February 18, 2004

NEVER A BAD TIME TO MATURE:

Young Fogeys: Young reactionaries, aging radicals—the U.S. Catholic Church's unusual clerical divide (Andrew Greeley, January/February 2004, The Atlantic Monthly)

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. [...]

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.


After a destructive flirtation with fads--like the conscious recruitment of gay priests who have led to the sex abuse scandals--the Catholic Church in America is badly in need of such a counter-revolution. If nothing else, it needs to stop playing defense--as it did shamefully in covering up for its child-abusers--and get back on the offensive--as in banning pro-abortion politicians from Communion.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 18, 2004 9:15 AM
Comments

The last time this happened, wasn't it called a "Counter-Reformation"?

And will Mel Gibson's The Passion -- premiering this Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent -- have any influence on this trend?

Posted by: Ken at February 18, 2004 12:14 PM

Except that the Counter-Reformation reformed. Now a retrograde movement is needed instead.

Posted by: oj at February 18, 2004 12:25 PM

OJ: On the contrary, a reformation of the rot is probably the same as what you're advocating.

The problem is, most bishops are functionally spineless.

Posted by: Chris at February 18, 2004 1:22 PM

My brother is in a seminary in Missouri, and he assures me that his fellow classmates are much more conservative than previous generations of priests. People are getting tired of wishy-washy theology: they are hungry for the real thing, and the new generation of priests is providing it.

Posted by: Matt at February 18, 2004 3:47 PM

I suggest that this phenomenon I no more or less than the general right-ward shift among the younger generations. They have no Oedipal need to rebel against conservative parents, (those parents being not very conservative), and they have been freed of the corrosive effect of the draft, and thus are free to consider the issues rationally

I was there; I lived through it. Clinton wasn't the only one who connived and dissembled to avoid service. Almost an entire generation of the educated has done so. And to justify one's shirking of service, one had to buy into the entire counterculture. AmeriKKKa was not worth fighting for, and everything its political and curtural enemies stood for was right. No more.

The young are not traditionalists by any means--the strong libertarian streak is there, and they want government off their backs as well as out of their bedrooms. I reiterate: absent the need to denigrate their country to rationalize draft evasion, the young, from among whom, after all, the young priests are drawn, are moving sharply to the right.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 18, 2004 4:07 PM

How is it any different for children of a "liberal" generation to become more "conservative" in response, than for children of a "conservative" generation to become more "liberal"? The effect is the same--defining yourself in opposition to your parents.

Posted by: brian at February 18, 2004 4:29 PM

Yes, but we've only had one liberal generation here.

Posted by: oj at February 18, 2004 4:41 PM
« THE OIL MEN GET IT: | Main | LEARNING FROM THEIR MISTAKES: »