The changing face of the priesthood
September 14, 2006, 12:04 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Catholic University sociologist Dean Hoge has just released his new study of recently ordained priests–the first since 1990–and the findings are telling.
- Since 1990, the average age of priests ordained five to nine years has increased from 34.1 years to 42.6 for diocesan priests, and from 36.8 years to 44.2 for religious priests.
- Just over half of the surveyed priests were already pastors at the time of the survey. In 1990, just 23 percent of recently ordained priests were pastors. In the new study, more than 75 percent of pastors took their position within five years of ordination, and more than one-third were already running more than one parish.
- One-sixth of diocesan priests and one-quarter of religious priests were born outside the United States. Half of those priests were born in Vietnam, Mexico, or the Philippines.
- In 1990, half the priests had been in a college seminary program. Today, just 30 percent of priests entered seminary as a college student.
- The top three Web sites recently ordained priests list as most helpful are: 1. the official Vatican site, 2. the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops site, and 3. EWTN.
- In both 1990 and today, America was cited by new priests as the most influential periodical. The 1990 group listed the next four in order as: the National Catholic Reporter, the Priest, Origins, and Church. Today, the next four are the Priest, the National Catholic Register, First Things, and Origins.
- In 1990, 18 percent of newly ordained priests said Rahner’s work had the most influence on their priesthood, and John Paul II came in seventh. Today, John Paul II’s writings are more influential, cited by 21 percent of those surveyed, and Rahner was named by just 3 percent.
- In 1990, 63 percent of diocesan priests surveyed agreed that their ordination conferred a “new status…essentially different from the laity.” Today, 89 percent of diocesan priests agreed.
- Across both the 1990 and 2005 groups, religious priests identified with the servant-leader model more than their diocesan counterparts, who tend to adhere to a “cultic model,” in which the priest is “a man set apart” from the faith community.
- In 1990, one-third of recently ordained diocesan priests had at least one graduate degree (vs. 55 percent of religious priests). Today, just 21 percent of diocesan priests and 34 percent of religious priests surveyed had earned a graduate degree after ordination.
Much, much more in Jerry Filteau’s summary.
Grant: your Thavis link goes back to the original CNS story by jerry Filteau. Was that your intention?
Corrected–thanks!
I tried it again, but it was still the wrong one.
Here is the correct url:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605237.htm
Well, I’m all for reading the Thavis story on Benedict’s “misunderstood scholarly talks,” but I only meant to repeat the link to Filteau’s piece on newly ordained priests.
Click the link, then select “News” from the menu bar at left, then select the survey story.
For some reason, the links want to take you to the day’s current top story.
I’m shocked that the average age is so low. I don’t know of a priest in our area who’s under 55.
It would be interesting to compare this picture of today’s priests with a complementary snapshot of today’s permanent, many of whom are now running parishes. (A Georgetown survey found that the number of parishes without a resident priest had doubled from 1993 to 2004.)
How well-equipped are these fellows to take on primary leadership roles in more and more parishes?
Jean:
I nearly made the same mistake. The average age is not that of all priests but of priests who have been ordained from five to nine years, i.e., the younger priests.
I don’t know if I want to pursue the link. The situation seems dismal to me. One lad I encountered recently casually referred to “John Paul the Great”–I rolled my eyes as conspicuously as I could– and he bowed his head everytime he mentioned the Virgin Mary. I am not anti-Marian, please, but I thought it was at the mention of Christ that we were supposed to bow our heads, as I always try to do. Is this the new nuttiness, or am I hopelessly out of date? Am I right in thinking all this goes back to John Paul the (not so) Great? Can we just have Pius XII back?
Bill Mazzella’s comment on the theocons and the questions they want answered yes frightens me when I see the choice readings of the JPII clergy and the few that will continue to come. The lack of graduate degrees also seems symptomatic that critical thinking is not highly favored in this group.
It seems clear to me that in this Country, most leadership wants a return to the enclave Catholicism I grew up with. There is little insight into how folks who are now better educated will look at their priests(who apparently wil see themselves as “better than” *with great incredulity.
As one friend insists, we’re not seeing a people adrift but a Church in slow motion implosion.
Bill Mazzella’s comment on the theocons and the questions they want answered yes frightens me when I see the choice readings of the JPII clergy and the few that will continue to come. The lack of graduate degrees also seems symptomatic that critical thinking is not highly favored in this group.
It seems clear to me that in this Country, most leadership wants a return to the enclave Catholicism I grew up with. There is little insight into how folks who are now better educated will look at their priests(who apparently wil see themselves as “better than” *with great incredulity.
As one friend insists, we’re not seeing a people adrift but a Church in slow motion implosion.
Robert, I understand your concern about fewer priests having advanced degrees. But in my Protestant experience, a good education didn’t necessarily make for a good pastor.
