See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229939410

Catholic Parish Organizational Structure and Parish Outcomes

Article  in  Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · February 2004

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00223.x

CITATIONS READS

7 3,422

2 authors:

Charles E Zech Mary L. Gautier

Villanova University Georgetown University
58 PUBLICATIONS   642 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Catholic Parishes of the 21st Century View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles E Zech on 17 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Catholic Parish Organizational Structure and Parish Outcomes
Author(s): Charles Zech and Mary L. Gautier
Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 141-150
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387779
Accessed: 13/10/2010 20:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org
CatholicParish OrganizationalStructure
and Parish Outcomes

CHARLESZECH
MARY L. GAUTIER

Due to a numberoffactors, the Catholic Churchhas in recentyears been requiredto be innovativein the way
it organizes its parishes. Canon law addresses some optionsfor dioceses that need to restructuretheirparishes.
This study considers threeof them:pastoring multipleparishes througha team of pastors (Code of Canon Law
517.1); entrustingpastoral care to someone other thana priest (c51 7.2); and appointinga single priest to pastor
morethanone parish (c526. 1). Theeffectof each of these models on the change in parish SundayMass attendance
is empiricallyestimated.No significantdifferencein Mass attendancewasfound betweenthoseparishes that had
experiencedan organizationalrestructuringand those that had not. Whencomparingthe threedifferentmodels
of parish restructuring,parishes that were led by a team of priests werefound to outperformparishes that had
experienicedthe other two restructuringoptions.

The U.S. Catholic Churchis undergoinga transformationin the way its parishesare orga-
nized and staffed.The old model of each parishadministeredby a residentpriest-pastor,assisted
(frequently)by one or more associate pastors, is being supplementedby a variety of different
parishorganizationalmodels.
A numberof factorshave been cited for this development.Among the most importantis the
well-documenteddecline in the numberof active Catholicpriests. Froehle and Gautierreported
thatin 1970, morethan59,000 activepriestsservedthe U.S. CatholicChurch.By 1998 thatfigure
had dwindled to just a bit over 46,000 (2000:117). Nearly as alarmingis the age distributionof
active Catholicpriests.Froehleand Gautier(2000:112) found thatin 1998, 37 percentwere over
the age of 65, while only about5 percentwere underthe age of 35.
At the same time that the number of U.S. Catholic priests has been declining, the U.S.
Catholicpopulationhas been growing.From 1970 to 1998, the U.S. Catholicpopulationgrew by
24 percent,from 48.9 to 59.2 million (Froehleand Gautier2000:5). Combiningthese two trends,
Schoenherrand Young(1993) demonstratedthatthe ratioof U.S. Catholicparishionersto priests
grew from 1,328 parishionersfor each active priestin 1970 to 1,570 in 1980, and they projected
thatby the year 2005, the ratiowould be 2,194 parishionersfor each priest.
These nationalfigures mask some regionaldifferences.Froehle and Gautier(2000:8) show
that,while Catholicpopulationhas been growingin all regions of the country,some regions have
been growing more rapidlythanothers. In the south, for example, while the Catholicpopulation
is still a small minority,since 1950 it has grown at a rate nearlyfour times that of the northeast.
Catholicpopulationgrowthin the west has been even more dramatic,having grown at five times
the rate of growthin the northeastover that same period of time.
The third trend has been a rethinkingof the role of the laity in parish life following the
Second VaticanCouncil.One outcome of VaticanII was the developmentof a new consciousness
of what it means to be church.The Decree on the Apostolateof Lay People describesthe laity as
the People of God. Today'sparishionersare more willing to assume parishadministrativeroles.
Even if there had been no decline in the numberof priests, pastoralactivity on the part of the

Charles Zech is a Professor,Economics Departtment,VillanovaUniversity,800 LancasterAve., Villanova,PA 19085.

