After last week’s reflection about contemporary young priests and American Catholics, this week I would like to offer some reflections about young Americans in “Generation Z.”

On October 4, 2025, Fox News claimed that members of Generation Z are returning to church in astounding numbers. Some people at once reacted that this was a new religious “great awakening” in America. But a leading religious trends researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, Ryan Burge, stressed that the Fox News assertion was really overblown: “We’re not seeing anything at the scale that would even begin to point in the direction of a sustained, significant, substantive revival in America right now.” (Religion News Service, October 21, 2025.)

Generation Z, often shortened to “Gen Z” and informally known as “Zoomers,” has approximately 70.79 million members, representing about 21% of the total U.S. population. They were born between 1997 and 2012. Many in Generation Z are now entering the full-time workforce.

Generation Z’s identity has been shaped by the digital age, climate anxiety, a shifting financial landscape, and COVID-19. They are known as “digital natives” because they are the first generation to grow up with the Internet very much a part of their daily life. Generation Z values fluidity, inclusion, and self-definition.

Another part of their identity: Generation Z is the least religious generation on record, with a large and growing number identifying as religiously unaffiliated, agnostic, or atheist. However, within this generation, there are pockets of increased religious interest, particularly among some young men who are drawn to more fundamentalist religions in a cultic way.

Generation Zers are also passionate about climate change and peace. But there is also a small number of Generation Z Republicans promoting Christian Nationalism; and many Generation Z Republicans voted for the incumbent U.S. president in 2024. Now, today, 67% disapprove of him.

Although Generation Zers generally identify as “spiritual,” Christianity doesn’t seem to resonate as much with them as it did with previous generations. About 45% of America’s Generation Z identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s most recent Religious Landscape Study– a 10% decline from the previous 2014 survey. More than half of the Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and a little over 70% of Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, identified as Christian. But less than a third of Generation Z attend religious services with any regularity.

Generation Z’s parents, belonging to Generation X, were the first generation to use “helicopter parenting,” an over-involved and overprotective style where parents hover over their children, micromanaging their lives and rushing to solve their problems. But Generation Z’s parents did very little to encourage their children’s regular participation in formal religion and to promote their religious development. Today, younger Generation Zers are driving the surge of Americans who identify as “religiously unaffiliated.”

Approximately 29% to 31% of contemporary American adults are religiously unaffiliated, meaning around 90 to 100 million people in the U.S. do not identify with a specific religion. This group, often called “nones,” includes atheists, agnostics, and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular.”

Religiously unaffiliated Americans express skepticism about the societal benefits of religion. American religious identity, in fact, has experienced nearly three decades of consistent decline. Research has shown that every generation of adults is somewhat less religious than the generation that preceded it. This pattern continues with Generation Z demonstrating less attachment to religion than the Millennial generation.

Yes, in terms of identity, Generation Z is the least religious generation yet. But Generation Z’s relationship with religion is complex, marked by a significant increase in religious disaffiliation and atheism but also a rise in “spiritual but not religious” beliefs, and an active search for meaning. They may reject dogma but are engaged with existential questions, spirituality, and ethics, sometimes in unconventional, non-institutional ways.

Curiously, Generation Z is the first modern generation of Americans in which men appear to be more religious than women. But careful observation is important here.

Generation Z men are more likely than Generation Z women to support Christian Nationalism, and they actually have strong ideas about repealing women’s right to vote! Generation Z men view themselves as victims of modern culture and see themselves as part of a cosmic struggle between good and evil. If these young men view themselves as victims, they will more likely identify with protective male-dominated far-right religious movements.

