New survey raises concerns about increasingly conservative clergy

New survey raises concerns about increasingly conservative clergy 

All of us have not decided that all survey data demands skepticism, rather how it is done should always be a concern. Without more detail on how the sample frame was constructed (meaning, how random - and therefore generalizable) and what the cross-tabulations look like, I cannot judge how good a survey is. While good methodology is science, the art is in the interpretation. The interpretation is largely dependent on the audience - especially who is paying for the survey. 

Campaign polling meant only for the team just before the election is very accurate. The reason McAuliffe ended his after-party early is because he probably already knew he had lost before the first in-person vote had even been cast on election day. Other surveys are for public consumption, meaning they are presented in such a way as to show the election is up for grabs. This is good for the media and for the candidates because it brings people out to the polls. 

Some surveys are designed to make your candidate or party look better than they really are. Some Republican outfits are notorious for that, so much so that their results are discounted by a few points by the other side. 2021 showed that this is not always true. They sure caught me off guard.

For ecclesial research, the question is also who the audience is. If it is other academics, the paper must be controversial enough to be published, but is not vital for the life of the Church. Academic theology papers can, indeed, be taken with a grain of salt. 

Accuracy is more important if the stakes are higher, depending on your views on who should (or could) be in charge. There, the key question is whether the clergy serves at our pleasure or do we worship at theirs. A related question is how the people of God should organize itself and who gets to say.

If priests elect bishops (or, as in ancient days, pastors are the bishops), their attitudes matter in relations to that. If the local laity elects the bishop/pastor or hires the priest, their attitudes matter more. In either case, the attitudes of the selected reflect the attitudes of the selectors. As such, who becomes a priest (or decides to say) depends on the local bishop. Who the local bishop is depends on the Pope who appointed him. The general attitude of the Church also determines the character of the priesthood and the bishops.

Even without seeing the crosstabs, it is safe to assume that this sample contains quite a few "John Paul priests." The survey reflects their current dominance. Nothing in the Church is forever, however. The bark of Peter turns slowly, but it still turns. Pope Francis has not been giving red hats to John Paul priests. Careerists will pivot accordingly, true believers on the left and the right will not. 

That there were enough Vatican II devotees to call on is a blessing for the Church. At present, it will not change how priests are selected (or their gender) but Shekinah can only work as fast as hearts are willing to open to Her.

This survey is important to diagnose the state of the Church today. By looking at priests, we also look at bishops. Unless one is paying attention to who Francis appoints, it would be easy to be discouraged. The results are still a wakeup call. Early this morning, I was looking at a You Tube video on fascism. It is mainly about politics - especially in reference to the last four years and the state of the GOP. It is also  essential viewing for anyone interested in ecclesiology. I explain how here.