The Episcopal priests who could “sermonize” and explain doctrine the best were the ones you least wanted hanging around a death bed. Theoretical cold fish. You really don’t need an expert on Thomas Hooker’s sermons at a time like that.
Joseph, yipes, I should read more carefully. Maybe having new priests coming in at an older age isn’t such a bad thing if it means they understand “real life” a bit more. But I can’t say that the 60-something priests we’ve had in our parish haven’t understood real life perfectly well.
Joseph: it’s not just the young ones who can be nutty mariolotrists.
4 years back I spent Christmas in the north of England. My host took me to a Benedictine parish nearby for mass and everytime the priest mentioned the name of Mary, he and the server (oops, altar BOYS) just about doubled over at the waist. The priest was in his 60′s. He also preceded the mass with the Angelus.
No wonder the protestants shake their heads in disbelief so often. They do so rightfully.
I wonder whether the data about advanced degrees isn’t more a result of the dwindling number of priests. The luxury of further studies has been sacrificed for the sake of meeting the demands of larger (or more) parishes being served by fewer men.
It’s still a lamentable statistic, since those who pursue more education would be more likely to do so at universities that could help broaden a student’s perspective and challenge his presuppositions. Not everyone will be able to, or will want to, go to Ave Maria University, after all!
I did find it heartening, as well, to see that America magazine remained the most popular of journals, even if the Register has risen in prominence. But Grant, what is Commonweal doing in this regard? Any marketing efforts specifically to this group? Now that you know more about them, is there any way you can tune your direct mail pieces, etc., to appeal to them? You guys could play a vital role in helping this crop of recently ordained priests to think out of the narrow constraints that seem to be de riguer these days.
A few observations from a nutty mariolotrist who occaisionally prays the Angelus as our ancestors did three times a day.
First – there seems to be an awful lot of bitterness here.
Second, for the all the criticism of JPII or as I like to call him John Paul the Great – sorry Joe – he stemmed the tide – stopping a precipitous decline in priestly vocations. Even in the US, the numbers of seminarians is now slowly rising.
Next, I don’t think that these statistics indicate that priest think they are “better” than the layity, but that they have a distinct status. That’s just good doctrine – I worry more about the 11% who don’t know this. We all have a distinct status based on our vocations.
As far as “enclave” Catholicism, if it means authentic Catholic teaching – I’m all for it.
I am encouraged by the new crop of “JPII priests.” Most that I have met are virgorous, deeply spiritual men committed to Christ and His Church.
“Next, I don’t think that these statistics indicate that priest think they are “better” than the layity, but that they have a distinct status. That’s just good doctrine – I worry more about the 11% who don’t know this. We all have a distinct status based on our vocations.”
Sean,
I disagree; the reality of this usually plays out in the form of clericalism. I often find that thinking along the lines of being “set apart” leads to exclusivity and is an obstacle to being able to identify with others.
While many of these stats intrigue me, these two (about how new priests view themselves) are a bit frightening.
Brian,
All sacraments effect a change. Baptism, marriage, and holy orders all institute a permanent change in status. We don’t need to apply social or political power connotation to this at all. As I said, I am worried about a priest who says I am no different than a lay person just as I would suspect a married person who denies a different status from a single person. It is much easier to avoid your responsibilities that way.
Sean,
You do not stick with the letter of the report.: “ordination confer[s] a new status…essentially different from the laity”. Certainly those ordained to the presbyterate–a term both Greco-Latinate and more accurate–have a different role in the celebration of mass. Whether they have a different status qua Christians is something else, and an essentially different status at that. That needs to be parsed with some care. What does “essentially” mean there, or what do the respondents think it means?
I’m ambivalent about Jean’s comment. Living in a community with the highest per capita group of PHD’s in the US, I’m well aware of the foibles of pointing to the importance of a degree as a sole criterion for evaluating a person or group. On the other hand, my experience as both a manger and as an oficer in a professional association indicated that those who do not seek further knowledge in a field and adopt a do it by the book and adulate current company policy tended to be the poorest in sevice delivery and high in self protectionism(CYA,)
Bill’s comment on clericalism is very much to the point; an attendant issue to superiority feelings is careerism. The critique of JPII priests that they as a rule are more interested in plum assignments than in serving the (preferentially optional) poor has been noted.
These points, taken together suggest to me we are in a continual slide towards mediocrity (if not there already) among our clergy and the issue is not how much one wants to stress the grace of orders, but how much nature that grace builds upon.
Robert, please remember my thoughts about the clergy are mostly drawn from my pre-convert days. And that experience is that clergy who pursue advanced academic degrees make great speakers and theologians and lousy pastors.
Possibly this isn’t true of Catholic priests, who don’t have to balance a wife and kids in with pastoral care and academic pursuits.
Anyhow, my main point was to wonder how permanent deacons might stack up on some of the same questions in the survey above, given that many are moving into leadership roles once held by priests.
