Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategically Prophetic Priests: An Analysis of Competing Principal Influence on Clergy Political Action

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Religious Research

Abstract

We assess clergy political activism dynamics using data from a national survey of Roman Catholic priests. Like their elite counterparts in interest groups and other secular political institutions, clergy encounter expectations and demands from competing principals when determining how to publicly act on key political issues. Building on insights from decades of clergy politics scholarship, we leverage new perspectives of principal-based influence by examining how Catholic priest perception of both local parish finances and diocesan bishop expectations affect their reported political actions. Our findings are consistent with the notion that parish and bishop principals condition priest political behavior, controlling for priest ideology. However, priest political action proves more sensitive to parish financial concerns than bishop encouragement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interestingly, the notion of denomination leaders sanctioning clergy is the opposite of Campbell and Pettigrew’s (1959) characterization of these upper-tier elites. .

  2. In terms of items that have a reasonable chance of varying among Catholic priests, Jelen found 93 % of priests to be white; we found 95 % to be so. Jelen found 1 % of priests to be under the age of 60; we found 3 % to be so. Jelen found 41 % of priests to be located in a farm or small town; we found 37 % to be so. Jelen found that 10 % of priests agreed that “the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, both in matters of faith and in historical, geographical, and other secular matters”; we found 6 % to agree with this statement.

  3. 52 % of our sample voted for “pro-life” John McCain (with 43 % voting for President Obama). Given that 91 % of priest respondents admitted strong opposition to abortion, it is arguable that the vote for McCain was based on McCain’s position on this central political issue for the Church. In reflecting the Church’s general political tenor, which may be considered both economically liberal and socially conservative, a plurality of our respondents (33.9 %) placed themselves at the mid-point of our 0–10 political ideology scale. Priests also show congruence between their personal preferences on political issues important to the Church and the stated USCCB position on abortion and immigration. This suggests that priest ideological preferences are aligned with the USCCB, especially on abortion, which may indicate some degree of local bishop influence on priest behavior (especially if priests believe greater utility comes from aligning with the bishops over their parishioners).

  4. We gave priests one additional option to select, which asked about the Cooperative Clergy Survey item “Preached a whole sermon on a controversial issue” (see Guth et al. 1997). We have excluded this item from the analysis because we do not believe it is actually a “civic” type behavior, but is, rather, one that priests would more naturally engage in as part of their parish duties. However, we did run this model with the “sermon” item included in a 0–4 count. We did not find any significant differences in the results compared to what is reported in Table 1. Hence, we treat the “sermon” item as the excluded category in these models.

  5. We explored interaction terms between priest and parishioner ideological difference and the finances concern indicator, priest and bishop ideological difference with the bishop encourages variable, and a triple interaction between priest, parish, and bishop ideology. And, while these would have provided additional insight into the dynamics confronting priests in their political action, none were significant (and therefore not included in the reported models).

References

  • Alston, Jon P., and Wm.Alex McIntosh. 1979. Determinants of religious participation: An assessment. Sociological Quarterly 20(1): 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ammerman, Nancy T. 1981. The civil rights movement and the clergy in a southern community. Sociological Analysis 41: 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith, David. 1995. Campaign contributions and access. The American Political Science Review 89: 566–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeghley, John K., E.Wilbur Bock, and Mitchell B. Cochran. 1990. Religious change and alcohol use: An application of reference group and socialization theory. Sociological Forum 5: 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, Timothy A. 1993. The politics of the American catholic hierarchy. Political Science Quarterly 108: 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfano, Brian Robert. 2009. Choosing constituent cues: reference group influence on clergy political speech. Social Science Quarterly 90: 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfano, Brian R., Elizabeth A. Oldmixon, and Jane Suiter. 2013. Assessing clergy attitudes: Ideology and institutional superiors. Journal of Church and State: cst028v1-cst028.

  • Campbell, Ernest Q., and Thomas F. Pettigrew. 1959. Christians in racial crisis: A study of littlerock’s ministry. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS News. 2012. Catholics hear anti-Obama letter in church. January 30.

