Home page.

By Rev. Rodger Hunter-Hall

and Steven Wagner

The State of the

Catholic Church

in America,

Diocese by Diocese

bishop matter?” It arrives at an interesting pair of

conclusions. The first is that there is no problem

ailing the Catholic Church in America that is not being addressed

successfully in some place, and typically in multiple

places. Second, there is a cadre of bishops, invisible to the

national media, largely unknown outside their dioceses,

absent from Washington political circles, who are truly

unsung heroes of the Church, presiding over vibrant communities,

building the Church, and effectively proclaiming

the Faith—men such as Bishop Joseph Kurtz of Knoxville,

Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, and Bishop Daniel

Conlon of Steubenville, to name just a few.

So to the original question: Does the bishop matter?

To be sure, among the local Catholic laity, the bishop has

a certain celebrity; his visits to our parishes are occasions.

Faithful Catholics monitor the comings and goings of the

episcopate with more than passing interest. But does a particular

Church in his see?

The first consideration in answering this question is

whether variations in the vitality of the American dioceses

can be detected, such that some dioceses can be said to be

unusually robust and others unusually anemic. Absent such

variations, there is nothing to attribute to the bishop. After

all, the Church in America as a whole is beset by macro

trends, such as the emergence of a now-dominant (and hostile)

secular culture. All dioceses swim, as it were, in the

same sea. Our question is whether some are better swimmers

than others.

But if, on the other hand, differentiations among dioceses

are observable, then a judgment can be rendered as to the

extent to which those differentiations are attributable to the

bishop. How we judge the health of the dioceses depends in

part on available data, and in part on how we view the role

of the bishop, the successor to the apostles. In keeping with

the bishop first of all to tend to the well-being of his priests.

He must also guard the stability of the Church by taking personal

responsibility for providing a growing population of

priests through vocations. We expect the bishop to evangelize

the area encompassed by his see, to be a steadfast teacher

of the Faith and a holy shepherd to his flock, after the image

and example of the Good Shepherd.

This characterization suggests three criteria of evaluation:

the morale of the presbyterate, the number of vocations,

and effective evangelization. As for data, each Latin

rite diocese in the United States (of which there are 176,

excluding Puerto Rico and territories) annually submits a

by P. J. Kenedy and Sons. Not only are these data

considerably more extensive than those reported by the

ordained by Church authority), and so it is quite remarkable

that every diocese in the country participates.

the total number of persons claimed as adherents by the

dioceses was 65,996,019 at the end of 2005, a 19 percent

period, the American population grew by 13 percent (and

the Hispanic population by 57 percent); i.e., the population

of U.S. Catholics is growing at a higher rate than the

U.S. population as a whole. American dioceses collectively

claimed as adherents 22 percent of the population of the

United States, consistent with the results of national surveys

of public opinion, which generally peg self-identified

Catholics in a range of 22 percent to 24 percent of the

general public. It is interesting that our dioceses claim as

Catholics persons who have not recently (if ever) set foot

in church. In surveys, inactive Catholics—unlike most denominations—

continue to self-identify as Catholics long

after they have stopped attending Mass. We would not expect

these inactive Catholics to be on the radar screens of

the dioceses, yet apparently they are.

The dioceses collectively reported 911,935 infant baptisms

for 2005, representing 22 percent of persons born in

the past year. This figure belies the belief that the Catholic

Church is expanding through a higher rate of birth.

The American dioceses received 149,306 adults into the

Church, up 6 percent from ten years earlier—which was

just one-fifth of 1 percent of the total number of adherents,

not a dramatic source of growth.

As the body of the faithful was growing over the past

decade, the national presbyterate was declining. At the end

of 1995, there were 22,070 active diocesan priests in service

of the Church; by the end of 2005, this number was 18,102,

an 18 percent decrease. Of course, one cause of the decline

was the retirement of the presbyterate and a low rate of

ordination. Ten years ago, the vocations crisis had already

struck so that in 1995, 398 diocesan ordinations occurred,

1 These are the data reported by the 176 Roman geographic dioceses only.

The Archdiocese of Military Services is not included because its data were not

reported separately in 1996, and its priests belong to other dioceses.

versus 335 in 2005. While that represents a 15 percent decline

in the number of ordinations overall, ordinations as a

percentage of the active presbyterate—in other words, the

replacement rate—actually rose slightly from 1995 to 2005.

Still, at a 2 percent rate of ordination (the 2005 figure), diocesan

priests would have to serve an average of 50 years

to maintain our current population of priests. In 1995, 45

dioceses reported no ordinations, and four reported ten or

more. In 2005, 48 dioceses had no ordinations, and three

had ten or more.

In the face of declining ordinations, some dioceses are

resorting to the importation of extern priests, resulting in

29 dioceses that experienced an increase in the number of

active priests from 1995 to 2005, either because of the success

of their extern strategy or because of unusual success

in attracting vocations, or both. And the phrase “attracting

vocations” is today particularly apt. Whereas once it would

have been exceedingly rare for a young man to enter the

priesthood outside of the diocese in which he grew up, today

diocese-shopping is more common. We have reports of

seminarians selecting their diocese based on a scan of Web

sites. The persona of the bishop is therefore all the more

important in attracting vocations, both from without and

from within.

The change in the total number of adherents in a diocese

was not taken as a measure of the health of a diocese, as this

dynamic has more to do with the population migrations of

our increasingly mobile society and is therefore well beyond

the competence of a bishop to affect. Sixty-eight dioceses

(39 percent) lost adherents between 1995 and 2005, while

59 dioceses (34 percent) experienced moderate growth and

49 dioceses (28 percent) saw dramatic growth. Predictably,

half of the dioceses reporting a declining number of adherents

are in the states of the Industrial Midwest (from Pennsylvania

to Minnesota), but population erosion is also prevalent

in the Northeast. On the other hand, half of the dioceses in

Pacific Coast states and nearly half in the South are growing

dramatically (20 percent–plus in the ten-year period). There

is significant correlation between a diocese’s growth rate and

other indicators of vitality, but we suspect this correlation

has more to do with the regional effect, on which more will

be said later. Within each of these categories of growth (negative,

moderate, and dramatic), there are both very vibrant

and anemic dioceses—indicating that, while growing dioceses

tend to be vibrant, a growing population of adherents

does not in and of itself ensure a vibrant diocese.

