determine possible bias or agenda), the language and manner in which the questions were framed, and the composition and size of the sampled population.

The 90 % statistic came from Andrew Greeley, who is a sociologist as well as a priest. Bishop Dolan (former rector of the NAC in Rome and auxilary for St. Louis) thinks that although he can’t vouch that that’s the precise number, all his experience tells him that preaching is poor. (He thinks the inability to preach should be seen as an impediment to orders.)

I’ve only been Catholic for eight years now, but in that time I’ve served/lived in several parishes (and this has confirnmed my suspicion that many priests do NOT put much time or thought into homilies, though of course, some do) and visited many another one. I’ve been a daily Mass attendee since entering seminary and could count on one hand the number of good preachers I have heard. I wondered if my experience was normal.
Mark

 

[Della]

As to the statistic about belief in the Real Presence, as I recall, the questions asked about it in the survey were so difficult that even some theologians answered them wrong.

And considering how poorly many Catholics have been catechized, it shouldn’t be surprising if they don’t even know how to define transubstantiation let alone believe in it.

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

Della:

As to the statistic about belief in the Real Presence, as I recall, the questions asked about it in the survey were so difficult that even some theologians answered them wrong.

And considering how poorly many Catholics have been catechized, it shouldn’t be surprising if they don’t even know how to define transubstantiation let alone believe in it.

As a convert, I wonder: How good was catechesis before the Second Vatican Council?
What is the mark of a well-catechized person? As a future (God willing) priest, I want to know what the right goal is! Perhaps 70 % believing in the Real Presence is BETTER than it used to be. We tend to think of everyone in the Middle Ages as being devout but history tells a different tale. (It was only after Trent that priests had to attend seminary. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is a marvel, but how well was it implemented? Like the GIRM today? I don’t know.)
I’m rambling. I apologize.
Mark

 

[Della]

mark_e_rhodes:

As a convert, I wonder: How good was catechesis before the Second Vatican Council?
What is the mark of a well-catechized person? As a future (God willing) priest, I want to know what the right goal is! Perhaps 70 % believing in the Real Presence is BETTER than it used to be. We tend to think of everyone in the Middle Ages as being devout but history tells a different tale. (It was only after Trent that priests had to attend seminary. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is a marvel, but how well was it implemented? Like the GIRM today? I don’t know.)
I’m rambling. I apologize.
Mark

I’ve wondered about catechesis before VCII, too. We read about some of the great converts, such as G. K. Chesterton and get the impression that everyone was just as aware, just as zealous as people like him, but I highly doubt it, too.

In every age there are people who will just slide along and those who really want to know what they believe and have a deep desire to live out their Catholic faith in every aspect of their lives. It’s the whole wheat and tares thing, over and over, down through history, don’t you think?

Btw, I will keep you and your vocation in my prayers!

 

[cameron_lansing]

Thanks, Mark.

I’ll see if I can dig up the material from the lead.

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

Yes, the wheat and the tares. (I didn’t know Catholics said “tares”! )
I think the Church sees our time as a graced one. Obviously, the people cannot be a leaven to the world if they do not have the faith. We may be better off than we tend to think! My concern as a future (God willing) pastor is, “How does one know a parish is fairly sound doctrinally?” Some priests seem to brag about the number of ministries they offer while shying away from the question, “Yes, but do the hold the faith handed on by the apostles or something they’ve hit upon to suit themselves?”
I once asked a priest if it would disturb him to hear that (and be persuaded that) the bones of Jesus had been found in a tomb outside Jerusalem. He said no, it would make no difference to his faith. (Heaven also has no bearing on his faith.) I thought: Okay, this man has faith but it’s not the Catholic one! He should stop starting up new ministries and turn again to the gospel.
Thank you for your prayers for my vocation.
Mark

 

[tee_eff_em]

mark_e_rhodes:

The question ‘who is Catholic’ is easy enough to answer once one distinguishes being being a Catholic and being a practicing/informed one. Once you’re baptized Catholic, you’re Catholic until you officially separate from the fold (-or the fold formally separates from you!).

Yes, I understand that. But still: Is it surprising that non-practicing Catholics might not understand the doctrine of the Real Presence? Or that they might think they understand it, but are in fact mistaken?

