Accardo Dissertation

EASTERN UNIVERSITY
THE IMMINENT LEADERSHIP OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:
AN ASSESSMENT OF PARISHIONER PERCEPTIONS AND CLERGY
SELF- PERCEPTIONS OF SERVANT-LEADER BEHAVIORS
by
Gina M. Long-Accardo
A dissertation submitted to the
Campolo College of Graduate and Professional Studies
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
St. David’s, Pennsylvania
December, 2015

ii
© Copyright by Gina M. Long-Accardo 2015
All Rights Reserved

iii
ABSTRACT
The imminent leadership of the Roman Catholic Church: An assessment of parishioner
perceptions and clergy self-perceptions of servant-leader behaviors
Gina M. Long-Accardo
Doctor of Philosophy, 2015
Eastern University
Advisor: Beth Birmingham, Ph.D.
The purpose of this study was to investigate if the Priests within the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia exhibit servant-leadership behaviors and compare those behaviors to their
parishioners’ perceptions; hypotheses were created based on the empirical literature
reviewed. The Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) rater and self-rater forms
developed by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) were used to assess five individual servant
leadership characteristic (Altruistic Calling (AC), Wisdom (W), Organizational
Stewardship (OS), Persuasive Mapping (PM), Emotional Healing (EH)) of the priests
self-perceptions and the perceptions of those they serve- the parishioners. The study
employed a correlational research methodology utilizing descriptive statistics, Mann-
Whitney U test and regression analysis. The target population consisted of active priests
within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and parishioners of the largest Parishes within the
Pastoral Planning Areas (PPA) of the Diocese. The data analyzed provided evidence to
indicate an affirmative answer to the main research questions. The priests within the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia are servant-leaders and do possess servant-leader behaviors,
as viewed through the lens of those they serve. However, of the five servant leader
characteristics, the parishioners viewed the priests as having a lower Organizational
Stewardship (OS) score, as compared to the priests’ self-perceptions; as evident through
the financial decline of the Church. In addition, the parishioners viewed the priests as
having a higher Wisdom (W) score, than the priest perceived themselves; suggesting the
humility of Jesus Christ, the original servant-leader. The data analysis also queried
previous CARA (2004) studies, and showed evidence that the younger Philadelphia
priests are not shying away from the servant-leader model. In fact, due to the widely
accepted servant-leadership style of Pope Francis I and the previous leadership styles of
prior Papacy’s, leadership theory would indicate that followers tend to emulate the
leadership style of their current leader. Recommendations for organizational change and
leadership development are provided, as well as, future research.

iv
DEDICATIONS
I would like to thank my parents. It is the foundational morals, values and ethics
that they have instilled in me that have made me want to always strive to be a better
person. My fundamental interest and teachings of leadership came from my father,
Commander Robert C. Long (USN Ret.) – forever my hero and a consummate patriot.
My mother, Janet V. Long is the most amazing mother and grandmother; if it were not
for her unconditional love and support, I would not have been able to get through this
PhD program (or any part of my life for that matter). The appreciation that I have for my
parents is infinite, and can never be measured.
To my husband, Tony, who has validated all my reasons to pursue my academic goals; he
has reinforced my scholarly aspirations and has pushed me to accomplish greater things,
without even realizing it – I am what I am today because of him and the journey we have
traveled together. To my beautiful daughter, Bianca Pearl- it is my first and foremost
purpose in life to make sure that she has a strong female role-model to emulate. She is
ultimately the end all reason for everything that I do and accomplish.
To my siblings – to my dearly-departed brother Bobby, and my sister Tracy- they
have paved the way for me, as I learned from each of them which decisions to make (and
not to make) in life. I personally thank them both for their preceding life journeys; I have
learned valuable lessons from each of them, which have had a positive and life-long
impact on me. My brother was the bravest individual I have ever known; he faced life’s
greatest fears so gallantly, and his personal trials and tribulations have given me the
ability to stay grounded and never lose sight of what is truly important in life – your faith
and family. With that said, it is with the deepest love and admiration that I dedicate my

v
dissertation to my faith and family; especially, my big brother Bob; because I know he
would be so proud of his little sister.
“Never doubt. Never tire. Never become discouraged!”
- Saint John Paul II

