Replies

It seems to me that there is a flaw in this analysis.

The progressive Dioceses are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically liberal. The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

For this study's conclusions to be valid, one would need to include in the study (a) progressive Dioceses located in socially and politically conservative areas and (b) orthodox Dioceses located in socially and politically liberal areas.

If such additional Dioceses cannot be found, the conclusion that might be drawn from this study would be that ordinations are greater in socially and politically conservative areas, which is a "the sky is blue" kind of conclusion. In other words, it's not a meaningful discovery.

The ultimate conclusion that one might want to draw from this study is that if progessive Dioceses were to become orthodox, ordinations in those Dioceses would increase.

However, I don't think that such an ultimate conclusion could be drawn from this study. Given the data sampled, it might well be that even if the currently progressive Dioceses were to become orthodox, ordinations in those Dioceses would not rise to the levels of ordinations in orthodox Dioceses that are located in conservative areas because the social and political climate of an area is the most predominate factor.

Therefore, I don't think this study has much validity when it comes to drawing the kind of conclusion that folks here would like to draw (i.e., bringing orthodoxy to liberal Catholic Dioceses would attract more Priests).

As I implied above, the most valid conclusion that this study might yield is that whether a Diocese is progressive or orthodox depends on whether the area in which the Diocese is located is socially and politically progressive or orthodox. But anyone with a lick of common sense surely knew that.

As I implied above, the most valid conclusion that this study might yield is that whether a Diocese is progressive or orthodox depends on whether the area in which the Diocese is located is socially and politically progressive or orthodox.

Oh dang! More twists and turns! My head is spinning.

I reject your conclusion! ;-)

Seriously, shouldn't Catholicism, which is neither politically progressive or conservative as taught by the Magisterium, transcend a particular political climate? If it is taught according to the catechism, tradition and Magisterium, that is.

But you have a good point because priests coming out of seminaries in liberal areas were probably taught by liberal theologians who in turn either were taught in those same seminaries or colleges that their teachers came out of. It's kind of like an endless circle or a dog chasing his tail.

In the more liberal areas, a lot of the teaching centers on the parish/Church being primarily a social justice organization (which Cardinal Ratzinger sees as the greatest danger to the Faith) and I find this over and over again in priests and particularly nuns. The focus is on love and has an almost socialistic flavor.

Which is why orthodoxy works... by adhering to the Magisterium, we are able to overcome the temptation to interject political opinion.

You bring up a many good points to consider. What I am constantly confounded with is that there appears to be a problem to solve (lack of vocations) and ample variance occuring (this article, for instance, can easily find dioceses where vocations are not a problem) yet there does not seem to be any concerted effort to explain the variance.

The progressive Dioceses are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically liberal. The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

That's not true as a generalization. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Atlanta are not particularly conservative, and Tuscon, San Diego, Phoenix, New Ulm, Portland, and San Bernardino are not particularly liberal. The sample is good and representative.

The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

Have you been to Philadelphia lately???

In other words, it's not a meaningful discovery.

You've added complexity where it's not necessary.

The question is the orientation of the Diocese, not of the political/cultural surroundings.

While your suggestion would tend to make the study's findings 'bulletproof,' it would not necessarily change them.

Otherwise, your suggestion is that areas which are heavily 'liberal' in a cultural and political sense would not produce priests.

If that were so, Boston, Milwaukee, and Detroit would have run out of priests about 30 years ago.

The "flaw" you point out does mean that one needs to look closer at the data than a simple statistic, but on closer examination, the data holds up...

I will concede that the more orthodox dioceses TEND to be from smaller or "blue-state" areas, BUT they do include diocese in the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington areas; and the trend does hold up (quite strongly) for these diocese.

(I also saw some politically liberal cities, such as Atlanta, but I'm unfamiliar with those dioceses; If Atlanta diocese is all of Georgia, it could be very conservative in total.)

Likewise, the heterodox areas included some which were at least politically conservative (Tuscon, Pheonix, San Diego), lergely rural (Maine) or small-city rust-belt (Grand Rapids).

If reality is a flaw, then this analysis is indeed flawed.

Why WOULDN'T progressive and conservative diocese reflect the culture around them? The old saw about getting the kind of government we deserve also applies to churches. The culture produces what it will with an unflinching austere logic. We as individuals may happily compartmentalize various aspects of our life but as societies we seldom if ever do so. The hard logic of ideas, paradigms and mores works its way through nations and cultures and pointing out this or that individual that will not succumb to it is to point out the exceptions that prove the rule.