E-mail: [email protected]
Mary L. Gaiutieris Senior Research Associate at the Centerfor Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown
2300 WisconsinAve.NW,Suite 400, Washington,DC 20007. E-mail: [email protected]
UnivJersity,

Joulrnalfor the ScientificStuzdyof Religion 43:] (2004) 141-150

142 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

laity would have emergedbased on the post-VaticanII understandingof the role of the laity in
performingtheirministry(Gilmour 1986:4).
The cumulative effect of these three trends has been an imperativeon the part of the
CatholicChurchto implementnewparishorganizationalstructures.Ithasbeenestimated(Stillwell
2001:15) thatin the year2001, 16percentof U.S. Catholicparisheswere withouta residentpriest-
pastor.Fortunately,parishionersareawareof the situationandarebecomingmorewilling to accept
modificationsin theirparishorganizationalstructures.D'Antonio et al. (2001:106) reportedthat
in 1985, only 39 percentof U.S. Catholics were willing to accept a situationwhere their parish
did not have a residentpriest.By 1999, thatfigurehadrisen to 51 percent.They also foundthatin
1999, 68 percentof the parishionerswere willing to acceptthe notion of communionservices led
by a lay parishioner,but only 41 percentof the parishionerswere willing to accept less than one
Mass per week. D'Antonio et al. concludedthatparishionersaremore willing to acceptchanging
parishmanagementstructuresthanthey are a reductionin pastoralservices (2001:107).
The purposeof this study is to analyze the impactof some alternativeparishorganizational
structuresthat are currentlyapprovedunder the Code of Canon Law. The next section of this
articleconsidersthe role of the theology of the parish.Then we introducethe variousmodels of
alternativeparishmanagerialstructurespermittedundercanon law. Using datafrom a survey of
more than 19,000 U.S. Catholicparishes,we comparethe effectiveness of each of these models
on parish-reportedMass attendance.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE PARISH

Canon 515.1 of the Code of Canon Law describes the parish as "a defined communityof
the Christianfaithfulestablishedon a stable basis within a particularchurch."At the same time,
parishes need to be in communion with one another,first throughthe diocese and ultimately
throughthe universalchurch.The parish'spastoralleader,whetherit is a priestor someone else,
is appointedby the diocesanbishop and ministerssubjectto his authority.
In additionto theirrole as communitiesof the faithful,parishesarealsojuridicpersonsunder
canon law (c515.3). This means that they have legal personalitiesjust as a business partnership
or a corporationdoes in the secular legal system. As a result, only the diocesan bishop has the
authorityto create,suppress,or otherwisealtera parish.Modificationsin a parish'sorganizational
structureare permissibleonly when it is clear that the continuationof the ministryis no longer
viable. Canonlaw calls for the bishop to consulthis PresbyteralCouncil (c5 15.2) as well as other
parishstakeholdersbefore alteringa parish'sstatus(c1222.2).

MODELS OF ALTERNATIVE PARISH ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

In spite of these cautions, for reasons of ministry,it becomes necessary from time to time
to amend a parish'sorganizationalstructure.However,it is imperativethat differencesin parish
situationsbe takeninto account.Whatworks in one diocese might not work in anotherdiocese.
A particularstrategy that is effective in urban areas might not be appropriatein rural areas.
For example, in many large eastern cities, nearly every neighborhoodhas been served by its
own parish, frequently with a parochial school. Likewise, Gilmour (1986) has observed that,
historically,nearly every small town in the midwest that had a Catholic populationestablished
their own parishand school. Both easternersand midwesternershave a long history of resident
priest-pastors.Meanwhile,in the south and west, with theirmuch sparserCatholicpopulation,it
has not been unusualfor a parishto embody a whole county.Many southernandwesternparishes
have not had the traditionof a residentpriest-pastorin close proximity,andthey lack the physical
infrastructurecharacteristicof the east and midwest.
It is imperativethat differences in parish situationsbe taken into account. In recognition
of the wide varietyof parishorganizationalneeds, it is possible to identify some modifications
PARISHSTRUCTURESAND OUTCOMES 143

that are available to dioceses who have the need to do something innovativewith their parish
organizationalstructures.These options range from developing informal relationshipsamong
parishes(such as sharingstaff) to formalchanges set forth in canon law.