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am so humbly grateful and forever indebted to my committee members, Dr.
Beth Birmingham (Chair), Dr. Franklin Okilome (methodologist) and Monsignor Charles
Hagan (SME) - whose leadership, knowledge and spiritual guidance has assisted me
throughout this entire process; for which I know I would not be as successful without
them. To my dear friend, Rev. Richard Rudy; it is his friendship, and his devotion to the
Church and its parishioners which initially inspired my dissertation topic – he is a true
priest and a true servant of God. Also, to the leadership of the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia, (the late) Dr. Robert Miller and Dr. Thomas Denton, of the Research and
Planning Office, and all the parishes and priests participating in my study- for believing
in the importance and significance of my research; for without their endorsements and
participation, I would not have been able to embark on this last phase of my academic
journey.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….………...ii
Dedication…………………………………………………………...................................iv
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….…vi
List of Tables and Figures……………………………………..........................................xi
Chapter Page
1. Introduction…………..……………………………………………………………1
Background/Problem…………...…………………………………...…………2
Purpose Statement and Rational…………………….…………………………6
Research Question…………….…...…………………………………………..6
Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………...6
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………9
Definitions of Terms………………...…………………………………………9
Delimitations of the Study……………………………………………………11
Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………12
Organization of the Remaining Chapters……………………………………...12
2. Literature Review………………………………………………………………...13
Servant Leadership Theory…………………………………………………...13
Altruistic Calling…………………………………………………….…...19
Emotional Healing…………………………………………………….…19
Persuasive Mapping……………………………………………………...19
Wisdom…………………………………………………………………..20
Organizational Stewardship……………………………………………...20
Servant Leadership in Organizations…………………………………………..21
Servant Leadership vs. Transformational Leadership………………………....23
Jesus Christ as the Original Servant-Leader…………………………………...26
The Mission of the Catholic Church……………………..…………………….30
The Purpose of a Roman Catholic Priest………….…………………………...32
Clergy Leadership and Development………………………..…………………37
Effects of Clergy Leadership on Parish Life…………………………………...39
Post-Vatican II Leadership…………………………………………………….42

viii
Pope Francis as a Model for Parish Priests…………………………………….44
Generational and Gender Perceptions of Catholicism………………………....46
Catholic Church in Decline…...………………………………………………..47
Summary of Literature……………………………………………………........48
3. Methodology………………………………………………………………………..53
Research Design……………………………………………………………….53
Methods Rationale…….……………………………………………………….55
Sampling……………………………………………………………………….59
Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………..60
Data Collection………………………………………………………...............61
Statistical Measures……………………………………………………….…...64
Independent Variables……………….………………………….……….64
Dependent Variables…………………………………………….……….65
Data Analysis…………..………………………………………………………65
Sample Size Justification………………………………………………………67
Ethical Implications……………………………………………………………69
Presenting the Findings………………………………………………………...70
4. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………..............71
Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………….………….71
Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………….72
Hypothesis 1………………………………….…………………………..73
Hypothesis 2………………………………………………...……………73
Hypothesis 3……………………………………………………..……….74
Hypothesis 4……………………………………………………………...75
Hypothesis 5……………………………………………………………...76
Hypothesis 6……………………………………………………………...77
Hypothesis 7…………………………………………………………...…78
Hypothesis 8……………………………………………………………...80
Hypothesis 9……………………………………………………………...81
Hypothesis 10…………………………………………………………….83
Hypothesis 11…………………………………………………………….85

