MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475056063 · doi:10.1353/jur.2009.0020

Enduring Parishes, Emerging Ministries

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

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJurist/˜The œjurist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseHistoryLawGenealogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJurist/˜The œjuristSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207