Young Fogeys: Young reactionaries, aging radicals-U.S. Church's unusual clerical divide

The Atlantic Monthly ^ | January/February 2004 | Andrew Greeley

[Polycarp IV]

Young reactionaries, aging radicals;the U.S. Catholic Church's unusual clerical divide
 

by Andrew Greeley
 

.....
 

ome forty years ago, as the dramatic events of the Second Vatican Council unfolded, a spotlight was trained on the Catholic Church. It was, commentators said, a revolutionary time. The Church fathers broadened the canons of scriptural interpretation, invited other churches and denominations to engage in friendly dialogue, and attempted to understand the strengths of the modern world. They defended religious freedom, condemned anti-Semitism, and recalled the traditional notion that the Church was made up not just of its clerical hierarchy but also of its laity. They approved the translation of the liturgy into vernacular texts. Although in actual practice the reforms were only modest attempts at housekeeping, made by moderate men who had no intention of destabilizing the Church, they nevertheless contradicted the Church's traditional attitude toward reform—that the Church had not changed, would not change, and could not change. In that regard any reform at all was indeed remarkable.

For more than three decades now, as a sociologist and a priest, I have been tracking the evolution of the beliefs and practices of the Catholic clergy and laity in the United States. My most recent analysis, based on survey data that I and others have gathered periodically since Vatican II, reveals a striking trend: a generation of conservative young priests is on the rise in the U.S. Church. These are newly ordained men who seem in many ways intent on restoring the pre-Vatican II Church, and who, reversing the classic generational roles, define themselves in direct opposition to the liberal priests who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s.

The divisions created by Vatican II are not new, of course. Caught up in the reform euphoria that followed the council, the lower clergy and the laity almost immediately developed a new ideology based on respect for women and for the freedom (including the sexual freedom) of the laity. On these matters, quietly or loudly, the laity and the lower clergy did resist the teachings of the Church.

The backlash was swift. Church leaders, realizing that reform had slipped out of their control, grew increasingly convinced of the need for a Restoration—a movement in which the upper clergy would close ranks and reassert their authority. Newly appointed bishops would restore the rules; theologians who disagreed would be silenced; and, as much as possible, the old order would be re-established. Even some of the progressives of the council, frightened by the laity's exuberant interest in change and by the declining influence of the Church in the United States, lost their nerve and joined in the call for a Restoration. Today's young conservative priests are rallying to this call.

ho are these young counter-revolutionaries? Several studies are helpful in answering this question: a 1970 National Opinion Research Center study (with which I was involved); two studies released by the Los Angeles Times, in 1994 and 2002; and a 2002 study by the sociologist Dean R. Hoge. Hoge's The First Five Years of the Priesthood: A Study of Newly Ordained Catholic Priests is particularly useful. Hoge reports that half the newly ordained priests he encountered believe that a priest is fundamentally different from a layperson—that he is literally a man apart. Hoge also reports that almost a third of these priests feel that the laity need to be "better educated to respect the authority of the priest's word." These beliefs are strikingly at odds with those of the predominantly liberal generation of new priests studied in the 1970 NORC survey. Today's young priests tend to want to restore the power that the clergy held not only before Vatican II but also before a large educated Catholic laity emerged as a powerful force in the Church after World War II. Older priests today often complain that their younger colleagues are arrogant, pompous, and rigid, and that they love to parade around in clerical dress. The image that comes to mind is young versions of the old ethnic monsignors of the Depression era.

Stark differences exist between older and younger priests on many major areas of concern within the Church. The 2002 Los Angeles Times study reveals that priests of the Vatican II generation overwhelmingly support the idea that priests should be allowed to marry. In the study 80 percent of priests aged forty-six to sixty-five were in favor, as were 74 percent of those aged sixty-six to seventy-five. Only about half the priests under thirty-five, however, supported the idea. The study revealed a clear divide, too, on the ordination of women. Sixty percent of priests aged fifty-six to sixty-five, and at least half of those aged forty-six to seventy-five, supported the idea, but only 36 percent of priests under forty-six did. Significantly, even priests over seventy-five—whose views took shape well before Vatican II—were slightly more likely to support the marriage of priests and the ordination of women than were the young priests.

The lines are a bit less clear on questions of sexual ethics. According to the same Los Angeles Times study, about half of all priests reject premarital sex and homosexual sex as always wrong. But only about 40 percent of the younger generation believe that birth control is always wrong—a revealing failure of the Restoration efforts of the past thirty years, which have been fundamentally opposed to birth control. And younger priests seem to have a higher general regard for women than older priests do—an attitude demonstrated most clearly in the 1994 Los Angeles Times study, in responses to questions about support for official condemnation of sexism and for better ministry to women, and concern for the situation of nuns. This attitude, which is in line with the views of the laity, explains some of the clergy's resistance to the Church's teachings on sexuality. Nonetheless, younger priests are more than twice as likely as priests aged fifty-five to sixty-five to think that birth control and masturbation are always wrong, and they are significantly more likely to think that homosexual sex and premarital sex are always wrong.

