The Case Against Evangelism

At one time, evangelism, converting those outside the Church, was our most difficult and potentially rewarding task. For many on fire with the Faith it was the frontline of spiritual warfare and perhaps the most effective way to meet the Church’s greatest need. That time, however, has passed. I pray that it will come again, but for now our community has more challenging, more intimidating and more humbling work to do. 

Responding to a Crisis            

A few years ago, when the financial need for parish closures became impossible to ignore, my archdiocese announced that emergency decision-making would be part of a program called “All Things New!” (ATN!!!), which featured a logo full of colorful, cheery starbursts shaped like flowers in bloom. I immediately leapt to the conclusion that our retreat into fewer buildings would be accompanied by (and overshadowed by) an ambitious (and long overdue) effort to end the ongoing loss of souls and allow the Catholic community to expand like never before. My leap was, however, premature. A remedy for the problem was never on the menu. The only “New Thing” proposed (aside from a shortened list of parishes) was a greater emphasis on evangelization. 

A webpage announced the program’s three guiding principles:

• Intentional Stewardship,
• Unceasing Prayer, and
• A Unifying Vision for Evangelization.

Certainly “Intentional Stewardship” belonged in the big three. Financial crises require careful financial planning. “Unceasing Prayer” also belonged, but because I missed in my guess about the existence of a plan to stem the loss of souls, I also guessed wrong about the plan for prayer. I had imagined that it would begin with period of mourning during which we would dwell on the ongoing tragedy and grieve together. Next, we would pray for and seek a clear understanding of its causes and our responsibility for them. Finally, we would pray unceasingly for the grace to persevere in changing ourselves to better protect those we love and those we should love. In fact, ATN!!! did not encourage any of that. Instead, it urged us pray unceasingly for the “success” of ATN!!! whatever that might mean.

The inclusion of “A Unifying Vision for Evangelization”, however, had me baffled completely. How could it possibly be relevant to diocesan downsizing? The offspring of Catholics usually abandon the Church as children or very young adults. The damage had been done, or their proper religious formation had been left undone during their childhood. Evangelists do not (and should not) address their efforts to the children of Catholic parents. Consequently, they cannot, even theoretically, reduce the inter-generational shrinking of the faithful.

Furthermore, evangelism cannot possibly make up for the loss of our descendants. If the number of U.S. Catholics is fifty million now and will be half that in 2056, we’d have to convert twenty-five million individuals in thirty years to compensate. That’s not happening. And, although new converts may be particularly enthusiastic about the faith, we don’t know that their descendants will be. After a while the generations born to the converts are likely to fall away at the same rate as those born to present-day cradle Catholics. No. Neither evangelism nor any other part of the ATN!!! program was designed to remedy the tragic, ongoing loss of souls.

The Purpose of Expensive Consultant-led Closure Programs

To understand the inclusion of evangelism, we must first understand the purpose of consultant-led parish-closure programs. Why, during financial crises, would bishops spend embarrassingly large^[1] sums of money on teams of lay consultants?

They do not hire consultants for help making closure decisions. Chancery officials have all the data they need for that. They know the geographical layout of the parishes and for each parish they know (a) its attendance history, (b) its demographic history including the ages of its parishioners, (c) its patterns of income and expenses, and (d) the condition of its buildings. Their accountants long ago mastered the design and use of spreadsheets. Accordingly, they have the ability, in house, to develop plans to save whatever money they want while minimizing the adverse effects on parishioners to be displaced.

They do not hire consultants to reverse the diminishing number of practicing Catholics. Before and after paying out the big money, they expect the shrinkage to continue at the same geometric rate.^[2] Nor do they hire consultants to improve the clarity of their communications with the laity. Bishops, diocesan officials and parish priests are confident of their ability to communicate orally and in writing, and most would be offended if a team of upwardly mobile lay consultants offered to help them improve those skills.

Parish-closure consultants earn their fees by teaching diocesan leaders how to confuse us  and distract us from the problem behind the closures: the fact that for the last 60 years or so the children of devout Catholics have included fewer devout Catholics and many lukewarm Catholics, Protestants, Deists, agnostics and atheists.^[3] If we think about that long enough, we may be sad, we may be angry, we may look for someone to blame, and we may decide that “business as usual” for the Church in the U.S. is not an option. If diocesan leaders were to announce impending closures clearly and succinctly, parishioners would have to face these disturbing thoughts at least every Sunday for many months or even years. Consider the effect of an announcement like this:

Good morning. The number of Catholic is decreasing and that those who remain are not getting any younger. Many nominal Catholics don’t attend weekly Mass and give little or no financial support to the Church. Consequently, to cover expenses and better utilize our few priests we must close sixty percent (60%) of our parishes and five (5) of our schools as soon as possible. Please don’t be sad. After all, you still have the benefit of the teachings and the sacraments of the One True Church — even though most of your great-grandchildren won’t. Thank you and please drive safely.

As a rule, our nation’s bishops refuse to discuss closure programs in a simple, straightforward way. They won’t even call them by a descriptive name. They never say “closure-program” or “downsizing” or “retrenchment” or even “right-sizing.” Instead, consultants help them choose names to give the impression that the closures are only a small part of a greater movement full of positive changes, e.g., “All Things New!” in St. Louis, “Beacons of Light!” in Cincinnati, “Road to Renewal!” in Buffalo, “Our Faith, Our Future!” in Grand Rapids, and “Forward in Faith!” in Newark.  

They preserve that false impression by scheduling a series of vague and misleading messages and assigning pointless busywork to consume as much of our time and energy as possible. In St. Louis they told us that all the laity would be included in decision-making without specifying the decisions in which we would be involved or the nature of our involvement. Some of us prepared to discuss the causes of the shrinkage and possible solutions. Others got ready to argue for the smallest overall number of closures while others marshalled arguments for sparing their home parishes even if others had to be closed. 

ATN!!! spokespeople asked each of us to complete a long questionnaire about the vitality and effectiveness of our home parish. Activists rallied their friends and neighbors to answer the questions to show their parishes in the best possible light. Some of them were sure their home parish was among the “best” and most worthy of continuing. Others struggled with conflicting thoughts and feelings. Was their home parish doing enough evangelizing? Was its liturgy sufficiently “vibrant”? Its music sufficiently “uplifting”? Its youth programs sufficiently “formative”? Was it sinful to tilt our assessments in a positive direction? Later the spokespeople asked us to complete equally detailed questionnaires about our local parochial schools. Again, many struggled with their answers expending significant amounts of time and emotional energy on them.

It was all useless busywork. The questionnaires ignored the cause of the problem and did not solicit solutions to it. Furthermore, our answers played no part in the closure decisions which were never to be based upon the vitality or effectiveness of individual institutions. They were always to be based upon the geographic, demographic and financial data already available in the Chancery before the program began. 

Those concerned about the shrinkage were frustrated. Those hoping to argue for limited closures never got the chance. Some saw this coming and endlessly complained that “the fix is in” and that “the archbishop has already made his list.” They plotted and planned, looking forward to the day they could announced that “we told you so.” Others were misled by the promise of “listening sessions” to be held in each parish so everyone could express themselves and be heard. In the end, the primary “listeners” at these sessions were parishioners who listened as the ATN!!! leaders described all the decisions already set in stone including the decision as to the number of institutions to close. Only after we were exhausted from an hour or more of listening were we given an opportunity to contribute by answering multiple-choice questions like: In area D, should we close (a) St. Ambrose parish or (b) St. Basil or (c) St. Charles? Finally, we were allowed a few minutes for unstructured discussion, which we were assured would be summarized and given to the decision-makers, presumably as recreational reading material since the time for decision-making had long passed.

By then, St. Louis Catholics, exhausted by the closure program and its pointless side-quests, were more than ready to adjust to fewer parishes and fewer schools and not think about downsizing, its causes or consequences for another thirty years. Prayers were answered. ATN!!! met all its goals. Success!

Distracting with Evangelism

Evangelism played a key role in this success story. Naming it as the third “guiding principle” of ATN!!! helped maintain the illusion that the closures were only a small part of greater plan for sweeping improvements. Our spirits rose as we called to mind the great missionaries of the past who converted whole nations in a single lifetime. Perhaps the Church would claim or reclaim parts of the U.S. for its own. 

Most of us felt no obligation to become evangelists ourselves. That work was for extraordinary people like St. Patrick or St. Francis Xavier who could leave home to spend years doing dangerous work in foreign lands. Or it was for inner-city saints who could immerse themselves in impoverished neighborhoods and inspire others with their personal charisma. We were too old or tired or sinful or white or burdened with responsibility to consider such work. Nonetheless, we were glad that someone would be doing it. No reason to worry about future parish closures. The consultants had everything under control.

Evangelism had an even greater effect on those few who volunteered for it. Even anticipating such work is stressful. How will I find the time? Will I be able to speak naturally? Persuasively? Will I be intimidated? How will I react if my message is rejected and rejected repeatedly? One of my sons and his wife, both introverts and busy parents of two preschoolers, took up the challenge and attended ATN!!! evangelization classes. During the process, they had neither time nor emotional energy for worrying about the shrinking of the faithful. Once the closures were completed, the classes stopped, and the subject was never raised again. 

Distracting the evangelization volunteers had an outsized impact on the consultants’ mission because those volunteers were an elite group – full of courage, devotion and energy. They were, in fact, precisely the kind of people most likely to have asked hard questions about the decreasing numbers of Catholics and to have insisted upon finding a remedy. By leading them down the evangelization path the consultants help protect the Chancery from pressure to act responsibly.

Smelling the Coffee

The most serious problem for the Church in the U.S. is the number of people raised Catholic who effectively leave the Church before or upon reaching adulthood. It threatens the continued existence of the American Church and the salvation of millions of souls. The souls lost this way every year far outnumber those we could conceivably evangelize here and abroad. Furthermore, the credibility of our evangelists will eventually crumble as potential converts learn that our own offspring do not accept our faith. 

Moreover, as the world’s most technologically and economically advanced nation, we are usually the first to face the spiritual challenges posed by new technology and new heights of comfort and affluence. We must learn to overcome those challenges for our salvation and that of others seeking to learn from us.

When the stakes are this high, avoidance and procrastination are the most childish of responses. Problems worsen when ignored.^[4] Nonetheless, we’ve seen our leaders spend millions of dollars and thoroughly embarrass themselves trying to persuade the faithful to ignore the tragic loss of so many of our children. 

Let us acknowledge the problem, however painful that may be. Let us mourn for past failures and have the humility to acknowledge our part in them. Then let us proceed with the work of giving our children the formation and anything else they need to keep the faith in this increasingly sinful world. And let’s not do it in isolation, but as members of a united community. And, above all, let’s not turn it over to the consultants.

Thank you for your kind attention.

^[1] The St. Louis Archdiocese is so embarrassed by the size of the consultant fees that, despite pressure from a variety of Catholic groups, they have kept the amounts a closely-guarded secret to this day.

^[2] The Chancery in St. Louis expects to reduce the number of parishes by another 60% in 25 to 30 years.

^[3] EWTN reported on a study indicating that only 15% of children raised Catholic still practice as adults. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHEGmeQyxWM

^[4] Consider our ostrich-like response to the early sexual abuse scandals.