I have very few insights about this group, and was unable to find much info on the Web.
Joseph,
What yould you say to the statement, “marriage confer[s] a new status…essentially different from the single person”?
Status – position relative to that of others
Essentially – pertaining to or constituting the essence of a thing
It is only when we load down this fairly straight forward statement with a bunch of presuppostions – such as this implies superiority, or this implies a sense of political power, or this implies more holy that it becomes a problem. If we take the sacrament seriously – according to the CCC -
1581 This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ’s instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.
Configures the recipient to Christ – effects a permanent change in essence and in relationship to others – an essential change in status. This is far more than a “different role in the celebration of mass.” They have a different role in the life of the Church. As I said, I would be concerned with a priest who didn’t recognize this.
As for advanced education and the “slide toward mediocrity,” I have to ask if the principle charateristic we need in our priests is erudition or holiness. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but the former is never a guarantee of the latter, which is clearly more important.
Sean
Good try, but some problems remain.
(1) According to the rite in use all who receive baptism as Catholics are “priest, prophet and king” also, i.e., they share in the priesthood, prophetic role and kingship of Christ. I thought that’s why the presbyter was called these days the presider. It is a special role, certainly, but is it also a special status?
(2) One can be both a presbyter and married. One of my old professors, a convert and former Episcopalian clergyman, was ordainted in the 1980s. Could he have two essentially different statuses?
(3) One use to speak of the religious state and the married state, and the single (but not religious) state. Now a presbyter who is also a religious is in a different state from a secular presbyter, but both qua presbyter have the same role.
I think you are mixing state/ status with role.
If there is not an essential difference between the lay baptized and the priesthood, what is the grace conferred by Holy Orders? Is it nothing more than a license – permission to perform sacramental ceremonies? The sacramental economy depends on Holy Orders effecting an actual grace that changes the recipient.
As far as a priest being married – I said nothing about the status being exclusive. My point was that a married person would agree with my statement vis a vis a single person just as a priest ought to agree with the statement vis a vis a lay person. If a married man thinks he is “no different” than a single man, his wife ought to be concerned. So too the lay person who’s priest doesn’t think he is any different.
“If there is not an essential difference between the lay baptized and the priesthood, what is the grace conferred by Holy Orders?”
The grace is what constitutes the presbyter as such, one who is authorized and empowered to preside at mass.
Nothing you have said, as far as I can see, is reason for me to change my analysis of the question, which I believe is perfectly orthodox. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.
Let me suggest a rough descrption of “clericalism.” The clericalist is one who IN PRACTICE regards all genuine Catholic endeavors as those that the clergy either initiates and/or leads or delegates to some lay people. In other words, the clericalist is one who behaves as though Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church, which proclaims that the laity have, by virtue of baptism and not some delegation, its own mission that is an essential component of the Church’s overall mission, is nothing more than a dead letter. The clericalists that I have known show little interest in hearting and learning from the laity. Hence,they remain in the dark about many concrete religious and moral issues that the laity have to deal with. The evidence that the present and coming crop of priests see themselves as set apart is worrisome. It suggests that these men, as a group, tend to fit the picture of a clericalist. They may be personally holy, but they are likely to be terribly ignorant about the people to whom they try to minister. Whey the clergy is clericalist, then everybody loses.
One last thought for this thread: the priest’s role cannot be seperated from the community and he is in conjunction, I submit, not above them but as their servant.
Sacraments are for people and the priest, deacons and even laity in some instatnces in this dispensation confer them. Time will tell how the varying roles may evolve.
A lot of priests left active ministry after Vatican II. I recall a priest ordained about 1960 who, I learned later, had a habit of reminding parents to know where their children were. He took a group of young kids to a camp site for the weekend. Unbeknownst to him, a few of the boys decided to wander off, came upon a railroad track, found a flair, lit it, and stopped a train in the dead of night. The FBI and local sheriff got involved. The parents now had the opportunity to tell this priest to follow his own advice. He left the priesthood not long later. Of course, priests stood on pedestals back then.
I’m not reassured by many of our newer ordinands. If “John Paul the Great” was and is their inspiration, I hope these new priests will grow up fast, deliver their shiny new pedestals to the local recycling center, and remember that they c*%p like everyone else. If they don’t, they risk repeating the experience of the 1960s priest.
As for various extra-liturgical devotions that harken back to pre-Vatican II, we must remember these elements cropped up because the ordinary Catholic could no longer understand (much less hear) his/her priest “saying” Mass sotto voce in a long-dead, unintelligible foreign language — a language, of course, that was not even the original street or worship tongue of our religious ancestors in Rome itself!
It appears that many of our younger folks are — characteristically — too impatient for a return to the Tridentine (the Novus Ordo, after all, is a mere 40 years young in Church time) and all too willing to ignore the lessons of history. The new clerical pied-pipers, it appears, are ready, willing, and able to facilitate the process.
What a shame.