Sociologists have put great effort into 
understanding and measuring 
different aspects of what it means to be religious.

Restoring continuity: The Church’s urgent task

By Cynthia Toolin

Sociologists of religion have been studying the success of religious groups in teaching their members, through formal and informal means, the values and norms, the practices and beliefs, that are core to being a member of the group. The teaching process, called socialization1 occurs in formal (e.g., Church, school) and informal situations (e.g., dinner with like-minded friends), in primary (e.g., family) and secondary (e.g., school) settings, and on an initial (i.e., as children or converts) and ongoing (i.e., as accepted practitioners) basis.

One measure of the extent to which a person is religious is called religiosity. Sociologists have put great effort into understanding and measuring different aspects of what it means to be religious. Religiosity is a complex social phenomenon that can be understood and measured in what sociologists call a multidimensional way. That is, a person can be religious in several different ways, often at the same time, and the extent to which he is religious in these various ways can range widely on a continuum of very religious to not religious at all. For instance, a person could attend church services every week (high religiosity) and never pray or read the Bible (low religiosity); another could be well educated concerning the teachings of his religion (high religiosity) and not believe any of them (low religiosity).
Although other studies have refined the understanding and measurement of religiosity, the classic sociological studies in this area were conducted by Glock and Stark. In his initial work, Glock2 thought it was possible to measure the extent to which people are religious in four ways. The first, called experiential, refers to a person’s emotional attachment to the supernatural (e.g., believing that faith gives meaning to life); the second, ritualistic, is the rate with which a person participates in the group’s activities (e.g., attending church services); ideological, the third, looks at the degree of commitment a person has to the religious beliefs of the group (e.g., believing you must ask God for forgiveness of sins to receive it); and the fourth, consequential, assesses the impact of religious commitment and involvement on the person’s general behavior (e.g., giving money to the poor). In a later work, Glock3 added a fifth way of being religious, which he called intellectual. It refers to the degree of knowledge a person has about the group’s formal beliefs (e.g., knowledge of the Trinitarian processions). Still later Glock and Stark4 divided the ritualistic into two ways of being religious: the ritualistic, again, the rate with which a person participates in the group’s activities (e.g., attending church services) and the devotional, which assess the person’s private religious activities (e.g., praying and studying sacred books and religious writing). Thus, in the end, these classic studies list six ways of being religious: experiential, ritualistic, devotional, ideological, consequential and intellectual. A person can be religious in all of these ways, and in each of these ways can exhibit religiosity in varying degrees.

These theoretical dimensions, or ways, of being religious need to be translated into phenomena that can be observed and measured. This “operationalization” of the ways of being religious can be very specific when the degree of religiosity is being measured among Roman Catholics. For instance, the intellectual could be measured by asking questions about whether the person believes in the Real Presence or papal infallibility, or what he knows about the natures of Christ or the catholicity of the church.

When religiosity is measured within a particular religious group, it could be argued that the results indicate how much of what the religious group has taught its members has been internalized by them. That is, a group of people with high religiosity would imply that the socialization efforts of the religious group were relatively effective.

Sociological studies do not attempt to get at a true faith component. In fact, they could not even if they attempted to because the inner recesses of a man’s heart, where he communes with God, is not knowable by using the positivist scientific method. Many things can only be seen with the eyes of faith. However, the results of sociological studies can be of tremendous use to anyone involved in disseminating the truths of the faith, from theologians and priests to Directors of Religious Education and Catholic school religion teachers. By providing a picture of the attitudes and behaviors of Catholics, it is possible to assess where the truths of the faith have been successfully communicated, where those efforts at communication have failed, and, most significantly, where future efforts at communicating them should be concentrated

Survey description, results and interpretation
Gallup Organization has conducted national surveys of American Roman Catholics in 1987, 1993 and 1999. The surveys included questions about religious beliefs and their relative importance, opinions on Church teaching and authority, religious behavior, and background. Many of the core questions were repeated on all three surveys, allowing for a comparison of results over a twelve year period.5 The results of these surveys, and the interpretation of the results, have been reported in the National Catholic Reporter6 (fall, 1987, 1993 and 1999) and in at least two books.7

