Vatican II-era Catholics
March 14, 2006, 4:09 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Over the last several years I’ve given many talks about Vatican II, in the US, Canada, and Australia. On almost every one of those occasions, the audience was by substantial majority over (and often well over) fifty years old.
A small group of concerned Catholic lay people in Westchester Co., NY, organized in the shock of the scandals, is composed largely of people over sixty. Does anyone know what the age-distribution of members of the Voice of the Faithful is?
During the Bishop Gaillet affair several years ago in France, polls showed that it was mostly Vatican II – aged Catholics who were publicly protesting.
What is the age-distribution of subscribers to Commonweal?
I left just before the new liturgy was introduced. It came as a shock. I was never able to get used to the new liturgy.
Change wasn’t the problem. Esthetics was. We need to change the liturgy.
A better liturgy could help draw people to the faith.
Walter, I am no sure that your age group is the one missing from Joe’s lectures. The observation about age is now proverbial at every conference and I wonder if anybody knows why. One of the differences between conference run nowadays and earlier might be that the former were run by the clergy whereas today the conference are run by non clergy. Also the more abundant youth in the seminaries were able to attract similar persons to lectures and conferences. Perhaps the most telling is that the parish system is still the most effective way to marshall youth. Witness the world youth days with their crowds, notwithstanding their having sex in their sleepingbags at these events.
A fall symposium on the Voice of the Faithful at Boston College’s 21st Century Center was broadcast last week on CSPAN. Those present at the symposium were given copies of a study on the make-up of the membership of VOTF. Below find a link to a BC site that summarizes what went on and includes links to the study.
According to the study about half the membership consists of people who attended Catholic colleges around the time of Vatican II. And one third of the membership is fully retired. The statistics show that the membership is fairly well off, and that its level of practice is higher than average in terms of church attendance. Many members seem to serve on parish councils, as Eucharistic ministers, lectors, catechists, etc.
It would be interesting to know how many read _Commonweal_.
http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/fall_2005/c21_votf.html
Susan Gannon
I see a lot of gray hair at VOTF meetings and they constantly talk about the need to get younger. Don’t have any stats but I think ancedotally they are 50+ for the most part on average.
Mike
I’m old enough to be a registered fogie. I attended VOTF meetings out here on the Left Coast for about 6 months, but finally gave them up.
The overwhelming majority of attendees were older than I (!) and, while they talked and talked and talked and …. there was a distinctive lack of energy when it cam to stepping up to the plate to actually DO something.
Unless VOTF (and CTA) gets new, younger blood, it will deteriorate into a generalized bitch session.
There are 4 new national officers (all women) and maybe they can re-energize the group …….. and get younger (or at least those who dye their hair) people with the energy to carry out their worthwhile mission.
Having attended in the past decade what many consider a “conservative” Catholic university as an undergraduate, and a “liberal” Catholic university as a graduate, I can attest to the trend that young, thinking Catholics (age 20-35) tend to take little interest in Commonweal. Younger Catholics can smell ideology and propaganda with more accuracy than their predecessors in the Church, and, with all due respect to its journalistic intentions, Commonweal reads like an aging political manifesto one too many steps to the left. Young Catholics are not looking for a forum that measures the Church–in whichever manner and whatever measure–by sociological or political models and constructs. That approach may have sufficed for past generations of nominal Catholics, but young Catholics, wherever they may be perched on the theological spectrum, are attempting to restore what was put assunder by periodicals such as Commonweal. Spirituality, stability, inspiration. Commonweal, in the name of the critical spirit, leaves Catholicism hallow and, in many respects, superfluous. Like Socrates, Commonweal asks many questions and provides no solutions. And, like Enlightment rationalism, its approach is flawed and disingenuous.
Young Catholics are disillusioned with the critical spirit’s lack of direction and substance, and if Commonweal’s editors want to reach them, they need to get out of the 1970′s and pay closer attention to what young, thinking Catholics actually read and seek. Is it any secret that the pope can draw millions of youth to Europe, Asia and North America while Commonweal, VOTF and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles R.Ed. Congress are followed by no more than auditorium-sized crowds of “Vatican II” Catholics? Catholic life today is a performative contradiction of nearly every position taken by the pages of Commonweal.
In the meantime, Commonweal will continue to pat itself on the back for its supposed “open-mindedness” and “critical and progressive approach” without realizing that its philosophy remains an adequated relic of a bygone era. Commonweal’s readers are getting older…sooner rather than later, it too will go extinct.
No question that VOTF falls in the same age group as other active Catholic groups. And I suppose that many meetings can become complaining sessions. Yet I would say that it is an awfully shallow assessment of VOTF which has many solid people actively working to keep the church honest on pedophilia, its accounting practices and treatment of its members.
“Young Catholics,” you say. All young Catholics? Some young Catholics? Many young Catholics? Most young Catholics? Young Catholics who think like me?
Bill:
I can only go on what I experienced with VOTF in my local chapter. I can’t speak for the other entities. However, if our was any indication, there is a problem. Yes, there are a few dedicated hardy souls who seem to be carrying the load. However, if VOTF is to be a successful advocate of their position, they need more than a few.
I think one of the problems here in Northern California was that, at the time I had joined them, identified scandals were few and far between. Unfortunately, that has changed, but I’m not sure that the local VOTF chapter has gotten any stronger because of it. To do that it needs to expand its membership and attract more energetic participants. Again, I’m speaking of my local chapter.
VOTF got its start, and seems strongest, on the East Coast. Catholic culture is much stronger there than out here. Maybe that explains the difference in results between the 2 coasts.
Fr. Komonchak, thank you for the response.
“I can attest to the trend that young, thinking Catholics (age 20-35) tend to take little interest in Commonweal.”
“Tend to” rather than “do.” This does not refer to a universal subject and allows plenty of room for exceptions. As a young Catholic, my judgment is based upon my experience of so-called “conservative” and “liberal” universities, youth conferences, colloquia and eccleisal gatherings. Whether my judgment is accurate or not is best determined by other young Catholics. I’ll hold my breathe until another actually posts on this blog.
I am not sure where Soren bases some of these claims regarding “Catholic life” in the United States in his manifesto; the Los Angeles R.E. Congress has grown in the past decade to become one of the largest in the world, and regularly attracts tens of thousands of participants; similarly, the annual Catholic Press Directory shows that “liberal” Catholic magazines such as St. Anthony’s Messenger, U.S. Catholic, and America boast circulation numbers fully thrice that of “conservative” journals such as First Things.
The dearth of younger readers is, in my brief experience of the publishing world, a problem across the board. Younger generations of Catholics simply do not read periodicals the way their parents did, regardless of ideological background.
I am not sure what an “adequated relic” is, but it is my perception (as a “young, thinking Catholic”) that Commonweal is becoming antiquated no faster or slower than its triumphalist and reactionary counterparts on the right, where, presumably, Soren finds those hordes of youth who “can smell ideology and propaganda with more accuracy than their predecessors.” Would that it were so…
Thank you for the reply and the free spell-check service ;-).
Before you respond again, I invite you to re-read my comments. I did not introduce the “conservative/liberal” dichotomy, but simply alluded to its residual presence in certain Catholic quarters, Commonweal included among these. However, you seem to still operate by these archaic notions as evidenced by your use of “conservative journals” as a foil for your assertion of “liberal” circulation supremacy. In any case, I don’t recall ever mentioning circulation stats, which causes your point on magazine sales to reek of red herring.
Your RE Congress census report confirms precisely what I wrote: auditorium-sized crowds. Let me know when these numbers catch-up to WYD counts…or better yet, to play your game, Steubenville conference numbers!
Regarding the “dearth” of younger readers–and let us limit this just to theology and current ecclesial trends–let us look at contemporary trends in catechesis at the parish and ministerial level and the soup-and-cracker theology being presented at many Catholic universities and institutes to diagnose and remedy the issue. My points zero-in on young, thinking Catholics (i.e. Catholics who pick up a book or two and are not completely indoctrinated by Commonweal or First Things). Your issue with the overall decline in Catholic literacy belongs in a separate thread.
By the way, where did I leave the impression that my portrayal of those “hordes of youth” is really just a doctored snapshot of the militant “right”? I expressly indicated my experience in what many would term “conservative” and “liberal” institutions and gatherings. To categorize me as one who lurches to the right is indicative of that ANTIQUATED spirit of political categorization that means nothing to today’s young, creative, speculative and attentive Catholic. If those terms aid you in your quest for understanding, by all means employ them. But try not cast your caricature nets my way. The next generation of Catholics tries to think a bit more openly and comprehensively.
To re-orient the discussion, we were discussing why young Catholics tend not to read Commonweal. Simply because there may be a jump among older Catholics in terms of the number of subscriptions does not vanquish the point that Commonweal has a marginal–nay, negligible–young adult readership. Interestingly, this thread implicitly solicited a response from a young Catholic, and when one finally does, he is immediately assailed by irrelevant points. I always thought Commonweal advocated “listening” before “reacting”.