Formal Relationships Recognized by Canon Law

Canonlaw identifiessome formalparishreorganizationalalternatives.Theseincludegrouping

of two or moreparishespastoredby a team of priests(c5 17.1); appointingof someone otherthan
a priest to participatein the exercise of the pastoralcare of a parish(c5 17.2); and administering
severalneighboringparishesby a single pastor(c526. 1).

Teamof Priests

Canon 517.1 allows for the possibility that a team of priests could share the pastorateof
severalparishesin a teamministry.One of the priestsserves as teammoderator.He is responsible
for coordinatingthe activities of the team and serving as a liaison to the diocese, althougheach
of the priests has the obligations and responsibilitiesof pastorin each of the parishes (c543. 1).
Canon 517.1 is vague about the circumstancesthat warranta team ministry.It specifically does
not identify a shortageof priestsas a justification.

Nonpriest Pastor

Canon 517.2 authorizesbishops to entrustthe pastoralcare of a parish to someone other

thana priest.This personcould be a deacon, a vowed religious, or a layperson.In this situation,a
priestis assignedby the bishopto overseethe pastoralcareof the parishandprovidea sacramental
presence, althoughthe priest is technically not the pastor of the parish.The appointedpastoral
leaderdoes not serve underthe priest,but reportsto the bishop or his designate.
Canon law is not clear in providing a well-defined plan for implementingCanon 517.2,
perhapsin recognitionof the variationsin local churchsituationsthroughoutthe world. Among
other things, this means that there are no consistent titles, position descriptions,qualifications,
or expectations for ministers operatingunder this model (Cusack and Sullivan 1995:xi): each
diocese must develop its own. In an effortto shed some light on the issue, the CanonLaw Society
of America has adoptedthe title of parish director for the person to whom the pastoralcare of
the parishhas been entrusted,andpriest-supervisorto the priestwho has been designatedby the
bishop to supervisethe pastoralcare in the parish(Cusackand Sullivan 1995:xii).
The decision to implementCanon 517.2 can be made only by the bishop. The canon is to
be implementedonly in extraordinarysituationswhen, in the judgmentof the bishop, a serious
shortageof priestsexists in the diocese.

Clusterof Parishes

UnderCanon526.1, a priestmay be appointedto serve as the pastorof more thanone parish.

Each parish maintains its own canonical identity. These parishes are typically in geographic
proximityto one another,andoften aresimilarin natureand size. Normally,each parishmaintains
its own lay staff, althoughthe parishesmight sharesome staff.

EMPIRICALANALYSIS

Given the alternativeparishorganizationalstructuresauthorizedby canon law, the question

then becomes one of determininghow these alternativestructuresstackup againstthe traditional
residentpriest-pastormodel, and how they ratewhen comparedto one another.
144 JOURNAL
FORTHESCIENTIFIC
STUDYOFRELIGION

To answerthese questions,two primarysourcesof datawere used. One is the NationalParish

