UP FRONT
Bridging the Gap Between Research and Pastoral Practice
Mary Bendyna |  Spring 2009


Sound research makes a real contribution to fruitful pastoral planning.

In an article published in 1967 in the Review of Religious Research, Francis X. Gannon made the case for the need to “bridge the research gap” in the Catholic church. “For too long,” Gannon wrote, “the researchers and the organizational churchmen have, on the surface of things, been at loggerheads, living seemingly in splendid isolation from each other.” What the church needed, Gannon argued, was a kind of “ecumenism” within the church between those who study the church’s religious and social mission and pastoral horizons and those responsible for carrying out the church’s mission and ministry in the United States and elsewhere.

The article, written at a time of tremendous change in the church in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, highlighted the urgent need for the church’s decision-makers to be informed by sound research both in renewing the church and in confronting the issues and challenges of the day. It also noted that, contrary to what some people thought at the time, considerable research that could be helpful to the church had already been conducted. However, much of this research was not well known, and most of its findings had not been applied. “Too often,” Gannon lamented, the research conclusions that were so needed by the church and its decision-makers ended up “lodged on the dusty shelves of academe.”

Gannon attributed the failure of the church to make use of the results of research to the way academic specialists approach their research and present their findings as well as to the attitudes of church leaders and pastoral ministers toward social science in general and research in particular. On the one hand, academic researchers are reluctant to address practical concerns, and some consider it demeaning to interpret the significance of their findings for decision-makers, concerned that such activities could compromise their scientific objectivity and neutrality. On the other hand, many in the church are skeptical about social science and wary or dismissive of research findings, viewing them as too abstract and too far removed from “the real world of the church.” Many are simply unable to make much sense out of the “technical jargon and tentative conclusions of research specialists.”

Whatever the causes of the research gap, the consequence was that academic researchers and decision-makers in the church had largely failed to communicate with each other and interpret their needs and interests for each other, at least up to the time of the Gannon article. This situation appeared to be changing, however. In the rest of that article, Gannon described two separate but not unrelated events that he believed signaled a change in the attitudes about research and its place in planning and decision-making in the church. One was the convening and “research soundings” of the Second Vatican Council and the other was the formation of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), where Gannon was on the staff.

Council Documents

The documents of the Second Vatican Council made a number of pointed references to the value of the social sciences and the role research must play in renewing the church and in adapting the work of the church to the needs of the day. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes), for example, states that
In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature faith.

The Decree Concerning the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church (Christus dominus) makes an even stronger case for social science research:
The forms of the apostolate should be properly adapted to the needs of the present day, with regard not only for man’s spiritual and moral circumstances but also for his social, demographic and economic conditions. Religious and social research, through offices of pastoral sociology, contributes much to the efficacious and fruitful attainment of that goal, and it is highly recommended.

Vatican II generated a sense of urgency and enthusiasm for using research for pastoral planning and for implementing the vision of Council. It was the widely felt need of church leaders—bishops, major superiors, and lay leaders —to have reliable data to guide apostolic action that led to the creation of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate in 1964, although plans for establishing CARA had long been under way. In his article, Gannon describes the founding and early work of CARA, a research center uniquely structured and positioned to serve the applied research needs of the church and its decision-makers and to bridge the gap between research and practice.

Since opening for business in 1965, CARA has conducted hundreds of studies and produced thousands of reports on virtually every aspect of church life. Over the years, CARA research has ranged from relatively small-scale, narrowly focused studies for individual institutions such as parishes, schools, and religious congregations to very large-scale, multi-faceted studies that examine issues and trends at the national and international levels. Whether commissioned by a specific organization to meet its particular needs and interests or designed to address issues of interest and concern to a broader audience, these studies have sought to provide the church with the data it needs to carry out its mission and ministries more effectively.

In the nearly forty-five years since CARA was founded, many others have stepped into the breach between social science research and pastoral practice. As Gannon noted in his article, considerable research that could benefit the church was already under way by the time of the Second Vatican Council and the founding of CARA. Some of the scholars who began their research during that earlier period continued their work and were soon joined by others. Over the years, a succession of scholars has emerged to conduct research and to interpret the significance of their findings for the church. Noted scholars such as the Rev. Joseph Fichter, sj, the Rev. Andrew Greeley, Sister Marie Augusta Neal, snd, Dean Hoge, James Davidson, and William D’Antonio, to name just a few, have provided data and insights on topics ranging from priesthood, religious life, and lay ministry to Catholic education and parish life to the characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of “ordinary” Catholics.

In the decades immediately following Vatican II, many dioceses established offices of research and planning to guide renewal and pastoral planning in parishes and other diocesan institutions and ministries. Some Catholic organizations and associations also established departments or offices to conduct research and plan for their particular area of ministry. Still others have commissioned research studies to provide the information they required for good planning and effective ministry.

Although many individuals and organizations have helped to bridge the research gap in the church, perhaps no one was able to do so quite as effectively as the priest-sociologist Msgr. Philip Murnion, the founder of the National Pastoral Life Center. Through his research on parish life and pastoral ministry and his work with NPLC, Murnion was able to connect research and pastoral practice in a continuous feedback loop, with research informing practice and practice informing research.

The work of university-based researchers, diocesan and institutional research and planning offices, and applied research centers like NPLC and CARA suggests that the church has come a long way in using research to inform pastoral planning and pastoral practice. There are numerous examples of how social science research has been used over the years to help church leaders and pastoral ministers understand and respond to changing circumstances and changing needs. However, research findings and their implications for the church have not always been welcomed or appreciated. Indeed, after the initial fervor in the wake of Vatican II, enthusiasm for research has waned, and many of the attitudes about research that Gannon described more than 40 years ago have persisted. In recent years, many research and planning offices have closed, particularly at the diocesan level, and other research efforts have been curtailed. Still, despite many obstacles, a great deal of research in service to the church continues.

Although much has changed since Gannon wrote in the 1960s, the challenges the church faces today are at least as great, if not greater, than those it faced in the years following the Second Vatican Council. The church in the United States today is in the midst of significant social, demographic, and institutional change. Perhaps more than ever, the church and its decision-makers need the data and insights research can provide to respond in the present and plan for the future.

There are countless ways social science research can help church leaders and pastoral ministers understand and respond to changes in the church and in the world. For example, surveys of parishioners can help a parish identify needs, evaluate programs, and set priorities. Demographic studies can help a diocese understand and plan for the changing composition and distribution of its population. Studies of pastoral ministers and those they serve can help a ministry association understand its members and better prepare them for ministry. Surveys of the Catholic population can help church leaders identify lacunae in knowledge and understanding of church teaching and prepare a pastoral response.

For these and other research efforts to be successful in assisting the church in carrying out its religious and social mission, however, we must continually find ways to bridge the research gap. This means that researchers and decision-makers must find ways to communicate with each other and interpret their needs and interests for each other without compromising their respective roles and responsibilities.

Mary Bendyna, RSM, is executive director and senior research associate at CARA, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.