www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News 2010 Statistics from Annuario Pontificio

I guess we Russians in America would have been at the bottom of the last page had we been included...
What is the group without hierarchy in France that has grown so much?

Am I reading the same stats as everyone else? Interesting, and important, as the many finer points that have been discussed in this thread may be (and suspect as some of the numbers may well be), the appalling declines in the numbers of faithful in the US and Canada for some of the Churches (particularly the Ruthenian and Ukrainian) are, or ought to be, a cause of serious concern. Are our Churches in this hemisphere on a path to extinction? Ought we not be asking ourselves what is causing this? where are the missing multitudes going?

more correctly, Tim, in the US and Canada, ALL organized hierarchical religions seem to be in decline.

Forgive an obvious question, are any of the faithful having children and if so at what age and how many? Front page of local paper today "The U.S. birth rate has fallen to its lowest level in at least a century" and we weren't at replacement before this. It's rare to see a family of more than two (I don't think Orthodox are excluded on this) and that isn't even "replacement level" at just the most crass level.

In many cases a generation was skipped altogether. Up until the 1960s many women began to reproduce in their very early 20s. Their offspring then reproduced in their early 20s so when my 40 year old mom had me she was the age of many of my peers grandmothers. Among those of my generation and later who waited until late 30s to have a child their children are coming effectively after a generation skipped.

Lest you think this is totally off topic it is not.

The U.S. TFR is just about 2.0 today. With immigration, we are slightly above replacement. This is pretty much the first time TFR has fallen below 2.1 in the United States.

But you are wrong about the age at which women in this country used to give birth. In fact, throughout our history, most women married for the first time at 22-24, while most men married for the first time at ages 24-26. From 1945 until the middle 1960s, women married at 18-20, while men married at 20-22, significantly lower than the historical norm.

There are several reasons for this. First of all, men usually did not marry until they could support a family, which meant they had to have time to get a job and build up savings. As men typically want to marry women a couple of years younger than them, this explains the ages at which men and women married for most of U.S. history, from the colonial period through the Second World War.

What happened between 1945 and 1965? Coming out of World War II with the only intact industrial economy, the U.S. enjoyed unprecedented prosperity that featured a plethora of semi-skilled and high paying jobs that could be filled by men right out of high school. Most of them were also unionized, so they had stability and job security. By the time they were 22, they had enough money in the bank to buy a car and a house, and support a wife--a wife a couple of years younger than them.

After 1965, things began to return to normal, as the rest of the world's economies recovered and the U.S. had to become economically competitive again. The semi-skilled, high-paying jobs disappeared, the high paying jobs required more training (hence time to learn), and the average age at which men married moved back towards its historical average of 26--where it stands today.

The main difference between now and the past is the age at which women marry for the first time, which is now also around 26. Women had always participated in the workplace (except for the 1950s), but now women are filling jobs which require as much training and education as those filled by men. When women finally get around to marrying, they are having trouble finding men in the desirable demographic who want to marry them--men are still looking for women in their early 20s.

Women haven't done themselves any favors by buying into the feminist theory of sexual liberation (a phenomenon that began before the Pill, as I have written for First Things, but which the Pill accelerated). By frittering away their time in casual dalliances, women reduce their perceived value as stable life partners by the men who drift in and out of their lives--and they never learned about living in a long-term relationship, which explains why they ditch at the first opportunity when the going gets rough.

Men, for their part, simply act like pigs. Or, to mix metaphors, why buy the cow when the milk is free? If women make themselves available sexually outside of marriage, men will take advantage of them. And time is much kinder to men in that regard than it is to women: men get older, but they also can become more attractive to younger women. Older women seldom become more attractive to younger men, and men their own age are busy chasing after available younger women.

Very interesting, Stuart, but now we really are off topic!

As I said before, the number of baptisms for each eparchy last year is interesting, but Father Roberson has left out those numbers. Especially interesting is the number of baptisms per 1,000 members. Here are the figures for the Greek Catholic eparchies in the United States:

Eparchy Baptisms per 1,000 members
Newton 13.4
Parma 9.2
Passaic 9.6
Philadelphia 8.8
Pittsburgh 3.0
Saint George in Canton 4.6
Saint Josaphat in Parma 8.6
Saint Nicholas of Chicago 9.1
Stamford 10.1
Van Nuys 28.7

It is interesting to compare these figures with baptisms per 1,000 members in some Latin dioceses in the United States:

Diocese Baptisms per 1,000 members
Boston 10.9
Chicago 16.4
Cincinnati 14.8
Hartford 10.4
Newark 11.0
Philadelphia 10.4
Phoenix 16.9
Pittsburgh 7.9

Greek Catholic eparchies generally have a lower number of baptisms per 1,000 members than Latin dioceses. However, some trends may be regional. For example, both the Latins and the Greek Catholics of Pittsburgh have lower-than-average numbers of baptisms. Similarly, Phoenix and Van Nuys have higher-than-average numbers of baptisms. Newton, which is a nation-wide eparchy, has more baptisms per 1,000 members than the northeastern Latin dioceses.

