The CARA Report on Recent Vocations
The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University has just released a study, carried out on behalf of the National Religious Vocations Conference, entitled “Study of Recent Vocations to Religious Life.”
John Allen said the “sound bite” coming from this study would be: “the next generation of religious will be more ethnically diverse and more traditional.”
It is already the subject of heavy spin-control with conservatives crowing and liberals discounting the conservative response.
John Allen has given the report his usual nuanced response here. He uses terms from the sociology of religion to try to understand what’s going on — “high tension” vs. “low tension.”
CARA is here. You can download a pdf of the report directly off their home page.
One should also look at Kenneth Brigg’s article at NCR today as well.
A question I’d have is how much follow up wil be done on those enterring religious life today – completing vows? leaving or staying thereafter?
Also, later at NCR today, there’s ap iece on Cokie roberts” address to the sieters stressing the impact of their lives on many more women as a hallmark of their “quality of life.”
I tend to focus less on winners and losers, on “Catholic Liberalism” or Catholic Conservatism”, concepts about which I am not entirely certain in the first place.
It seems that in addition to the basic tenets of the faith (which we all hold dear), younger folks also want something else to hold onto, some sort of ritual or form they can claim is “Catholic”. In addition to (of course) the fundamentals and the sacraments, younger folks seem to want some Catholic culture, something with which they can identify themselves as “Catholic”, some outward Catholic identity. For older Catholics, the trend was to minimize outward signs of Catholic ritual and cultural forms, to merge Catholic cultural trappings with the secular. The trend was to leave the Rosary beads at home, to not stand out, in short; to not show themselves to “be so Catholic” all the time.
It is important to note that both types of folks – those who want to blend in more and those who want more definition – are sincere Catholics. In some ways then, it is a matter of trend or taste, but not entirely.
The writer of the NCR article correctly noted the two different worlds in which the two groups were raised. Older Catholics (think pre-1965 or 1970) were raised in more structured and far less secularized, materialistic world. Younger Catholics have been raised in very secular and materialistic world that is light on moral instruction and that has very few boundaries. In fact we are currently reeling from the effect of business losing any sense of limits or boundaries.
In any case, while I am not olde enough to recall the more structured world of American Catholicism prior to Vatican II, it is obvious how Catholics have cast off pre-Vatican II trappings, and how American society has tossed some important social mores overboard, and has drifted with a strong tide of secularism and materialism, often driven by a strident relativism.
What seems to be missing is CARA’s stats that, when you factor in who ultimately stays, you are talking about a total number that is very, very small – whether you label them conservative or liberal.
What it does say is that we continue to see very little increase in candidates (why?); the candidates that are coming forward will be 50% less caucasian. Even John Allen does not f/u on CARA’s stats about candidates to women’s religious groups – a large percentage are over 50 years old. What does that say?
Ken –
I suspect that your point about the current young people wanting something to hold on to is correct. But how do we know what the real differences are in outlook and values of the very old (pre-WW II folks like me), old (boomers), not so old, and young? We don’t even know very much about what Catholics believe, regardless of age.
Who’s to find out? The sociologists? Well, they haven’t done a very good job, have they. The historians? If so, how would they find out what our differences are? I suspect it’s the artists who inform the historians most. Artists are best at perceiving difference.
Maybe we should start by asking Alice McDermott or Alec Balldwin to characterize the various generations. (But only the extremes of each generation can be generalized about, I think.) Maybe Richard Russo, but I’m not sure how Catholic he was in the first place.
Who would know? The wise old priests? We’d better hurry and ask them. They’re leaving us fast.
The “elephant in the room” in this debate is celibacy. Having spent four years in a religious congregation’s formation program, my observation is that it was the exceptional individual who chooses celibacy as a life-affirming choice. For many the vowed religious life or ordained priesthood was a means of escape from the difficulties of the “real world” or a refuge from a dysfunctional birth family.
As long as the church excludes all but celibate males from real leadership roles, its institutional presence will continue to erode, or simply become increasingly irrelevant to anyone but the “churchy.”
I find the high tension–low tension explanation helpful. But I think it doesn’t explain all the data.
The young women entering the CMSWR communities, and their male counterparts, do not seem to be valuing simply activity, or simply counter-cultural activity. What strikes me are the particular kinds of activities that are valued:
–common liturgical prayer (Mass and Liturgy of the Hours)
–shared apostolate
It seems to me that the likeliest explanation for this data is a desire to share life with others at a certain depth–one might call it the level of the soul, or even the level of the spirit. This seems to me to be a specific kind of longing for community.
Where did Jesus ever stress or get enthusiastic about liturgy or dogma? What he is overwhelmingly vocal about is love of neighbor and treating our enemies well. Blessing the peacemakers, the meek, the merciful, those who thirst for justice…
The fathers of the church messed up the Sermon on the Mount as they justified the violence of the empire, and blessed war more than peace. Certainly they were not openly for war but they changed the Christian position dramatically.
We don’t need more monasteries. We need more people following the Sermon on the Mount.
On reflection, I am bemused and somewhat saddened by the “nuanced” Allen report – interestingly timed to coincide with the women religious leaders meeting in new Orleans.
As Bill D. pointed out, there’s more to the eye than the CARA report suggests.
As Bill D. infers, maybe we should think about what vocations mean today, not like 50 years ago,
I feel the “visitation” of our good nuns and sisters is less about sanctification and holiness and more abou tanother step in weilding the lebers of power to the men across the Tiber.
The curaial ‘Mad Men’ would like women who know their place – but John Allen might have done better to listen to Cokie Roberts talk about the amzing women who have done so much to bring Christ into the most needy corners of the world.
Bob is right. We should think about what vocations mean today.
I suspect that many young Catholics today are very like the sort of people in the last generation who came out of religious life for the same sort of good reasons that led them to enter it. And thanks in part to that generation of brave, self-directed searchers, many of whom did wonderful work in the professions, it should be quite clear to young Catholics now that it is possible to find their own ways to serve the world as laity– in Catholic institutions or outside them, doing much of the same sort of work religious did in the past.
Our local Archdiocesan paper this week announced the assignments of many principals and head teachers at Catholic high schools and elementary schools. A surprising number were well-qualified lay people. (In the case of my own high school we understand the new lay principal to be quite dedicated to the work of the order that founded the school, and eager to keep the best of the past and find ways to meet future needs. What more can you ask?)
I don’t understand: why fault John Allen? He’s reporting on a survey about new vowed religious. Granted that this is only one of the vocations in the Church, are trends in their communities unimportant?
“The responses to the open-ended question about what attracted them to their religious institute revealed that having a religious habit was an important factor for a significant number of new members” (p.13)
What to make of that? Imagine you looked at a report on newlyweds and read that “an open-ended question about what attracted them to their wife revealed that the woman being blonde was an important factor for a significant number of new husbands”.
“(In the case of my own high school we understand the new lay principal to be quite dedicated to the work of the order that founded the school, and eager to keep the best of the past and find ways to meet future needs. What more can you ask?)”
Scenarios like this are encouraging. Principally because it includes the whole church, not some privileged few who act like Lords rather than disciples and servants.
Again, I’m pretty sure the report is about the values of the young people, not our own values.
Ann – I am not sure I understand your point about knowing what Catholics thnks, about knowing their values.
I would not turn to sociologists of any of the folks you mentioned.
It is straightforward enough; Catholics hold values as outlined by the Vatican and the Magisterium of the Church. If one is Catholic, they are in communion with Rome. End of story.
In my case, being Catholic often means I adopt a more liberal view than I otherwise would. This is especially true regarding the discussion we Americans are having about providing health insurance for the poor, and it also is true regarding the debate we Americans peridocially have regarding how best to correct the status of so many (mostly Mexican) indocumentados.
I would simply say that as the Laity, our job is not to lead; our job is to follow and teach our children in the ways of the Church.
It is humorous but telling, that in our local parish, we (the local Laity) cannot even decide whether to kneel, sit, or stand during distribution of holy communion. People used to kneel from the Eurcharistic Prayer until the priest closed the tabernacle and went over and sat down. Then some folks began sitting after kneeling for a bit when they got back from communion. Now some stand all the way through, some kneel all the way through, and some kneel for awhile, then sit, and then stand. It is amazing and I am sure our three priests – good men all of them – must smile at our silliness.
And so my point is that if we (as a group) cannot settle a matter as simple as this, we certainly would Not be capable of resolving more complex matters.
That is why I usually rely on Rome. When my views are not in line with the Pope and the Vatican, I am wrong, and must trim my sails accordingly – end of story.
This may be the way of the young people who are entering traditional religious life. It’s not, however, the way of most young Catholics in general. So:
1. Are we in for an even greater clash between the sensibilities of clergy and laity?
2. What are young Catholics doing instead of joining religious life? At ND, I don’t see a lot joining religious movements–I do see a lot being drawn into intensive service programs for several years after college.
I myself see a great need for more “third orders”–Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans. In our culture, your “twenties” are increasingly viewed as a time between adolescence and full adulthood–I could see a lot of people dedicating 5 or 6 intensive years to JVC or similar programs, receiving formation, performing corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and then maintaining a connection with the order later on as they moved through life. People could dial down their time commitment in their family-raising and career-building years, and then dial it back up after their nests were empty and their 401ks were full (okay, that’s not going to happen).
..
Several issues here:-Allen’s column: my view is that the timing of the column along with the sister’s meeting in New Orleans shows where his approach lies -and, as observed, the report is being trumpeted on the right.
2)The issue of vocations/religious vocations needs to be addressed in balance and I agree with Susan on this. See also Kenneth Briggs piece again as well.
3)Young Catholics -even more complex. Worth a read is the Davidson lecture at Common Ground and reactions thereto at the NPLC website.
Somewhat less so is the anecdotal piece by Tom Roberts at NCR on the emerging Church.
One of the interesting questions that I saw in this context is the problem of new priests (largely Culture 1 catholics) dealing with the complex millenials. Cathy’s questions are germane.
4) I finally repeat that the current Roman beauracracy’s treartment of our Religious sisters has little to do with really helping Church or vocations, but is about power and loyalty -and how will that effect millenials?
I think that Cathy’s first question is particularly compelling, especially in light of the Hoge et al studies of young Catholics.
We do seem to be entering on a time when priests and nuns–and quite possible, given the changing tenor of the episopate, diocesan-level lay staffers–are more likely than the “people in the pews” to value
–tradition
–clear teaching
–sanctity
To my mind, this is the big change: for several decades, the *leaders* have often been on the front lines of the project of relativizing, qualifying, and questioning the teaching office of the Church. The next generation of leaders is quite the opposite.
Well, Kathy–I think it’s how you understand tradition. T Some people stop at MacIntyre’s After Virtue; others go on to read Whose Justice? Which Rationality? One person’s clear teaching is another’s over-simplification; one person’s sanctity is another’s sanctimoniousness.
I do think younger people will vote with their feet and their money.
Cathy, you may be right, at least about the “voting with their feet.” Certainly, looking at the Protestant groups whose leaders have gone out very far ahead on progressive issues, the congregations have dwindled to almost nothing.
I wonder, though, historically, what has happened when the pendulum among the leaders swings in the opposite direction. Did the Catholic Church grow or shrink when nearly everybody was joining the third orders of mendicants? Or during the Counter-Reformation?
Also, again, the point is not whether you or I would characterize their values as positive or negative. The point is what the young people themselves are saying about their values.
“It is straightforward enough; Catholics hold values as outlined by the Vatican and the Magisterium of the Church. If one is Catholic, they are in communion with Rome. End of story.”
Ken –
Gee whiz! You mean all those people who *think* they’re Catholic, who go to Communion every Sunday, who raise their kids Catholics and who are buried in the Church aren’t really Catholics? They sure fooled me.
How do you get to be the one who excommunicates everyone? Even the Pope hasn’t excommunicated us.
(If you look around, you’ll find that even the Popes have disagreed with each other. Which of them weren’t Catholics?)
“I myself see a great need for more ‘third orders’–Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans.”
Despite the fact that the Jesuits have never had a third order, let alone a second order, this would be a development most devoutly to be hoped for.
“Catholics hold values as outlined by the Vatican and the Magisterium of the Church. If one is Catholic, they are in communion with Rome. End of story”
Ken, not that is NOT the end of the story. It is hardly the beginning of the story. It may be YOUR story, but that doesn’t sound at all like Christ’s story.
Well, presumably Christ didn’t need a Magisterium.
I’m not sure most of us can say the same–at least, hopefully we would give different reasons!
I thought we beat the three legged stool argument to death in other threads -which is not what this is about and arose from Ken’s, to say the least simplistic, statement.
Like what young Catholics beleive is a complex topic which the “nuance” of Mr. Allen does not do any full justice to, so simple statements about the complex, evolving role of how the Church presents the message of Christ are unhelpful.