Returning to those functions proper to a bishop, priestly

morale is not available to us directly as quantitative data.

But as a surrogate datum, we know whether the number of

active priests in a diocese is increasing or decreasing. To be

sure, priestly retirements are mostly—but not totally—beyond

the influence of the bishop. But in addition to attracting

extern priests to the diocese, the bishop can contribute

to a climate in which priests remain eager to serve beyond

the earliest opportunity for retirement. In the words of a

longtime observer, “The experience of the Church is that

the influence of the bishop over his priests is very real.”

Then, of course, the number of ordinations in each

diocese can be examined, and for reasons discussed above,

bishops are ever more influential over vocations; as one put

it, “Increasingly men are seeking out congenial bishops and

seminaries.” Finally, the number of adult receptions into the

Church is an excellent measure of the local church’s investment

in and success at evangelization activities.

Take a look at these three measures in turn.

Twenty-nine dioceses (16 percent) experienced an increase

table on page 15). The most outstanding diocese by this

measure is Tyler, Texas (see sidebar on page 14), which experienced

a 128 percent increase in active priests (from 25

to 57). Brownsville, Texas, was second with a 64 percent

increase.

Five dioceses saw no change in the number of active

priests between 1995 and 2005, leaving 141 dioceses with

a declining number of active priests. The decline was most

pronounced in Camden, New Jersey (down 43 percent);

Amarillo, Texas (down 42 percent); Albany, New York

(down 41 percent); and Rochester, New York (down 40 percent).

We rank by the percentage change in the presbyterate

so as not to discriminate against larger dioceses.

Rather than looking at the total number of priests ordained

in 2005, we rank dioceses by the number of ordained priests

as a percentage of the total active presbyterate (see table

on page 15). This eliminates discrimination against smaller

dioceses. The leading diocese by this measure is Las Cru-

2 During the period of 1995 to 2005, one new diocese was created—Laredo,

Texas—consisting mostly of counties previously a part of the Diocese of Corpus

Christi. Had Corpus Christi not lost these counties to Laredo, it too may

have experienced an increase in the number of active priests.

rural east Texas—a diocese of 22,971 square miles,

a territory nearly equivalent to the entire state of West

Virginia. It is an area with some 56,000 Catholics—4.3

percent of the total population. The first incumbent

died in office, and the diocese is now on its third bishop

after just 20 years in existence. Moreover, apart from

the see city of Tyler, with a population just in excess of

83,000, the diocese is composed of small communities

that provide minimal statistical hope for recruiting vocations

to the diocesan priesthood. As bishop, you are

also confronting religious orders—once the backbone

of regions with few Catholics like east Texas—with

fewer and fewer missionary priests to deploy.

That the Diocese of Tyler finds itself with a 128 percent

increase in diocesan priests in the ten-year span of

our study is attributable to the work of Bishop Edmond

Carmody and Bishop Alvaro Corrada del Rio, S.J.

Bishop Carmody, himself a missionary from Ireland

who came to the United States to supplement the work

of the American clergy, had no qualms about searching

the whole of the Lord’s vineyard for laborers; the Diocese

of Tyler has imported priests from Eastern Europe,

India, and Latin America. The bishops have made the

building up of their presbyterate a priority to the wellbeing

of their diocese.

Across the country, dioceses are finding that importing

priests is effective in easing the shortfalls they

are confronting. The positives are many: Dioceses are

spared the years of study and waiting involved in seminary

preparation—the priests arrive with their studies

accomplished and their ordination behind them—and

the concern about whether the seminarian will persevere

to ordination is a moot point. Some priests are

quite young, while others arrive with a wealth of pastoral

experience from their own lands. These priests are

expressions of the Church Universal, and the parishes

in which they serve benefit from the unique perspectives

that come from their cultures and backgrounds.

Many parishioners are grateful, knowing that without

them their parish might have no priest at all.

Certainly, the opportunity to work in a U.S. diocese

fulfills a desire to be a missionary and to make a tremendous

difference in a particular church that would be

poorer sacramentally without them. Living in America

also provides many of these priests with a standard of

living they could not otherwise attain. One priest from

India, working as a hospital chaplain in a diocese in the

South, was able to provide significant support for his

parents and siblings back home in India—something he

would not have been able to do had he remained in his

own diocese in Kerala.

But the coin has two sides. Priests from other lands

can find it difficult to adjust to the culture, and the languages

(both English and Spanish) and expectations

of parishioners are often far removed from what the

priests previously experienced. The language barrier

is real. There is also real concern on the part of parishioners

about the extern priests’ lack of understanding

regarding the roles of women in American society.

The very active role that the American laity takes in

the liturgy and in parish life is also often very different

from what these priests may have experienced in

their homeland. The myriad parish activities and social

ministries can be challenging. Parishes with confrontations

and misunderstandings can cause much

pain to priests and parishioners alike. Still, priests and

parishes that are willing to grow together and accept

that there will be moments of adjustment can find the

experience mutually enriching.

The phenomenon has raised concerns on the part

of the Holy See’s Congregation for the Evangelization

about the fact that, in some dioceses of Africa, one-third

to one-half of the secular priests live abroad—enough,

the document warns, to create entire dioceses with native

clergy in these mission lands that are still getting

on their feet.

The trend exemplified in Tyler is not likely to go

away in the near term, however. In our country’s earliest

years, it was Jesuit missionaries from France who planted

the seeds of faith across North America and became

our region’s first saints, the North American martyrs. It

has been the legacy of the United States to welcome

missionaries, to send forth missionaries—and now, to

Tyler, Texas

ces, New Mexico, which in 2005 ordained 14 percent of

its presbyterate (three new priests out of 21 total). At the

other end of the spectrum, 48 dioceses saw no ordinations,

the largest of which is Galveston–Houston, Texas, with 1.5

million adherents. The top-ranked dioceses by the actual

number of ordinations are Chicago (17); St. Paul–Minneapolis

(15); and Newark, New Jersey (12).

Of course the baptism of infants is an important measure

of the Church’s evangelical activities, but a better measure,

more reflective of the efforts of the local church to engage

the community, is the number of adults received by the

Church into full communion (see table on page 16). Again,

to prevent putting smaller dioceses at a disadvantage, we

examined receptions as a percentage of adherents. The

most successful diocese—Kansas City–St. Joseph in Missouri—

reportedly experienced a 3.2 percent reception rate,

followed by neighboring Springfield–Cape Girardeau (1.3

percent) and Helena, Montana (1.1 percent). The lowest reception

rate was 0.05 percent, experienced by the dioceses

of Fall River, Massachusetts, and Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Leaders in terms of aggregate number of adult receptions

were Phoenix (5,644); Brownsville, Texas (5,015); and Los

Angeles (4,375).

If these three measures imperfectly reflect the vitality of the

dioceses, they are a pretty good start. The change in the

size of the priesthood and the effort invested in increasing

vocations and adult receptions do say something fundamental

about the state of the dioceses. Some dioceses excel

in one area and not others; the most healthy dioceses excel

in all three.

In order to arrive at a composite rating, each diocese

was ordered by each of these three measures, and the ranks

1 Tyler (TX) 128%

2 Brownsville (TX) 64%

3 Atlanta (GA) * 49%

4 Venice (FL) 40%

5 Austin (TX) 40%

6 Raleigh (NC) 40%

7 Knoxville (TN) 26%

8 Colorado Springs (CO) 26%

9 Lake Charles (LA) 26%

10 Reno (NV) 20%

167 Portland (ME) -35%

168 Green Bay (WI) -36%

169 Covington (KY) -37%

169 Marquette (MI) -37%

171 Honolulu (HI) -38%

172 Dodge City (KS) -38%

173 Rochester (NY) -40%

174 Albany (NY) -41%

175 Amarillo (TX) -42%

176 Camden (NJ) -43%

1 Las Cruces (NM) 3 14%

2 Savannah (GA) 5 10%

3 Anchorage (AK) * 1 9%

4 Beaumont (TX) 3 9%

5 Alexandria (LA) 3 8%

6 Springfield (IL) 7 8%

7 Duluth (MN) 4 8%

8 Las Vegas (NV) 2 7%

9 Kalamazoo (MI) 3 7%

10 Knoxville (TN) 3 7%

167 Tucson (AZ) 0 0%

168 Orlando (FL) 0 0%

169 Corpus Christi (TX) 0 0%

170 Austin (TX) 0 0%

171 Metuchen (NJ) 0 0%

172 El Paso (TX) 0 0%

173 Hartford (CT) 0 0%

174 Brownsville (TX) 0 0%

175 Dallas (TX) 0 0%

176 Galv.–Houston (TX) 0 0%

were added together. The lower the score, the better the

rank; the best possible score, therefore, is a three, meaning

the diocese ranked first in the nation on all three measures.

The higher the score, the worse the relative condition of

the diocese (see tables on pages 17 and 23–26).

Like most products of statistical analysis, this rating

scheme has its defects. It is, at best, an approximation of the

reality we seek to represent. We are constrained by available

data. By using an ordinal ranking, we lose potentially

important differences in the arithmetic distance between

dioceses. The difference between the number one–rated

diocese and the tenth or 20th is probably not too material.

But perhaps the biggest defect is that each of these measures

is relative. We can say which diocese had the greatest

success at, say, converting vocations into ordinations, but

we cannot say whether that result is, objectively, an excellent

outcome. “Best” gets defined here by what was accomplished,

not by what might have been accomplished.

That is the main defect; the main controversy inherent

in a ranking scheme such as this is that it is based on qualitative

data. The criticisms are that these statistics do not

capture the health of a diocese, that there are qualitative

considerations invisible to statistical analysis, and—most

disturbing of all—that growth (more priests, more conversions,

more parishes) should not be used to gauge diocesan

health. There are those who think the Catholic laity needs

to become acclimated to the new realities affecting the

Church (acclimated, for example, to the supposed inevitability

of not seeing a priest every Sunday). For someone of

such an accommodationist inclination, this analysis will be

deemed anachronistic.

Even more interesting than the overall ranking of dioceses

for 2005 is the change in ranking experienced between 1995

and 2005. Large shifts, either up or down, over that ten-year

period say something profound about the condition of the

diocese. In order to detect such change, we ranked each diocese

for 1995, using the same data, but for the 1985–1995

period. The dioceses with the most dramatic improvements

and deteriorations can be seen on the table on page 18.

Several characteristics of the dioceses strongly correlate

with their ranking. One is the size of the diocese in terms

of the number of adherents. Another is the region in which

the diocese is located.

Among the 27 dioceses in the Northeast—stretching

from Maryland, the cradle of American Catholicism, into

New England—the average rating is 136, three times higher

than the region with the best average rating, the South

(where there are 30 dioceses with an average rating of 49).

The other regions, the Rocky Mountain West/Agricultural

Midwest (43 dioceses, average ranking of 67), the Pacific

Coast (21 dioceses, average ranking of 86), and the Industrial

Midwest (55 dioceses, average ranking of 104) span

the middle.

So the Church is, by this measure, most healthy in that

region that is traditionally the least hospitable to it, and is

least healthy in that region where it has the longest history,

and in which are found both the greatest concentration of

Catholics (as a percent of the population) and the largest

number of Catholics (19,851,345, according to diocesan

reports, versus 16,857,896 in the Industrial Midwest, where

other surveys suggest a plurality of Catholics live).

Perhaps contrary to the expectation of some, the

1 Kansas City (MO) 4,177 3.20%

2 Springfield (MO) 831 1.29%

3 Helena (MT) 617 1.05%

4 Phoenix (AZ) 5,644 1.02%

5 Biloxi (MS) 674 1.00%

6 Charleston (SC) 1,541 0.98%

7 Jackson (MS) 473 0.93%

8 Lexington (KY) 446 0.93%

9 Oklahoma City (OK) * 894 0.85%

10 Knoxville (TN) 444 0.82%

167 Paterson (NJ) 371 0.09%

168 Newark (NJ) * 1,096 0.08%

169 El Paso (TX) 527 0.08%

170 New York (NY) * 2,042 0.08%

171 Metuchen (NJ) 472 0.08%

172 Providence (RI) 461 0.07%

173 Rockville Centre (NY) 942 0.07%

174 Bridgeport (CT) 265 0.06%

175 Fall River (MA) 176 0.05%

176 Allentown (PA) 134 0.05%

1 Knoxville (TN) 8 10 10

2 Savannah (GA) 14 2 24

3 Kalamazoo (MI) 24 9 20

4 Alexandria (LA) 30 5 54

5 Pens.–Tall. (FL) 49 16 35

6 Santa Fe (NM) * 19 50 36

7 Birmingham (AL) 20 69 17

8 Wheel.–Charles. (WV) 60 26 22

8 Anchorage (AK) * 30 3 75

10 Biloxi (MS) 55 50 5

10 Lansing (MI) 45 21 44

12 Lubbock (TX) 30 33 49

13 Little Rock (AR) 67 30 16

14 Cheyenne (WY) 73 15 26

15 Colorado Springs (CO) 9 34 76

16 Denver (CO) * 28 14 80

16 Venice (FL) 4 29 89

18 Beaumont (TX) 64 4 65

19 Lexington (KY) 89 40 8

19 Charlotte (NC) 13 87 37

157 Burlington (VT) 162 85 143

158 Winona (MN) 142 129 120

159 Dubuque (IA) * 151 119 122

160 Boston (MA) * 156 73 164

161 Crosse (WI) 138 129 130

162 Milwaukee (WI) * 155 95 150

162 Providence (RI) 103 125 172

164 Philadelphia (PA) * 129 111 161

164 Green Bay (WI) 168 71 162

166 Marquette (MI) 169 129 105

167 Camden (NJ) 176 124 107

168 El Paso (TX) 111 129 169

169 Allentown (PA) 132 103 176

170 Madison (WI) 131 129 153

171 Pittsburgh (PA) 140 122 152

172 Albany (NY) 174 89 158

173 Metuchen (NJ) 125 129 171

174 Rochester (NY) 173 115 142

175 Rockville Centre (NY) 148 126 173

176 Hartford (CT) * 165 129 165

Northeast is not experiencing a declining Catholic population—

no region is (although in the Industrial Midwest, the

Catholic population is static, with a 1995–2005 aggregate

growth rate of 0.2 percent). Yet New England has the greatest

decline in the number of priests over the recent ten-year

period, the lowest rate of ordination (as a percentage of the

number of priests in the region), and the lowest rate of adult

reception (as a percentage of adherents).

Is there a cultural explanation for this malaise? One

astute observer of Catholic affairs attributes it to a multigenerational

pursuit of social legitimacy by the Church

hierarchy. Seeking admission to the Brahmin clubhouse

has led, in part, to a muting of the Catholic identity, according

to this view—“It’s the Kennedy family phenomenon

writ large.”

This may indeed be a factor, but the Church in New

England may also be a victim of its historical success, measured

by the penetration of the population of that region.

The Church in New England has not had the same impetus

to evangelization, since as it looks around, more or less

everyone it sees is already Catholic. Of course, today every

Church operates in a predominately secular environment,

so that evangelization ought everywhere to be an urgent

priority, but some churches are slower than others to recognize

this development. Globally, Pope John Paul II was

really the first pope to understand his role in evangelizing

a secular world.

It is unmistakable that many of the most vibrant dioceses

in the country are confronting adversity. This fact has

emerged from conversations with dioceses in the South, the

Southwest, and the Pacific Coast. This is most especially

true in the South, where the Catholic Church has never

been the largest denomination. “We are outnumbered, we

are young, we are building churches, we are growing, there

is an enthusiasm for evangelization among the laity,” reported

a priest in the number one–ranked Diocese of Knoxville.

Catholic dioceses seem to be most successful when they are

Of course, it matters how one responds to adversity.

There are less-than-healthy dioceses in the South. There is

nothing automatic about the success of dioceses there. And

it is not merely the fact of growth that creates vitality; the

fastest-growing diocese in the country over the past tenyear

period, Dallas, also fell 111 places during the same tenyear

period, and is now ranked 131 out of 176. In order to

be successful in a situation of adversity, the bishop and the

diocese have to be willing to wrestle with that adversity.

The size of the diocese, measured by the number of adherents

in 2006, is also significantly—and negatively—related

to vibrancy. Fifty-one of the dioceses (29 percent) have

100,000 adherents or fewer. These dioceses have an average

ranking of 62 (again, on a scale of 1 to 176). Thirty-seven

dioceses have more than 500,000 adherents; the average

ranking of these dioceses is 115—a ranking twice as high as

the average of the smallest dioceses. In other words, there

is a clear inverse linear relationship between the size of the

diocese and the health of the diocese: As size increases, vitality

deteriorates.

This is an old story. Among institutions, bigger is generally

not better. The larger the student body in a high school,

to take one example, the greater the extent of problems such

as drug use, student-on-student violence, and poor academic

performance. The quality of institutional performance is often

a function of the will of the top administrator to achieve

success, and the assertion of that will becomes ever more

difficult as the institution expands. In general, the division

of large dioceses into smaller ones is beneficial.

The final question, however, is how much influence a

bishop has on diocesan ranking. The clear answer: a great

deal. After having systematically examined a number of

external factors that might account for the vitality of a

diocese, the bottom line remains that variations in the

ranking of the dioceses cannot be definitively accounted

for by region, size, or population change. Neighboring

dioceses can and do have substantially different ratings.

And most compelling, the ranking of the dioceses

do change—sometimes dramatically—from one decade

to the next. Absent other explanations, the number-one

factor that accounts for this variation is the quality of the

diocesan leadership.

Michael Kelly, a quintessentially Catholic journalistic

voice silenced in Iraq, once argued, “Leo Tolstoy wrote in

age: ‘Happy families are all alike; every unhappy

family is unhappy in its own way.’ This is exactly, entirely

wrong.” We could have the same debate about dioceses.

In terms of how successful bishops go about the tasks of

nurturing priestly morale and spirituality, of attracting vocations,

and of evangelizing the community, each successful

diocese is different, responding to the particularities of

its environment aggressively and confidently. The bishops’

conference could serve a very useful role by chronicling and

promulgating the best practices devised by the dioceses to

meet these and other challenges faced by the Church in

America—for truly there is no challenge that is not being

met somewhere.

On the other hand, perhaps Tolstoy was correct: There

are striking commonalities among the most successful stewards

of the American dioceses. In seeking to understand

why successful dioceses succeed, we spoke with diocesan

Anchorage (AK) * 8 147 139

Santa Fe (NM) * 6 144 138

San Jose (CA) 52 174 122

Las Cruces (NM) 22 138 116

Springfield (IL) 33 131 98

Beaumont (TX) 18 111 93

Las Vegas (NV) 35 127 92

Steubenville (OH) 21 108 87

Helena (MT) 64 142 78

Gallup (NM) 50 123 73

Shreveport (LA) 88 11 -77

Metuchen (NJ) 173 80 -93

Dodge City (KS) 134 40 -94

Yakima (WA) 105 10 -95

El Paso (TX) 168 66 -102

Des Moines (IA) 123 19 -104

Houma–Thibodaux (LA) 150 42 -108

Dallas (TX) 131 20 -111

Honolulu (HI) 151 32 -119

Amarillo (TX) 139 5 -134

officials in a sample of top-rated dioceses. This is the picture

that emerges from those conversations.

The most striking similarity is that successful bishops

attribute their success to the Holy Spirit. The motto of

the number one–ranked diocese in the country—Knoxville,

Tennessee—is “Hope in the Lord.” This motto captures

the prevailing attitude among bishops of the most

vibrant dioceses.

Successful bishops are joyful. They evince an enthusiasm

for the Faith and for the Church. They are unabashedly

confident in what the Faith offers and teaches; they are not

apologetic for being Catholic.

Successful bishops assume personal responsibility for

involved in leading men to discern a vocation. (Significant

for the future of women religious, the bishop is not institutionally

responsible for promoting female vocations.)

their priests. And they are investing themselves in programs

of evangelization.

In critiquing a diocese, priests often cited the willingness

(or unwillingness) of the bishop and his curia to be

open to reassessing the success or failure of pastoral initiatives.

This is especially true of vocations. Most priests

can cite the influence of one or several priests who initiated

a process within them to begin considering a call to

the priesthood. In contrast, there are men who declare that

they never considered the priesthood because they were

never invited to consider it.

Finally, successful bishops are unwilling to acquiesce

to decline. They are intent on doing their part to help the

Church flourish.

This is not to say that bishops in non-vibrant dioceses

do not have these qualities. We certainly do not suggest

that any bishop lacks confidence in the Holy Spirit. And

there are dioceses of which lay observers say the bishop

is doing all the right things, but in which the results are

nonetheless disappointing. There are poorly rated dioceses

in which lay members contend that the faith community is

doing quite well, while the data tell another story.

It may strike one as superficial, but diocesan-sponsored

Web sites provide significant insight into the personality

of the dioceses. Good signs: easy access to substantive

information for persons considering becoming

Catholic, returning to the Faith, or considering a vocation.

Bad signs: prominently featuring on the home page

references to clergy abuse or helpful guides to making an

on-line donation.

The Abuse Scandal

take into consideration the extent of sexual predation

by clergy. Unfortunately, such data are not

available. The John Jay College of Criminal Justice

(City University of New York) was commissioned

by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

to conduct a canvass of dioceses regarding the

prevalence of abuse. The college’s publicly available

report shows the total number of clergy credibly accused

of abuse and the number of victims, but not

broken down by diocese. The USCCB, of course,

has this information but has chosen not to release

it, in accordance with the confidentiality promises

made to the bishops when the John Jay canvass was

conducted. We asked the bishops’ conference if they

could tell us if any diocese in the country reported

no instances of abuse. Tantalizingly, they responded

that at least one diocese had no allegations of abuse

by clergy.

SNAP (the Survivors Network of those Abused

by Priests) collects allegations of abuse and catalogs

judicial proceedings against clergy, but does not summarize

these actions by diocese. Its view is that instances

of abuse rising to the level of public visibility

have more to do with the civil legal environment than

with the prevalence of abuse. Places such as Los Angeles—

which is said to have a particularly stern civiljustice

system—only appear to have more allegations

of abuse because victims are encouraged to come forward,

whereas elsewhere victims are discouraged, and

therefore remain silent. It is the opinion of SNAP that

the percentage of clergy engaging in acts of sexual

predation is generally uniform across the country, affecting

Northeast:

Washington, DC * 48

Wilmington (DE) 55

Trenton (NJ) 70

Industrial Midwest:

Kalamazoo (MI) 3

Lansing (MI) 10

Lexington (KY) 19

South:

Knoxville (TN) 1

Savannah (GA) 2

Alexandria (LA) 4

Rocky Mountain West/Agricultural Midwest:

Santa Fe (NM) * 6

Lubbock (TX) 12

Cheyenne (WY) 14

Pacific Coast:

Anchorage (AK) * 8

Stockton (CA) 41

Portland (OR) * 42

Under 100,000

Knoxville (TN) 1

Savannah (GA) 2

Alexandria (LA) 4

100,000 – 199,999

Kalamazoo (MI) 3

Little Rock (AR) 13

Colorado Springs (CO) 15

200,000 – 499,999

Santa Fe (NM) * 6

Lansing (MI) 10

Denver (CO) * 16

500,000+

Las Vegas (NV) 35

Brownsville (TX) 36

St. Paul–Minneapolis (MN) * 40

Dioceses at the top of the ranking consistently make

use of their diocesan Web sites to focus on vocations. The

Archdiocese of Santa Fe, for example, features letters from

the archbishop and the vocations director to those who

are interested in the priesthood, materials to answer initial

questions, an in-depth introduction to the archdiocese and

its history, and profiles of seminarians in the archdiocese

that introduce the range of young men who studied for

Santa Fe. The archdiocese provides detailed information

about how to pursue one’s interest in studying for the priesthood

and introduces the seminaries to where its priests are

trained—and even provides a selection of prayers for those

making an initial discernment.

Conversely, dioceses that ranked at the bottom are

making less use of this particular means of outreach. The

Diocese of Honolulu, for example, does not make vocation

information on the Web site available to the unregistered

public, and the Diocese of Houma–Thibodaux has no vocation

site at all.

The Diocese of San Jose, California, and others in the

top ranking give particular prominence to the sanctity of

marriage and family-life issues, among many other topics

related to the Church’s teachings on doctrinal matters. The

Internet is one of the means at the disposal of a diocese

to communicate to the faithful. If St. Paul had had access

to 21st-century technology, one can only imagine how it

would have spurred his evangelization.

At times, however, the message conveyed on diocesan

Web sites can be less positive. The words that are

framed and centered on the home page of the Diocese of

Pittsburgh read, “To renew what is broken,” followed by

a toll-free number to report sexual abuse; while the words

across the top of the Web site of the Diocese of Dallas

are invitations to report sexual abuse, to contribute

online to the Catholic Community Appeal, or to make

a donation of $50 to the cathedral renovation fund. Perhaps

the issue is whether a diocese thinks of the Internet

as an intranet for the faithful or a window on the Faith for

a vast secular audience.

That there should be such significant variation in the vitality

of the American Church from diocese to diocese sends

us, the Church—leaders and laity alike—several rather profound

messages. The first is that the health of the Church

in America is ours to affect. While a thorough confidence

in the Holy Spirit is a sine qua non, as unusually successful

bishops so evidently recognize, there is also a role for

human will in achieving God’s plan for the Church. The

Church has been slow to come to terms with changes in the

societal environment of the United States in which it functions,

most especially the emergence of a dominant culture

that is thoroughly secular. Many—too many—in positions

of authority have perceived their jobs as simply to manage

the decline, having become dispirited over the adversity

that this new cultural environment poses. But the Church

is slowly, incrementally, coming to perceive the current reality

with greater clarity. And the Church is decidedly, as

one bishop put it, “moving beyond the post-conciliar silliness,”

that dreadful period of confusion following Vatican II

when all manner of “innovation” was attempted to make the

Church “relevant.”

The best evidence for this optimistic appraisal is the

existence of flourishing dioceses led by energetic, enthusiastic,

and holy shepherds. The tough question now confronting

the American episcopate and the Vatican curia is

whether the Church is willing to recognize the characteristics

common to successful bishops of the United States, and

to systematically elevate priests with an appropriate profile.

The history has been uneven: The fact that some dioceses

are robust reveals, by comparison, that many are not. But all

persons who wish the Church in America well can rejoice

in the fact that we are blessed to have extraordinary and

effective (if unsung) leaders in numerous places across the

country. Truly, there is no challenge the Church faces that

cannot be confronted.

completing his doctoral thesis on aspects of the history of the

QEV Analytics, an opinion-research firm, and the author of the

Growth in Dioceses

One might well think that a diocese with a growing

Catholic population is de facto a more exciting, vibrant

faith community. But the data do not support such

common sense. Some of the fastest-growing dioceses

are among the least vibrant, and vice versa. And this

makes sense upon reflection: Growth in the Catholic

population has little to do with the quality of the diocese;

rather, dioceses are captive to larger population

dynamics, to which they respond more or less well.

Regionally, the dioceses of the Pacific Coast region

are the fastest growing, with an average ten-year

growth rate of 29 percent. But the dioceses of the Pacific

Coast have an average rating of 86, third best of

five regions. The slowest-growing region for Catholics

is the Industrial Midwest, which is the second worst in

1 Juneau (AK) 5,473

2 Fairbanks (AK) 18,000

3 Rapid City (SD) 25,729

4 Anchorage (AK) * 32,170

5 Baker (OR) 35,647

6 Crookston (MN) 35,780

7 Steubenville (OH) 40,001

8 Shreveport (LA) 40,155

9 Amarillo (TX) 40,293

10 Dodge City (KS) 43,682

167 Detroit (MI) 1,286,985

168 Newark (NJ) 1,319,558

169 Rockville Centre (NY) 1,431,774

170 Philadelphia (PA) * 1,462,388

171 Galveston–Houston (TX) 1,495,030

172 Brooklyn (NY) 1,556,575

173 Chicago (IL) * 2,348,000

174 New York (NY) * 2,542,432

175 Boston (MA) * 3,974,846

176 Los Angeles (CA) * 4,448,763

1 Steubenville (OH) 741

2 Lincoln (NE) 783

3 Fargo (ND) 953

4 Rapid City (SD) 953

5 Mobile (AL) * 963

6 Sioux City (IA) 973

7 Owensboro (KY) 1,027

8 Tyler (TX) 1,077

9 Juneau (AK) 1,095

10 Wheeling–Charleston (WV) 1,103

1 Dallas (TX) 199%

2 Salt Lake City (UT) 155%

3 Fort Worth (TX) 140%

4 Boston (MA) * 98%

5 Colorado Springs (CO) 96%

6 Lubbock (TX) 94%

7 Orange (CA) 90%

8 Galveston–Houston (TX) 89%

9 San Bernardino (CA) 88%

10 Austin (TX) 85%

167 Boston (MA) * 8,912

168 Fort Worth (TX) 10,000

169 Galveston–Houston (TX) 10,170

170 Orange (CA) 10,776

171 Los Angeles (CA) * 12,675

172 El Paso (TX) 13,388

173 San Bernardino (CA) 13,987

174 Dallas (TX) 14,049

175 Brownsville (TX) 15,993

176 Las Vegas (NV) 19,998

167 Duluth (MN) -16%

168 Salina (KS) -16%

169 Greensburg (PA) -18%

170 Burlington (VT) -20%

171 Portland (ME) -21%

172 Wheeling–Charleston (WV) -22%

173 Springfield (MA) -26%

174 Peoria (IL) -26%

175 Rapid City (SD) -35%

176 Honolulu (HI) -38%

Albany (NY) 172 145 -27 174 89 158

Alexandria (LA) 4 55 51 30 5 54

Allentown (PA) 169 139 -30 132 103 176

Altoona–Johnstown (PA) 147 159 12 116 129 124

Amarillo (TX) 139 5 -134 175 129 52

Anchorage (AK) * 8 147 139 30 3 75

Arlington (VA) 25 1 -24 17 36 93

Atlanta (GA) * 27 14 -13 3 121 25

Austin (TX) 73 8 -65 5 129 96

Baker (OR) 57 92 35 149 17 43

Baltimore (MD) * 79 95 16 26 113 97

Baton Rouge (LA) 115 59 -56 137 66 103

Beaumont (TX) 18 111 93 64 4 65

Belleville (IL) 61 81 20 109 46 58

Biloxi (MS) 10 31 21 55 50 5

Birmingham (AL) 7 47 40 20 69 17

Bismarck (ND) 56 71 15 84 22 99

Boise (ID) 108 106 -2 166 50 77

Boston (MA) * 160 143 -17 156 73 164

Bridgeport (CT) 132 135 3 58 108 174

Brooklyn (NY) 154 136 -18 150 70 166

Brownsville (TX) 36 68 32 2 129 38

Buffalo (NY) 156 172 16 157 77 155

Burlington (VT) 157 156 -1 162 85 143

Camden (NJ) 167 157 -10 176 124 107

Charleston (SC) 24 3 -21 119 19 6

Charlotte (NC) 19 6 -13 13 87 37

Cheyenne (WY) 14 13 -1 73 15 26

Chicago (IL) * 96 150 54 77 38 149

Cincinnati (OH) * 111 148 37 144 79 78

Cleveland (OH) 153 133 -20 126 127 128

Colorado Springs (CO) 15 69 54 9 34 76

Columbus (OH) 83 29 -54 112 74 57

Corpus Christi (TX) 103 38 -65 7 129 148

Covington (KY) 106 124 18 169 59 62

Crookston (MN) 106 128 22 53 129 108

Dallas (TX) 131 20 -111 70 129 139

Davenport (IA) 117 90 -27 146 97 66

Denver (CO) * 16 48 32 28 14 80

Des Moines (IA) 123 19 -104 163 129 27

Detroit (MI) * 135 103 -32 121 112 118

Dodge City (KS) 134 40 -94 172 129 40

Dubuque (IA) * 159 173 14 151 119 122

Duluth (MN) 45 106 61 86 7 98

El Paso (TX) 168 66 -102 111 129 169

Erie (PA) 132 130 -2 88 101 151

Evansville (IN) 95 63 -32 152 30 81

Fairbanks (AK) 113 54 -59 16 129 160

Fall River (MA) 145 91 -54 114 76 175

Fargo (ND) 27 53 26 39 18 92

Ft. Wayne–South Bend (IN) 81 104 23 106 81 55

Fort Worth (TX) 59 74 15 37 59 114

Fresno (CA) 59 124 65 22 106 82

Gallup (NM) 50 123 73 40 129 30

Galveston–Houston (TX) 100 76 -24 21 129 125

Gary (IN) 142 128 -14 136 92 133

Gaylord (MI) 31 87 56 65 23 69

Grand Island (NE) 109 83 -26 118 129 47

Grand Rapids (MI) 129 85 -44 91 99 135

Great Falls–Billings (MT) 71 134 63 115 39 74

Green Bay (WI) 164 105 -59 168 71 162

Greensburg (PA) 141 169 28 104 129 127

Harrisburg (PA) 120 94 -26 127 114 73

Hartford (CT) * 176 165 -11 165 129 165

Helena (MT) 64 142 78 85 129 3

Honolulu (HI) 151 32 -119 171 129 79

Houma–Thibodaux (LA) 150 42 -108 109 129 136

Indianapolis (IN) * 49 61 12 99 66 33

Jackson (MS) 71 26 -45 92 129 7

Jefferson City (MO) 83 34 -49 123 88 32

Joliet (IL) 138 86 -52 117 84 154

Juneau (AK) 116 48 -68 147 129 31

Kalamazoo (MI) 3 55 52 24 9 20

Kansas City (MO) 43 109 66 57 129 1

Kansas City (KS) * 64 78 14 62 96 59

Knoxville (TN) 1 2 1 8 10 10

La Crosse (WI) 161 118 -43 138 129 130

Lafayette (LA) 73 112 39 27 74 129

Lafayette (IN) 69 45 -24 75 129 21

Lake Charles (LA) 29 27 -2 10 129 14

Lansing (MI) 10 9 -1 45 21 44

Laredo (TX) 68 N/A N/A 30 129 64

Las Cruces (NM) 22 138 116 18 1 123

Las Vegas (NV) 35 127 92 12 8 147

Lexington (KY) 19 35 16 89 40 8

Lincoln (NE) 26 25 -1 15 50 83

Little Rock (AR) 13 61 48 67 30 16

Los Angeles (CA) * 143 115 -28 108 91 163

Louisville (KY) * 136 122 -14 153 129 70

Lubbock (TX) 12 16 4 30 33 49

Madison (WI) 170 164 -6 131 129 153

Manchester (NH) 149 161 12 159 71 141

Marquette (MI) 166 100 -66 169 129 105

Memphis (TN) 30 43 13 96 24 34

Metuchen (NJ) 173 80 -93 125 129 171

Miami (FL) * 110 76 -34 90 78 131

Milwaukee (WI) * 162 167 5 155 95 150

Mobile (AL) * 38 4 -34 63 89 23

Monterey (CA) 61 59 -2 49 26 138

Nashville (TN) 46 73 27 52 129 11

New Orleans (LA) * 119 137 18 68 123 121

New Ulm (MN) 148 165 17 139 129 102

New York (NY) * 140 163 23 94 94 170

Newark (NJ) * 137 82 -55 143 43 168

Norwich (CT) 117 55 -62 128 47 134

Oakland (CA) 99 55 -44 145 28 101

Ogdensburg (NY) 103 141 38 154 58 72

Oklahoma City (OK) * 64 16 -48 122 86 9

Omaha (NE) * 38 74 36 80 32 63

Orange (CA) 81 45 -36 74 11 157

Orlando (FL) 94 23 -71 43 129 85

Owensboro (KY) 73 11 -62 86 129 15

Palm Beach (FL) 91 24 -67 36 100 113

Paterson (NJ) 146 120 -26 135 65 167

Pensacola–Tallahassee (FL) 5 64 59 49 16 35

Peoria (IL) 34 21 -13 76 44 46

Philadelphia (PA) * 164 158 -6 129 111 161

Phoenix (AZ) 50 41 -9 93 102 4

Pittsburgh (PA) 171 161 -10 140 122 152

Portland (ME) 151 88 -63 167 106 106

Portland (OR) * 42 52 10 56 37 91

Providence (RI) 162 171 9 103 125 172

Pueblo (CO) 53 113 60 124 40 39

Raleigh (NC) 32 37 5 5 129 28

Rapid City (SD) 67 51 -16 41 129 51

Reno (NV) 85 152 67 11 129 104

Richmond (VA) 92 96 4 72 117 61

Rochester (NY) 174 160 -14 173 115 142

Rockford (IL) 53 124 71 23 35 145

Rockville Centre (NY) 175 175 0 148 126 173

Sacramento (CA) 88 50 -38 46 116 84

Saginaw (MI) 155 84 -71 164 129 94

Salina (KS) 77 28 -49 133 50 50

Salt Lake City (UT) 85 15 -70 47 129 68

San Angelo (TX) 130 89 -41 157 129 42

San Antonio (TX) * 121 109 -12 79 110 126

San Bernardino (CA) 128 69 -59 81 104 137

San Diego (CA) 93 139 46 82 25 146

San Francisco (CA) * 124 116 -8 97 83 140

San Jose (CA) 52 174 122 29 13 159

Santa Fe (NM) * 6 144 138 19 50 36

Santa Rosa (CA) 102 145 43 30 129 119

Savannah (GA) 2 67 65 14 2 24

Scranton (PA) 112 153 41 95 98 110

Seattle (WA) * 90 98 8 42 117 88

Shreveport (LA) 88 11 -77 61 129 56

Sioux City (IA) 126 119 -7 141 109 71

Sioux Falls (SD) 57 92 35 51 49 109

Spokane (WA) 47 114 67 69 57 67

Springfield (MO) 85 36 -49 113 129 2

Springfield (IL) 33 131 98 98 6 60

Springfield (MA) 124 155 31 161 42 117

St. Augustine (FL) 63 43 -20 83 79 53

St. Cloud (MN) 144 101 -43 160 92 112

St. Louis (MO) * 97 102 5 48 128 90

St. Paul–Minneapolis (MN) * 40 98 58 54 12 111

St. Petersburg (FL) 78 39 -39 78 61 95

Steubenville (OH) 21 108 87 102 20 18

Stockton (CA) 41 18 -23 30 62 86

Superior (WI) 76 97 21 133 50 48

Syracuse (NY) 113 167 54 107 82 116

Toledo (OH) 97 154 57 101 120 45

Trenton (NJ) 70 121 51 38 56 132

Tucson (AZ) 100 169 69 59 129 87

Tulsa (OK) 37 33 -4 100 62 12

Tyler (TX) 23 7 -16 1 129 13

Venice (FL) 16 79 63 4 29 89

Victoria (TX) 122 131 9 44 129 144

Washington (DC) * 48 71 23 105 48 41

Wheeling–Charleston (WV) 8 29 21 60 26 22

Wichita (KS) 44 22 -22 66 104 19

Wilmington (DE) 55 65 10 25 64 115

Winona (MN) 158 117 -41 142 129 120

Worcester (MA) 126 148 22 120 45 156

Yakima (WA) 105 10 -95 130 129 29

Youngstown (OH) 80 150 70 71 68 100