Priests as a group are simply not in touch with the laity. In the 2002 Los Angeles Times study only thirty-six of 1,854 priests identified clericalism as one of the major problems facing the Church's laity. Astonishingly, only forty-seven priests thought the sex-abuse scandals worth mentioning. For some reason, priests of all generations are unable or unwilling to see the clergy as responsible for the departure of disaffected laypersons—a problem that today plagues the U.S. Church.

To explain the laity's dissatisfaction with the Church, priests from all generations tend to trot out the usual litany: individualism, materialism, secularism, lack of faith, lack of prayer, lack of commitment, media bias, hedonism, sexual freedom, feminism, family breakdown, lack of education, and apathy. The advantage of such explanations is that they free priests from any personal responsibility and put the blame on factors over which the clergy cannot be expected to exercise much control. The rectory thus becomes an isolated citadel battered by cultural forces, which encourages precisely the sort of closed, band-of-brothers mentality that the Vatican II reforms were designed to break down.

[NeoCaveman]

I get the impression that Greeley is upset that the generation of...
church wreckovating
tabernacle hiding
confitor omitting
OCP hymanal singing
Liturgical dance pushing
Felt banner waving
Homosexual coddling
"inclusive language" pushing
EWTN hating
liberals
...are dying out.

[Snuffington]

The cheesy liberal interpretation of Vatican II has been rejected and the young who remain are finding enrichment and fulfillment in the traditions, history, and true teachings of the Church, stretching back hundreds and thousands of years before the 1960s.

Well put.

The most striking difference I see between Greeley's "young fogeys" and his own generation is that the "fogeys" lack the emotion-driven love affair with Vatican II. They view it as one of many Church councils, primarily concerning itself with contemporary pastoral matters, some of which seem rather dated now.

They're only being "reactionary" if you assume Vatican II was a revolutionary break from the pre-Concillar Church. Thankfully, that is not the contention of either the Council itself, nor the post-Concillar popes. But it does seem embedded as such in the minds of the heterodox who dominate Greeley's generation.

[reed_inthe_wind]

"Anecdotal experience means absolutely nothing."

FreeRepublic is a grassroots medium. Antedotal evidence is everything in this forum. You sound like a reactionary one way broadcaster.

[kittymyrib]

This doesn't just pertain to the Catholic Church. Christianity will be much better off when the whole layer of '60s and '70s liberal clergy will be buried. They have done great harm to most church bodies throughout the world.

[sinkspur]

FreeRepublic is a grassroots medium. Antedotal evidence is everything in this forum.

Free Republic is anecdotal as well. Taking opinions expressed here and extrapolating them into some larger picture won't work, either.

[sinkspur]

OK.

[hobbes1]

For some reason, priests of all generations are unable or unwilling to see the clergy as responsible for the departure of disaffected laypersons;a problem that today plagues the U.S. Church.

Hmmmm....Odd isn't it that such a careful cogent analysis misses the fact that the departure occurs in synchronicity with VaticanII.....

You don't see many Tridentine parishes wanting for attendance....

[Notwithstanding]

Your posts are always amusing - and always selling laymen short. To be sure, you do offer misguided and shallow platitudes to the layman. But you generally presume that the layman is incapable of appreciating the higher, harder truths - ideals that man may not always achieve, but which are worth striving for nonetheless.

You presume that every layman is a hopeless boobus americanus. How very sad.

[NeoCaveman]

Hmmmm....Odd isn't it that such a careful cogent analysis misses the fact that the departure occurs in synchronicity with VaticanII.....

Because he is of that generation.....

My take is pretty similar to the repsonse in #22, wish I had articulated it first.

[sinkspur]

You presume that every layman is a hopeless boobus americanus.

Well, then I'll have to start having someone other than you in mind when I presume.

[reed_inthe_wind]

"They've still got a ways to go, apparently.
Sixty-percent of young priests think that there are at least some occasions in which contraception is not always wrong."