ix
Hypothesis 12…………………………………………………………….85
Hypothesis 13…………………………………………………………….86
Hypothesis 14…………………………………………………………….87
Hypothesis 15…………………………………………………………….88
Results…………………………..………………………………………….....88
5. Conclusion……………………...………………………………………………...…90
Summary of the Study…………………………………………………...…...90
Discussion of the Findings...…………………………………………………92
Finding 1…………………………………………………………………93
Finding 2…………………………………………………………………93
Finding 3…………………………………………………………………94
Finding 4…………………………………………………………………96
Finding 5…………………………………………………………………98
Parishioner Perceptions of Clergy and Clergy Self-Perceptions of Servant-
Leader Behaviors……………………………………………………………..99
Implications/Recommendations for Organizational Change………………..100
Suggestions for Future Research……………………………………………102
Possible Sources of Weakness.……………………………………………...103
Conclusion………………………………………………..…………………..105
List of References………………………………………………………………………107
Appendixes…………………………………………………………………………......126
A. IRB Approval Letter…………………………………………………….........126
B. Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) Rater Form………………………..127
C. Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) Self- Rater Form…………...……..129
D. Map of Pastoral Planning Areas (PPA) 100-160…………………..………….131
E. Informed Consent/Participation Letter to Priests……………………………..132
F. Hard-Copy SLQ mailed to Priests…………………………………………….134
G. Participation Letter to Parishes (Parishioners)………………………………..137
H. E-mail Correspondence Regarding SLQ Aggregate Scores……………..........139
I. Priest/Parishioner Descriptive Statistics………………………………………141
J. Statistical Transformations…………………………………………….............151

x
K. Levene’s Test Results………………………………………………………….157
L. H1-H5 and H11-15 Assumptions……………………………..………............159
M. Coefficients for H6-H10………………………………………………………164
N. H6-H10 Assumptions…………………………………………........................165
O. Process of Statistical Testing of H6-10………………………………………..168

xi
List of Tables
1. Servant-Leadership Constructs………………………………………...………..15
2. Servant-Leadership Attributes…………………………………………...……...17
3. Spears and Barbuto & Wheeler Servant Leadership Matrix……………...……..18
4. Comparing Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership………...…...25
5. Cultic and Servant-Leader Priests Differentiation……………............................38
6. Mann-Whitney U test to test Hypothesis 1 a, b
…………………………………..73
…………………………………..74
…………………………………..75
…………………………………..75
…………………………………..76
11. Multiple Linear Regression for testing Hypothesis 6…………………………...77
15. Multiple Linear Regression for testing Hypothesis 10………………………….84
…………………………………85
…………………………………86
…………………………………87
…………………………………87
…………………………………88
21. Demographic Profile of Participants……………………………………………91
22. Demographic Variables Affecting SL Behaviors………………………………97
List of Figures
1. The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church…………………………………………..32

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The mission of the Church is a social call to serve, like that of a servant-leader.
Black (2010) has stated, “The doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church encourage
members of the Catholic community to live the principles of servant leadership” (p. 442).
Robert Greenleaf (1977) once said that “the Catholic Church is […] potentially our
largest single force for good”; however, “it fails to realize its potential for good in society
as a whole because […] it is seen as a predominantly negative force” (p. 248). This
perception and the current scandals befalling the Roman Catholic Church have placed
extra responsibility and pressure on its imminent leadership. Based on these issues,
leadership theory would suggest the Church needs servant-leaders to assist in rising
above the ignominies and cynicism plaguing the Church and to regain its parishioners’
trust (Greenleaf, 1977; Wilkes, 1999; Young, 2012).
This study used Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire
(SLQ) rater and self-rater forms to assess parishioners’ perceptions of the Roman
Catholic priests’ servant-leadership behaviors and compare the priests’ self-perceptions
within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Greenleaf (1970) developed the
concept of servant leadership used by this study, in which the primary purpose of the
leaders is to serve others first. The servant-leadership characteristics that were assessed
include altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and
organizational stewardship. This study seeks to fill the gap in existing research through
survey research and the use of the SLQ rater and self-rater instruments. It was able to
successfully quantify and determine the parishioners’ perceptions of their parish priests’