The issues around vocations and where we are headed in the Church with our young people has had some decent discussion here, which might be worth continuing -good questions still from Cathy.
Here’s another thought, though: in 10 years, more than half our population will be seniors -what does that mean for the Church, ministry, vocations, etc???
Despite the many efforts to deflect attention from the actual questions at hand, and despite the limits of the high-tension/ low-tension paradigm, it’s still an interesting concept, and this statistic, among many, is worth at least a “whoa!”
“One percent of women’s communities belonging to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, known for having a more liberal outlook, currently have more than 10 new members in initial formation, whereas a robust 28 percent of communities belonging to the Conference of Major Superiors of Women, known for being more conservative, have 10 or more members in the early stages of membership.
Ann – While mine was in fact a very simple statement, I hardly think pointing out that, in order for someone to be Catholic, they should be in communion with the Catholic Church is controversial.
I am not talking about ex-communicating anyone; I simply noted the obvious.
And while no doubt various Popes disagreed with one another on smaller, or perhaps on secular matters, regarding matters of faith and morals, they all agree with each other.
Bill: actually, I don’t think that it is entirely accurate that What [Jesus] is overwhelmingly vocal about is love of neighbor and treating our enemies well. Blessing the peacemakers, the meek, the merciful, those who thirst for justice…. If you look, for example, at this month’s Gospel readings, there is enormous emphasis on faith and in believing in him. If you look at the human life of Christ as a model, there is much time spent in prayer, (and also curing individual sufferers and trying to change people’s heart by preaching, of course), but very little “thirsting for justice”, and almost no political actions.
Ken: as the Laity, our job is not to lead; our job is to follow. Wow. Rarely have I seen so clearly exposed the reason why I will never be able to agree with traditionalists!
I thought Cathleen Kaveny’s vision of service, third-order Franciscans, etc., was very interesting. It seems like a reasonable (optimistic) possibility.
Ken –
The two most conspicuous moral matters about which popes have clearly disagreed are the morality of lending money and slavery. The clearest theological matter about which they have disagreed is whether or not Jews, Protestants, and people who never heard of Christ can possibly go to Heaven.
You really should be more careful about making such inaccurate statements about Church history. It can give others a wrong view of what the traditional Catholic teachings really are. There aren’t as many as you seem to think there are.
Ann – I agree with you that over the years, of course different popes have differed in how they viewed secular matters or matters of state. Certainly popes are not impeccable, and the matters you cite (money lending and slavery) are the sort of secular or smaller matters I referred to.
Please note that in this context “smaller” or “secular” does not mean these matters were not important. On the contrary, they were (are) quite important. It simply means they were not on the level of an article of faith i.e., Catholics were not doctrinally obliged en masse to believe a certain thing regarding slavery or money lending. Those issues were like the death penalty is today. While certainly the Vatican has made the Church’s general opinion on the matter quite clear, Popes have left it as a matter of prudential judgement for the States. They have left it in the secular realm; they have not obliged all Catholics to believe either that the death penalty is right, or that it is wrong.
My point is simple; that – in line with papal infallibility – on doctrines of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church – all the popes are of one accord.
For example; in the early 1950’s Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary an article of the Catholic faith; all subsequent popes have held it as true.
The theological matter you cite is just that; at least I don’t think it was ever Church doctrine. I doubt that any Pope declared it an article of faith (something to be held to be true by all Catholics) that non-Catholics could not attain heaven. In any case, I think the confirmation of the possibility of salvation for the invincibly ignorant, while based on earlier thoughts, officially was declared either during or shortly after Vatican II and has been accepted and affirmed by all subsequent popes.
You are correct; and I was not clear enough. Words do mean something and we should be careful using them.
I do think Bob is correct, that I inadvertently sidetracked the discussion; sorry about that.
I enjoy reading all the different and interesting points of view on this and other topics.
Thanks
ken. –
Lending money for proft and slavery are indeed matters of morality, and popes hVe disagreed about them. During most of the Church’s history it was the universal teaching of the popes that slavery was Ken — According to your way of thinking that implied that the teaching could not change. But it did change, so now you accept it. Look carefully– there isn inconsistency in such thinking: popes who agree are infalllible until one comes along who disagrees)
The condemnation of non-Catholics to hell was also a continous teaching in the Church, at least as far as I know, until Vat II clearly reversed it.
I grant you that your thinking is the current thinking of Rome. But it needs revision.