Generation Z women, on other hand hand, represent, what some observers see as the most leftwing demographic movement in modern U.S. history. They are convinced that both Democrats and Republicans have capitulated in a way to the current presidential administration’s authoritarianism. They came of age amid climate crisis, debt, job insecurity, and the growing threat of authoritarianism. They do not see compromise as civility, but rather as danger. If older generations saw politics as negotiation, Generation Z women see it as self-defense. According to Melissa Deckman, CEO of PRRI the Public Religion Research Institute, in her book The Politics of Gen Z (Columbia University Press), Generation Z men are becoming more conservative as well as increasingly indifferent to politics, but Generation Z women have not only become the most progressive cohort in US history but are also expected to outpace their male peers across virtually every measure of political involvement.

 

What do we do today?

I think concerned people should focus on Generation Zers’ interest in spiritual growth and making a positive impact on the world. Not lecturing to them but traveling with them in thoughtful conversation and collaboration.

• Jack

A new study about younger American Catholic priests highlights sharp differences between the outlook and experiences of older and younger clergy.

The National Study of Catholic Priests, released on October 15, 2025, by the Catholic University of America in Washington DC and conducted by the Gallup Poll, has found that younger Catholic clergy are far more conservative than their older counterparts. They are also not enthusiastic about their American Catholic bishops but remain positive about Pope Leo XIV.   

Among priests ordained before 1975, 70% described themselves as progressive. But on the other hand, 70% of priests ordained after 2000 self-identify as “conservative” or “orthodox” meaning pre-Vatican II (1962-1965) in mentality.

Younger American Catholic priests today are more likely to prioritize Eucharistic devotion, while older clergy focus on issues like climate change, immigration, the LGBTQ community, poverty, racism, and social justice. Younger clergy are also far less concerned about the question of women’s influence in the Church than their older peers. When it comes to outreach to the LGBTQ community, 66% of priests ordained before 1980 consider this a priority, but just 37% of priests ordained in 2000 or later agree.

Many American diocesan bishops have curtailed celebrations of Mass in Latin, according to the 1962 Missal, also known as the Tridentine Mass, following the publication of Pope Francis’ 2021 document Traditionis custodes, which effectively reversed his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI’s liberalization of the older form of the Mass. But for the younger clergy access to the Traditional Latin Mass has now become a priority. Personally, if the Mass reverts to Latin, I think Catholic worship will revert as well to a spectator event with the congregation piously watching the priest.

In the recent Catholic University of America study, younger priests reported burnout and loneliness to a higher degree than older priests. A higher percentage of them believe that they are being asked to do more than they ought to be doing. This is no doubt due to parish structural changes, which have led to growing concerns about sustainability in ministry, especially as parish demands increase. Since the year 2000, many American dioceses have closed and merged parishes amid demographic changes. While most parish priests had traditionally been responsible for only one parish, today 23% oversee two, and 17% three or more. But noteworthy as well is the decline in the number of ministering priests. Between 1970 and 2024, the number of priests fell by more than 40%, from 59,192 to 33,589, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

When it comes to contemporary political views, 61% of older priests say they are liberal compared to only 10% of younger clergy who self-identify that way. In fact, 51% of today’s younger priests, identify as politically conservative. 

When it comes to American Catholics in general who are registered voters, 53% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, while 43% affiliate with the Democratic Party. But 61% of White American Catholics align with the Republican Party; and 56% of Hispanic Catholics favor the Democratic Party.

American Catholics were mostly Democrats from the mid-19th century until the mid 1960s. Beginning with the decline of unions and big city machines, increased suburbanization, and upward mobility into the middle classes, Catholics drifted away from the liberalism of the Democratic Party.

Overall changes in today’s American Catholic Church are significant as well. Today, 20% of American adults describe themselves as Catholic. This is slightly lower than in 2007, when 24% of American adults identified as Catholic. The share of American Catholics who are Hispanic is rising. Currently, the American Catholic population is 54% White, 36% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 2% Black. But since 2007, the share who are White has dropped by 10 percentage points. Curiously, American Catholics tend to be older than Americans in general with 58% of Catholic adults being 50 or older.