Inventory(NPI)andthe otheris nationalzip code data,which containsdemographicdataon every
zip code in the United States.
The NPI is a comprehensivedatabaseof parish life that is maintainedby the Center for
Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at GeorgetownUniversity.Its twin purposes are
to serve as a benchmarkof contemporaryparishlife in the United States and to meet the data
needs of researchers.The NPI has been conductedregularlysince 1999. This articlerelies on data
collected by the 2000 and 2002 waves of the NPI.
The focus of this study is on those parishesthat experienceda structuralchange in parish
leadershipover the course of the periodinvolved.The vast majorityof the parishesin the United
States experienced no dramaticparish structuralchange over the period. They had a resident
priest-pastorat the beginning of the period and they had a resident priest-pastorat the end of
the period.However,some parishesexperiencedsignificantchanges in theirleadershipstructure,
moving from a traditionalresidentpriest-pastorat the beginningof the periodto a nontraditional
c5 17.1, c5 17.2, or c526. 1 structureby the end of the period.These two groupsof parishesformour
sample. Since we were interestedin the impactof changingfrom a traditionalto a nontraditional
parish structure,parishes that did not fit in either category were not included in the analysis.
In other words, any parishthat alreadyhad one of these nontraditionalstructuresin place at the
beginningof the periodwas deletedfromthe sample.Because not everyparishcompletedthe NPI
in both years, and due to some missing data,the final sample size in the study was 866 parishes.
Below is a descriptionof each of the variablesin the model. Theirmean values are found in
Table 1.

Dependent Variable

The gauge of parisheffectiveness chosen was the change in Mass attendancerates over the
periodof the surveys.Mass attendanceratesin the CatholicChurchare measuredby the percent
of all registeredparishionersattendingMass on a typical weekend in October(i.e., the October
Count).This variableis calculatedas the ratioof the Mass attendancerateat the end of the period
dividedby the Mass attendancerateat the beginningof the period.Unfortunately,not all parishes
are as carefulas they could be in countingactualattenders,and the OctoberCountin some cases

TABLE 1
MEAN VALUES OF VARIABLES
Variable Mean Value

Attendancerate2000 0.571
Attendancerate2002/attendancerate2000 0.998
Households2000 1,074
Households2002/households2000 1.023
Percentwhite 2000 86.2
Percentwhite 2002/percentwhite 2000 0.994
Medianhouseholdincome 2000 40,474
Baptism/funeral2000 2.53
(Baptism/funeral2002)/(baptism/funeral2000) 1.171
Midwest region 0.429
South region 0.210
c517.1 (team) parish2002 0.004
c5 17.2 (parishdirector)parish2002 0.030
c526.1 (cluster)parish2002 0.029
PARISHSTRUCTURESAND OUTCOMES 145

can vary remarkablyfrom year to year. In addition,it has been anecdotallyreportedthat c5 17.2
parishesexperiencewide swings in SundayMass attendance,dependingon whetherthe celebrant
is a priest (the anecdotalevidence points to largerattendanceat services on those Sundayswhen
a priest is not presiding, which is not technically a Mass).' In recognitionof these factors, this
study eliminatedfrom the data set as unreliableany parishthatclaimed a swing of more than60
percent(increaseor decrease)in Mass attendanceover the periodstudied.

Independent Variables

Ourprimaryindependentvariableswere measuresof changes in parishorganizationalstruc-