One set of questions, asked only in the 1999 survey, was concerned with what Catholics would define as core to their faith. Each respondent was asked how important (very important, somewhat important or not important at all) six elements are to you as a Catholic: the sacraments, such as Eucharist and marriage; spirituality and personal growth; church involvement in activities directed toward social justice and helping the poor; the Catholic church’s teachings about Mary as the Mother of God; the spirit of community among Catholics; and the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican? Many respondents answered that these elements are very important to them as Catholics. Among them, the rank of these elements was the sacraments (80%), spirituality and personal growth (76%), social justice (71%), belief in Mary as the Mother of God (69%), the spirit of community (64%), and teaching authority of the Vatican (42%). Education (measured as high school or less, some college, or college degree) was an important factor, in that although the rank of the elements remained the same, the percentage of those with a college degree was much less likely to say belief in Mary as the Mother of God (58%) and the teaching authority of the Vatican (28%) are very important. Other background information (e.g., sex, Anglo/Latino, loyal church attenders/non-attenders) did not change the ranking of these six elements.8
A second set of questions took a different approach to determining what Catholics define as core to their faith. Most of these questions were asked in all three surveys so comparable information is available for three dates over a twelve year period. Respondents were asked, can a person be a good Catholic without going to church every Sunday; without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control; without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control; without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching on divorce and remarriage; without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching regarding abortion; without believing that in the Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus (asked only in 1999); without their marriage being approved by the Catholic Church; without donating time or money to help the poor; without donating time or money to help the parish (not asked in 1987); and without believing that Jesus physically rose from the dead (asked only in 1999)?

In 1999, the percentage saying yes, a person can be a good Catholic without believing in the Real Presence (38%) and Jesus’ Resurrection (23%) was very low. But, significantly, the percentage saying yes, a person can be a good Catholic without doing or believing the other activities and beliefs was high. In the 1999 survey, the percentage saying yes to not attending weekly Mass (77%), to not obeying the Magisterium on birth control (72%), divorce and remarriage (65%), or abortion (53%), to not getting a Catholic Church approval of their marriage (68%), and to not donating to help the poor (56%) or the Parish (60%) were all high.9

Dean Hoge, in “What is Most Central to Being a Catholic?” concludes from these two sets of questions that to Catholics, the core of the faith “is the creed and the sacraments . . . the obligation to attend church weekly, and some specific moral teachings, are much more peripheral.”10 He supports these interpretations on the results of two other studies.11

The survey also included two other sets of questions of interest. The third set addresses the locus of moral authority by asking, Who do you think should have the final say about what is right and wrong (Church leaders, individuals, Church leaders should work together with the laity to develop these moral teachings) concerning a divorced Catholic remarrying without getting an annulment; a Catholic practicing contraceptive birth control; a Catholic advocating free choice regarding abortion; a Catholic who engages in homosexual behavior; a Catholic who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage? Overall, in the 1999 survey, a much higher percentage answered that the individual should have the final say about right and wrong on all five issues as opposed to Church leaders: concerning a divorced Catholic remarrying without getting an annulment 45% to 20%; a Catholic practicing contraceptive birth control 61% to 11%; a Catholic advocating free choice regarding abortion 47% to 20%; a Catholic who engages in homosexual behavior 48% to 20%; a Catholic who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage 46% to 23%. When Mass Attendance was taken into consideration, Catholics support Church leaders slightly more (the corresponding numbers are 29% to 32%; 45% to 21%; 31% to 33%; 33% to 34% and 30% to 38%).12

The fourth set of questions addresses participation of the laity in Church decisions by asking, Should Catholic laity have the right to participate in the following areas of Church life: deciding how parish income should be spent; selecting the priest for their parish; deciding whether women should be ordained to the priesthood? In 1999, 82% said yes, the laity should participate in deciding how parish income should be spent, 73% said yes, the laity should participate in selecting a priest for their parish, and 63% said yes, the laity should participate in deciding whether women should be ordained to the priesthood.13

