Participation and Beliefs in Popular Religiosity : An Empirical-Theological Exploration among Italian Catholics [1 ed.] 9789004193666, 9789004180963

Citation preview

Participation and Beliefs in Popular Religiosity

Empirical Studies in Theology

Editor

Johannes A. Van der Ven

VOLUME 18

Participation and Beliefs in Popular Religiosity An Empirical-Theological Exploration among Italian Catholics

By

Francesco Zaccaria

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2010

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Zaccaria, Francesco, 1978Participation and beliefs in popular religiosity : an empirical-theological exploration among Italian Catholics / by Francesco Zaccaria. p. cm. — (Empirical studies in theology, ISSN 1389-1189 ; v. 18) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978 9004 18096 3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Catholic Church. Diocese of Conversano-Monopoli. 2. Conversano Region (Italy)— Religious life and customs. 3. Monopoli Region (Italy)—Religious life and customs. I. Title. BX1547.C578Z33 2010 282’.45751—dc22 2009046086

ISSN 1389-1189 ISBN 978 9004 18096 3 Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

contents

v

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii ix

Chapter One Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Why Investigate Popular Religiosity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Popular Religiosity: A Problematic Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Popular Religiosity: Participation and Beliefs in the Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Research Goal and Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4

Chapter Two Participation in Popular Religiosity in the Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Dualistic Approaches to Popular Religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 A Complementary Approach to Popular Religiosity . . . . 2.3 Theological Legitimisation of a Complementary Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Participation in Popular Religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Three Beliefs about God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Traditional Beliefs about God in the Teachings of the Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Beliefs about God in Popular Religiosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Conceptualisation of Beliefs about God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Beliefs about God in High and Low Level Popular Religious Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 9 10 16 19 28

29 29 35 46 51 73 74 77 79 92

Chapter Four Beliefs about Suffering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.1 Approaches to Theodicy in the Teachings of the Catholic Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.2 Approaches to Theodicy in Popular Religiosity . . . . . . . . 110

vi

contents 4.3 Conceptualisation of Beliefs about Suffering. . . . . . . . . . . 115 4.4 Beliefs about Suffering in High and Low Level Popular Religious Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter Five Beliefs about Jesus Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Dialectics between the Humanity and Divinity of Jesus Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Conceptualisation of Beliefs about Jesus Christ . . . . . . . . 5.3 Beliefs about Jesus Christ in High and Low Level Popular Religious Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143 144 162 181

Chapter Six Beliefs about the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 6.1 Beliefs about Participation in the Church: Dimension ad intra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 6.2 Beliefs about the Relation between Church and Society: Dimension ad extra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Chapter Seven Effects of Popular Religious Participation on Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Assumed Effect of Popular Religious Participation on Beliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Popular Religious Participation Affects Beliefs: Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Popular Religious Participation Affects Beliefs: Empirical Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225 225 228 238

Chapter Eight Synopsis and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 8.1. Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 8.2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Appendix One: Measuring Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Appendix Two: Factor Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Appendix Three: Scheffé Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Appendix Four: Beliefs and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

contents

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank all the people who stood by me on the challenging journey that culminated in this book. Above all, I thank God who gave me the beautiful gift of their companionship. Thanks to my family, which is a safe harbour that I can turn to at any time: my mother and father, my brother Giacomo and my sisters Giusi and Laura, my brother-in-law Gianni and my little nephew Francesco, who brings such joy to our lives. Thanks to my bishop Msgr Domenico Padovano, who believed in me and gave me the opportunity to study abroad for my doctorate. I thank the pastors and volunteers in the parishes in my diocese, who allowed and helped me to conduct my survey in their communities. I also thank all the Padre Pio prayer groups and the confraternities that participated in my study. Without their generous cooperation none of this would have been possible. I am very grateful to Prof. dr. Hans van der Ven, who did not hesitate to accept me as his Ph.D. student. He patiently taught me a new approach to theological study and guided me through the ups and downs of my research. I owe him four years of extraordinary intellectual and human experience. Many thanks to my other two supervisors: Prof. dr. Hans Schilderman, for helping me very much with his theological acuity and kind patience throughout these years, and Prof. dr. Annemie Dillen for his competent feedback. I thank the former and the present dean of the Faculty of Theology of Radboud University Nijmegen, Prof. dr. Peter Nissen and Prof. dr. Ben Vedder; and the head of the Department of Empirical Theology, Prof. dr. Chris Hermans, and all members of this department, who always made me feel welcome and helped to improve my empirical-theological expertise. Thanks to Prof. dr. Lieven Boeve, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of Leuven, for making it possible for me to graduate at that prestigious university as well. Thanks to the members of the doctoral thesis committee: Prof. dr. Frans Wijsen, Prof. dr. Hans Geybels and Dr. Carl Sterkens. Their sharp comments contributed to the empirical-theological robustness of my work.

viii

acknowledgements

Special thanks to Berdine Biemans for supervising my statistical analyses, and to Marcelle Manley for correcting the English text. Finally, I thank from the bottom of my heart all the friends who stood by my side during these years. Their company helped me not to feel homesick and to make Nijmegen my second home. They were always there to support and cheer me up in times of work stress and discouragement, and when I wanted to celebrate a bit of progress in the accomplishment of this challenging task. Without their factual and emotional support I would never have reached this goal. I dedicate this book to the memory of my dearest nonna Laura and zia Maria, who I hope and trust to meet again in the glory of our risen Lord Jesus Christ.

abbreviations

ix

ABBREVIATIONS AA CCC ChL

CIC Civ.Dei Conf. CVMC

DP DPPL DV EN Ench. Ep. FCCM

GS

LG

Apostolicam Actuositatem. Decree on the apostolate of the laity. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1965). Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). Christifideles Laici. Post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the vocation and the mission of the lay faithful in the church and in the world. Pope John Paul II (1988). Code of Canon Law (1983). De Civitate Dei (“The City of God”). Augustine of Hippo. Confessionum (“Confessions”). Augustine of Hippo. Comunicare il Vangelo in un Mondo che Cambia (“Communicating the Gospel in a changing world. Pastoral guidelines of the Italian episcopate”). Italian Bishops’ Conference (2001). Documento de Puebla (“Puebla Document”). Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate (1979). Directory on Popular Piety and Liturgy. Congregation for divine worship and the discipline of the sacraments (2001). Dei Verbum. Dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1965). Evangelii Nuntiandi. Apostolic exhortation on evangelization in the modern world. Pope Paul VI (1975). De Fide Spe et Caritate (“Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love”). Augustine of Hippo. Epistulae. Augustine of Hippo. Fare di Cristo il Cuore del Mondo (“Letting Christ be the Heart of the World. Letter to the lay faithful”). Bishops’ commission for the laity. Italian Bishops’ Conference (2005). Gaudium et Spes. Pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1965). Lumen Gentium. Dogmatic constitution on the church. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1964).

x NF

PO PPC Prosl. QNF

SC ScG. SD Sermo. STh.