Surprisingly, American Catholics today do not agree with official Roman Catholic teaching about abortion. While the official Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion, around 60% of American Catholics, according to the Pew Research Center, say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

I find it politically and religiously significant that three American Catholic bishops and a parish priest are among religious leaders the current U.S. President has appointed to his Religious Liberty Commission: Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco; Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois; and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort-Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. Joining them is Father Thomas Ferguson, pastor of Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Alexandria, Virginia.

The U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of a national religion has long been interpreted as a mandatory separation of church and state. By setting up his Religious Liberty Commission the President is brushing aside the historic U.S. separation of church and state.

Especially significant, politically, and religiously, six of the nine current U.S. Supreme Court justices are Catholic: Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. While most are conservative Catholics, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a more progressive American Catholic.

Even more significantly, Kevin Roberts, the conservative Catholic architect of the Project 2025, the blueprint for a MAGA dictatorship, has close ties to the far-right Catholic organization Opus Dei.

Historically, Opus Dei grew rapidly during the years of Francisco Franco’s Spanish dictatorship from 1936 to 1975. Many Opus Dei members supported Franco and served in his administration. After 1945, Opus Dei began to expand internationally. In 1982, the global organization was elevated by Pope John Paul II to a personal prelature with headquarters in Rome. (A Catholic personal prelature is a special ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a particular group of clergy and laity, governed by a prelate.) Opus Dei’s founder, the Spanish priest Josemaría Escrivá (1902-1975), was highly respected by Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) and was canonized by him in 2002.

An interesting report published on October 14, 2025, in InfoVaticana claims that Pope Leo XIV is on the verge of approving new Opus Dei statutes that would effectively dismantle Opus Dei as a personal prelature and replace it with three distinct juridical entities.

Some concluding thoughts about American Catholics and the born-in-USA current Pope. Right now, I suspect Pope Leo XIV may be enjoying a honeymoon-type phase among American priests and American Catholics. Currently 86% of American priests express a great deal of confidence in him. Overall, according to the Pew Research Center, 84% of American Catholics say they have a favorable view of Pope Leo. But, interestingly, most American Catholics say they really do not know much at all about the new pope.

• Jack

 

A trailblazer is usually the first person to do something and who shows that it is also possible for others to do the same.

This week, a reflection about women trailblazers: contemporary women who have broken barriers and inspire others.

My first thoughts are about Bishop Sarah Mullally who has been selected to become the new Archbishop of Canterbury. There have been105 male Archbishops of Canterbury since the establishment of the office in the 6th century. Bishop Sarah Mullally, as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, will be the first woman to hold that office and will be installed in a service at Canterbury Cathedral in March 2026. She became a priest in 2006 and was appointed as the first female Bishop of London in 2018.

Reflecting on her appointment, Bishop Mullally said she hopes to encourage her church “to continue to grow in confidence in the Gospel, to speak of the love that we find in Jesus Christ, and for it to shape our actions across the global Anglican Communion.”

Thinking about women trailblazers closer to home, at my alma mater, the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven), founded on December 9, 1425, we now have, for the first time in six hundred years, a woman Rector: Professor Séverine Vermeire, who was elected on May 20, 2025, and began her term on August 1, 2025. A medical doctor and professor of medecine at the KU Leuven, she is also Research Director of Biomedical Sciences at our university.

Rector Vermeire recently stressed that the KU Leuven must continue to strive for innovative and excellent education, and that “Quality and humanity must go hand in hand.”

At the KU Leuven, we also have for the first time, a woman dean of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, my friend Professor Bénédicte Lemmelijn. Bénédicte is a professor of Old Testament studies specializing in textual criticism. She is also a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission at the Vatican. In May 2022 she was elected dean of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies.

Under Dean Lemmelijn, about one third of the current professors are women. Bénédicte says there is a lot to learn from the wisdom and experience of her predecessors. “But now is a different time…. Hope, in this context, is about looking forward to a new future, about longing for a new perspective.”

Today, women trailblazers in education, theology, and ministry need our encouragement and support.

For several years I have been following the not always smooth and easy path of women seeking priestly ordination.