I have a true life story for all moralists young and old. From the day we were married my wife and I practiced natural family planning. Among Catholics, unfortunately we are not in the majority. When I started taking chemotherapy and other drugs noted for horrible birth defects, my doctor's had me sign a consent form that required that we use not one but two forms of birth control. A young priest told me that it would be a sin to use birth control despite the situation. I told him that God did not naturally put these drugs in my body, and that my death is imminent and that I didn't want my wife saddled with a child with a birth defect. I don't have anything against people with birth defects, but a single mom/widow doesn't need one if it can be helped. He wisely did not discuss abstinence since married couples have a sensual dimension to their relationship. I finally decided to continue using natural family planning to avoid the abortifacient effect of birth control, and to use the birth control. When I went to confession to this same priest, I told him that I am guilty of not wanting another child given this situation. He absolved me. Finally, I don't know what wording appeared in Greely's survey, but I expect that it didn't begin to cover the nuances of moral decision making. If Greely is smart enough to write such a survey, we can write a computer program to tell us what to do, and we won't need priests, preachers, bibles, Churches and theologians.

[The Iguana]

Anecdotal experience means absolutely nothing.

True.

I would say it is my experience as well; but I would also say that in so-called "rad-trad" or at least traditionalist parishes (like that of Fr. Weinberger in Dallas), the priest usually *is* in touch with the laity, but it's kind of a self-selecting sample, since there is a certain homogeneity and unity of outlook in the parish composition.

And there is nothing at all wrong with that. It just may not be typical.

Hipness does not automatically conflate with "in-touch" but I will also observe that the young (conservative) priests I know are surprisingly up to speed on pop culture. I think of Fr. Bryce Sibley (who has his own blog) and not only roasted me on a very difficult 80's pop music quiz; he got a perfect score. A couple points behind him was Fr. LaHood.

That only 2% of the American clergy thinks the sexual abuse situation was a "big deal" shows just how out of touch they really are.

The sample size seems large enough (1800+ priests of 30,000+) but I am assuming that the LA Times had to do the same thing we at the Kansas City Star did when we did our AIDS in the priesthood series - mail out a voluntary survey, and respondents were therefore self-selecting.

In other words, those who responded almost certainly were not representative. And in my experience, the more conservative types were usually more distrustful of the media and less likely to respond.

I am especially curious how that question was worded. Even for a self-selecting non-representative survey, 2% seems awfully low.

[sinkspur]

But you generally presume that the layman is incapable of appreciating the higher, harder truths - ideals that man may not always achieve, but which are worth striving for nonetheless.

Where do you get that idea?

I think laymen are pretty smart, smarter than most priests.

They thought the clerical abuse crisis was serious, whereas only 2% of priests thought it was.

In this case, the clerics have the problem with appreciating the higher truths.

[reed_inthe_wind]

"Free Republic is anecdotal as well. Taking opinions expressed here and extrapolating them into some larger picture won't work, either."

Please tell us the big picture Mr. broadcaster, and we promise not to open our unworthy mouths:

2 a (1) : inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances -- compare DEDUCTION 2a (2) : a conclusion arrived at by induction b : mathematical demonstration of the validity of a law concerning all the positive integers by proving that it holds for the integer 1 and that if it holds for an arbitrarily chosen positive integer k it must hold for the integer k+1 -- called also mathematical induction

[sinkspur]

Please tell us the big picture Mr. broadcaster,

Could be more obtuse?

[Desdemona]

Yes, guilty as charged. I've been labelled an old fogey, despite my under-35 status, for quite a while.

[reed_inthe_wind]

"Could be more obtuse?"

For once we are unable to disagree. haha

[Notwithstanding]

What on earth are you talking about?

Up until the last 2 years lay Catholics did not care much at all about sexual abuse in the Church.

Your agenda is showing.

[sinkspur]

Up until the last 2 years lay Catholics did not care much at all about sexual abuse in the Church.

They didn't know the extent of it. Now they care.

The priests know about it, and 98% of them don't think it's any big deal.

[Incorrigible]

Priests as a group are simply not in touch with the laity.

The "new fogeys" better figure out a way to change this.

Sinkspur, remember this is Greeley who wrote this.  The guys I went to high school with who became priests (only one a Jesuit despite our schooling!) are generally more conservative than their elders but at the same time, try to avoid getting involved in priestly politics (not easy) and get to know their parishioners.  They don't prance around.  Well, OK, maybe one of them.

There's a traditional Monsignor from Ireland in my current parish (lucky us, he coincidently moved from our old parish around the time we were moving!).  The Diocese usually sends some young guys to serve in his parish for a few years before moving on to more responsible roles.  The current prelate is an all around good guy and very in touch with the laity and the organizations surrounding the parish.

We may be just lucky though.

And Doc, you have to put a "Greeley Alert" warning in the title of these threads lest one reads the content and becomes corrupted!

Priests as a group are simply not in touch with the laity.

The "new fogeys" better figure out a way to change this.