abbreviations Le Nostre Feste (“Our feasts. Pastoral note about popular religious feasts in the churches of Puglia”). Bishops’ Conference of Puglia (Italy) (1998). Presbyterorum Ordinis. Decree on the ministry and life of priests. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1965). Parish Pastoral Council. Proslogion. Anselm of Canterbury. Questa è la Nostra Fede (“This is our faith. Pastoral note on the first announcement of the Gospel”). Bishops’ commission for the doctrine of faith, the announcement and the catechesis. Italian Bishops’ Conference (2005). Sacrosanctum Concilium. Constitution on the sacred liturgy. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1963). Summa contra Gentiles. Thomas Aquinas. Salvifici Doloris. Apostolic letter on the Christian meaning of human suffering. Pope John Paul II (1984). Sermones. Augustine of Hippo. Summa Theologica. Thomas Aquinas.

introduction

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In this first chapter of our study of popular religiosity we present, in an introductory way, the fundamental guidelines of our research. We start by explaining why we are interested in studying the phenomenon of popular religiosity (1.1). We then talk about the complexity of our study object and how this complexity leads us to contextualise the study (1.2). Next we briefly outline our approach to popular religiosity, namely from the dimensions of participation and belief, interpreted as part of an internal complementarity in the Catholic Church in our Italian context (1.3). We proceed to state the goal and problem of this research (1.4) and its conceptual model (1.5). We then list the empirical-theological questions we seek to answer in each chapter of the study (1.6) and the methods used to answer them (1.7). We conclude with an overview of the remaining chapters of the study (1.8). 1.1. Why Investigate Popular Religiosity? It is Sunday in an Italian Catholic parish. The community is celebrating the Eucharist. A woman carrying a child walks into the side nave of the church; they approach the statue of the crucifixion. People participating in the service see the movements and are distracted. She whispers to her son: “Send a kiss to Jesus.” She lights a candle, quietly saying a prayer. A coin drops in the offertory at the base of the statue, making a noise, so the priest is also distracted. A final, rapid sign of the cross and mother and son, hand in hand, slowly move towards their pew. With the unashamed curiosity of every child he asks: “Mom, why are you crying?”

This brief anecdote is how we introduce our study of popular religiosity. It depicts a not uncommon situation in many Italian parishes, one that stimulates our curiosity. In other words, this story sketches a phenomenon that triggers questions for theology and, more specifically, practical theology. That is why, in order to fulfil its purpose, theology needs to answer some essential questions: What does this mother believe? What is her faith? Beyond the symbolism of our tale,

2

chapter one

what Christian beliefs are embodied in popular religiosity? If we have greater insight into people’s beliefs (here specifically popular religious beliefs) we can enhance the hermeneutic-communicative praxis of contemporary Christian communities, which is what empirical theology within practical theology is about. This means that an empirical approach in practical theology, methodically and systematically studying what people believe today, helps to bridge the time gap between the past and the present of Christian communities. It contributes to the interpretation of religious symbols of the present within their context and puts them in dialogue with the symbols of the past from their context in a permanent communication, aiming at the development of understanding within contemporary Christian communities (cf. Van der Ven 1998a, 41-59, 152-154). Besides this just mentioned diachronic aspect of the hermeneutic-communicative praxis, our empirical-theological study wants to contribute to the synchronic aspect of the hermeneutic-communicative religious praxis. Studying what parishioners believe it aims to facilitate the dialogue among people, between pastors and people, between clergy and laity in today’s Catholic Church. Is our general curiosity about and interest in popular religiosity encouraged by empirical evidence of the significance of popular religiosity for contemporary academic research? The Italian sociologist Garelli reports a certain amount of empirical data, indicating that popular religiosity cannot be easily dismissed as a marginal expression of Italian Catholicism. On the contrary, it still represents an important phenomenon in the ‘Catholic Italian universe’, persisting and resisting in spite of the ongoing process of modernisation taking place in Italy. We cite just one statistic illustrating the relevance of this phenomenon that Garelli quotes (in the next chapter we present some others). It is estimated that every year about 10 million people—the majority of them Italians—make a pilgrimage to one of the 2.000 Italian shrines, to which we should add the number of Italian pilgrims to famous shrines abroad like Lourdes and Fatima (cf. Garelli 2007, 120-128). Not only social scientists are interested in popular religiosity but also theologians. Panteghini says that theological interest started as far back as the 1970s, after a long period of suspicion and underestimation of popular religiosity, when it was generally considered a distraction (as we hinted in our initial story) from the official liturgy and teachings of the church. This new theological interest owes its existence largely to theological developments in Latin America in

introduction

3

those years (cf. Panteghini 1996, 6-11). To avoid a possible risk of oversimplification and biased misinterpretation we should mention that theological interest in popular religiosity is not limited to Latin American theology of the 1970s, but extends beyond that to our own contexts and times. We cite two examples. The European symposium of practical theologians held in Graz in 2006 was dedicated to popular religiosity; closer to our context and object of study, there was the symposium of the Theological Faculty of Southern Italy held in Molfetta in 2004, which had the same topic (cf. Sabatelli & Zuppa 2004). Vatican II’s new focus on the identity of the church as the ‘people of God’, as well as its rediscovery of the concept of sensus fidelium (cf. Schinella 2004, 55-56; Espin 1997, 63-90), provided a theological legitimisation and foundation for this interest. Panteghini affirms that these developments and attention to diverse forms of popular religiosity in the Catholic Church have not been sufficiently explored (cf. Panteghini 1996, 7). Our study falls within this theological attention and interest, which are not limited to the theological renewal of the 1970s: researching popular religiosity as a sign of pluralism within the Catholic Church and as an expression of the sensus fidei of the church, which is the people of God. 1.2. Popular Religiosity: A Problematic Topic If we look at the broad international literature on popular religiosity, the difficulty of our task is immediately apparent: scholars are not unanimous even about the choice of a term to indicate the phenomenon. In our view this is mainly because they come from very different scientific and ideological backgrounds. Many academic disciplines, especially since the 1970s, have contributed to the study of popular religiosity: social sciences (anthropology, psychology, sociology), religious studies (historical, comparative), theology (systematic, practical, missiological, liturgical) have approached this complex phenomenon from different angles, causing the aforementioned confusion. Examples of terminological disagreement are folk religion, mass religion, diffused religion, common religion, popular piety, popular faith and popular Catholicism. We should add that the term ‘popular religion’ is preferred in Anglophone literature, while the term ‘popular religiosity’ is current in other language areas, like the German (Volksvrömmigkeit or Volksreligiosität), Italian (religiosità popolare) and

