MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2475056063 · doi:10.1353/jur.2009.0020

Enduring Parishes, Emerging Ministries

2009· article· en· W2475056063 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
James A. Coriden

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œJurist/˜The œjurist · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTheology and Canon Law Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDemiseHistoryLawGenealogyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ENDURING PARISHES, EMERGING MINISTRIES1 James A. Coriden* A. Enduring Parishes 1) Roch Pagé is wrong:American parishes are thriving, not moribund; neither the declines in sacramental practice nor a shortage of priests signal the demise of parishes. Three years ago (March 5, 2005) Roch Pagé, our esteemed canonical colleague and the former dean of the School of Canon Law at St. Paul University in Ottawa, gave the Provost Memorial Lecture.2 His message about the future of parishes was gloomy; indeed he predicted the demise of the parish as we have known it. He asked, “Is one form of the Church, in fact, in the process of dying?” Roch delivered this same message at a conference on parishes at Loyola University in Chicago in July, 2006, with only slightly muted pessimism.3 This past September Roch went down under to preach this “gospel of death” (evangelium mortis) to the Canon Law Society of Australia and New Zealand.4 “The parish system is precarious and vulnerable,” he said. “Will the parish survive?” He spoke of the assembled canonists as “the authors or witnesses of the step by step demise of the parish.” I think that my friend Roch is wrong. I believe that he is extrapolating from the situation he has seen develop in his native Quebec, where, as in some parts of Europe, many parishes have truly fallen upon very hard times and may be fairly described as moribund. My first thesis is that, by and large, a similar fate is not befalling American Catholic parishes. Our situation is quite different. Roch based his dark predictions about the future of parishes on two basic premises: a) a relentless decline in religious practice defined in terms of sacraments: Sunday Mass attendance, infant baptism, confirmation , penance, marriage, even funerals, and b) the shortage of priests, a The Jurist 69 (2009) 731–748 731 * Professor of Canon Law, Washington Theological Union 1 This article is an edited version of the fifth annual James H. Provost Memorial Lecture delivered at The Catholic University of America on April 3, 2008. 2 “The Future of Parishes and the Present Canonical Legislation,” The Jurist 67 (2007) 176–193. 3 “The Difficulties Faced by the Parish: Some Solutions,” Chicago Studies 46 (Spring, 2007) 73–85. 4 “The Parish: What Is Its Future?” Manuscript of his talks given at Christchurch, NZ, September 19–20, 2007. 5 Pagé, “The Future of Parishes,” 178. 6 “MassAttendance: It Depends How YouAsk the Question,” The CARA Report 12:2 (2006) 1. 7 CARA, “Sacraments Today: Belief and Practice Among U.S. Catholics,” Origins 37:45 (April 24, 2008) 724. 8 Pagé, “The Future of Parishes,” 178. 732 the jurist continual decline in numbers that is leading to an increasing number of priestless parishes. These are two obviously serious problems; and they are based in reality (not in Roch’s imagination); but do they foretell the demise of our parishes? Let us briefly examine the specific issues. First, sacramental practice. a) Sunday Mass Attendance Roch speaks of 3% to 10% Sunday Mass attendance among Quebecers , as many as 95% of whom call themselves Catholics.5 Our situation in the U.S. is not good, but it isn’t nearly that dire either. Remember that for decades we relied on George Gallup’s telephone surveys, which indicated in 1958 that as many as 74% of those who identified themselves as Catholics attended Mass most Sundays. That number began to decline and reached 40% in 2003. However, the CARA people warn us that the result depends how you ask the question. When the telephone interviewer asks “how often do you attend Mass?” many people tend to give a “socially desirable answer;” and the result is that 32% to 35% say once a week. In self-administered surveys the response is closer to 22 or 23%, which is much closer to actual head counts.6 In other words, the earlier telephone tallies were probably always on the high side. Currently CARA estimates that 31.4% of adult Catholics attend Mass in any given week (equivalent to 16 million adult Mass attendees per week). 23% say they attend Mass every week.7 Clearly Mass attendance has declined since...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,086

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,011
Communication savante0,0090,009
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œJurist/˜The œjuristMême sujetTheology and Canon Law StudiesTravaux en français237 207