D’Antonio, in “Trends in US Roman Catholic Attitudes, Beliefs and Behavior,” examined these last two sets of questions. He concludes that over the three time periods, “the trend is clearly toward declining support for Church leaders (pope and bishops) as the locus of moral authority in helping people decide what is morally right or wrong on five issues dealing with marriage and sexuality.”14 The issues, again, are remarriage without an annulment, practicing contraceptive birth control, choice regarding abortion, homosexual behavior and non-marital sex. He says, “in sum, while the church’s most committed Catholics are more supportive of Church leaders than are Catholics as a whole, their support has fallen to under 40% on every one of these five items. . . At the same time, there is an increase in support of the laity’s right to participate in ‘selecting priests for their parish,’ and in deciding whether ‘women should be ordained to the priesthood.’ “15 In both cases, the dramatic increases that were reported in 1993 were sustained in the 1999 survey.16

Sociological and theological aspect
Again, these statistics can be used to assess where the truths of the faith have been successfully communicated, where those efforts at communication have failed, and where future efforts at communicating them should be concentrated.

Several results of interest can be broadly summarized into two categories:
1. A high percentage of Catholics support the dogmatic teachings of the Church that they were asked about (i.e., Real Presence, Jesus’ Resurrection, and Mary as the Mother of God.)
2. A minority of Catholics think the teaching authority of the Vatican is important to them as Catholics; a majority of Catholics think you can be a good Catholic without accepting the church teaching authority on birth control, divorce and remarriage, and abortion; approximately half say that the individual is the final locus of moral authority in remarriage without an annulment, the use of contraceptive birth control, free choice regarding abortion, engaging in homosexual behavior, and engaging in extra-marital sexual relations; and a majority of Catholics think the laity should have the right to participate in deciding whether women should be ordained to the priesthood.

The summary of findings of interest into these two categories can be paraphrased as the Church taught this and Catholics internalized it; the Church taught this and Catholics did not internalize it. Although of interest, these categories are not of much use in addressing how to solve the problem of a multitude of Catholics dissenting from the Church’s teaching authority.

Further insight can be gained by examining the questions asked using the dimensions of religiosity suggested by Glock and Stark (i.e., experiential, ritualistic, devotional, ideological, consequential and intellectual.) None of the questions on the three surveys done by Gallup, and that are of interest here, address the experiential or devotional dimensions. A possible categorization of the questions of interest for the other four categories are:

1. Ritualistic

Can a person be a good Catholic without going to church every Sunday?

2. Ideological

How important is the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican to you as a Catholic?

3. Consequential

Can a person be a good Catholic without obeying the Church hierarchy’s teaching on birth control, on divorce and remarriage, on abortion? Who do you think should have the final say about what is right and wrong concerning a divorced Catholic remarrying without getting an annulment; a Catholic practicing contraceptive birth control; a Catholic advocating free choice regarding abortion; a Catholic who engages in homosexual behavior; a Catholic who engages in sexual relations outside of marriage? Should Catholic laity have the right to participate in selecting the priest for their parish; deciding whether women should be ordained to the priesthood?

4. Intellectual

How important are the sacraments, such as Eucharist and marriage, to you as a Catholic? How important are the Catholic hurch’s teaching about Mary as the Mother of God to you as a Catholic? 

Can a person be a good Catholic without believing that Jesus physically rose from the dead?; that in the Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus?

Results from questions that might assess the intellectual dimension do not reveal much of a problem (i.e., high religiosity.) The majority of the surveyed Catholics thought these things were important and necessary to believe to be a good Catholic. It would be preferable to have 100% of Catholics say these items are important, but the results are not bad.