4

chapter one

Spanish ones (religiosidad popular) (cf. Panteghini 1996, 30). These examples make us understand Badone’s (1990, 4) comment that “as a scholarly category popular religion is problematic”. This causes frustration among scholars about a term “whose meaning has become increasingly less clear over the past two decades” (Carrol 1992, 6), so much so that some have advocated abandoning it (cf. Christian 1981; Schmitt 1976). Given the complexity of the debate about popular religiosity, we certainly cannot hope to offer an exhaustive, unifying conceptual definition. Instead we suggest that the term should always be used with some caution, making it clear that it cannot be considered unproblematic and conceptually unambiguous (cf. Berlinerblau 2001, 607). It does not mean we agree with abandoning the term. On the contrary, we will use it, but, rather than looking for just one academically unifying, undisputed term, we will attempt to clarify what we mean by the term ‘popular’, within ‘popular religiosity’, in our research context. This means that instead of a conceptual universal definition we will offer an operational contextual definition of popular religiosity, namely we will offer a list of what we consider to be the characteristic expressions of popular religious participation, which differs from participation in the official religion and can be empirically investigated among our Italian parishioners (cf. 2.4). Contextualisation of our study object will enable us to overcome what can be considered one of the causes of the lack of consensus among scholars of popular religiosity: the attempt to offer totalising, a-historical and universal definitions of religion (cf. Asad 1993, 29). Our approach to popular religiosity in this study can be seen as the opposite of universalisation: the popular religiosity we deal with is neither a-historical nor universal in character, because we look at popular religiosity in Catholicism, more precisely in Italian Catholicism, and specifically in the Southern Italian Catholic diocese of Conversano-Monopoli. 1.3. Popular Religiosity: Participation and Beliefs in the Catholic Church Here we briefly anticipate the way we interpret popular religiosity, the object of our research. Firstly we justify the use of the term ‘popular religiosity’; secondly we give our interpretation of popular religios-

introduction

5

ity as a characteristic way in which people participate and believe in the Catholic Church. Why popular religiosity? We have already mentioned some of the many terms used to denote this phenomenon, but we honestly do not think that the choice of one of these terms will help to clarify the complex topic, because every choice can be the object of more or less rightful conceptual criticism. For this reason we think that, more important than the term we use for our study object, is to clarify what we mean by that term. Nevertheless a decision has to be made, and we opt for the term popular religiosity. Why? First we can say that the term ‘religiosity’ is generally used to accentuate the subjective pole of religious experience. It refers to people’s attitudes, experiences and beliefs when it comes to God and the sacred, while the term ‘religion’ relates loosely both to an objectified, canonised system of rituals, canons, theology, hierarchy, et cetera (objective pole), and to individuals’ spiritual experience (subjective pole). Since the object of our empirical-theological exploration will be our respondents’ religious participation and beliefs (hence the subjective pole of religious experience), the term ‘religiosity’ appears more appropriate. The second reason is that the term ‘religiosity’ seems more apt to describe this phenomenon in our research context (i.e. Southern Italy): popular religiosity is not an alternative religion; in other words it is not opposed to, parallel with or independent of the official religion of Southern Italy, on the contrary, it is intrinsic to the Catholic Church. The term ‘religiosity’, far from having the negative connotation of a secondary level of spirituality inferior to the official religion, simply appears more apposite to describe this complementarity between the popular and official elements within the Catholic Church. Besides historical and theological reasons for this interpretation of popular religiosity in the Catholic Church (to be explained in greater detail in chapter 2), here it suffices to refer to empirical data collected in a major national survey of religiosity in Italy conducted in the 1990s by the Catholic University of Milan (cf. Cesareo et al. 1995). Commenting on these data the sociologist Pizzuti notes that in Italy regular practitioners of popular religiosity are also regular participants in Sunday mass (cf. Pizzuti 2004, 113). This feature of popular religiosity in the Catholic Church in Italy can be explained with reference to the sociologist Diotallevi’s attempt to comprehend the ‘brain-teasing’ and complex case of Italian Catholicism on the basis of a broad-

6

chapter one

ened economic theory of religion. He sees the Catholic Church in Italy as characterised by internal competition among different Catholic religious organisations (associations, congregations, religious orders, movements, etc.), which he compares with the fierce competition among different religious denominations in the USA.1 Diotallevi maintains that the present-day Italian Catholic Church represents a balance between highly centralised religious authority (the pope is also the bishop of Rome and primate of the Italian bishops) and a highly tolerant policy towards internal religious competition (cf. Diotallevi 2001, 115). In a broad sense, given the fact that popular religiosity is not a religious organisation or a unified movement, we think we can also describe it as an expression of internal pluralism and competition within the Italian Catholic Church. Further empirical and sociological confirmation of this interpretation of popular religiosity may be found in the work of Garelli (2007), who regards popular religiosity as an expression of the internal pluralism of Italian Catholicism. How do we interpret popular religiosity? What are the specific characteristics of popular religiosity within the aforementioned pluralism of the Catholic Church? In other words, what distinguishes the “popular” element from the official element in the Catholic Church? We have already mentioned how problematic it is to offer a conceptual definition of popular religiosity, which is why we shall turn to an operational definition of this phenomenon, namely we shall present a list of what we consider to be the characteristic expressions of popular religious participation, which distinguishes it from participation in the official religion and which can be empirically investigated among our respondents (cf. 2.4). Our approach in order to define these expressions is two-dimensional. To this end we use three concepts from Schilderman’s defini1 Of course, the comparison takes into consideration the fundamental difference between the religious market in the USA and in Italy. In the former we are dealing with inter-denominational competition, in the latter Diotallevi observes intradenominational competition (i.e. within the Catholic Church). Given this fundamental difference, the author advances convincing empirical and theoretical arguments about the existence of strong intra-denominational religious competition in Italian Catholicism. In order to interpret it theoretically he proposes broadening the economic religious theory (Young 1997; Stark & Bainbridge 1980; 1985; 1987; Iannaccone 1992; 1997; Stark & Iannaccone 1994) regarding exclusively inter-denominational religious competition into an intra-denominational theory (cf. Diotallevi 2001, 77-121).

introduction

7

tion of religion: belonging, ritualising and believing (Schilderman 2007, 22-24), but we treat belonging and ritualising as two aspects of just one dimension, that of participation. Hence the first dimension is participation, meaning that we interpret popular religiosity as characteristic associations in which people participate in the broad Catholic community, as well as typical religious practices in the vast Catholic ritual patrimony. The second dimension of popular religiosity is belief, in the sense of characteristic emphases on some Christian beliefs. We briefly outline the two dimensions. First we consider the dimension of participation, which we explicate in terms of the belonging and ritualising aspects of popular religiosity. Religious belonging refers to a social network (communities, associations, movements, etc.) to which people feel they belong and in which they participate in order to express their beliefs and perform religious practices (cf. Schilderman 2007, 23). The broad community in which popular religious people participate is the Catholic Church. But within this broad participation and sense of belonging popular religious people are organised in more specific groups and associations. These groups and associations are distinct from the parish, which is the local official community where people express their belonging to the Catholic Church as such. The sense of belonging to a community (association, group, etc.) is a distinctive aspect of popular religiosity: popular religious practices have great cohesive and unifying power (cf. Lanza 2001, 27), expressed in jointly organised activities around an object of popular devotion or event (a saint, a relic, a feast, etc.) (cf. Abruzzese 2001, 53-54). Prominent expressions of this aspect of belonging among popular religious people are confraternities, especially in relation to feasts (cf. Maldonado 1975, 278297; Espin 1997, 140-141), and pious associations of believers, especially in relation to devotion to a saint (cf. DPPL 69). The groups that we ascribe to our operational definition of popular religious belonging are confraternities and Padre Pio prayer groups (cf. 2.4.1). Besides a belonging aspect the dimension of participation in popular religiosity has a ritualising aspect. Ritualising refers loosely to religious practices through which people relate to God or the divine (cf. Rizzi 1977, 137). Popular religious people in Italy take part regularly in official Catholic religious practices, namely official liturgy, such as Sunday mass (cf. Pizzuti 2004, 113). Distinct from this official liturgy, we can list characteristic religious practices that express the particular ritualising aspect of popular religiosity. They are often men-

8

chapter one

tioned in studies that adopt what Berlinerblau (2001) calls a praxis approach to popular religiosity, like devotions directed to saints and the Virgin Mary, pilgrimages and processions (cf. De Rosa 1981, 85-88; Terrin 2004, 88-99; Pizzuti 2004, 112-114; Lanzetti 1995, 87-90; Heinz 1999, 859-860; Schieder 1996, 1194-1195; DPPL 15, 18, 19, 197-202, 236-247, 279ff). The popular religious practices that we choose for our operational definition of popular religious ritualising are veneration of sacred images and relics, pilgrimages, processions, vows and the rosary (cf. 2.4.2). The second dimension of popular religiosity is that of belief. Beliefs represent evaluative information that people have about an object (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen 1975, 12). In other words, a religious belief is what people think about a religious object or topic, for example their mental image of God as good or Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Analysing the dimension of belief entails identifying what we consider to be characteristic popular religious emphases on certain core Christian beliefs. How do we choose these beliefs? We use two criteria: they have to follow the hierarchical order of truths in the Christian faith (cf. Van der Ven 1973, 116-117) and they have to be marked by characteristic popular religious emphases; this means that popular religiosity, according to theological literature, might express a peculiar accent on these beliefs. According to Schoonenberg (1968) the hierarchy of truths means that Christian beliefs can be ranked from central to peripheral. According to this order the dimension of belief in popular religiosity comprises beliefs about God, about suffering in a religious perspective (i.e. in relation to God), about Jesus Christ and about the church. Why do we choose to study beliefs about the church, even though they are more peripheral than, for example, beliefs about the Holy Spirit, which are more central in the Christian faith? That is because of our second criterion: we choose beliefs that are major topics of debate and reflection in the theological literature on popular religiosity. In that literature it is often pointed out that popular religiosity accentuates specific beliefs about God (cf. De Rosa 1981, 100-102; Russo 2004, 125-132; Panteghini 1996, 129-140, 208-209). Theologians generally agree about the focal position of religious interpretation of suffering in popular religiosity (cf. Panteghini 1996, 176-178; Espin 1997, 156-179; Lanza 2001, 23), and that popular religious people emphasise specific facets of religious images of Jesus Christ (cf. De Rosa 1981, 103-108; Panteghini 1996, 176-178; 192-194; Schinella

introduction

9

2004, 42-43; Espin 1997, 72-73; Noyé et al. 1974). Finally, popular religiosity is generally said to have particular images of the church, both as regards its internal organisation and its relation to society (cf. Midali 2000, 100-101, 106; Espin 1997, 102-104; Panteghini 1996, 181-182; Russo 2004, 133-134). The fact that our study is broadly aimed at recommendations for the church’s pastoral policy reinforces our choice of beliefs about the church: greater insight into parishioners’ church images can enhance hermeneutic-communicative praxis in the church. The list could have been longer, but we think these four sets of beliefs suffice to represent the belief dimension of popular religiosity in our necessarily limited research. 1.4. Research Goal and Problem We have explained our approach to popular religiosity as focused on the dimensions of participation and belief. Obviously this distinction is made only for analytical and scientific purposes: in real life the two dimensions are closely intertwined and interconnected. Our research is exploratory in that the goal is to explore the relation between the two dimensions of popular religiosity—participation and belief—in the Southern Italian diocese of Conversano-Monopoli. The choice for an explorative research is motivated by the fact there is no robust theory formation, consisting of a network of concepts, from which hypotheses about the relations between concepts can be derived and tested. Instead of that this study explores some concepts, namely popular religious participation and beliefs, and explores the relation between these concepts in order ultimately to come to the formulation of hypotheses to be tested in future research. More broadly this empirical-theological exploration of popular religiosity seeks to enhance hermeneutic-communicative religious praxis in the Catholic diocese of Conversano-Monopoli (cf. Van der Ven 1998a, 41-59). In light of this goal the theological problem under investigation is this: what is the relation between participation and religious beliefs in popular religiosity? In our research we formulate expectations about this relation. We cautiously call them expectations rather than hypotheses because of the exploratory character of our study and the lack of robust theory

10

chapter one

on the relation between the dimensions of participation and belief in popular religiosity. Nevertheless we draw on existing literature and our own interpretations of popular religiosity in order to infer some expectations. We will then see if these expectations are confirmed by our empirical findings and thus, at the end of our study, we will contribute to the formulation of hypotheses for further research. 1.5. Conceptual Model To reach our goal and face our theological problem we use the concepts schematically illustrated in the following figure: Dimension of participation in popular religiosity Popular religious participation

Dimension of belief in popular religiosity Beliefs about God

Population characteristics

Beliefs about suffering

Gender Age Educational level Religious salience Church involvement

Beliefs about Jesus Christ Beliefs about the church

Figure 1. Conceptual model

The dimensions of participation and belief in popular religiosity were sketched in the previous section (cf. 1.3). They are analysed in greater detail in the following chapters (participation in chapter 2; beliefs in chapters 3-6). Here we briefly explain the relation between the concepts in our model: first the relation between participation and beliefs in popular religiosity (1.5.1), secondly the relation between participation and beliefs in popular religiosity while controlling for relevant population characteristics that influence these relations (1.5.2.). 1.5.1. Participation in Popular Religiosity and Beliefs We study the relation between participation and religious beliefs in popular religiosity with a view to a more specific analysis of the effect

introduction

11

of participation on beliefs at the end of our study. Justification of the study of the relation between religious participation and beliefs can be found in different disciplines. Firstly, theological reflection concerns the interaction between the dimension of participation (in religious practices and religious groups) and the dimension of belief and seeks to study this relation. Secondly, sociological sciences, too, interpret religion as a system of closely interrelated practices and beliefs and the study of this relation is a key focus. Thirdly, if we ascribe participation to the behavioural dimension of religion and beliefs to its cognitive dimension, further insight into the relation between these two dimensions of popular religiosity comes from the cognitive sciences as well. According to this approach cognitive processes (dimension of belief) must be understood in relation to people’s behaviour (dimension of participation) (cf. Wilson 2002). Participation in popular religiosity occurs among Italian Catholics with different levels of commitment. If we apply the aforementioned economic theory of religion to the Italian case, we can say that competition between popular religiosity and other movements, associations and congregations in the Catholic Church lead religious consumers to choose among different religious goods. In this intradenominational religious market the choice of religious goods offered by popular religiosity (associations, groups, practices, etc.) leads people to choose between a high or a low level of popular religious participation, depending on their religious needs. Following Durkheim, we can say that the higher the level of participation in a religious community, the more people will endorse its ideas, images and values (cf. Durkheim 1951, 158-170). Applying this statement to our population of parishioners we formulate two expectations about the relation between popular religious participation and beliefs. Firstly, we expect that all our parishioners—whatever their level of popular religious participation—will agree with religious beliefs in Catholic teachings and reject those outside this tradition, because they all participate in the large community of the Catholic Church. Beliefs in Catholic teachings are considered to be those beliefs taught in official church documents and statements, because they articulate the official religion point of view, interpreted in this study as related in a complementary relation to popular religiosity.

12

chapter one

Secondly, we expect parishioners with a high level of participation in popular religiosity to agree more strongly with beliefs emphasised by popular religiosity than those who participate less. In chapters 3 to 6 we give some reasons for our interpretation of the relation between popular religious participation and each set of religious beliefs. Our interpretation will be explicated further when we formulate expectations about high and low level popular religious participation and how it relates to each investigated religious belief. In chapter 7 we go a step further by specifying the predictive value of the relation between participation and beliefs. This entails exploring the influence of popular religious participation on beliefs while controlling for the effect of population characteristics on belief. It means that we interpret popular religious participation as having a predictive impact on belief (indicated by the arrows in figure 1). Why do we choose for this predictive impact? Three different disciplinary perspectives justify this choice: a theological, a sociological and a psychological perspective. Firstly in liturgics it is generally affirmed that religious practices affect what people believe, and that faith is nourished and strengthened by liturgical practices, hence participation in religious practices is a source of faith. Secondly, from a sociological perspective, beliefs emerge in a social context and are affected by it. In this sense participation in rituals plays an important role in people’s faith. Thirdly, our choice for a predictive impact of religious participation on beliefs is based on the psychological perspective of embodied cognition. This theory points out that concepts are formed as a result of the way brain and body are structured and function in interpersonal relations and in relations with culture, community and society. If we consider participation in popular religiosity as a structure of bodily acts and religious beliefs as a cognitive structure, we can assume that religious beliefs are potentially affected by popular religious participation (cf. 7.1). Our expectations about the effects of popular religious participation on each of the investigated beliefs will be inferred from the empirical findings concerning the relation between high and low level popular religious participation and belief (chapters 3-6). In this introductory chapter we merely summarise our interpretation of this relation. Participation in popular religiosity and beliefs about God The first group of beliefs refers to God. Theologically these beliefs are defined in terms of different concepts. Theology studies which con-

introduction

13

cepts are referred to in the Bible, and which have been transmitted by the church in history and are believed by present-day people. In this perspective beliefs about God can express an iconic or an aniconic God (the possibility or impossibility of representing God); they can express a personal or a non-personal image of God; and they can express an absolutely transcendent, an absolutely immanent, or an immanent-transcendent God concept (cf. Van der Ven 1998b). Catholic doctrine conveys what we call a traditional image of God, which, following the classical theism of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, can be defined as iconic, personal and immanent-transcendent. We interpret popular religiosity as emphasising these traditional beliefs about God. Hence we take high level participation in popular religiosity to imply greater agreement with traditional beliefs about God than low level participation (cf. chapter 3). Participation in popular religiosity and beliefs about suffering The second set of beliefs pertains to human suffering in a religious perspective, namely to people’s beliefs about God in relation to human suffering. The existential question about the meaning of human suffering has always interested theologians, who have devoted a whole branch of study—theodicy—to it. Christian theodicy aims to reconcile the existence of human suffering with the goodness and omnipotence of God. Three main approaches have evolved: the Augustinian approach, which holds that suffering entered the world because of human freedom and that God permits it in order to achieve a greater good; the theopathic approach, according to which God shows compassion (suffering-with) to those who suffer through the cross of Jesus Christ; and finally the approach of ‘suffering unto God’ (Leiden an Gott), which proceeds from the viewpoint of the suffering human who faces God and addresses cries and laments to him (cf. Van der Ven & Vossen 1995). In our view both the official teachings of the Catholic Church and popular religiosity include all three approaches, but popular religiosity typically emphasises the theopathic and the ‘suffering unto God’ approaches. On this premise we take high level participation in popular religiosity to imply greater agreement with beliefs expressing the theopathic and ‘suffering unto God’ approaches than low level participation (cf. chapter 4).

14

chapter one

Participation in popular religiosity and beliefs about Jesus Christ The third set of beliefs in our study pertains to Jesus Christ. They are surely core beliefs in the Christian faith: throughout the history of Christianity theology has interpreted these core beliefs in terms of a dialectic relation between the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. In the process it produced the so-called christological approach from above (proceeding from his divinity to his humanity) and the christological approach from below (proceeding from his humanity to his divinity) (cf. Doré et al. 2003). Not only theology but also Catholic teachings during and after Vatican II have been influenced by the Christology from below, resulting in a coexistence of these two approaches in some doctrines. In popular religiosity we see a similar coexistence of beliefs proceeding from the divinity and beliefs proceeding from the humanity of Christ. Nevertheless we interpret popular religiosity as emphasising the human aspect of the life of Jesus Christ. On this premise we take high level participation in popular religiosity to imply greater agreement with beliefs expressing a christology from below than low level participation (cf. chapter 5). Participation in popular religiosity and beliefs about the church The last set of beliefs pertains to the church. The church, too, is a core object of Christian faith: faith in God and Jesus is concretised in communities that try to enact this faith (cf. Van der Ven et al. 2004, 318). In our Italian case the vast majority of Christian communities are Catholic, which is where we placed our contextualised phenomenon of popular religiosity. Our question is: what is the relation between popular religious participation and beliefs about the Catholic Church? In other words, what beliefs about the church are emphasised by popular religiosity? We divide these beliefs into two dimensions: ad intra (referring to church leadership, more specifically lay participation in parish leadership) (cf. Sonnberger 1996) and ad extra (referring to the relation between church and society) (cf. Van der Ven et al. 2004). We opted for these two dimensions firstly because the internal leadership structure of the church, namely the participation of the laity and especially women in this leadership, is one of the most burning dogmatic questions in the theological and ecclesial debate; also the relation between church and society, namely the separation of church and state and the presence of the church in the political debate, is nowadays one of the most debated social-ethical questions. Secondly we chose these two dimensions because, from

introduction

15

the perspective of social sciences, in all organisations and institutions the dichotomy between internal and external relations belongs to their essential structure. Vatican II proposed an advisory role for the laity (ad intra) and dialogue and mutual influencing between church and society (ad extra). Our question is: does popular religiosity emphasise certain beliefs about the church? The issue is often debated and the literature provides very different interpretations of popular religiosity in regard to these beliefs. We opt for an interpretation of popular religiosity as emphasising the ecclesiological teachings of the Catholic Church: we take high level participation in popular religiosity to imply greater agreement with beliefs preferring an advisory role for the laity (ad intra) and with beliefs favouring mutual influencing between church and society (ad extra) than low level participation (cf. chapter 6). 1.5.2. Population Characteristics and the Relation between Participation and Beliefs in Popular Religiosity In our exploration of the relation between participation and beliefs in popular religiosity we look at the influence of some population characteristics on the two dimensions of popular religiosity. The following population characteristics are taken into account: gender, age, educational level, religious salience and church involvement. These characteristics are incorporated into our model because, according to existing literature, they might affect the relation between participation in popular religiosity and beliefs. Hence we explore the impact of popular religious participation on beliefs while controlling for these characteristics. The specific reasons for our choice of characteristics and their potential role are the following. Gender, age, educational level and church involvement are often correlated with the participation dimension of popular religiosity. Recent empirical findings show that in Italy popular religious practices are performed more often by women, older people, the less educated and regular churchgoers (cf. Lanzetti 1995, 87-90; Pizzuti 2004, 113). Religious salience can be considered a personal characteristic, which might play a role in the dimension of belief: other empirical-theological research indicates that religious salience can correlate significantly with what people think and believe (cf. Van der Ven et al. 2004, 334-336; Ponce 2006, 37, 67, 85, 120-121, 150-151). As for church involvement, it is mainly the church that has

16

chapter one

handed down and continues to hand down the biblical narratives and the related interpretations. In other words, it is especially in the religious tradition of the church that Christian beliefs are transmitted to people (e.g. during Sunday masses or in catechesis) (cf. Van der Ven et al. 2004, 336). Hence we can expect involvement in church activities to play a role in what people believe. 1.6. Research Questions Against the background of our research goal and conceptual design we now break up our research problem (what is the relation between participation and religious beliefs in popular religiosity?) into six detailed research questions, which will guide us throughout our study. The research questions are the following: (1) What is high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of this participation? (Chapter 2) (2) What beliefs about God are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 3) (3) What beliefs about suffering are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 4) (4) What beliefs about Jesus Christ are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 5) (5) What beliefs about the church are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 6) (6) What is the effect of participation in popular religiosity on beliefs about God, suffering, Jesus Christ and the church, while controlling for relevant population characteristics? (Chapter 7) How do we define participation in popular religiosity? We see it as being in complementary relation to official religion within the Catholic Church. Being an internal phenomenon of the Catholic Church, we have to indicate which characteristic practices and associations we include in our study in order to define participation in popular religiosity—its high and its low level—and its social location. In short, we want to answer the first research question: What is high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of this participation? (Chapter 2)

introduction

17

Theological reflection fundamentally entails the study of different beliefs about God. In these beliefs God can be seen as iconic or aniconic; personal or non-personal; and absolutely transcendent, absolutely immanent or immanent-transcendent (cf. Van der Ven 1998b). Traditional beliefs about God are defined in this study as those expressing an iconic, personal and immanent-transcendent God. Some theologians interpret popular religiosity as implying non-traditional beliefs about God (cf. De Rosa 1981, 100-102; Panteghini 1996, 179-194). That is why it is interesting to know what the relation is between high and low level popular religious participation and beliefs about God: will parishioners with high popular religious participation agree more strongly with traditional God images than parishioners with low popular religious participation? Hence we seek to answer the second research question: What beliefs about God are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 3) Closely related to beliefs about God are religious beliefs about human suffering, more specifically how it relates to God. The existential experience of suffering has always posed a theological problem regarding God’s role in human suffering. Theologians often point out that religious beliefs about suffering play an important role in popular religiosity (cf. Panteghini 1996, 176-178; Espin 1997, 156-179; Lanza 2001, 23). Hence we need to ask which beliefs about suffering will be supported or rejected by parishioners manifesting high and low level participation in popular religiosity. In short, we ask: What beliefs about suffering are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 4) Another theological question we seek to answer in this research concerns beliefs about Jesus Christ. A vital issue in the theological and ecclesiastic debate about Jesus Christ through the centuries has been the complex dialectics between his divinity and his humanity. The literature predominantly claims that popular religiosity puts the emphasis on his humanity, is particularly attracted by the human elements of his life, his passion and his death—in short, that it is characterised by specific christological accents (cf. De Rosa 1981, 103-

18

chapter one

108; Panteghini 1996, 176-178; 192-194; Schinella 2004, 42-43; Espin 1997, 72-73; Noyé et al. 1974). Therefore we are interested to know the christologies endorsed by parishioners manifesting high and low level popular religious participation: What beliefs about Jesus Christ are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 5) The church is another important object of Christian belief, because it is considered to concretise people’s faith in God and in Jesus Christ. Christians have different beliefs about the church, both about its internal leadership and its relation to society. Popular religiosity is often said to have specific ecclesiological accents (cf. Midali 2000, 100-101; Russo 2004, 133-134; Panteghini 1996, 181-182). Will beliefs about the church among parishioners manifesting high and low level popular religious participation confirm these interpretations? That is why we ask: What beliefs about the church are found in high and low level participation in popular religiosity, and what is the social location of these beliefs? (Chapter 6) Our research problem concerns the relation between participation and beliefs in popular religiosity. Questions 2 to 5 focus on this relation. Now we need to ask whether we can talk about this relation in terms of the effect of participation on beliefs. Participation may be said to affect belief, but also vice versa: belief may affect participation (cf. Segal 2002; Fiske & Taylor 1991, 510). In our study we opt for the effect of participation on beliefs, for the following three reasons. Firstly, our choice is based on traditional theological arguments from pope Celestine I in 422 (“Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi”, “let the law of worship determine the law of faith”) to Vatican II (sacraments are the fount and source of the faith, cf. SC 10, SC 54). Secondly, modern liturgical theology, enriched by insights from the social sciences (cf. Collins 2004, 183-220), suggests that religious practices influence people’s belief (cf. Schilderman 2007, 24). Thirdly, in the psychological area of the cognitive sciences there is a notion of ‘embodied cognition’. This approach maintains that cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body’s interaction with the world, implying that the way people behave affects their cognitions, hence

introduction

19

also their beliefs (cf. Wilson 2002; Lakoff & Johnson 1999, 37). These three views justify our decision to explore participation in popular religiosity as potentially affecting religious beliefs, while also controlling for relevant population characteristics (gender, age, educational level, religious salience, church involvement). In short, we will answer the following question: What is the effect of participation in popular religiosity on beliefs about God, suffering, Jesus Christ and the church, while controlling for relevant population characteristics? (Chapter 7) 1.7. Methods Let us now describe our methods. We start with the questionnaire (1.7.1); secondly, we explain the choice of our population (1.7.2); next we describe how we collected the data (1.7.3); then we outline the measuring instruments (1.7.4) and the statistical methods of analysis (1.7.5); finally we describe our research population (1.7.6). 1.7.1. Questionnaire Empirical research can be conducted following a qualitative or a quantitative approach. The first one opts for a small number of respondents and goes into depth, while quantitative research has to do with a broad population and offer an overview of the problem to be investigated. Interesting qualitative studies have been conducted about popular religiosity (cf. Wijsen 1993); while not enough robust theory formation is present for quantitative study of the relation between popular participation and beliefs. That is why we opt for a quantitative approach in our study and hence we conducted our survey with the help of a questionnaire. The questionnaire has three sections, mirroring our threefold conceptual model. The first section contains the population characteristics: gender, age, educational level, religious salience, and church involvement; the second section refers to the dimension of participation in popular religiosity, namely membership of popular religious associations (belonging) and performance of popular religious practices (ritualising); the third section deals with the dimension of belief: beliefs about God, suffering, Jesus Christ and the church. The questionnaire was amended after a trial run with some 20 volunteers from the parish of St Anthony (Monopoli). These volunteers not only indi-

20

chapter one

cated items which were confusing or too difficult to understand, but also were stimulated, if they wished, to freely associate on the items of the questionnaire in order to get narrative and metaphorical information needed for both improving the questionnaire and further developing of this study. 1.7.2. Choice of Population Our population consists of Italian Catholic parishioners. Why Italian? We have already explained (cf. 1.2) that we decided to contextualise our research in order to overcome some difficulties in universal and a-historical definitions of popular religiosity. We chose the Italian context because popular religiosity in Italy has attracted much scholarly interest since the 1970s (cf. Pace 1979), which has not decreased in recent years, both in sociological (cf. Cesareo et al. 1995; Garelli 2007) and theological sciences (cf. Panteghini 1996; Sabatelli & Zuppa 2004). More specifically this scholarly interest focuses on the development and transformation of popular religiosity in Southern Italy (cf. Pizzuti 1998; 2002). Italian popular religiosity is an interesting case, partly because empirical figures show that 15 to 20% of all Italians are associated with this religious phenomenon (cf. Cesareo et al. 1995, 87-90). Hence we concentrate on Italy, and more specifically on Southern Italy. We chose the Southern Italian diocese of ConversanoMonopoli, which was willing to offer the necessary collaboration for this research. Why Catholic parishioners? We decided to confine our exploration to Catholic churchgoers, because popular religiosity in Italy is largely practised in the Catholic Church. Besides, practitioners of popular religiosity, according to representative national surveys, are regular churchgoers (cf. Pizzuti 2004, 113). Nonetheless we opted for a broad interpretation of a parishioner, namely a Catholic respondent who attends mass at least a few times a year. Our population of Catholic parishioners will be later divided in two groups (cf. 2.4.3) referring to their level of participation in popular religiosity, namely high and low level popular religious participants. This level will be measured with the help of items which are conform to our operational definition of popular religiosity and hence indicate if our Catholic parishioners belong to popular religious groups and associations, namely confraternities and Padre Pio prayer groups (cf. 2.4.1) and measure the extent to which they perform popu-

introduction

21

lar religious practices, namely veneration of sacred images and relics, pilgrimages, processions, vows and the rosary (cf. 2.4.2). 1.7.3. Data Collection Our data were collected in two ways: (1) door-to-door distribution of the questionnaire, and (2) direct contact with members of popular religious associations in the Catholic Italian diocese of ConversanoMonopoli, namely Padre Pio prayer groups and confraternities. Data collection took place during January and February 2005. Only respondents between 18 and 75 years old who, given the complexity of some questions, had at least primary school educational level, were asked to complete the questionnaire.2 (1) The first method of data collection was door-to-door distribution. First we selected four parishes in four different deaneries of the diocese of Conversano-Monopoli (Conversano, Fasano, Monopoli and Putignano). The choice was made in consultation with the diocesan pastoral office: we chose four different deaneries because we wanted to research different areas in the diocese. In each of these deaneries we selected one parish whose priests, from conversations we had with them, were most willing to collaborate: St Mary of the Carmen (Conversano), St John (Fasano), St Anthony (Monopoli), and St Dominic (Putignano). The parish priests all agreed to collaborate. They nominated a person to organise a group of volunteers in each parish for door-to-door distribution and collection of the questionnaires. Afterwards we met the different groups of volunteers to give them some instructions. The groups comprised 15 to 25 volunteers for each parish. Each parish received 500 questionnaires. After we had identified the main streets in each parish that have more than 20 houses or apartments per street, each volunteer was made responsible for a street. Each volunteer was supposed to distribute one questionnaire to every house or apartment, starting at street number 1 and continuing down the street. Instructions on who should complete the questionnaire in each household were given orally by the volunteers and in a letter introducing the project that was put in the envelope together with the questionnaire. We used a random criterion: 2 We did this because we expected to have many elderly respondents. Even though primary education has been obligatory in Italy since 1923, there is still a small percentage of Italians who have not completed primary school. This part of the population is composed mainly of people older than 65 years.

22

chapter one

the member of the household whose name was first in alphabetical order was asked to complete the questionnaire. About one week later the volunteers went back to the relevant households to collect the completed questionnaires. The total number of questionnaires distributed door-to-door was 2.000; 1.003 completed ones were returned, giving a response of roughly 50%. (2) The second method of data collection was through direct contact with popular religious associations. To get in direct touch with members of confraternities and Padre Pio prayer groups we used one of two methods: (a) a meeting with the group, during which the questionnaires were completed; (b) distribution and collection of the questionnaires by the group leader. Our preferred option was (a). The choice between the two options was made in consultation with the leaders, following their advice about the feasibility of either calling an extraordinary meeting for this purpose or accommodating the project in an ordinary meeting. In cases where this was not possible we asked the leader to distribute the questionnaires. In fourteen of the 22 popular religious groups that we contacted the questionnaires were completed during a meeting. Our aim was to have about 250 respondents from Padre Pio prayers groups and 250 from confraternities. We submitted 250 questionnaires to all ten Padre Pio prayers groups in the diocese (counting on an average of 20-25 respondents per group). By the same token we submitted 250 questionnaires to twelve confraternities (out of the 47 active ones in the diocese), selecting those with the most members in order to get a larger number of respondents. In total 500 questionnaires were distributed to Padre Pio prayer groups and confraternities. Of these 401 valid questionnaires were returned, giving a response of roughly 80%. The total number of valid questionnaires completed was 1.404. Since we decided to confine our exploration to Catholics, we removed from our population non-Catholics (N= 9) and people who did not answer the question about their religious denomination (N= 38); we also removed those Catholics who never go to mass (N= 63) and those who did not say how frequently they attended mass (N= 6).3 This left us with a research population of 1.288 Catholic parishioners.

3 Our population of Catholic parishioners was obtained with the help of the instrument shown in appendix 1, figure 2, items 1, 2 and 4.

introduction

23

1.7.4. Measuring Instruments Measuring instruments are obtained by the operationalisation of the concepts we use in our study of popular religiosity. Theoretical concepts cannot be directly applied to empirical reality, therefore they have to be operationalised, namely they have to be transformed into empirical items and variables (cf. Van der Ven 1993, 134). Measuring instruments were constructed specifically for this research or taken from existing studies. In the latter items were sometimes selected in order to adapt the instrument to our research context and our conceptual framework. In this section we discuss our measuring instruments in three groups (population characteristics, participation in popular religiosity, beliefs), indicating their sources and referring to the appendices where they can be consulted in detail. Population characteristics are gender, age, educational level, religious salience and church involvement. The first two need no further clarification. Educational level has four categories, in keeping with the Italian school system: primary school (6-10 years old); middle school (11-13 years old); high school (14-18 years old); and university. The five items on the scale of religious salience measure the importance that our respondents ascribe to religion in their lives; these items were taken from Eisinga et al. (2000, V0203-V0207) (cf. appendix 1, figure 1). Church involvement is a variable constructed by means of four items measuring belonging to a church, belonging to the Catholic Church, frequency of church attendance and involvement in parish activities. This instrument for church involvement was taken from Eisinga et al. (2000, V0133-V0134, V0136), albeit somewhat modified to adapt it to the Italian context. Hence church involvement resulted in three categories: marginal members, being Catholic parishioners who go to mass only a few times a year and do not participate in parish activities; modal members, being Catholic parishioners who attend mass at least once a month but are not engaged in parish activities; and core members, being Catholic parishioners who participate in mass at least once a month and are involved in parish activities (e.g. as catechists, lectors, cantors, etc.) (cf. appendix 1, figure 2).4 4 The construction of the variable “church involvement” was conducted in the following way with the help of the instrument presented in appendix 1, figure 2. Marginal members: item 3, category 2; item 4, category 2. Modal members: item 3, category 2; item 4, category 3 or more. Core members: item 3, category 1; item 4, category 3 or more.