  • Chappell, Henry W. 1982. Campaign contributions and congressional voting: A simultaneous probit-tobit model. The Review of Economics and Statistics 64: 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cieslak, Michael J. 1984. Parish responsiveness and parishioner commitment. Review of Religious Research 26: 132–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffin, Brent. 2005. Moral deliberation in congregations. In Taking faith seriously, ed. Mary Jo Bane, Brent Coffin, and Richard Higgins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E.S.Sue, and R.Laura Olson. 2001. Clergy in politics: Political choices and consequences. In Christian clergy in American politics, ed. E.S.Sue Crawford, and R.Laura Olson. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Bill C. 1981. Mass appeal. New York, NY: Dramatists Play Service, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djupe, Paul A., and Christopher Gilbert. 2009. The political influence of church. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djupe, Paul A., and J.Tobin Grant. 2001. Religious institutions and political participation in America. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40(2): 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djupe, Paul A., and Jacob Neiheisel. 2008. Clergy deliberation on gay rights and homosexuality. Polity 40: 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, Emile. 1933. The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1998. The choices justices make. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox News Latino. 2012. Bishops urge catholics to promote humane immigration reform. February 7.

  • Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Edward H. Kaplan. 2004. The illusion of learning from observational research. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, ed. Ian Shapiro, Roger M. Smith, and Tarek E. Massoud. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeley, Andrew M. 1976. Catholic schools in a declining church. Mission, Kansas: Sheed and Ward, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Donald P., Brian R. Calfano, and Peter Aronow. Field experimental designs for the study of media effects. Political Communication. (forthcoming).

  • Grier, Kevin B., and Michael C. Munger. 1991. Committee assignments, constituent preferences and campaign contributions. Economic Inquiry 29: 24–43.

  • Guth, James L., John C. Green, Corwin E. Smidt, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and Margaret M. Poloma. 1997. The bully pulpit: The politics of protestant clergy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1969. The gathering storm in churches. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerty, Barbara Bradley. 2012. “Catholic bishops revolt against birth control rules.” National Public Radio: Morning Edition (aired February 2).

  • Hilbe, Joseph M. 2011. Negative binomial regression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hoffmann, John P., Bruce R. Lott, and Catherine Jeppsen. 2010. Religious giving and the boundedness of rationality. Sociology of Religion 71: 323–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofrenning, Daniel J.B. 1995. In Washington but not of it: The prophetic politics of religious lobbyists. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoge, Dean R. 1992. Introduction: The problem of understanding church giving. Review of Religious Research 36: 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoge, Dean R., Joseph J. Shields, and Stephen Soroka. 1993. Sources of stress experienced by catholic priests. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35: 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoge, Dean R., Joseph J. Shields, and Douglas L. Griffin. 1995. Changes in satisfaction and institutional attitudes of catholic priests, 1970–1993. Sociology of Religion 56: 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, Ted. 2001. Notes for a theory of clergy as political leaders. In Christian clergy in American politics, ed. E.S.Sue Crawford, and R.Laura Olson. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, Ted. 2003. Catholic priests and the political order: The political behavior of catholic pastors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 42: 591–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelen, Ted. 2004. Roman Catholic priests. In Pulpit and politics: Clergy in American politics at the advent of the millennium, ed. Corwin E. Smidt. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary. 1986. How not to lie with statistics: avoiding common mistakes in quantitative political science. American Journal of Political Science 30: 666–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, John W. 1977. Models of legislative voting. Journal of Politics 39: 563–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, Terry M. 1982. Regulatory performance and presidential administration. American Journal of Political Science 26: 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosca, Gaetano. 1939. The ruling class: Elementi di Scienza politics. New York: McGraw- Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential power and the modern presidents. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niebuhr, Richard H. 1951. Christ & culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, Edward C., Hua Wang, and Chunrong Ai. 2004. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal 4: 154–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Laura R. 2000. Filled with spirit and power: Protestant clergy in politics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. 2006. Attitudes toward Immigration: In the pulpit and the pew. Washington, DC: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 4/26/2006.

  • Pew Research Center. 2009. Support for abortion slips: Issue ranks lower on the agenda. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 10/1/2009.

  • Pew Research Center. 2010. Few say religion shapes immigration, environment views. Washington, DC: Pew Center for the People and the Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Religion Research Institute. 2012. Majority of catholics think employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover birth control at no cost. http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/. Accessed February 7, 2012.