ture. We createdthree separatedummy variables,one for parishesthat changed from a resident
priest-pastorto a c5 17.1 (team) parish,anotherfor those parishesmoving from a residentpriest-
pastor to a c517.2 (parishdirector)parish, and a third for those parishes that were designated
c526.1 (cluster) parishes after having had a resident priest-pastor.As an alternativemeasure,
we createda separatedummy variable,"Restructured," designatinga parishthat had a resident
priest-pastorat time one but was eithera c5 17.1 parish,c5 17.2 parish,or c526. 1 parishat the end
of the period.
We includeda series of controlvariablesin the analysis,all of which have been hypothesized
to affect the decision to alter a parish'sleadershipstructure.Where possible, we included both
the variable'svalue at the beginning of the period (2000), and a measureof its change over the
periodof the study.
One independentvariablewas parish size, measuredby the numberof parish households.
Smallparishes,especiallythose thathavebeen decreasingin size, havebeen especially susceptible
to parishrestructuring.Bishops have attemptedto stretchtheir resourcesby either merging and
suppressingsmallerparishes,or staffingthem in nontraditionalways. Preliminarytesting of the
datarevealeda curvilinearrelationshipbetweenchangesin Mass attendanceandchangesin parish
size, so the variablemeasuringthe change in the numberof parishhouseholds was enteredinto
the model in quadraticform.
A second control variablewas the ratio of infantbaptismsto funerals.The baptism/funeral
ratio is a statisticused as a surrogatefor age and vitality of a parish.A baptism/funeralratio of
less than 1 is an indicationthat, in the absence of net in-migration,the parishcommunityis not
replacingits older members.This is usually associatedwith older populations.Higherratiosof 3
to 4 indicate the presence of a large proportionof young families and children.Older,less vital
parishes have frequentlybeen among those parishes that have been restructured.This variable
enteredthe model both as its value at the beginningof the period and as a measureof its change
over the study period.
Race, measuredby the percentof the parishionerswho are white, was also used as a control
variable,based on the fact that,especially in urbanareas,restructuringis frequentlyoccurringin
areaswith high minoritypopulations.Both the percentwhite of all parishionersat the beginning
of the studyperiod, and a measureof the change in racialcompositionover the time of the study,
were includedin the model.
Householdincome was thoughtto be an importantfactor,based on the reasoningthatmany
of the parishes that have been restructuredhave been located in poorer rural or urban areas.
Unfortunately,the NPI did not ask about household income in the parish. Therefore, median
household income in the parish's zip code in the year 2000 was used as a proxy for parish
household income.
Finally,Catholicpopulationshiftsareimpactingdioceses in differentways;creatinga demand
for parishesin the suburbanareasof the south and west, while parishesin the urbanareasof the
northeastand in the ruralmidwest reportdeclines. Therefore,dummy variablesfor each of the
four U.S. Census regions were entered into the model. However,preliminarytesting revealed
that only two Census regions, the midwest and the south, had a significantimpacton changes in
146 JOURNAL
FORTHESCIENTIFIC
STUDYOFRELIGION

Mass attendance.Holding otherfactorsconstant,midwesternparishesexperienceda significant

decrease in Mass attendance,relativeto parishesin other regions, over the period of the study,
while southernparishesexperienceda significantincrease. Each of these two regional dummy
variableswere enteredinto the model separately,and then in combination.
The datawere testedusing multipleregressionanalysis.Preliminarytestingfor heteroscedas-
ticity using the Goldfeld-Quandttest (Pindyckand Rubinfeld 1991:133-34) revealedthat it was
not a serious problem.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Tables2 and 3 show the regressionresultswhen parishionercommitmentis measuredby the

change in the percentageof membersattendingMass following an organizationalrestructuring.
Table2 shows the regressionresultsfor all restructuredparishesas the key independentvariable,
and Table3 shows the regressionresults when the restructuredparishesare tested by the type of
restructuring.
Among the control variables,the Mass attendancerate at the beginning of the period was
negatively correlatedwith the change in Mass attendanceover the period in both equations.
Parisheswith higherinitial Mass attendanceratesexperiencedlower growthin Mass attendance.
Parishsize, measuredby numberof registeredhouseholds,at the beginningof the periodwas
not significantlyrelatedto changesin Mass attendance,butthe changein parishsize was. Based on
the coefficientsfor the quadraticterms,parishesthatgrewfasterexperienceda decreasein Mass at-
tendancerates.In fact, Mass attendanceratesdecreasedat an increasingratefor growingparishes.
The only other significant control variables were the two U.S. Census regional dummy
variables when they were entered individually.Holding other factors constant (including any
change in parishorganizationalstructure),parishesin the midwestexperienceda decline in Mass
attendancerates relativeto parishesin other regions of the country,while parishesin the south
experienceda growth in Mass attendancerates. When the two regional dummy variableswere
enteredsimultaneously,they tendedto cancel each otherout.