I think there are two important factors here:

1. The Greek Catholic Churches in the United States have historically been centered in the northeast of the country, especially in Pennsylvania. But much of the population growth is now taking place in the south and the west.

2. The Greek Catholic Churches in the United States are very small and therefore may not have the resources to keep in touch with members as they move to other parts of the country. Also, younger generations may not always see the value of an ethnically-based religious affiliation.

Personally, as a complete outsider, I think the Greek Catholic Churches in the United States should follow the example of the Orthodox Church in America. There should be a single Greek Catholic Church in America with its own Major Archbishop and mostly geographically-based eparchies (thought there might be exceptions in special cases, and local parishes could still be ethnically based). This would make the Greek Catholic Church a bit more visible in the nation's religious landscape, and the boundaries of the new eparchies might be drawn to reflect the shifting demographics of the United States. Importantly, the Synod of Bishops of a major archiepiscopal Church sui iuris would have much more freedom to serve the needs of Greek Catholics in the United States without having to refer matters to Rome, Damascus or Kyiv all the time.

After all, why should Greek Catholic reproduce the divisions of their Orthodox Sister Churches?

LC,

A request - before we get embroiled in the 'single jurisdiction' brouhaha (we've been there before and it's never pretty) - which we undoubtedly will.

Since you've apparently got the AP at hand, can you please give us some baptismal figures for the Oriental jurisdictions in the US, as well as those of the Maronites and Chaldeans?

Many years,

Neil (.oO and someone wondered why I cringed when opening this thread :p)

Newton (Melkite) 26,704 members 358 baptisms (13.4 per 1,000 members)
Our Lady of Deliverance of Newark (Syriac) 13,800 members 112 baptisms (8.1 per 1,000 members) NB! figures for 2007
Our Lady of Lebanon of Los Angeles (Maronite) 44,919 members 417 baptisms (9.3 per 1,000 members)
Our Lady of Nareg in New York (Armenian) 36,000 members 242 baptisms (6.7 per 1,000 members)
Parma (Byzantine) 8,791 members 81 baptisms (9.2 per 1,000 members)
Passaic (Byzantine) 17,620 members 169 baptisms (9.6 per 1,000 members)
Philadelphia (Ukrainian) 22,500 members 199 baptisms (8.8 per 1,000 members)
Pittsburgh (Byzantine) 58,997 members 179 baptisms (3.0 per 1,000 members)
Saint George in Canton (Romanian) 5,900 members 27 baptisms (4.6 per 1,000 members)
Saint Josaphat in Parma (Ukrainian) 10,685 members 92 baptisms (8.6 per 1,000 members)
Saint Maron of Brooklyn (Maronite) 33,000 members 446 baptisms (13.5 per 1,000 members)
Saint Nicholas of Chicago (Ukrainian) 10,000 members 91 baptisms (9.1 per 1,000 members)
Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego (Chaldean) 45,336 members 315 baptisms (6.9 per 1,000 members)
Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago (Syro-Malabar) 85,000 members 296 baptisms (3.5 per 1,000 members)
Saint Thomas the Apostle of Detroit (Chaldean) 102,800 members 933 baptisms (9.1 per 1,000 members)
Stamford (Ukrainian) 16,750 members 169 baptisms (10.1 per 1,000 members)
Van Nuys (Byzantine) 2,613 members 75 baptisms (28.7 per 1,000 members)

Thank you, my friend!

So, overall:

Melkites 13.4
Maronites 11.1
Ukrainians 9.2
Chaldeans 8.4
Syriacs 8.1
Armenians 6.7
Ruthenians 5.7
Romanians 4.6
Malabarese 3.5

Interesting. The 4 groups with the highest numbers (Melkites, Maronites, Ukrainians, Chaldeans) are all experiencing immigration, as is the lowest (Malabarese). I think the low rate among the Malabarese reflects that a lot of its immigrants are younger, unmarried, professionals, whereas the immigrants from the Middle East (Melkites, Maronites, Chaldeans) include many more family units. Not sure what the Ukrainian immigrant population looks like.

Many years,

Neil

The statistics presume that the eparchial membership figures are accurate. I suspect those for the Ruthenian eparchies overstate membership by at least a factor of two, meaning that the baptismal rates are probably twice as high. On the other hand, many of the baptisms could involve people who are only nominal members of the Ruthenian Church who habitually attend Latin parishes, but who, by virtue of canon law, have to take their children to a Ruthenian parish for baptism--after which, they are never seen again. As always, the question of statistics remains extremely squirrelly.

Beyond that, Latin Catholic makes an excellent point: the Greek Catholic heartland is in demographic decline generally. Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts--all are losing population, some at a staggering rate. Most of the people who leave these states are younger, and looking for opportunity and an attractive place to raise a family. The general direction of migration is as Latin Catholic noted, from the rust belt to the south and southwest. The parishes in the original ethnic settlement are increasingly elderly and generally shrinking, while the new communities established elsewhere tend to be much younger, and, if not growing, at least holding their own. Also, because the original ethnic groups tend to be thinner on the ground there, these parishes also take a more active role in evangelization, a case of make converts or perish.

That said, it would be a major error to reject the ethnic patrimony outright. It is, in fact, one of the things that attracts outsiders (e.g., me and my entire family--not a Slav among us) and also provides a sense of continuity and solidarity that is missing from the new, industrial-strength consolidated Latin super-parishes. A lot of people find the small size of Eastern parishes refreshing, allowing for a real sense of family and community at odds with the anonymity that tends to prevail in many Latin parishes.

Latin Catholic is also wrong if he thinks the OCA lacks an ethnic identity. It was founded as the Russian Orthodox North American Mission, and it remains at heart a Church with its roots in Russia. That the backbone of its membership is descended from the Ukrainian and Rusyn Greek Catholics who departed the Catholic communion over the married priest issue is irrelevant: the OCA sought a corporate identity, and that identity was Russian. The liturgy of the OCA is Russian, and the spiritual outlook is Russian. The ethnic dioceses of the OCA tend to be small and self-contained, and generally isolated from the mainstream of that Church.

On the other hand, Latin Catholic makes a good point: the Greek Catholic community is too defuse and fissiparous to justify the multiplicity of jurisdiction present here. But I don't see the emergence of a single Greek Catholic Church of the United States, simply because there is no agreement among the Greek Catholics as to what they ought to be. Some really do think of themselves as "Roman Catholics of the Byzantine rite", while others consider themselves "Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome". I would say that the bulk of the Ruthenians, consciously or not, see themselves as the former, while the bulk of the Melkites, following the lead of their synod, perceive themselves as the latter, As for the Ukrainians, they are all over the map, and practically impossible to characterize. Unity among the Greek Catholics is impossible until such time as they reach consensus on their own identity and mission.

Hello,

Christ is Risen !!! (Is it ok to say that greeting outside of the season? It is my favorite greeting ever since my first Eastern Pascha this year.)

I was actually just having this discussion about the young Greek Catholics in this country with the Deaconess I know from my parish. Since the Greek Catholic parishes are small next to the Roman Catholic parishes AND (I think this is also big) there are MANY activities for the youth and young adults at Latin parishes, this is where the young Greek Catholics will go. Especially as they seek a spouse. A connected issue might be, depending on how well they young ones are taught their faith, they may not be able to explain the uniqueness of the Greek Catholics and if they come from the Orthodox in union with Rome mentality, they may think something is wrong as they come across Roman Catholics and they are not ready to explain. And not being ready, they may think that they should start going to Roman Masses and etc. Too find a good Greek Catholic spouse, I think, is important to be united in spirit and understanding on faith and the Church. Which can be difficult.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Out of season, say "Glory to Jesus Christ", to which the response is "Glory forever"!

In Nativity (Christmas) season, say, "Christ is born!" and respond, "Glorify Him!"

For Theophany, it's "Christ is baptized!" and "In the Jordan".

The real reasons so many Greek Catholics end up in Roman parishes are (a) convenience (five Masses on Sunday, plus one on Saturday evening, plus the presence of many more parishes, some much closer); and (b) having been brought up with the attitude "Catholic is Catholic". For that reason, whenever a Greek Catholic parish is not available, I will go to an Orthodox parish instead, as do my wife and children.

As Stuart points out, there are many possible sources of error when one tries to interpret statistics. If, for example, there are very few baptisms compared to the number of members, there are at least four different explanations that I can think of:

a. That the number of members is wrong.
b. That the members are elderly.
c. That the members are young and single.
d. That the members are leaving.

In any given case, one or more of these explanations may be valid.