24

chapter one

The belonging aspect of participation in popular religiosity was measured by means of two items on membership of a confraternity and a Padre Pio prayer group. The ritualising aspect was measured by means of eight items about frequency of certain popular religious practices among our respondents, namely veneration of sacred images and relics, i.e. lighting a candle, kneeling, kissing, touching the venerated objects, as well as going on pilgrimages, holding processions, making vows, and praying the rosary. The items on pilgrimages, processions and vows were taken from Cesareo et al. (1995, 344-346); all the others were constructed specifically for this study (cf. appendix 1, figures 3-4). We investigated religious beliefs about God, suffering, Jesus Christ and the church (ad intra and ad extra). Beliefs about God were measured by means of a set of fourteen items; this instrument was selected from Van der Ven & Biemans (1994); Van der Ven et al. (2004, 589590); and Ponce (2005, 33-35) (cf. appendix 1, figure 5). The instrument measuring beliefs about suffering contained eighteen items selected from Van der Ven & Vossen (1995); Van der Ven (1998a, 183); and Ponce (2006, 115-118) (cf. appendix 1, figure 6). Beliefs about Jesus Christ were investigated with the help of 24 items selected from Van der Ven & Biemans (1994, 204-205); Van der Ven et al. (2004, 591-592); and Ponce (2005, 62-64) (cf. appendix 1, figure 7). Beliefs about the ad intra dimension of the church were explored by way of the ladder of participation in parish leadership, composed of five items and taken from Sonnberger (1996, 274) (cf. appendix 1, figure 8). The instrument measuring beliefs about the ad extra dimension of the church included twelve items and was selected from Van der Ven et al. (2004, 592-593) (cf. appendix 1, figure 9). Why did we choose these beliefs for our empirical investigations? The legitimation of this choice can be found in our interpretation of the complementary relation between popular religiosity and official religion within the Catholic Church in our Italian context (cf. 2.2). Empirical studies show that Italian people more engaged in popular religiosity are also those who attend more frequently official liturgy of the church, hence are more committed members of official religion (cf. Cesareo et al. 1995; Pizzuti 2004, 113). These people are regular church-goers and therefore they tend to share the same beliefs that church leadership transmits, for example, during liturgy or catechesis. This explains our choice to study robust theological reflections and the catholic teachings about these beliefs. But we did not restrict

introduction

25

ourselves to them; we added other religious beliefs outside of these teachings (for example, the belief in the absolute transcendence or immanence of God, coming from deism and pantheism) in order to see whether they can be empirically found among our population and explore a potential effect of cultural environment on popular religiosity. Our criterion to choose theological and empirical literature follows the same reasoning: we chose literature which could offer a reflective and hermeneutic context both to beliefs officially taught in the Catholic Church and to beliefs outside of these teachings. 1.7.5. Statistical Methods The data collected from the completed questionnaires were keyed into the SPSS 15.0 program (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and analysed. We conducted factor analyses (Principal Axis Factoring) with a view to data reduction. We always started with a free factor solution (Eigenvalue ≥ 1.00) and moved on to a forced factor solution for statistical reasons and/or if the interpretability of the outcome of the free factor solution required this. For admission to a factor an item had to meet the following empirical criteria: communality ≥ .20; factor loading ≥ .40; the item must clearly belong to one factor, the criterion being a factor loading of ≥ .15 compared to its loading on other factors. Factor analyses are given in an appendix to this study, but factor loadings between –.10 and .10 are not shown in the table. Oblique rotation (rotation oblimin) was applied when two or more factors correlated ≥ .30. Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each factor to assess the reliability of the scales to be constructed on the basis of the results of the factor analyses (reliability criterion: alpha ≥ .60). For the scale on beliefs about the church ad intra we conducted a Mokken scale analysis. For an item to be accepted in the scale the criterion of homogeneity is ItemH > 0.30. The reliability criterion of a Mokken scale is Rho ≥ 0.60; the criterion of internal homogeneity is ScaleH > 0.30.5 We calculated the means scored by our respondents on the scales for religious beliefs. We calculated these means separately for a high 5 Homogeneity (H) of items and of the scale is interpreted as follows: .30 < H ≤ .40 weak item/scale; .40 < H ≤ .50 moderate item/scale; H > .50 strong item/scale.

26

chapter one

and a low level of participation in popular religiosity, so as to determine the extent to which religious beliefs are supported or rejected by high and low levels of popular religious participation.6 Since religious beliefs about the church ad intra were investigated by means of a Mokken scale measuring levels of participation in parish leadership, we calculated the frequencies and percentages of respondents who agree with each level of participation in parish leadership, always separating high level popular religious participation from low level participation. To explore significant differences between means scored by respondents with high and low popular religious participation on the scales for religious beliefs we conducted independent sample t-tests. In the case of beliefs about the church ad intra significant differences between high and low level participation in popular religiosity were explored by calculating Cramer’s V association coefficient. The social location of participation in popular religiosity and religious beliefs was investigated by calculating Pearson’s correlation coefficient (for the metric variables of age and religious salience) and by variance analysis (ANOVA) (for the non-metric variables of gender, educational level and church involvement). Because educational level and church involvement have more than two categories, we also conducted multiple comparison Scheffé tests where ANOVA showed significant etas. To determine to what extent popular religious participation predicts religious beliefs we conducted multiple regression analyses (standard method: enter), while controlling for population characteristics. We chose the enter method for the sake of commensurability of the outcomes of the different regression analyses. Our independent variables were popular religious participation and population characteristics (gender,7 age, education, religious salience, church involvement); the dependent variables were the various religious beliefs about God, suffering, Jesus Christ and the church. The significant effect of independent variables on dependent variables is indicated by the sig6

We interpret the means for religious beliefs as follows: 1.00-1.79 = absolute disagreement; 1.80-2.59 = disagreement; 2.60-3.39 = ambivalence (2.60-2.99 = negative ambivalence; 3.00-3.39 = positive ambivalence); 3.40-4.19 = agreement; 4.20-5.00 = full agreement). 7 Beta coefficient scored by gender (male = 1; female = 2) is interpreted as follows: negative ß means that men tend to score higher than women on the investigated scale; positive ß means that women tend to score higher than men.

introduction

27

nificance of the standardised beta coefficient (ß). For the non-metric variables—educational level (primary, middle school, high school, university) and church involvement (marginal, modal, core)—we constructed dummy variables, using as reference categories primary education in the first case, and marginal membership in the second. Significant B coefficients indicate the significant difference in effect between reference categories and other categories of the same variable. Explained total variance in regression analyses is indicated by adjusted R-square (adj. R2).8 In presenting the results of our analyses we show two levels of significance: p