I’m inclined to file this young-person-not-taken-in-by-categorization (so probing, these youth you speak of! ) under U for urban myth (or would it be S for suburban myth? ). Where to begin? “Soren de Vox,” as you now call yourself, you can’t attempt to make a point about the decline of Commonweal–a magazine–by citing low numbers of young readers and expect the conversation not to turn to broader trends in periodical publishing. I’m especially baffled by your reasoning that because Jim Keane introduced something external to the points you raised in your original comment, his rejoinder is a red herring. That doesn’t parse.
Nor can you characterize Commonweal as reading “like an aging political manifesto one too many steps to the left” and then cry foul when someone responds in “political” terms. If such an “ANTIQUATED spirit of political categorization…means nothing to today’s young,” why employ it? Nor do I see any evidence for writing off “political” terms such as conservative and liberal as antiquated. They are very much in use, and people tend to know what they mean when they use them. Are they always accurate and useful? Of course not. Would they benefit from nuance in whatever context they appear? Of course, and often they do.
You describe the magazine in several colorful ways, but I’m left wondering how much or for how long you’ve read it. “The critical spirit” is not a self-evident term. What do you think it means? What about Commonweal’s approach do you find “disingenuous”–as distinct from “flawed”? What’s right? If the “nominal Catholics,” as you deride them, of the past were on the wrong path, please show us where the new faithful are leading us. Is it to World Youth Day? What is it, exactly, that you think those extravagant assemblies express?
I applaud your willingness to criticize both Commonweal and First Things. But don’t be surprised if readers interpret your criticisms of Commonweal as an indication of your reading preferences, especially when no one else comes up for critique. I can’t say I’m encouraged by your out-of-hand dismissal of First Things and Commonweal as indoctrinating entities. Apparently magazines are much more efficacious in this regard than are books.
My question is still on the table: Do “Commonweal” editors know the age-distribution of its subscribers/readers?
The same question can be asked, of course, of “America” and “First Things,” etc. In all three cases, the total number of subscribers for each is a very tiny percentage of US Catholics.
Does the Catholic Press Association keep track of things like this?
We continue to define ourselves as “liberal or conservative:, which I suppose appropriate.
It would seem odd that the majority of the current young Catholics are Steubenville adherents. The majority of our young people, I would hazard to guess are apathetic toward the church. So the question isn’t Weigel versus O’Brien Steinfels but where is tha passion.
I’ve written for some of these publications and my understanding of the demographics is that most Catholic publications tilt toward the older side of the spectrum. I think this may be true of magazines in general.
>>Can I Register as a Catholic Independent?< <
-------
Quite the interesting conversation taking place here, which I hope doesn't prompt any second thoughts on the part of administrators for allowing comments in the weblog--a fine feature that First Things doesn't allow.
I too would be interested to know the answer to Fr. Komonchak's question: What is the age-distribution of subscribers to Commonweal?
Like Komonchak, I am awaiting the answer and hope that one comes.
----
In the meantime, conversation in this thread seems to have shifted to the "impetus" of the question: are readers of Commonweal, those who attend Voice of the Faithful and other groups (like We Are Church, or Call to Action)... perhaps summed up as "Commonweal Catholics" (a term introduced on this weblog) all “old(er)”?
Some of the comments in response to this "background question" have suggested that there are not many young Catholics reading these periodicals and that the reason for this is because younger Catholics who are engaged in their faith are not attracted to the “propaganda” of Commonweal.
Some random thoughts…
1. The Byzantine Rite of the Church
I have the opportunity to attend the Byzantine Liturgy every once in a while, but one of the things that I have noticed is that there are practically no young people in the Church. In fact, this is a major concern for the Byzantine Rite across America—a Rite that currently is the second largest in the USA and still only comprises less than 2% of the Catholic populace. Are we to assume that because no young people are attending the Byzantine Rite that “something is wrong with it” or that young people aren’t interested? I would hope not. On a similar note, I would be disinclined to point to the low readership of Commonweal Magazine on the part of young people as a sign, in and of itself, that young people are not interested.
2. Internet Generation
Young people, who have been reared in the age of internet media, are less inclined to read magazines. Period. Those who are interested is an other question that I will implicitly get to in a moment…
3. Apples and Oranges—“Young Catholics” and “Vatican II Catholics”
The comparison between “younger Catholics smelling propaganda” vs. “older people in the Church” is a comparison between apples and oranges.