TABLE 2
IMPACT ON CHANGE IN MASS ATTENDANCE, 2000-2002
RESTRUCTURED PARISHES STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS

Variable Equation1 Equation2 Equation3

Mass attendancerate2000 -0.07* -0.08* -0.07*
Households2000 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05
Changein households -0.72** -0.71** -0.72**
Changein householdssquared 0.58** 0.57** 0.57**
Percentwhite 2000 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02
Changein percentwhite -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
Baptisms/funerals2000 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02
Changein baptisms/funerals 0.02 0.02 0.02
Medianincome 0.01 0.02 0.02
Midwest region -0.07* -0.05
South region 0.07 0.05
Restructured 0.02 0.02 0.02
AdjustedR2 0.04 0.04 0.04
F 4.60** 4.57** 4.33**
N 866 866 866
*Significantat 0.05 level; **significantat 0.01 level.
PARISHSTRUCTURESAND OUTCOMES 147

TABLE 3
IMPACT ON CHANGE IN MASS ATTENDANCE, 2000-2002
ISOLATED PARISH STRUCTURES STANDARDIZED COEFFICIENTS
Variable Equation1 Equation2 Equation3

Mass attendancerate2000 -0.07* -0.08* -0.07*

Households2000 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04
Changein households -0.72** -0.71** -0.72**
Changein householdssquared 0.58** 0.57** 0.58**
Percentwhite 2000 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02
Changein percentwhite -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
Baptisms/funerals2000 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Changein baptisms/funerals 0.01 0.01 0.01
Medianincome 0.02 0.03 0.02
Midwest region -0.07* -0.06
South region 0.07* 0.04
c517.1 (team) parish 0.08* 0.08* 0.08*
c517.2 (parishdirector)parish -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
c526.1 (cluster)parish 0.03 0.03 0.03
AdjustedR2 0.05 0.05 0.05
F 4.46** 4.38** 4.24**
N 866 866 866

*Significantat 0.05 level; **significantat 0.01 level.

None of the other control variables (race, income, baptism/funeralratio) significantlyim-

pactedthe change in Mass attendancerates.
Table2 revealsthat, aftercontrollingfor otherfactors,therewas no significantdifferencein
the change in Mass attendanceratesbetween parishesthatunderwentan organizationalstructure
change and those parishes that maintaineda traditionalresident priest-pastorthroughoutthe
period.
InTable3, the restructuredparishvariableis separatedinto its componentparts.Table3 shows
that, aftercontrollingfor otherfactors,c517.1 (team) parisheshad a significantlygreatergrowth
in Mass attendanceratesthandid parishesstaffed in eitherof the othertwo nontraditionalways,
as well as a largerattendancerategrowththantraditionallystaffedparishes.In fact, based on the
unstandardizedcoefficient for c517.1 parishes (not reportedin Table 3), their Mass attendance
ratesgrew about 18 percentfasterthandid the attendancerate in traditionallystaffedparishes.

DISCUSSION

One finding in Tables 2 and 3 that attractsimmediateattentionis the low adjustedR2 in all
equations.Although factors like parish size and parish structuralorganizationcan significantly
affect changes in Mass attendancerates,otherfactorsthathave not been accountedfor have a far
greaterinfluence.This is not surprising,since nearlyevery study of churchattendance(Azzi and
Ehrenberg1975;Long andSettle 1977;Ehrenberg1977;UlbrichandWallace1984;Sullivan1985;
lannaccone 1990; Clain and Zech 1999) has found that individual-levelfactors,such as personal
spiritualityand beliefs, spousal religiosity,and parents'religiosity,play the most importantroles
in a person's decision to attendreligious services. Structuralfactors, such as parishleadership,
are typically secondaryconsiderations.Anotherfactorlikely playinga role in the low explanatory
power of the model is the unreliablenatureof the OctoberCount itself.
148 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Otherwise,the mostimportantfindingfromTable2 is that,aftercontrollingfor othervariables

that are typically associated with the decision to change parishorganizationalstructures,there
is no significant growth or decline in Mass attendancerates between parishes restructuredas
nontraditionalparishes and parishes that were not restructuredover the period of the study.
In other words, after controllingfor changes in the numberof Catholic households, changes in
racialcomposition,incomelevels, andchangesin parishionerage distribution,parishmanagement
structureshadno significanteffect on changesin Mass attendance.Bishops andotherstakeholders
concernedaboutthe impactof parishrestructuringcan rest assuredthat,based on at least this one
measure,restructuredparisheshave no differentimpacton Mass attendancethando traditionally
staffedparishes.This supportsthe findingby D'Antonio et al. (2001) cited abovethatparishioners
have become more willing to accept changingparishmanagementstructures.
This overall finding masks an even more interestingfinding, found in Table 3. When we
isolate the threedifferenttypes of parishrestructuringmentionedin canon law, one type appears
to be more successful than the other two, at least in terms of maintainingor increasingparish
Mass attendance.Those parishesrestructuredas c517.1 (team of priests) parishesexperienced
a significantlygreaterincrease in Mass attendanceover the period than did otherparishes,after
having controlledfor otherfactors.
There are a numberof possible reasons why parishes sharinga team of priests experience
largerincreasesin Mass attendancethan do otherparishes.Some are supply-sidefactors;others
are demand-sideconsiderations.
On the supply side, allowing priests to serve as a team bolsters priestly morale and self-
esteem. Priorto the decline in vocations, it was not unusualfor a parishrectoryto house three,
four,or morepriests,who sharedparishduties and offereda supportsystem for one another.One
of the side effects of the decline in priestlyvocationshas been thatmanypriestshave been forced
to live alone in the rectory,while serving an ever-largernumberof parishioners.The burgeoning
numberof lay ministershave been able to performmany of the parish duties that priests once
assumed (sacramentalpreparation,youth ministry,parish administration,etc.), but they cannot
offer the same supportsystem thatliving with otherpriestscan provide.Many priestsrecognize
a greatvalue in workingand prayingtogether.To the extent that serving with a team boosts the
moraleand self-esteem of priests,one might expect c5 17.1 parishesto be more successful.
On the demand side, parishionerswho are served by a team of priests, even though the
priests might not be availableon a full-time basis in the parish,are more likely to find a priest
with whom they feel comfortable.This comfortlevel might exhibit itself in a preferencefor one
priest's homilies over another's,preferringone priest as a confessor, preferringthe counseling
style of one priest, or any of the other myriadministriesthat priests perform.To the extent that
parishionershave a choice of priests, they are likely to feel more connected to the parish. In
addition,parishionersmightview c5 17.1 parishesas being the least disruptivein the sense thatin
many respects they mimic parishioners'previousexperienceof having a ready supply of clergy
at hand.2
On the otherhand,it mightbe dangerousto maketoo muchof the findingthatc5 17.1 (team)
parishstructuresare more successful. This findingis based on just one measure(growthin Mass
attendance),andthe samplecontaineda relativelysmall numberof parishesthathadchangedfrom
a traditionalorganizationalstructureto a c5 17.1 parish.Nevertheless,these preliminaryfindings
are intriguingenough to warrantfurtherstudy.

SUMMARY

This study has attemptedto determineif there are any significantdifferences in the per-
formanceof U.S. Catholicparishesorganizedunderalternativeorganizationalstructuresversus
parishesorganizedunderthe traditionalresidentpriest-pastormodel. Using datacollected by the
Centerfor Applied Researchin the ApostolatethroughtheirNationalParishInventory,the effect
PARISHSTRUCTURESAND OUTCOMES 149

of variousparishorganizationalstructureson one importantmeasureof parishionercommitment,