Results from questions that might assess the consequential, ritualistic and ideological dimensions reveal major problems (i.e., low religiosity.) If these questions are interpreted as assessing opinions about behavior (i.e., Can a person be a good Catholic without going to church every Sunday?, Who should have the final say about what is right and wrong. . . ?17 etc.), the results show respondents strongly prefer autonomous behavior. Autonomy in secular United States society is defined as the state of being self-governing or the state of self-directing freedom.18 Thus the key to interpreting this low religiosity in areas concerning opinion about behavior might be found in the ideological question, How important is the teaching authority claimed by the Vatican to you as a Catholic? The Vatican teaching authority, which we would call the Magisterium, is not considered important to many Catholics. Vatican teaching authority ranks lowest as being important “to you as a Catholic” with the majority of surveyed Catholics. When background information is taken into account, it continues to rank lowest; among the educated, it is ranked lowest by an even greater percentage. I would argue that autonomy, as defined in this society, is diametrically opposed to the concept of the “teaching authority” of the Church because recognizing an authority as legitimate involves submission and obedience to that authority. This, by many, might be seen as surrendering freedom, as surrendering autonomy. This opposition is symptomatic of what Pope John Paul II described in Veritatis Splendor:19

. . . an opinion is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone, while in the sphere of morality a pluralism of opinions and of kinds of behavior could be tolerated, these being left to the judgment of the individual subjective conscience or to the diversity of social and cultural contexts.

The tension between authority and autonomy may be compounded by an inaccurate understanding of Vatican teaching authority. I surmise that many Catholics interpret the teaching authority as relating primarily to belief. As the survey shows, Catholics know and support the dogmas of the faith. The articles of faith are ingrained in the majority of Catholics surveyed. I would argue that many do not see the teaching authority that communicates the dogmas to them as having the right and responsibility to communicate behavioral norms to them; others, as Pope John Paul II mentions, see that communication as only to exhort consciences or propose values.20

One way to remedy the erroneous interpretation of the teaching authority of the Church is to emphasize that the teaching authority of the church is itself a dogmatic teaching; that it pertains to faith and morals; that it is a right and a responsibility to give this direction to the faithful; and, most importantly, that it comes from Our Lord himself. As is beautifully stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2034):

The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are ‘authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.’ The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

The tension between authority and autonomous freedom, as John Paul II mentioned,21 is “influenced by currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth.” Catholics who feel this tension are setting themselves up as the norm of behavior, basing those norms on their own rationality rather than on the laws of God. The situation is quite clear: it is one thing for people to accept dogmatic teachings of the faith; it is another to surrender to its moral teachings; it is yet another to see the relationship between the two. This latter can only be achieved by giving up a falsely perceived autonomy of self as norm for the true freedom of loving submission of mind and will to God.

Although a significant minority of Catholics does not accept the basic dogmas of the faith, overall efforts at communicating them seems to have been quite successful. More highly educated Catholics are less likely to accept the dogmatic teachings; registered Catholics and Catholics who attend Mass on a regular basis are more likely to accept them. Efforts at communicating these truths must continue, but with more emphasis at explaining them in a manner relevant to the more highly educated and the less committed.

Efforts at communicating the related dogma issue of accepting the Magisterium’s teaching authority have been quite unsuccessful. The teaching authority of the Vatican in general, the teaching authority on moral issues, and the teaching authority on the participation of the laity in deciding on women’s ordination are not accepted by at least half of Catholics. Communicating the truth of the teaching authority of the Magisterium in matters of both faith and morals, with the emphasis on the latter, must be made relevant to the majority of Catholics as opposed to select groups. The continuity between matters of faith and morals must be clarified for the Catholic population.

Pope John Paul II emphasizes the unity of the two, and that this has always been the universal teaching of the Church:22

No damage must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13).

The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it (cf. 1 Jn 2:3-6). And ever since Apostolic times the Church’s Pastors have unambiguously condemned the behavior of those who fostered division by their teaching or by their actions.

It can be said that Catholics who do not understand this relationship between faith and behavior have an obligation to search for and find the truth. That is, it can be argued that they might be in a state of vincible ignorance (which, I am sure, many are). But I think the matter is more complicated than that because many Catholics are probably not aware that the Church’s teaching authority extends to behavior, and that they are under an obligation to submit to it. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for people who do not know that they are in error to search for a truth they do not know exists. In these cases it is necessary for those in the Church to explain the split that exists between faith and behavior, and that the teaching authority of the Church has addressed the split since apostolic times.

It is the responsibility of all members of the Church to articulate these truths by teaching and by example (perhaps sometimes heroically), and it is the duty of all to pray for the support of the other members as they engage in these important tasks. Primarily it is the responsibility of bishops as they guide the flock in their dioceses, and after them, priests in their parishes and deacons in their ministry of service. Theologate faculty must teach these truths, and the continuity between them, to their seminarians, so that future clergy are prepared to shoulder this responsibility. Professional theologians need to articulate these truths in their writing, both in scholarly journals and in popular Catholic publications. Enclosed religious share the responsibility by praying for the faithful; non-enclosed religious in their active apostolates. And lastly, the responsibility falls to the laity, as they serve the Church in a teaching capacity or as they live their vocations in the secular world. All of these must search their consciences to ensure they teach what the Church teaches as regards these truth and that they live their own lives in accord with it. When we speak of socializing the members of the Catholic Church, we are ultimately referring to catechesis. In a beautiful passage in Catechesi Tradendae, our Holy Father has summed up what we seek to teach and what we hope will be internalized.23

. . . The specific aim of catechesis is to develop, with God’s help, an as yet initial faith, and to advance in fullness and to nourish day by day the Christian life of the faithful, young and old. It is in fact a matter of giving growth, at the level of knowledge and in life, to the seed of faith sown by the Holy Spirit with the initial proclamation and effectively transmitted by baptism.

Catechesis aims therefore at developing understanding of the mystery of Christ in the light of God’s word, so that the whole of a person’s humanity is impregnated by that word. Changed by the working of grace into a new creature, the Christian thus sets himself to follow Christ and learns more and more within the Church to think like him, to judge like him, to act in conformity with his commandments, and to hope he invites us to.

Catechesis involves not only teaching dogmatic truths (i.e., the things to be believed), but showing people that those dogmatic truths must affect daily behavior (i.e., the things to be done.) The continuity between faith and morals must be articulated. Catechesis can do this, because it is aimed at both the level of knowledge and of life. Because the center of catechesis is to meet Christ, it involves not only teaching people to know about Christ, but helping them to meet him, to know him and to grow in intimacy with him24 so that all may share in the Trinitarian life. It is to instill in them a desire to become “new creatures” who want to be like Christ in all things because of love of him. And it is to trust in the Holy Spirit, that he will assist the catechists and those learning from them, with his grace.25 