  • Quinley, Harold E. 1974. The prophetic clergy: Social activism among protestant ministers. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter, S.L., L.R. Murphy, and J.J. Hurrell Jr. 1990. Prevention of work-related psychological disorders. American Psychologist 45: 1146–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, John T., and B.Dan Wood. 1998. Controlling the IRS: Principals, principles, and public administration. American Journal of Political Science 42: 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, John T., Jim Twombly, and Barbara Headrick. 1991. Street-level political controls over federal bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 80: 1249–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Jeffrey, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipper, F., and C.L. Wilson. 1992. The impact of managerial behaviors on group performance, stress, and commitment. In Impact of leadership, ed. K. Clark, M. Clark, and D. Campbell. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smidt, Corwin E. 2004. Pulpit and politics: Clergy in American politics at the advent of the millennium. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Gregory Allen. 2008. Politics in the parish: The political influence of catholic priests. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, Rodney, Bruce D. Foster, Charles Y. Glock, and Harold Quinley. 1971. Wayward shepherds: Prejudice and the Protestant Clergy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinfels, Peter. 2003. A people adrift: The crisis of the Roman Catholic Church in America. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg, Nicholas W., and Bomi Kang. 2012. The effect of supervisory style, perceived support, idealism, and self esteem on burnout. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business 4: 98–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and inequality: Civic volunteerism an American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, Kenneth D., Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill. 1988. Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review 82: 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, Barry R., and Mark J. Moran. 1983. Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control: Regulatory policy making by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91: 765–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Alan J. 1973. Political activism among the clergy: Sources of a deviant role. Review of Religious Research 14: 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, John. 1973. Introduction to social movements. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, B.Dan. 1992. Modeling federal implementation as a system. American Journal of Political Science 36: 40–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Missouri State University, 901 South National Avenue, Strong Hall 332, Springfield, MO, 65897, USA

    Brian Robert Calfano

  2. Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305340, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

    Elizabeth A. Oldmixon

  3. Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 20057-1203, USA

    Mark Gray

Authors
  1. Brian Robert Calfano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth A. Oldmixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Oldmixon.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Variable Specification

DV1 Publicly Engages in Civic Activities

Engages in “civic” activities either in parish or larger community (these including sponsoring candidate forums, voter registration drives, parish and community discussion groups.) 0-3 additive scale.

DV2 Publicly Supports Church’s “Pro-life” Position

Engages in public displays of support for “pro-life” policies either in parish or larger community (these include taking part in “pro-life” demonstrations, supporting crisis pregnancy centers, holding forums on church teachings about abortion) 0-3 additive scale.

DV3 Publicly Supports Church’s Immigration Position

Engages in public displays of support for Church’s position on immigration policies either in parish or larger community (these include taking part in pro-immigration demonstrations, supporting government aid for immigrants irrespective of legal status, holding forums on church teachings about immigration) 0–3 additive scale.

Priest Ideology

Taken from the survey question: “How would you describe your overall political views?”, with “10” being “very conservative”.

Difference in Priest/Bishop Ideology

Taken from the survey questions: “How would you describe your overall political views?” “How would you describe your bishop’s overall political views?”, with “10” being “very conservative”. Variable represents the squared difference of the ideological distance between priest and perceived bishop ideology.

Difference in Priest/Parishioner Ideology

Taken from the survey questions: “How would you describe your overall political views?” “How would you describe your parishioners’ overall political views?”, with “10” being “very conservative”. Variable represents the squared difference of the ideological distance between priest ideology and perceived parishioner ideology.

Geographic Area

“In what type of area is your parish located?” 1-4 scale, with 4 being a “large city”, 3 “a suburb of a large city”, 2 “a town or small city”, 1 “a rural area”

Households in Parish

“About how many households are registered at your parish?”

Years as Priest

“In what year were you ordained?” Variable is calculated as the numerical difference between 2009 and respondent’s ordination year.

Bishop Encourages Priests to Make Political Statements

“My bishop encourages me to make political statements”, with 10 being “strongly agree”.

Priest Perception of Parish Financial Condition

“I am concerned about the financial condition of my parish”, with 10 being “strongly agree”.

Appendix 2 Interaction Risk Ratio Calculations

“Civic” Action Count

“Finances Concern”

 Slope (FC = 0): −.008 + −.006 × 0 = −.008 IRR = exp (−.008) = .992

 Slope (FC = 1): 008 + −.006 × 1 = −.014 IRR = exp (−.014) = .986

 Slope (FC = 2): −.008 + −.006 × 2 = −.020 IRR = exp (−.020) = .980

 Slope (FC = 3): −.008 + −.006 × 3 = −.026 IRR = exp (−.026) = .970

 Slope (FC = 4): −.008 + −.006 × 4 = −.016 IRR = exp (−.016) = .984

 Slope (FC = 5): −.008 + −.006 × 5 = −.022 IRR = exp (−.022) = .978

 Slope (FC = 6): −.008 + −.006 × 6 = −.028 IRR = exp (−.028) = .972

 Slope (FC = 7): −.008 + −.006 × 7 = −.034 IRR = exp (−.034) = .966

 Slope (FC = 8): −.008 + −.006 × 8 = −.040 IRR = exp (−.040) = .961

 Slope (FC = 9): −.008 + −.006 × 9 = −.046 IRR = exp (−.046 = .955

 Slope (FC = 10): −.008 + −.006 × 10 = −.052 IRR = exp (−.052) = .949

“Bishop Encourages”

