Could you please consider a deep dive into the "Disciple Maker Index" by the Catholic Leadership Institute? It seems that this initiative in Dubuque is similar to "We Are His Witnesses" initiative in the Archdiocese of Newark, which is informing itself based on this metric.
I hope I'm not the only one disturbed that the Church might be reduced to acting on data points and instead "removing from [pastors] the ability to know their people and discern for themselves the best way of meeting each community of parishes’ spiritual need." It seems to me a very corporate way of thinking.
can you explain what you think is disturbing about this?
It seems like data can be useful if not critical for a diocese to assess how to use limited resources for the good of the faithful.
I agree that an overly corporate approach would be bad for the church but the current status quo in a lot of places of "the pastors ability to know their people and meeting each community of parishes ' spiritual needs" often seems to amount to a priest covering three or four far flung churches running himself ragged trying to keep a bunch of country churches limping along and dealing with the fact that each church's community is territorial about any feeling that they are losing ground to the other members of their cluster.
I’m a parishioner in this Archdiocese. Other parishioners with different levels of engagement may differ in opinion, but as someone who took every opportunity to participate in this process, I felt like the DMI was merely a launching point to formulating better questions during pastoral discernment.
For example, the survey's results came across like “the results of the DMI indicate that your parishioners have a strong sense of obligation to mass. 71% of all respondents attend mass every Sunday. However, 80% of all respondents indicated that they don’t feel comfortable with evangelization. Only 10% of mass goers have ever invited someone who isn’t Catholic to mass with them,” (this is a purely hypothetical result; I don’t have my parishes responses memorized).
Something that could follow that kind of insight might be “If mass should gather us to transform us in Christ to send us out to share Christ, what’s missing for my parishioners to feel sent out?” Then, in 1-1 conversations or even visits to small groups, the priest gets to ask, “How does mass prepare you to share Christ with others?” because he knows--from the data-- that no matter how much someone attends mass at that parish, the majority of parishioners aren’t feeling equipped to invite people in. Then if people say, “oh well, I feel like I don’t know enough about my faith to confidently invite people” it indicates that (1) they need spiritual formation to help them understand confidence in the Gospel and (2) more opportunities to study the faith, which would require staff or lay leadership. But if the parishioners say, “oh, Father, I volunteer at the soup kitchen because people don’t need to be in the pew to encounter Jesus,” that’s a totally different need.
So the DMI isn’t authoritative, it’s just a good place to start and initialize solutions seeking, but ultimately letting personalism and discernment finalize the chosen next step.
Speaking as a practicing Catholic from the Archdiocese of Dubuque, I can tell you that the use of "data points" was part of an enormous tapestry that included multiple, multiple in-person meetings throughout the Archdiocese, open to all, over the space of months. The plan was revised, and further revised, and even further revised based on copious amounts of feedback from real humans. Candidly, we were consulted to the point where some people were saying, "Enough consulting already!" It was anything but Catholic sabermetrics.
Also, bear in mind that Archbishop Zinkula was a priest of the Archdiocese of Dubuque before becoming the bishop of the next diocese south (Davenport) and ultimately being returned to Dubuque as archbishop. This is a presbyterate and a flock he knows well. He didn't just parachute in from a faraway diocese and start carving things up on Day One.
Look, I'm obviously supportive of the plan. I fervently wish we had 160+ active priests who could keep open 160 active parishes, and I fervently wish we had 160 parishes with enough people and resources to be self-supporting. We just don't live in that world. We can't just pretend the world hasn't changed when it has. So the Archbishop did the right thing: take the 70 active priests we have - many on loan from foreign dioceses - and distribute them where they can do the most good for the most people without being stretched to the point of burnout in doing so.
People can say, "I woulda done better," but, yielding to the bare, unrelenting practical realities, the Archbishop led us on a real, human-AND-data-driven process toward a workable plan. The Archbishop is doing a good job.
I hope we get some more articles about this process. Archbishop Zinkula has a background in canon law, so I wonder if he'd like to comment on his consideration of canon. I think it's also interesting just from an approach perspective and not just a canonical perspective. This discernment process has been in place, iirc, for over two years. It included three months of synodal sessions (1 per month) at every single parish in the Archdiocese where the lay faithful could actually critique and make suggestions on the Archbishop's proposal. It also let the priests give their local and in-depth feedback on the proposal too. Then +Zinkula actually had periods of prayer set aside in the process so that his understanding of the proposals and feedback wasn't purely an administrative, data-based process. It's just such a picture of a shepherd appearing to do his best to act out of charity, prudence, and humility.
I truly sympathize with the problem, but a phrase such as, "There are voices and concerns that risk dividing us," sounds like something Mr. Slope wrote to Archdeacon Grantly in "Barchester Towers." Especially when preceded by, "We have been following a synodal path..."