While those over 50 can still remember what it was like before Vatican II and were tossed through a dramatic change in the post-Conciliar era (1970’s), the “youth” (those 20-35) either were born after John Paul II was elected or wouldn’t remember anything but JPII. The post-Conciliar “changes” were pastoral, and the people were “led” in a direction of the times… people that were already engaged in their faith.
Those Catholics who are 20-35 either don’t care about the Faith, and thus have a hard time being “led” or “do care” and, I would contest, most of them see major “problems” in the Church—problems that “Commonweal Catholics” (to repeatedly use the term that the weblog introduced) may not see, or may actually think are far from “problems” but, rather, “great blessings”.
Of course, generalizations are just that: generalizations—there are exceptions to the rule. In any case, I don’t think we can really accurately compare the “youth” with those who lived during the pre- and post-Conciliar era. I think such a comparison creates bigger problems and answers less questions…
3. Times, They are a Changin’
Terms have changed—what was once seen as “progressive and liberal”, and what was once seen as “conservative and traditional”, has changed dramatically. Honestly, this is why I have a hard time with these terms in both the political and religious spectrum.
Look at de Lubac, von Balthasar… or even Ratzinger. They were all once seen as “progressive” and many would now call them “conservative”. While some would suggest that the theologians changed, I would have to argue with that: they didn’t change, the scene in the Church changed.
While it was once seen as “progressive” to challenge the neo-Thomist establishment in Catholic theology and question late medieval constructs like “pure nature”, it is now seen as progressive to challenge the Church’s teaching on birth control, all-male priesthood, interfaith communion, even the authority and (different subject) infallibility of the Church (Küng, for example). Heck, if "Jesus, Symbol of God" (R. Haight) is “progressive” and “liberal”, then I think we would all have to be honest and accept the fact that these terms have changed, and changed dramatically—not those theologians (de Lubac, etc.).
Well, if *that* is now what it means to be a “liberal/progressive” Catholic, then of course von Balthasar, de Lubac and Ratzinger (to name just a few) would now be seen as “conservative”.
And to make matters worse, radical Traditional-ist fringe groups (like those in the SSPX or those sympathetic to their cause) still consider all of those theologians as “progressive/liberal/modernists”. (!) Consider this: (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/). That is only one example, and, yes ladies and gentlemen, the Holy Father (Joseph Ratzinger) is a hopeless progressive, liberal, Modernist, heretic and is leading the flock astray.
Of course, that is when he isn’t playing the role of the “Grand Inquisitor” or “God’s Rottweiler”.
Oh brother…
What I see is two extremes saying different things about the same group of people: the far left says “conservative!”, and the far right says “liberal!”.
The same is true on the lay-level. “Progressive” concerns are different today than they were in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. In fact, I might suggest that many commentators who were aligned with Commonweal in the first decades that it started would be startled by what is seen as “progressive” today. This is just a guess, though.
So what is my point?
Even though I try to avoid these sets of terms, I myself could be considered a “young progressive Catholic” if you mean what it meant during the first half of the 20th century– if you are using the term the way that LaGrange and his clan haphazardly tossed the term around for the nouvelle théologie in the 40’s. And I would contest that there are many “young Catholics” who share these convictions.
But are there many young Catholics who feel the impetus of being “progressive in the 1970’s”? My experience, as a young Catholic engaged in his faith educationally, would have to lead me answer in the negative: young Catholics today, who are engaged in their faith, do not tend to share the concerns of contemporary “progressive Catholics” or, if people wish to associate that with Commonweal, “Commonweal Catholics”.
So, I don’t think that “young people smell propaganda” better than the “older people” in the Church. Young people in the Church today that are engaged in their faith are being reared differently than those who were “young Catholics” in the 1970’s. Having been reared in the “liberal” Pacific Northwest under a bishop that received a notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, I can offer you this: my peers either left the Church, or they are “conservative” Catholics.
Perhaps I have failed to make my point clear here, but hopefully something of worth can be drawn from it.
4. Finances—Since I do read much of Commonweal (yes, I am young!), I recently read that most Commonweal subscribers make over $75,000 a year.
Does anybody see a disconnect here?
Perhaps if we answered another demographic question we could better understand Fr. Komonchak’s question: how many educationally and faithfully engaged Catholics make over $75,000 a year, and how old are they?
The point: most young Catholics do not subscribe to Catholic periodicals because *they don’t have the money!* When you toss in the other point mentioned above—that most young people tend to read their news, if they do, on the Internet—it only complicates the issue.
Hence, again, it would prove little to point out that, hypothetically, 65% of Commonweal readers are over the age of 50, 25% are 35-49, and the rest are under the age of 35.
In the end, would that *really* say anything at all?
—-
Again, these are just a few random thoughts prompted by the movement of the discussion above. Take from it what you will.
Justin, a young Commonweal reader that doesn’t tend to identify with any Catholic magazine in print, including Commonweal
http://www.nouvelletheologie.blogspot.com
As a young Catholic (35 years old) who both reads Commonweal and has been to two World Youth Days (Paris and Rome), I have to object to any attempt to set these two things off against one another in black-and-white terms.
And Soren, setting them off against one another in numerical terms is crude. No magazines can pull into their conferences anything like the numbers that can be expected to come hear their common leader speak. If magazines and the Holy Father were pulling in comparable numbers, that would not reflect well at all on him.
I don’t see that young people are any less politically minded than at any other time in history — probably the opposite is the case. As always, some are interested in political questions more than others. The terms of the political debate do change, however, and as always there will be persons for whom the former terms do appear antiquated.
I don’t find the political debates about the Church to be antiquated. Quite the opposite — open dialogue, with critical honesty, is very modern, and more desired than ever. I do not find that spirit to be over-emphasized at Commonweal, and I certainly did not find it lacking at the World Youth Days. The great gift of those events was John Paul’s strong commitment to the Church in such a modern way — he always spoke with a modern voice, and always with a love for Christ, which meant that on his lips the world was both honored and criticized. And how could a young person not love that?
Someone mentioned the WYD young having sex in their sleeping bags. I don’t remember anything like that when I slept as a single person among hundreds of thousands on the fields of Longchamp and Tor Vergata, though I wouldn’t deny that it did happen. What I always remember from those assemblies, however, is a spirit which struck me as decidedly purer than those of rock concerts or sports events. I was sure even then that purity was not universal; but to me it was a priceless experience to experience in a large crowd the kind of virtues you usually see only in small groups or invidividuals — to be among thousands of people not angry, rioting, drinking, sexing, or merely out for a good time; or merely concerned with a sporting event. There was a spirit there that was not just ours.
Hi Justin. I’d like to say that I like the Byzantine analogy. My wife and I, both of us under 36 and qualifying biologically as young Catholics, once walked briefly into a Byzantine-rite mass. We actually did not know at the time what it was, but it struck us, and particularly my wife (who is probably more modern and liberal than me), as majestic and sacred. We left because we did not want to intrude, and we have not pursued it because we wanted to work on our own relationship with the Roman church — but this sense of sacredness fed us, for a moment.
We both find Commonweal to be indispensible, and maybe we’re a little old-fashioned in that we read periodicals (I think you’re right about the internet and how the young, especially if poor, read what’s free). But what I would like to see more of within Commonweal’s pages is a sense of the sacred, for instance in visual art, or to feel it in the verbal discourse.
I have felt a few times while reading America the thing I’m talking about: you just become quiet for a time, sitting with God, examining your life, hungry for more of Him.
If the big question is what will attract young people, I would not say that more liberalism is the answer. Critical dialogue is as indispensible as something can be, but that only means something because we care at the topic of the dialogue, namely the spiritual aspect of life. Young people very much want a sense of the sacred. Maybe personally am attracted to what’s known as charism of contemplation; but some people are very different from me; and they still want to hear sacred Scripture, look upon sacred art, and be put in mind of how their lives could be full of better meaning.
That’s asking a lot, no doubt.
Justin, thanks for your comments.
Mr. Rosero:
Your comments are well taken and much appreciated. A couple notes in response:
That “sense of the sacred” you felt is something real. Some may suggest that it is only a “sense” because we are used to a different Rite (I too am Roman), but I think that such skepticism is uncalled for, and the initial response is trustworthy. I am still trying to figure out how to balance the draw that I have toward the Byzantine Liturgy with my current liturgical affiliation: Latin Rite. I am going to venture to guess that the current guidelines which make it difficult to switch Rites are going to have to be relaxed if the Byzatine Rite is to survive in America. If the West looses this old Rite it will be loosing something magical. If it were not for these guidelines (barriers) I would probably switch Rites so as to help it from going extinct in the West.
If you are old fashioned for reading Commonweal, then so am I. ;) We agree that it would be nice to see a “sense of the sacred” in the pages of Commonweal. In fact, that “sense of the sacred” is, perhaps, a good theme to use in developing the disconnect between “old” and “young” Catholics today. Today’s youth (you included) that were raised in the “JPII Era” are seeking a “sense of the sacred”. Unfortunately, much of the footnotes to the “liberation” that followed Vatican II seemed to strip many “senses of the sacred”, and I think that it leaves many young people saying, “Why bother?” While I am in no way a “traditionalist”, I think that there is a lot to say about the silent communication that takes place in the Liturgy, and when “the sacred” is lost or pushed aside that “speaks” to people.
On a slightly different note, liberalism (culturally, politically, religiously) often has a taste for “the fine things in life”. In fact, this is one of the better qualities of “liberalism”. Music, fine food, theater, art, literature… all things that people would typically associate with liberal culture, and not, necessarily, “conservative culture”. At least this is the case today… I find it interesting that this “good taste” that many liberals tend to have isn’t always taken over to the “sense of the sacred” (liturgically, as well as other forms). Honestly, it is this “good taste” that has always helped me fell “at home” in liberal culture—I was, after all, raised just outside of Portland Oregon. More, it is this “good taste” that has drawn me to von Balthasar, de Lubac, Ratzinger and other theologians who (especially Balthasar) found the revelatory aspects within humanity, within “liberal culture” and utilized them for the propagation of the Faith.
What is interesting about those men, however, is that they all had a consistency with their “good taste” and it was carried over to the “sense of the sacred” in the liturgy. While they were all adamant for the need of liturgical reform prior to the Council, they were all a little… “disappointed” in the way that the changes were implemented, fearing that a loss of the “sacred” would “speak” to people and the people would respond appropriately. What has happened? Many people have responded “appropriately”: many have left the faith.
While we can, for sure, sit back and say that these are poor reasons to leave, we also must remember that the “sheep are led” and “silence speaks louder than words”. The translation has been: “there is nothing here, go home”. And they do.
So, again, I find myself stuck in the middle (like all of my favorite Catholic thinkers) of two polar extremes: that place is called “moderation”.
Novel, isn’t it.
Thank you for your fine comments.
Warm Wishes,
Justin Nickelsen
http://www.nouvelletheologie.blogspot.com
I did some further checking and found that the details of the VOTF survey indicate that 13% of those surveyed read Commonweal. (39% read their local diocesan paper; 37% read The National Catholic Reporter; 22% read America; and St Anthony’s Messenger is tied with Commonweal at 13%. ) Given the demographics, it seems surprising that more members of this group don’t read Commonweal. The strong showing of NCR might be accounted for by their close coverage of the abuse scandal, and since VOTF members would be especially interested in local diocesan treatment of their focal issues, it makes sense for them to read their local papers. (In my area the paper is purchased by the parishes under some sort of quota system and distributed to anyone who cares to pick one up. If that is a widespread practice it might also inflate the statistics on Diocesan papers. ) But I would have thought that the highly educated, liberal-leaning, committed older Catholics described in the survey would have included more Commonweal readers. Has anyone studied the comparative statistics on the readership of America and Commonweal?
I’m the person who does Commonweal’s periodic subscriber surveys. In the most recent survey, two-thirds of Commonweal’s subscribers were over age 60.
I consult for a number of print magazines and newspapers, and can tell you that many of them, from The Wall Street Journal to any number of other publications, skew older than you might expect, and get older every year. Very few magazines have a great success story to tell about how effectively they reach younger readers. As several other posters have commented, I would hesitate to point to print circulation of any publication as a sign of any ideological shifts or opinion trends. Print’s a tough business if you’re trying to reach young people.
Commonweal’s investment in this site, and in this very blog, are one response to the situation of aging print readership. (So are all the programs that introduce the magazine to college-age readers, especially students of religion and theology.) When Commonweal does a similar study of users/readers of the Web site later this year, it’ll be interesting to compare the numbers. Most print publications find that their associated Web sites attract readers at least 10-15 years younger, on average, than their print readers.
I’m 38 years old. I used to read Commonweal and America about 15 years ago (they seemed pretty similar despite the claim that one of them was lay). Both also seem fundamentally similar to, though of higher quality than my diocesan paper, but I get that for free.
More recently, I subscribed to Communio, but now I only subscribe to Traces and several professional journals. Had I some extra funds, the first magazine that I would add would be National Geographic.
Is there a mission statement or something so that I could look at what Commonweal is doing these days?
found the mission statement/ history . . . thanks.