 Slope (BE = 0): .081 + −.006 × 0 = .081 IRR = exp (.081) = 1.08

 Slope (BE = 1): .081 + −.006 × 1 = .075 IRR = exp (.075) = 1.07

 Slope (BE = 2): .081 + −.006 × 2 = .069 IRR = exp (.069) = 1.07

 Slope (BE = 3): .081 + −.006 × 3 = .063 IRR = exp (.063) = 1.06

 Slope (BE = 4): .081 + −.006 × 4 = .057 IRR = exp (.057) = 1.06

 Slope (BE = 5): .081 + −.006 × 5 = .051 IRR = exp (.051) = 1.05

 Slope (BE = 6): .081 + −.006 × 6 = .045 IRR = exp (.045) = 1.05

 Slope (BE = 7): .081 + −.006 × 7 = .039 IRR = exp (.039) = 1.04

 Slope (BE = 8): .081 + −.006 × 8 = .033 IRR = exp (.033) = 1.03

 Slope (BE = 9): .081 + −.006 × 9 = .027 IRR = exp (.027) = 1.03

 Slope (BE = 10): .081 + −.006 × 10 = .021 IRR = exp (.021) = 1.02

Total Action Count

“Finances Concern”

 Slope (FC = 0): −.075 + −.006 × 0 = −.075 IRR = exp (−.075) = .927

 Slope (FC = 1): −.075 + −.006 × 1 = −.081 IRR = exp (−.081) = .922

 Slope (FC = 2): −.075 + −.006 × 2 = −.087 IRR = exp (−.087) = .916

 Slope (FC = 3): −.075 + −.006 × 3 = −.093 IRR = exp (−.093) = .911

 Slope (FC = 4): −.075 + −.006 × 4 = −.099 IRR = exp (−.099) = .905

 Slope (FC = 5): −.075 + −.006 × 5 = −.105 IRR = exp (−.105) = .900

 Slope (FC = 6): −.075 + −.006 × 6 = −.111 IRR = exp (−.111) = .894

 Slope (FC = 7): −.075 + −.006 × 7 = −.117 IRR = exp (−.117) = .889

 Slope (FC = 8): −.075 + −.006 × 8 = −.123 IRR = exp (−.123) = .884

 Slope (FC = 9): −.075 + −.006 × 9 = −.129 IRR = exp (−.129) = .878

 Slope (FC = 10): −.075 + −.006 × 10 = −.135 IRR = exp (−.135) = .873

“Bishop Encourages”

 Slope (BE = 0): .131 + −.006 × 0 = .131 IRR = exp (.131) = 1.14

 Slope (BE = 1): .131 + −.006 × 1 = .125 IRR = exp (.125) = 1.13

 Slope (BE = 2): .131 + −.006 × 2 = .119 IRR = exp (.119) = 1.13

 Slope (BE = 3): .131 + −.006 × 3 = .113 IRR = exp (.113) = 1.12

 Slope (BE = 4): .131 + −.006 × 4 = .107 IRR = exp (.107) = 1.11

 Slope (BE = 5): .131 + −.006 × 5 = .101 IRR = exp (.101) = 1.11

 Slope (BE = 6): .131 + −.006 × 6 = .095 IRR = exp (.095) = 1.10

 Slope (BE = 7): .131 + −.006 × 7 = .089 IRR = exp (.089) = 1.09

 Slope (BE = 8): .131 + −.006 × 8 = .083 IRR = exp (.083) = 1.09

 Slope (BE = 9): .131 + −.006 × 9 = .077 IRR = exp (.077) = 1.08

 Slope (BE = 10): .131 + −.006 × 10 = .071 IRR = exp (.071) = 1.07

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calfano, B.R., Oldmixon, E.A. & Gray, M. Strategically Prophetic Priests: An Analysis of Competing Principal Influence on Clergy Political Action. Rev Relig Res 56, 1–21 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-013-0127-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-013-0127-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation