Whether it’s selection bias or response bias, it’s still bias. And even if it’s only potential bias, it means that the survey constructors should not be making statements like saying that a majority of Catholic priests dislike the new missal. There’s no way that they can exclude the possibility of a 10% swing in the response bias.

 Report Comment

Social Science Methodological Note:

While the methodological section of a social science report is important, the data section and how this relates to previous research and theory (the introduction and discussions) are just as important in evaluating the overall value of the study.

One of the enlightening experiences of graduate study is to criticize all the many methodological faults of many of the classical studies that have shaped psychology and sociology. Theories and interesting data advance science as much as methodology. As with most things, both/and is necessary in the long run.

 Report Comment

The 2001 National Federation of Priests’ Council study, Evolving Visons of the Priesthood (still available from Liturgical Press) was the last done by Dean Hoge. It features his model of priesthood generations in which he contrasts the“Servant Leadership Model“ of the Vatican II generation of young priests with the “Cultic Leadership Model” both of Pre-Vatican II generation of priests and of the younger priests since 1980 who have seen JP2 and B16 as their models.

Generational models are important sociological explanatory tools. The basic idea is that each generation is overly influenced by the things that they experience in their youth (teens and twenties) and these experiences tend to shape them for life. While this is true, there is still much change that occurs throughout the life cycle even if later events tend to have less influence. Therefore I was glad that when CARA took over the latest study after Hoge’s death that they placed more emphasis upon the many other situational factors that are beginning to influence priestly ministry other than the generational model.

However when it comes to the current 2013 Diekmann study, I have no doubt that generational factors and “servant leader” versus “cultic” models of the priesthood explain much (but not all) the results. The results seem to perfectly fit what I would expect from prior studies factoring in new ordinations and deaths. Unfortunately (for those who are skeptical of the results) old priests never die they just fade away (i.e. they continue to say Mass even after they retire).

So the implementation of the New Missal has not only alienated the majority of priests, it has also thrown gasoline on the fires of intergenerational conflict. Shame on the poor management skills of the American bishops!

In my review of the more recent CARA study I took pains to express my conviction that both servant leadership (emphasis upon ministry to people) and cultic (emphasis upon worship) models of the priesthood have long histories in the Church and both deserve support and should not be seen as in conflict with each other. As if we could ever separate the love of God and the love of others!

Pope Francis as a Jesuit has a more “servant leader” model of the priesthood than Pope Benedict (whose cultic model was influenced to some degree by aspects of the Benedictine tradition). Will more “servant leaders” interested in evangelization and the poor began to show up in the coming years in our seminaries? We don’t know. Hoge in his book criticizes most of the explanations for the revival of the cultic model among seminarians since the eighties. The one certainly he points out is that it did not come from American Catholic laity in general since these have steadily become more liberal!

 Report Comment

I do think this poll gives us a window as to how MR3 was implemented by bishops with their clergy.

“I don’t think I’ve heard any negative comments whatsoever …”

This isn’t surprising. It’s also largely the experience of popes and bishops everywhere. Quick question: good thing or bad thing?

 Report Comment

Completely true, Jonathan. I just enjoy sociolinguistics. Hopefully one day I will be paid to do it

I doubt what we laypersons, or even the vast majority of the clergy, will ever truly find out why these simple translation mistakes were made. Even the half-drunk medieval monks who helped to shape the classical Latin works as we know them today performed well as redactors. They displayed a well-rounded knowledge of the language outside of translation into vernaculars. (With all due respect to the good monks of St. John’s Abbey, boiling during the brewing process served as a good water disinfectant.)

 Report Comment