Here is a link to an early thread which discussed this, including some clues to the source of the statistic: [thread=5395]I believe in the Eucharist[/thread] (Though the link I provided at that time has since gone stale)

tee

 

[Della]

mark_e_rhodes:

Yes, the wheat and the tares. (I didn’t know Catholics said “tares”! )
I think the Church sees our time as a graced one. Obviously, the people cannot be a leaven to the world if they do not have the faith. We may be better off than we tend to think! My concern as a future (God willing) pastor is, “How does one know a parish is fairly sound doctrinally?” Some priests seem to brag about the number of ministries they offer while shying away from the question, “Yes, but do the hold the faith handed on by the apostles or something they’ve hit upon to suit themselves?”
I once asked a priest if it would disturb him to hear that (and be persuaded that) the bones of Jesus had been found in a tomb outside Jerusalem. He said no, it would make no difference to his faith. (Heaven also has no bearing on his faith.) I thought: Okay, this man has faith but it’s not the Catholic one! He should stop starting up new ministries and turn again to the gospel.
Thank you for your prayers for my vocation.
Mark

Have you read The Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux? I rather suppose you have. Anyway, she went on a pilgrimage with her father and others from her parish, as well as several priests. Afterwards she wrote that the experience of being with those priests impressed upon her the fact that they were human beings with all the faults of human beings who especially need our prayers. I’m sure you recall that passage, perhaps better than I’ve paraphrased it here.

It’s so true! I sometimes tremble at the thought of the errors being taught by some of our priests who are either too lazy or too overwhelmed to put any effort into learning the truths of their own faith. I have been highly encouraged by the latest “batch” of young priests, fresh from the seminaries, who have it together and are not only knowledgeable, but on fire, too. I pray every day for them–that they will not slide into complacency, or get burned out, or decide to just “go with the flow” of the world. God help our priests! God help our priests!!

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

tee_eff_em:

Yes, I understand that. But still: Is it surprising that non-practicing Catholics might not understand the doctrine of the Real Presence? Or that they might think they understand it, but are in fact mistaken?

Here is a link to an early thread which discussed this, including some clues to the source of the statistic: [thread=5395]I believe in the Eucharist[/thread] (Though the link I provided at that time has since gone stale)

tee

I agree. The Real Presence is complicated. Nowadays, Christology seems even moreso. I have great sympathy with anyone struggling with the doctrine of the Real Presence. And I agree that some say they believe but what they believe is not what the Church actually teaches.
Help out a convert here: I know there’s catechesis before First Communion, but no one expects that to impart adult understanding of the sacrament. When is that supposed to come in? Are youngsters being confirmed supposed to understand what we mean by the Real Presence?
Mark

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

Great link, “I believe in the Eucharst.” According to that, 70 % DON’T believe in the Real Presence. Makes the 30 % I heard seem desireable! (I probably reversed the numbers in memory: “It couldn’t be 70 % that don’t believe! Must be 30…”) I enjoyed reading this material. Thanks for posting it.
Mark

 

[tee_eff_em]

mark_e_rhodes:

Great link, “I believe in the Eucharst.” According to that, 70 % DON’T believe in the Real Presence. Makes the 30 % I heard seem desireable! (I probably reversed the numbers in memory: “It couldn’t be 70 % that don’t believe! Must be 30…”) I enjoyed reading this material. Thanks for posting it.
Mark

Ah-ha! That explains a lot!

And I mentally reversed what you wrote, to jibe with the statistic I know!

tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

mark_e_rhodes:

Help out a convert here: I know there’s catechesis before First Communion, but no one expects that to impart adult understanding of the sacrament. When is that supposed to come in? Are youngsters being confirmed supposed to understand what we mean by the Real Presence?

I think they are meant to have an understanding of the Real Presence, but it would be unfair to expect a second-grader to have an “adult understanding” of it. Heck, I **am **an adult, and I don’t know that I *understand *it, only that I *believe *it.

tee

 

[mark_e_rhodes]

tee_eff_em:

I think they are meant to have an understanding of the Real Presence, but it would be unfair to expect a second-grader to have an “adult understanding” of it. Heck, I **am **an adult, and I don’t know that I *understand *it, only that I *believe *it.

tee

Granted. I think I should start a new thread: What does a well-catechized Catholic know and believe? At what point is a Catholic’s ignorance of some matter of faith culpable?
Mark