the change in a parish'sMass attendancerate, was tested.
Employingmultipleregressionanalysis, and controllingfor otherimportantvariables,some
patternsemergedamong the variousparishorganizationalstructures.First, consideringparishes
thatexperienceda change from a traditionalorganizationalstructureto a nontraditionalstructure,
we found no significantdifferencesin the changein Mass attendanceratesbetween these parishes
andthose thatdid not experiencea restructuring.However,when consideredseparately,therewas
some variationin the effect of these alternativeparishorganizationalmodels. Parishesorganized
as a c517.1 (team of pastors)parishexperienceda greatergrowthin Mass attendancerates than
did otherparishes.
The relative success of parishes pastoredjointly by a team of priests could reasonablybe
explained by both supply and demand factors. On the supply side, priests who live with other
priestsareexpectedto have highermoraleand self-esteem, as they sharea mutualsupportsystem.
On the demand side, parishionerswho belong to parishes staffed by a team of priests, even if
the priests are not able to devote their energies full time to any one parish, are more likely to
find a priestwith whom they sharea comfortzone. In addition,the c5 17.1 model might be more
comfortableto parishionerswho were raised in a time when parisheswere typically staffed by
more thanone priest.
These findings are suggestive of possible real differencesin the parishoutcomes of various
types of restructuring.The findingswarrantfurtherstudyto bettermeasurethese outcomes. Data
thatallow for measuringa change in offertorycollection or othermeasuresof parishvitality (such
as some measureof lay groups active in the parish)could help clarify these differentoutcomes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlierversion of this article was presentedat the 2002 Annual Meetings of the Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion in Salt Lake City. The authorsare gratefulto the participants
of their session, who providedmany valuablesuggestions.

NOTES

1. The authorsare gratefulto Ms. SiobhanVerbeek,Associate Directorfor Doctrine& PastoralPracticesat the USCCB,
for this insight, containedin an e-mail sent on May 29, 2003.
2. This insight was also containedin Ms. Verbeek'se-mail of May 29, 2003.

REFERENCES

Azzi, C. and R. Ehrenberg.1975. Household allocation of time and church attendance.Journal of Political Economy
83:27-56.
Clain, S. H. andC. E. Zech. 1999. A householdproductionanalysisof religious andcharitableactivity.AmericanJournal
of Economicsand Sociology 58:923-46.
The Code of CanonLaw. 1983. Latin-Englishedition. Washington,DC: CLSA.
Cusack, B. A. and T. G. Sullivan. 1995. Pastoral care in parishes without a pastor: Applications of Canon 517.2.
Washington,DC: Canon Law Society of America.
Antonio, W. V., J. D. Davidson, D. R. Hoge, and K. Meyer. 2001. American Catholicism: Gender,generation, and
commitment.WalnutCreek,CA: AltaMira.
Ehrenberg,R. G. 1977. Household allocation of time and religiosity: Replication and extension. Journal of Political
Economy85:415-23.
Froehle,B. T. andM. L. Gautier.2000. CatholicismUSA:A portraitof the CatholicChurchin the UnitedStates.Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis.
Gilmour,P. 1986. The emergingpastor. KansasCity, MO: Sheed & Ward.
lannaccone, L. R. 1990. Religious practice: A human capital approach.Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion
29:297-314.
 150 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Long, S. H. andR. F. Settle. 1977. Householdallocationof time andchurchattendance:Some additionalevidence.Journal

of Political Economy85:409-13.
Pindyck,R. S. and D. L. Rubinfeld.1991. Econometricmodelsand economicforecasts,3rded. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Schoenherr,R. A. and L. A. Young. 1993. Full pews and emptyaltars. Madison,WI: Universityof WisconsinPress.
Stillwell, V. 2001. Priestlessparishes: Thebaptizedleading the baptized.Allen, TX: ThomasMore.
Sullivan, D. H. 1985. Simultaneousdeterminationof church contributionsand church attendance.Economic Inquiry
23:309-20.
Ulbrich,H. and M. Wallace. 1984. Women'sworkforce statusand churchattendance.Journalfor the ScientificStudyof
Religion 23:341-50.

View publication stats