Market Forces and Catholic Commitment: Exploring the New Paradigm
Abstract
The traditional paradigm in the sociology of religion sees strength in religious monopolies, attributing to them the ability to sustain an unchallenged, taken-for-granted sacred canopy. The newer paradigm regards religious monopolies as weak, locating religious vitality in pluralism and competition. A crucial test of these competing paradigms arises in the hypothesis that rank-and-file Catholic commitment varies inversely to the proportion nominally Catholic within any appropriate set of units of analysis. Results based on the 102 Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States show that ordination rates, the ratio of priests to nominal Catholics, and Catholic school enrollment are proportionately highest where Catholics are few. Results based on the 50 states show the same inverse relationship between the percent Catholic and the ratio of priest to Catholics. These data also show that the smaller a state's Catholic minority, the higher the circulation rate of the Catholic Digest
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Religious market theory posits that the structure of a religious market, specifically the level of its pluralism or openness to competition among religious organizations, determines religious behaviors such as church attendance and participation.
“On the basis of the rational choice tradition in social sciences, the religious market theory posits that the structure of a religious market, specifically the level of its pluralism or openness to competition among religious organizations, determines religious behaviors such as church attendance and participation (Stark and McCann 1993).”
From Catholicism and Its Civic Engagement (2014) · cites this paper as Stark and McCann 1993
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Divided We Stand, United We Fall: Religious Pluralism, Giving, and Volunteering
Borgonovi, F. (2008) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240807300106 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Catholicism and Its Civic Engagement
Hao, Z., Kuo, W.-B., Chan, S. H., Jing, M., & Tam, Y. F. (2014) · Review of Religion and Chinese Society · doi:10.1163/22143955-04102005 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stark, R., & McCann, J. C.
- Venue
- Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1993-06
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 111
- ISSN
- 0021-8294 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2323779881
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 16.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Catholicism and Religious Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society in Latin America
- Keywords
- religious pluralism, religious competition, religious monopoly, Catholic dioceses, religious vitality, Catholic minority, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review