The “Philadelphia Eleven” for example were eleven women who were the first women ordained, but irregularly, as priests in the U.S. Episcopal Church, on July 29, 1974. In 1975 four women, the “Washington Four,” were also, irregularly, ordained in Washington DC. Then in 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirmed and explicitly authorized the ordination of women to the priesthood.

The ordination of women in the Anglican Communion, in fact, has been increasingly common in certain provinces since the 1970s. 

A Roman Catholic group that very much interests me is the Roman Catholic Women Priests movement, even though they have not yet been officially recognized by Catholic authorities.

Change comes slowly in the RCC. In April 1976, the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded unanimously: “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.” But on October 15, 1976, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome issued a document affirming: “The Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”

Pope John Paul II stirred things up a bit more with his May 22, 1994, document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. “We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women” the Pope wrote and continued “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” The Pope had wanted to describe the ban as “irreformable,” but met substantial resistance from high-ranking bishops who gathered at a special Vatican meeting in March 1995 to discuss the document.

Change in the Catholic Church has most often followed a three-stage process. First a movement is condemned. Secondly, when it continues and grows, the movement is tolerated as an experiment. Thirdly when the movement becomes widespread, it is allowed as “part of the Catholic tradition.”

This three-stage process is seen in the history of the Beguines a lay womens’ movement particularly in the Low Countries, in the 13th–16th centuries. Beguines pursued a life of contemplative prayer, study, and active service in the world. They were active in Leuven as early as 1205 and began to really flourish in 1234. Nevertheless, in 1312 Pope Clement V and his Council of Vienne condemned the Beguines as heretics and called for them to disband. This happened two years after a Beguine named Marguerite Porete had been condemned as a heretic by theologians from the University of Paris. She was burned at the stake in central Paris on June 1, 1310.

Scholars today argue that the real reason the Beguines were condemned was that they were independent women who did not properly submit to male authority. Men sought to gain control over these rebellious women. Just as many modern Christians see the LGBTQ+ Pride movement as degenerate, many Christian men in the Middle Ages felt the same about the Beguines. They regarded these women’s lifestyle as unnatural. They feared the very existence of the Beguines might corrupt and defile “God-ordained gender roles.”

In any event, the Beguines continued and flourished. The papal condemnation of the Beguines, however, was not reversed until 1321 by Pope John XXI. They were then permitted to officially resume their way of life.

Change of course comes when there are new understandings about our past. Today, women historians and women theologians are giving us new insights and added information which earlier male historians and theologians either did not know or simply wanted to hide or ignore.

We know today that in early Christianity, women presided at Eucharist and exercised various ministerial roles. An important book about this is: When Women Were Priests by Karen J. Torjesen, Professor Emerita of Religion at Claremont Graduate University. In an earlier post I have also mentioned The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination by Gary Macy, from Santa Clara University.

Today I know a number of women priests and bishops in what is known as the international Roman Catholic Women Priests movement. They are trailblazers and their day will come.

The mission of Roman Catholic Women Priests movement is to prepare, ordain, and support women who feel called by the Holy Spirit and have been called by their communities to priestly ministry.

This international movement is operating worldwide with two groups formed in the USA referred to as Roman Catholic Womenpriests-USA (RCWP-USA) and the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests (ARCWP). Both of these organizations have international members. Today there are more than 215 women priests and at least 15 bishops worldwide. These women priests and bishops are ministering in over 34 USA states and are also present in Canada, Europe, South and Central America, South Africa, the Philippines, and Taiwan. For more information see:   https://romancatholicwomenpriests.org

It is very important that we support current and potential women trailblazers in education and ministry. Their often courageous actions are necessary for achieving gender equality and fostering social progress.

Who are the women trailblazers in your community? Who are the young women who can become trailblazers? And most importantly, how can we all be supportive of them?

• Jack

 

 

 

 

 

A couple of months ago, I had an email exchange with a “young earth creationist.” He claimed that our Earth and its lifeforms were created by God between about 10,000 and 6,000 years ago. I replied that his “young earth creationist” perspective has already been strongly contradicted by established scientific data that puts the age of Earth at around 4.54 billion years. He proudly told me he was a devout fundamentalist Christian and not a “progressive liberal Catholic” like me.

The word “fundamentalist” was first used in print in the United States, in 1920, by the prominent American Baptist pastor Curtis Lee Laws (1868-1946), who was the editor of The Watchman Examiner, a national Baptist newspaper. Laws proposed that Christians who were fighting for the fundamentals of their faith should be called “fundamentalists.” But the term “fundamentalist” was not applied to other religious traditions until around the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79.

In general, all fundamentalist religious movements arise when people are confronted with an unsettling disruption of their “normal” way of life. Sensing societal chaos, they develop strong feelings of anxiety and fear about losing control over their lives and losing personal and group identity.

Regardless of the religious tradition to which they belong, all fundamentalists follow certain patterns:

• Religious ideology is the basis for their personal and communal identity.

• They insist upon one statement of truth that is inerrant, revealed, and unchangeable

• They see themselves as part of a cosmic struggle between good and evil.

• They seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in the light of this cosmic struggle.

• They demonize their opposition.

• They are selective in what parts of the religious tradition and heritage they will stress.

Although we have not usually thought of Roman Catholics as fundamentalists, the term can be applied to some contemporary Roman Catholic individuals and movements. Catholic Fundamentalists consider themselves upholding purer beliefs and religious practices than regular Catholics.

An important book about U.S. Catholic fundamentalists, published this year, is Catholic Fundamentalism in America (Oxford University Press) by Mark S. Massa, S.J., who is professor and Director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. Professor Massa examines the motivations and the tactics of U.S. Catholic fundamentalists who have propagated an alternative universe of Latin masses and scorching rhetoric aimed at overthrowing post-Vatican II ‘liberal’ Catholicism.

Religious fundamentalists place such a high priority on doctrinal conformity and obedience to doctrinaire spokespersons that they end up sacrificing values basic to all the great religious traditions: love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, and caring. When Christian belief becomes highly fundamentalized, churches start to become repositories not of grace but of grievances. They become places where something like tribal identities are reinforced, fears are nurtured, and aggression and nastiness become part of their holy cause.

In their overwhelming seriousness about “their” religion, fundamentalists do not hesitate to intervene in political and social processes to ensure that society conforms to the values and behaviors required by their fundamentalist worldview. This can then turn into militancy and attempts to pursue their vision with violence, force, and warfare. In this process their agenda then moves to override the well-being and lives of the people they are trying to influence.

Fundamentalism appeals for a variety of reasons:

• For people who feel unimportant or insignificant, fundamentalism says you are important because you are God’s “special messenger.”
• For people who are fearful, fundamentalism says “you can’t be saved without us…join and be saved.”
• For the confused, fundamentalism says one doesn’t have to think about doctrine nor even be educated in it. Just believe what fundamentalism teaches.
• Fundamentalism makes the fundamentalist feel good about himself or herself. It is self-stroking.
• Fundamentalism justifies hatred of one group of people for another, because it believes that God hates those who do not conform to the fundamentalist worldview.
• Fundamentalism appeals to people burdened by guilt and shame because it exempts them from responsibility for situations or actions that cause guilt and shame. Fundamentalism says…if you are one of us, you are OK.
• Fundamentalism excuses people from honest self-examination; and it justifies their prejudices, zealotry, intolerance, and hatefulness.

What does one do about fundamentalism?

• The best way to confront the narrow vision of fundamentalism is through broad-based education that emphasizes critical, analytical thinking skills.
• Broad-based education emphasizes the importance of gathering evidence and then proceeding to conclusions. Fundamentalists work in the opposite fashion. They begin with their conclusions and then search for arguments to support them.
• We need to establish channels for dialogue and support those institutions that promote multi-cultural knowledge and understanding.
• We need to courageously work against ignorance and speak-out about dishonest or faulty information. And speak-out about those who advocate and publish it.
• We need to humbly realize that we too are still on the road to discovery. We cannot fall into the trap of many fundamentalists who have become self-centered know-it-alls.

I conclude this week’s post with a Raymond E. Brown quotation mentioned in his obituary by Myrna Oliver, in the Los Angeles Times, August 12, 1998. Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998), the eminent Catholic biblical scholar, died at Saint Patrick’s Seminary and University in Menlo Park, California on August 8.

“Truth is always complicated by the human envelope in which it is enclosed. It is not only an intellectual problem, but one at the heart of the Gospel itself. It was not sinners who turned Jesus off. It was the righteous religious types who felt they had all the answers.”

• Jack

 Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be

 

 

 

 

Pastoral reflections

A follow-up on last week’s post about religious pluralism…

The historical Jesus, whose Hebrew name was Yeshua, belonged to the Hebrew faith tradition and had a keen knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. He did not establish a new religion. He did not set up a church. He called people to a new way of life. “I have come that they may have life, and have it in all its fullness.” (John10:10) His early followers were called “followers of the Way.”

 Thought-starter: How do we live and promote the Way of Jesus today? How can we really inspire and motivate people?

The Fourth Gospel even tells us that Jesus celebrated the Hebrew Chanukah (Hanukkah). “Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.” (John 20:22-23)

Thought-starter: How do you imagine Jesus in the temple or in a synagogue? Did people stare in awe at him? Or did they raise their eyebrows when he walked in with his band of young followers?

Jesus’ disciples were young men and women, inspired by his example, teaching, and divine wisdom. Most of them were probably under the age of twenty.

Thought-starter: Where do young men and women today get their Christian inspiration? What do we need to do? Whose wisdom do they admire today? How can we speak meaningfully to them about Jesus?

As the post-Resurrection community of Jesus’ disciples and followers began to grow, non-Hebrew members also joined.

Thought-starter: How do we welcome God-seekers today, especially those turned-off by organized religion?

Post-Resurrection Christian structural developments led to two things: the composition of the Gospels AND the formation of Christian faith communities with their own Christian rituals, symbols, and leadership, independent from the Hebrew communities.

There was also a growing concern about passing on the heritage of Jesus to future generations. This called for religious structuring.

Thought-starter: What kinds of institutional structuring and re-structuring do we need today, especially in view of institutional misogyny, clericalism, and doctrinal rigidity?

In the earliest Christian communities men and women held leadership roles and presided at celebrations of Eucharist. At first there was no ordination. No separate clergy. Later ordination was introduced, not to transfer some kind of sacramental power but for quality control. Only qualified men and women could lead Christian communities.

 Thought-starter: How do we provide quality-controlled Christian leadership today? Have annual performance appraisals for clergy and bishops? Have parishes elect their pastors?

Religion and Faith:  

• Faith or “trust” is our personal and group experience of what we call the Sacred or the Divine: God. In Christian faith that experience is anchored in living in the Spirit of Christ.
• Religion is not faith. Religion is a system of beliefs, rituals, and symbols designed to help people understand their faith experience. We use religion. We don’t worship it.
• Unhealthy religion grows out of and supports clouded vision and hateful hearts.
• Religion is healthy when it points to the Sacred. It is unhealthy when it only points to itself: to rituals, symbols, and religious leaders. Particularly unhealthy when it manipulates and uses people for the leaders’ self-serving goals. When this happens, one needs a reformation.
• In Jesus’ days, as in our own days, some people have used religion-mixed-with-politics to achieve self-serving and ungodly goals. This combination was deadly for Jesus. It threatens our lives today as well. 

Strenghtened in Christian hope, we move ahead anchored in the belief so well expressed in Luke:

​“By the tender mercy of our God the dawn from on high shall break upon us,

​To give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,

​To guide our feet into the way of peace.” Luke 1:78-79

 

• Jack

 Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be