Launching a multi-year, multi-million dollar campaign largely based upon a dubious survey does not instill confidence among the laity.
In August 2019, Pew Research published a study suggesting just one-third of U.S. Catholics believed in transubstantiation. The study went on to say:
“In fact, nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69%) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion ‘are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.’ Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that ‘during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.’”
The apoplectic reactions came within days. Bishop Robert Barron posted a video on social media and stated:
“It’s hard to describe how angry I feel after reading what the latest @pewresearch study reveals about understanding of the Eucharist among Catholics.”
Barron was not the only person to be duped by the Pew study. Various other Catholic reporters and commentators cited the Pew study as if were the gospel truth, including Trent Horn, Mark Pattison, James Keane, Fr. Thomas Reese and Charles Collins, to name just a few.
There was one notably one exception to the “sky is falling” clamor. Writing for Ascension Press, Fr. Thomas Dailey expressed concerns about the Pew findings, stating:
“In terms of understanding how research reports fit into this search process, we need to appreciate how data is derived. Otherwise, headlines become harbingers of truths that may not hold true.”
Nonetheless, U.S. bishops proceeded to approve a $28 million Eucharistic Revival campaign at their fall 2021 general assembly. That figure prompted Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the U.S. Military Services to ask how the bishops could successfully market an initiative with a price tag that would seem “scandalous” to many Catholics:
“That’s my budget for four years for the archdiocese, and I would imagine in much smaller dioceses, that probably represents much more.”
While concerns expressed by Bishop Barron and others were certainly admirable if the Pew findings reflected reality, the bishops should have definitely taken more time to analyze the Pew findings before launching a major initiative. It now appears the bishops were basing their decision on dubious findings that likely resulted in them making an investment that targeted the wrong Catholics.
Real Presence Coalition Survey
An information group of Catholics called the Real Presence Coalition (RPC) conducted a national survey in July 2024 in an effort to assist the U.S. bishops better understand the underlying issues contributing to a loss of faith in the Real Presence.
The survey revealed 95% of Catholics who attended Mass on at least a weekly basis actually believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Because this finding appeared to be out-of-synch with the Pew study, the RPC decided to take a closer look at the Pew data.
After acquiring the detailed data of the Pew study, a comparison of the RPC and Pew results showed that belief in the Real Presence correlated to the frequency of Mass attendance.
A separate 2023 study conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) on behalf of the McGrath Institute for Church Life revealed the same findings: 95% of Catholics who attend Mass on at least a weekly basis believe in the Real Presence. Timothy P. O’Malley, the Associate Director for Research at the McGrath Institute, stated in a column:
“The problem with the Pew Report is that it does not quite reveal what it claims to, namely, what the belief of ordinary Catholics around the Eucharist is.“
O’Malley goes on to pose the logical question:
Based on the results of the survey, which are publicly available here, what does all of this mean? Should the USCCB immediately shut down the Eucharistic Revival, turning attention elsewhere?
Should the Bishops Have Acted Differently?
There is no question the U.S. Bishops misread the Pew Survey findings. They launched the Eucharistic Revival in response to what they believed to be a dramatic, across-the-board loss of faith in the Real Presence amongst all Catholics.
It is fair to ask whether the money spent by the USCCB might not have made better invested in targeting fallen-away Catholics who fail to attend Mass on a regular basis. As it turns-out, most of the Catholics participating in the Eucharistic Revival where regular Mass goers who already believed in the Real Presence. If effect, the Eucharistic Revival campaign was largely preaching to the choir.
But this is what comes of a mindset that looks to “big ideas” and “big events” to address “big problems,” where simple and honest solutions would suffice. One can only imagine the thought process that fails to ask serious questions about what happens after the big, expensive event takes place. Rallies, conferences, and other such events are effective in politics, but are they appropriate instruments for evangelization and catechesis? All one needs to do is look to the evangelizing work of the saints to see that much more was done with far less and to a greater effect.
Rather than spending $28 million on a Eucharistic Congress, the bishops themselves should be leading Eucharistic processions in public places. The bishops should be leading retreats in parishes to preach on the Eucharist, they should be making the rounds to different parishes to lead their congregations in Eucharistic adoration, and they should be working to undo the damage done by relaxed practices regarding the Most Blessed Sacrament such as forbidding Holy Communion in the hand. At the very least, the bishops would have been better served by implementing some of the common-sense recommendations from the laity resulting from the Real Presence Survey, such as:
- Encouraging the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling;
- Catechizing the faithful;
- Promoting greater reverence for the Eucharist;
- Eliminating the use of Extraordinary Ministers;
- Withholding the Eucharist from public sinners; and
- Increasing Eucharistic events such as Adoration and Benedictions.
There’s still time for U.S. bishops to take these recommendations under consideration. Such measures would be implemented without any fanfare and are very low-cost. But this kind of work would require the bishops themselves to roll back their sleeves, get out of their chanceries, and do the hard work of shepherding their flocks. It’s hard to know whether these ideas hadn’t been considered because they are so simple or were overlooked because they lacked panache, but one thing is certain – they wouldn’t cost $28 million.
Leave a Reply