1 Socialization occurs in all social groups, not just religious ones.
2 Charles Glock, “The Religious Revival in America” in Religion and the Face of America, ed. Jane Zahn (Berkeley: University Extension, University of California, 1959), 25-42.
3 Charles Glock, “On the Study of Religious Commitment,” Religious Education 63 (1962), 98-100.
4 Rodney Stark and Charles Glock, American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.)
5 Although the surveys were conducted at three points in time, the same respondents were not contacted each time. The surveys result in three “snapshots” of information.
6 The three surveys were funded at least partially by the National Catholic Reporter. Fr. Andrew Greeley contributed funding to the first; the Louisville Institute contributed to the third with a grant. Although the surveys were funded and reported in a “liberal” Catholic newspaper, the research is solid sociological work done by nationally known reputable sociologists.
7 The results of the two earliest surveys were reported in William D’Antonio (ed.), James Davidson, Dean Hoge and Ruth Wallace, Laity, American and Catholic: Transforming the Church and in William D’Antonio (ed.), James Davidson, Dean Hoge and Ruth Wallace, American Catholic Laity in a Changing World.
8 James Davidson, “Increasing Indifference to Church is Concern,” National Catholic Reporter, 36 (October 29, 1999), 15.
9 National Catholic Reporter, 36 (October 29, 1999), 15.
10 Dean Hoge, “What is Most Central to Being a Catholic?,” National Catholic Reporter 36 (October 29, 1999), 13.
11 The two other studies are James Davidson (ed.), Andrea Williams, and Richard Lamanna, The Search for Common Ground, and William Dinges, Dean Hoge, Mary Johnson and Juan Gonzales, Jr., Commonweal, July 17, 1998.
Davidson et al. (in The Search for Common Ground) found that Catholics, especially those registered in a parish, say beliefs such as the Trinity, Resurrection, Incarnation, the Real Presence, and Mary as the Mother of God, are very important to them personally. Hoge, 1999, says “the researchers concluded that they may be the ‘single most important basis of Catholic unity [and] the reason why Catholics remain loyal to the church, even when they disagree with it on other matters.’”
The second study by Dinges, Hoge, Johnson, and Gonzales found that among American Catholics 20 to 39 years old, the five “most essential” elements to their vision of the Catholic faith were belief that God is present in the sacraments, charitable efforts toward helping the poor, belief that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, devotion to Mary the Mother of God, and belief that God is present in a special way in the poor. The least important were the Church’s traditional support of the right of workers to unionize, the belief that only men can be priests, teaching that opposes the death penalty, belief that priests must be celibate, and teachings that oppose abortion. Hoge quotes this study, saying “To summarize: The sacraments, devotion to helping the poor, and devotion to Mary are most central and crucial to young Catholics, while specific rules about priesthood and specific teachings about the rights of workers, the death penalty and abortion are the least central.”
Hoge compares the new 1999 study with the one in 1997 and says “In both, the respondents rated the sacraments as highest, followed by efforts toward social justice and devotion to Mary the Mother of God, and both rated specific authoritative church teachings low.”
12 On the same set of questions, the respective numbers for registered parish members were, for supporting Church leaders, 23%, 13%, 26%, 24% and 29% with those not registered in a parish at 11%, 4%, 8%, 10% and 10%. National Catholic Reporter, 36 (October 29, 1999), 14.
13 On the same question, for those Catholics who were registered in a parish, the respective numbers were 83%, 68%, and 58%, and for those Catholics not registered in a parish they were 82%, 82%, and 73%. 
14 William D’Antonio, “Trends in U.S. Roman Catholic Attitudes, Beliefs, Behavior,” National Catholic Reporter, 36 (October 29, 1999), 14.
15 Ibid., 14.
16 For participation in selecting priests, the percentages were 57% (1987), 74% (1993), and 73% (1999); the comparable percentages for deciding whether women should be ordained as priests were 48%, 62% and 63%. National Catholic Reporter, 36 (October 29, 1999), 12.
17 This set of questions may also reflect the respondents’ awareness of the importance of conscience in deciding how to behave. The issue is not that one must follow one’s conscience, a clear point of Catholic theology, but that the conscience one follows must be certain, that is, well formed. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), #1790.
18 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., Publishers, 1984), 118.
19 John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor, #4. Ratzinger sums this up as a problem endemic in today’s world: “. . . crass contrasts have become a cliche in modern and liberal description where Pharisees and priests are portrayed as the representatives of a hardened legalism, as representatives of the eternal law of the establishment presided over by religious and political authorities who hinder freedom and live from the oppression of others.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Many Religions—One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 30.
20 John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor, #4.
21 Ibid., #4
22 Ibid., #26.
23 John Paul II. Catechesi Tradendae, #20.
24 Ibid., #5
25 Ibid., #72. 

Dr. Cynthia Toolin is an assistant professor of dogmatic and moral theology at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Conn. She has a Ph.D. in sociology (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) and an S.T.L. in theology (Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, Washington, D.C.). She lives in Connecticut with her husband. Their two daughters and six grandchildren also live in New England.