Could you please consider a deep dive into the "Disciple Maker Index" by the Catholic Leadership Institute? It seems that this initiative in Dubuque is similar to "We Are His Witnesses" initiative in the Archdiocese of Newark, which is informing itself based on this metric.
I hope I'm not the only one disturbed that the Church might be reduced to acting on data points and instead "removing from [pastors] the ability to know their people and discern for themselves the best way of meeting each community of parishes’ spiritual need." It seems to me a very corporate way of thinking.
can you explain what you think is disturbing about this?
It seems like data can be useful if not critical for a diocese to assess how to use limited resources for the good of the faithful.
I agree that an overly corporate approach would be bad for the church but the current status quo in a lot of places of "the pastors ability to know their people and meeting each community of parishes ' spiritual needs" often seems to amount to a priest covering three or four far flung churches running himself ragged trying to keep a bunch of country churches limping along and dealing with the fact that each church's community is territorial about any feeling that they are losing ground to the other members of their cluster.
I’m a parishioner in this Archdiocese. Other parishioners with different levels of engagement may differ in opinion, but as someone who took every opportunity to participate in this process, I felt like the DMI was merely a launching point to formulating better questions during pastoral discernment.
For example, the survey's results came across like “the results of the DMI indicate that your parishioners have a strong sense of obligation to mass. 71% of all respondents attend mass every Sunday. However, 80% of all respondents indicated that they don’t feel comfortable with evangelization. Only 10% of mass goers have ever invited someone who isn’t Catholic to mass with them,” (this is a purely hypothetical result; I don’t have my parishes responses memorized).
Something that could follow that kind of insight might be “If mass should gather us to transform us in Christ to send us out to share Christ, what’s missing for my parishioners to feel sent out?” Then, in 1-1 conversations or even visits to small groups, the priest gets to ask, “How does mass prepare you to share Christ with others?” because he knows--from the data-- that no matter how much someone attends mass at that parish, the majority of parishioners aren’t feeling equipped to invite people in. Then if people say, “oh well, I feel like I don’t know enough about my faith to confidently invite people” it indicates that (1) they need spiritual formation to help them understand confidence in the Gospel and (2) more opportunities to study the faith, which would require staff or lay leadership. But if the parishioners say, “oh, Father, I volunteer at the soup kitchen because people don’t need to be in the pew to encounter Jesus,” that’s a totally different need.
So the DMI isn’t authoritative, it’s just a good place to start and initialize solutions seeking, but ultimately letting personalism and discernment finalize the chosen next step.
Speaking as a practicing Catholic from the Archdiocese of Dubuque, I can tell you that the use of "data points" was part of an enormous tapestry that included multiple, multiple in-person meetings throughout the Archdiocese, open to all, over the space of months. The plan was revised, and further revised, and even further revised based on copious amounts of feedback from real humans. Candidly, we were consulted to the point where some people were saying, "Enough consulting already!" It was anything but Catholic sabermetrics.
Also, bear in mind that Archbishop Zinkula was a priest of the Archdiocese of Dubuque before becoming the bishop of the next diocese south (Davenport) and ultimately being returned to Dubuque as archbishop. This is a presbyterate and a flock he knows well. He didn't just parachute in from a faraway diocese and start carving things up on Day One.
Look, I'm obviously supportive of the plan. I fervently wish we had 160+ active priests who could keep open 160 active parishes, and I fervently wish we had 160 parishes with enough people and resources to be self-supporting. We just don't live in that world. We can't just pretend the world hasn't changed when it has. So the Archbishop did the right thing: take the 70 active priests we have - many on loan from foreign dioceses - and distribute them where they can do the most good for the most people without being stretched to the point of burnout in doing so.
People can say, "I woulda done better," but, yielding to the bare, unrelenting practical realities, the Archbishop led us on a real, human-AND-data-driven process toward a workable plan. The Archbishop is doing a good job.
I hope we get some more articles about this process. Archbishop Zinkula has a background in canon law, so I wonder if he'd like to comment on his consideration of canon. I think it's also interesting just from an approach perspective and not just a canonical perspective. This discernment process has been in place, iirc, for over two years. It included three months of synodal sessions (1 per month) at every single parish in the Archdiocese where the lay faithful could actually critique and make suggestions on the Archbishop's proposal. It also let the priests give their local and in-depth feedback on the proposal too. Then +Zinkula actually had periods of prayer set aside in the process so that his understanding of the proposals and feedback wasn't purely an administrative, data-based process. It's just such a picture of a shepherd appearing to do his best to act out of charity, prudence, and humility.
I truly sympathize with the problem, but a phrase such as, "There are voices and concerns that risk dividing us," sounds like something Mr. Slope wrote to Archdeacon Grantly in "Barchester Towers." Especially when preceded by, "We have been following a synodal path..."