2
servant-leadership behaviors, as well as the priests’ servant-leader self-perceptions. The
results of this research will allow the Roman Catholic Church to focus on developing and
strengthening its priests’ servant-leadership behaviors in the area(s) needed.
Background/Problem
Organizations across all sectors are demanding more ethical and moralistic
leaders (Mullane, 2009; Reinke, 2004). As a result, leadership inspired by the ideas of
morality and serving others, like servant leadership, may very well be what organizations
need. Therefore, due to its teachings and fundamental purpose, it is within the religious
sector as a whole, and the Catholic Church specifically, that leaders should be the greatest
emulators of servant leadership.
The Roman Catholic Church is one of the largest organizations in the world, with
an estimated 1.196 billion members globally and an annual American budget of
approximately $170 billion dollars (CARA, 2013). During the reign of Pope Benedict
XVI, before his resignation in February 2013 (the first Papal resignation in over 700
years), the Catholic Church in America steadily declined from 18,891 parishes in 2005 to
17,483; and 41,399 priest to 38,275 (CARA, 2014). This decline was due to his denial,
legalistic foot-dragging, and outright hindrance (Donadio, 2010) of the “endless
pedophilia revelations that wracked the Church in recent decades” (Binelli, 2014, p. 39).
His term was also plagued by a massive money-laundering scandal in the Vatican in 2009
and various other financial indignities (Binelli, 2014) that shed a negative light on the
Church globally. Pope Benedict, who was seen as a steadfast traditionalist and an
academic at heart rather than a practitioner, was said to be a bad “choice to meet the
particular challenges facing the Catholic Church” (Binelli, 2014, p. 38).

3
Pope Francis, formerly the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, succeeded Benedict XVI
in March 2013 as the 266th
vicar of Jesus Christ on earth. Prior to his election, Pope
Francis addressed the conclave, saying that in order to survive, the Church must “stop
living within herself, of herself, for herself” (Binelli, 2014, p. 38). It has been
acknowledged that this Pope devoted much of his initial annotated teachings to a
contemptuous assessment of unchecked free-market capitalism; the Pope exposed his
own passion to be more congruent with God’s son (Binelli, 2014) and that of a true
servant-leader. Much of Pope Francis’ attention continues to focus on the dispossessed;
prior to his election as Pope, he would roam the city in disguise, enter its worst streets
and neighborhoods, kiss the feet of AIDS patients while they were in hospice, “hear
confessions from prostitutes on park benches and confronted drug-dealers who threatened
one of his priests” (Binelli, 2014, p. 42). Currently as Pope, he has forgone the Vatican
mansion and opted to live in a simple two-bedroom apartment, where he cooks his own
dinner. According to Binelli (2014), Pope Francis “thrives on personal contact, and
spends the better part of an hour greeting believers” in Vatican Square (p. 38).
The Pope’s identifiable displays of humanity and humility are encouragingly
revolutionary and he has garnished the title of “The People’s Pope.” He employed a
special commission to guide him on how to handle the problem of pedophilia within the
Church, including creating pre-emptive measures and counseling for victims. In addition,
he hired external consultants to examine the financial workings of the Vatican Bank,
where he has already removed several officials (Binelli, 2014). Pope Francis’ election
brings new hope and promise for the Catholic Church, and his increasing worldly
popularity has brought its own momentum by way of media hype. His popularity is due

4
to his humility, passion for social justice, promotion of selflessness, and desire to serve
(Macedonio, 2014). As the head of the Church, Pope Francis sets an excellent model as a
servant-leader, which should be emulated by the Church globally; especially in the
United States, as the American Church has had its fair share of scandals and declined
membership (Macedonio, 2014). Macedonio (2014) further asserts “As a servant leader,
Pope Francis will be an exemplar for all Catholics to emulate, as he will revitalize and
repair the Church through an active leadership style of leadership by example” (p.1).
Pope Francis has surprised both Catholics and non-Catholics alike (Huber, 2014).
His “personal and institutional modesty appeals to many U.S. Catholics, especially those
who have been put off by the seeming arrogance of the Vatican” (Huber, 2014, p. 2).
Huber (2014) further states that Pope Francis’ willingness to acknowledge the "sins" of
the Church, “including the rampant sexual abuse by priests, and the hyper-focus upon the
‘sins’ of gays and lesbians have been similarly unexpected” (p. 2). A recent international
poll conduct by CNN suggested that 88% of U.S. Catholics approve of Pope Francis
leadership and feel he is a positive role-model for the Church (Huber, 2014). His
leadership is “marked by love, humility, and a passion for justice” (Huber, 2014, p. 3).
According to RISE, Harvard Leadership Magazine, “the Church has been experiencing
turmoil as a result of a lack of religious vocations, a plethora of sex scandals, and a
decrease in the confidence of the Vatican to provide effective leadership and guidance”
[…] many are looking to Pope Francis and his servant leadership behaviors to lead the
Church back in the right direction (Macedonio, 2014, p. 1).
Across the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, however, parishioner enrollments are
declining (Woodall, 2012), resulting in parish mergers. In June 2013, the Archdiocese

5
announced planned mergers affecting 27 parishes throughout Northeast, Northwest, and
West Philadelphia, as well as Delaware County. This announcement came in concurrence
with the archdiocesan struggle to cut costs and achieve greater efficiencies in light of
decreasing membership (Lai, 2013). These latest 2014 mergers will now leave the
Archdiocese with a total of 219 parishes in 2014, down from 267 in 2009. Lai (2013)
further points out that Archdiocesan leaders have cited these mergers as a reaction to
trends that have endangered parish sustainability; such trends include, but are not limited
to, declining parishioner attendance and sacramental life, demographic changes in
Catholic populations, growing economic challenges, limited parish locations within
specific geographical locations, and the decreasing number of men entering the
priesthood.
Membership declines and ongoing organizational restructuring also come as a
direct result of the clergy sexual abuse and financial mismanagement scandals that have
shaken the faithful (Wells, 2011). These unfortunate scandals and the public criminal
convictions of Philadelphian Catholic priests so prevalent in the media have infected the
psyche of everyone involved. Following the legal revelations and the reporting of events
and actions not taken by certain Catholic leaders, many parishioners perceive a lack of
morality and accountability within the Catholic Church, more specifically among the
Church’s leaders.
As the leader and ultimate head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis’
servant leadership style resonates so strongly with the general public (both Catholic and
non-Catholic alike); however, the perception of the local diocese is negative (Chaput,
2013; Hurdle, 2011; O’Reilly & Phillips, 2011; Remsen & Holmes, 2005; Slobozian,

6
2013). Because of this there is a need to examine the servant-leadership perceptions of
the local parish leadership. Therefore, this study will quantifiably determine the servant-
leadership self-perceptions of the Philadelphian Archdiocese priests, while
simultaneously examining those leadership perceptions through the lens of the
parishioners they serve.
Purpose Statement and Rationale
Because Pope Francis’ servant-leadership style has had such a positive impact on
society, and is seen as an “exemplar for all Catholics to emulate” - the purpose of this
study was to discover if the Priests within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia contain similar
servant-leadership behaviors and compare those behaviors to their parishioners’
perceptions. The rationale of this study satisfied the need for the Catholic Church’s
leaders to discover if their parishioners view them as servant leaders who demonstrate
specific servant-leadership behaviors- like that of Jesus Christ and Pope Francis.
Research Questions
The overarching research questions are as follows: Is there a significant difference
between parishioners’ perceptions of their Parish Priests servant-leadership behaviors and
the Parish Priests own self-perceptions? Ultimately, do parishioners view their parish
priest as possessing servant leadership characteristics or not? Specific research
hypotheses were developed based on the empirical literature reviewed.
Theoretical Framework
Pope Francis (2014), while speaking to the Catholic clergy asserted, “We are
called and constituted pastors, not pastors by ourselves but by the Lord; and not to serve
ourselves but the flock that has been entrusted to us, and to serve it to the point of laying

7
down our life, like Christ the Good Shepherd” (p. 85). Demonstrated by Pope Francis,
and widely-welcomed by the public, the leadership theory guiding this study is that of
servant leadership. Inspired by the works of German novelist Herman Hesse (1956),
Robert Greenleaf (1970, 1977) developed a “paradoxical approach to leadership”
(Northouse, 2007, p. 348) with benevolent ethical insinuations based on servanthood
(Banks & Ledbetter, 2004). Greenleaf (1970, 1977) contended that leadership was best
bequeathed on a person “who was by nature a servant” (Northouse, 2007, p. 349) and
who had the desire to serve others; hence, the servant-leader theory. The framework for
servant leadership encompasses “helping others discover their inner spirit, earning and
keeping others’ trust, service over self-interest, and effective listening” (Frye, 2003, p.
708). This model of leadership is a follower-centered approach that explicitly identifies
the leader’s motives for serving and leading (Whittington et al., 2005).
The servant-leader “brings together service and meaning” and is attuned to
fundamental spiritual values; in “serving them they serve others including colleagues,
organizations and society” (Frye, 2003, p. 708). Servant leadership also stresses the
importance of “listening, empathy, and unconditional love” (Northouse, 2007, p. 349).
Imperative to this theory is the notion that a servant leader has a social responsibility to
concern him or herself with the “have-nots” and to identify them as “equal stakeholders
in the life of the organization” (Northouse, 2007, p. 349), while in the interim nurturing
the follower (Kee & Newcomer, 2008). According to Greenleaf (1970, 1977), the
servant-leadership model is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs; therefore, Jesus is
one of the most frequently cited examples of a servant-leader (Banks & Ledbetter, 2004).

8
If we think about leadership “in the words of the gospel writer Luke as ‘one who
serves’ […] the idea here is that leaders are like stewards who have an obligation to leave
the parish better than they found it” (Miller, 2007, p. 1). Miller (2007) further claims that
leaders “provide maturity as expressed in a sense of self-worth, a sense of belonging, a
sense of responsibility, a sense of accountability, and a sense of equality” (p. 1). Miller
(2007) asserts that servant leaders value people in a way that involves “an ethic that is
quite consistent with the teachings of the Church” (p. 1); hence, using servant leadership
as the theoretical basis for this study is appropriate. The Catholic Church’s mission is to
continue the works of Jesus Christ on earth, and its teachings are found in the Gospel.
The Church is guided by moral principles and its teachings suggest that its leaders
contain and are led by a strong moral authority. Greenleaf (2002) asserts that moral
authority “is the gaining of influence through following principles” (p. 11).
According to Servant Leadership theory, a servant-leader must exhibit moral
authority. This form of moral supremacy is a direct result of humility “where the greatest
becomes the servant of all” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 11). According to Greenleaf (2002),
moral authority comes through sacrifice in the four basic elements of nature: physical and
economic sacrifice is temperance and giving back; emotional/social sacrifice is
surrendering one’s self to the value and difference of another, to apologize, and to
forgive; mental sacrifice is placing learning above pleasure and realizing that true
freedom comes from discipline; and spiritual sacrifice is living life humbly and
courageously, living and serving wisely. Among others, all of these four proceeding
elements are required for an individual to be ordained within the Catholic Church.

9
The ordained leader, like the servant-leader, “begins with a natural feeling that
one wants to serve […] the conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (Greenleaf,
2002, p. 27). One example of this feeling is hearing God’s call to serve His Church and
His people. One is a servant first and then emerges as a leader (Greenleaf, 2002). This
difference “manifests itself in the care taken by servant-first to make sure the people’s
highest priority needs are being served” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 27); with the clergy of the
Catholic Church, in particular, the parish priest has the most prominent contact with the
Church’s parishioners.
Significance of Study
This research ultimately allows the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to see where its
clergy servant-leadership behaviors stand in respect to its members perceptions. It also
allows the clergy the opportunity to assess their own servant-leader behaviors, which will
hopefully inspire them to become better religious role-models and emulators of Jesus
Christ. This study also allows the Church’s leadership the opportunity to improve those
servant-leader behaviors that need enhancing. Moreover, this study provides the Church
leadership the information to focus on and initiate leadership-development training so as
to properly cultivate and emphasize the Church’s servant-leadership behaviors to the
benefit of its parishioners.
Definition of Terms
To ensure the reader is acquainted with the proposed meanings of the terminology
within servant-leadership behaviors and the Roman Catholic Church, the following
definitions are used throughout this study:

10
 Altruistic calling: The standard definition for “altruism” is an unselfish
regard for or devotion to the welfare of others, while “calling,” according
to Frye (2003), is actions/behaviors that make a difference and give one’s
life meaning.
 Archdiocese: The district under an Archbishop's jurisdiction, which is
divided into Episcopal Regions, Deaneries and Pastoral Planning Areas
(PPA), which is sub-divided into parishes/churches.
 Emotional healing: According to Spears (1995), emotional resolution or
healing can resolve emotional pain and broken spirits when people’s hopes
and dreams or relationships fail. Healing is one of the most necessary and
powerful skills for an effective leader (Dacher, 1999; Sturnick, 1998).
 Imminent Leadership- For the sake of this study, “imminent leadership”
are those clergy who have the most direct contact with Parishioners and
actively serve in a Parish– ordained Priests.
 Organizational stewardship: The willingness to take responsibility for the
larger institution and go for the service instead of control and self-interest
(Block, 1993). It is also the ability through which leaders act as role
models (Hernandez, 2008).
 Parish: A church territorial entity constituting a division of the
Archdiocese.
 Parishioner: A member of the parish/church within the Archdiocese
 Parish priest: An ordained individual who provides pastoral care with
jurisdiction over the parish and its parishioners

11
 Pastoral Planning Area (PPA): Is a sub-division of a Deanery within a
specific geographical location of a diocese.
 Persuasive mapping: A persuasion strategy in which leaders are able to
influence others without relying on legitimate power or formal authority
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002).
 Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ): A validated survey instrument
created by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) used to assess five servant
leadership factors, including altruistic calling, emotional healing,
persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational stewardship.
 Wisdom: The ability of leaders to have foresight and the skill to know the
appropriate application and situation to guide purposeful action (Bierly et
al., 2000)
Delimitations of Study
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia encompasses 219 parishes and approximately
1,138,132 million registered members spanning across and beyond the city of
Philadelphia, to include the surrounding counties. It is divided into six territories Bucks
County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia North,
and Philadelphia South. Each of these diverse areas has its own unique demographics and
traditions, making the Archdiocese of Philadelphia the culturally rich community that it is
(Archdiocese of Philadelphia Office of Catholic Education, 2013); this sample population
was selected based on those preceding factors.

12
Limitations of Study
Because this research was restricted to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and the
Roman Catholic denomination only, the following limitations exist within this study and
the sample chosen:
1.) This study was not focused on Church scandal; however, the scandals may
have influenced parishioner perceptions.
2.) Only active parishioners were used, negating those Catholic parishioners who
do not attend and/or are non-practicing Catholics.
3.) Only active parishioners who have access to the Internet were able to
participate, thus, negating parishioners who have left the Church or who are
not active; in addition to, households who did not have internet home service
and those who do not know how to access the internet.
4.) Other Archdiocese were not included in this study, limiting the demographics
to the Philadelphia region only.
Organization of Remaining Chapters
The remaining segments of this text contain five chapters. The subsequent chapter
focuses on the relevant literature pertaining to this study’s subject and offers a foundation
for establishing the significance of this research. Chapter 3 focuses on the research
design, as well as the data-collection and analysis procedures, including information
regarding the Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) instrument. Chapter 4 illustrates
the analyzed data and analysis results, and Chapter 5 provides a summary of the
researcher’s findings and recommends suggestions for future research.

13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Because Pope Francis’ servant-leadership style has been positively welcomed by
the public, and seen as an “exemplar for all Catholics to emulate” the purpose of this
study is to discover if the Priests within the Archdiocese of Philadelphia exhibit such
servant-leadership behaviors and compare those behaviors to their parishioners’
perceptions. Pope Francis (2014) stressed the importance of being a servant pastor when
he stated, “Be pastors with odor of the sheep, present in your people’s midst like Jesus,
the Good Shepherd. Your presence is not secondary; it’s indispensable […] immerse
yourselves in your own flock!” (p. 87).
Servant Leadership Theory
According to Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), “the very notion of a ‘servant as a
leader’ is an oxymoron” and “it may be difficult to think and act both as a leader and as a
servant at the same time – a leader who serves and a servant who leads” (p. 57).
Nevertheless, the concept of Servant Leadership theory began with Robert Greenleaf
while he was working as an executive with AT&T. Greenleaf created the notion of
servant leadership from a perceptive insight when he read Herman Hesse’s book Journey
to the East. The book is about a band of men on a very long mythical journey in which
the main character is a servant named Leo, who does the menial chores. Along the
journey, Leo sustains the men with his songs, extraordinary presence, and spirit. When
Leo disappears, the entire group falls apart and abandons the journey; in other words, the
group is unable to function without him (Reinke, 2004, p. 32). Years later, the narrator of
the story finds Leo and realizes that he is, in fact, the head of the Order that sponsored the

14
original journey (Reinke, 2004, p. 32). Ultimately, Leo, who was first known and seen as
a “servant,” was in fact a great leader (Greenleaf, 1977). Through this story, Greenleaf
learned many instrumental lessons about the role of a leader, and those lessons evolved
into his concept of servant leadership.
Servant leadership is grounded in the concept of “self as a steward of the
organization and its people” (Reinke, 2004, p. 32). According to Greenleaf (1997), the
servant-leader holds the organization in trust to the public it serves. Servant leadership is
grounded in a strong sense of values, virtue, and stewardship, which “ensures that the
servant leader does not accept mediocre performance, but keeps everyone focused on
achieving organizational objectives within the constraints of shared organizational
values” (Reinke, 2004, p. 33). Ehrhart (2004) suggests that servant-leaders find ways to
help others, cultivate quality relationships, build a sense of community, seek input before
making decisions, concentrate on individuals’ personal development, display an
egalitarian relationship with individuals, get involved in community service projects, and
give back to the community.
Servant leadership encompasses the notion that leaders should put other people’s
needs before their own. According to Greenleaf (1977), servant-leaders are concerned
with the less-privileged and they make efforts to help others develop positively. The
servant-leader’s primary motive is to serve instead of lead (Greenleaf, 1977). Servant
leadership “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve first,” then a
“conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead […] the difference manifests itself in the
care taken by the servant – first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are
being served” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 58).

15
Greenleaf (1977) proposes that the best test for servant leadership is through a
few simple questions:
1. Do those served grow as persons?
2. Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous,
more likely themselves to become servants?
3. What is the effect on the least privileged in society: will they benefit, or, at least
not be further deprived?
Servant leadership happens when leaders assume the position of a servant in their
relationships with fellow workers and others. Servant-leaders are not motivated by self-
interest, but rather their motivations ascend from a higher plane of motivation that
focuses on the needs of others (Greenleaf, 1977; Pollard, 1996; Wilkes, 1996). According
to Nair (1994, p. 59), this theory’s construct comprises the leader’s self-concept and
primary intent (see Table 1).
Table 1
Servant-Leadership Constructs
Primary Intent………………………Serve others first, not lead others first
Self-Concept………………………...Servant and steward, not leader or owner
Source: Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 59
Research suggests that a servant-leader’s primary intent to serve may originate
from his or her own self-concept as a moral and altruistic person (Sosik & Dworakivsky,
1998). In other words, leaders behave in ways that are consistent with their own thoughts
and beliefs. A servant-leader views him or herself as servant first “who later serves out of
promptings of conscience or in conformity with normative expectations” (Greenleaf,

16
1977, p. 14). According to Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), it is “important to note that the
servant leader’s deliberate choice to serve and be a servant should not be associated with
any forms of low self-concept or self-image, in the same way choosing to forgive should
not be viewed as a sign of weakness” (p. 61). On the contrary, it takes a leader with a
precise “understanding of his or her self-image, moral conviction and emotional stability
to make such a choice” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 61). This strong sense of self
enables a servant-leader to engage him or herself in self-sacrificial behaviors (Choi &
Mai-Dalton, 1998).
Servant-leaders display discerning attributes and characteristics. According to
Larry Spears (1998), CEO of the Greenleaf Center, which is now known as Spear’s
Center for Servant Leadership, servant-leaders have ten major skills:
1. Listening
2. Empathy
3. Healing
4. Awareness
5. Persuasion
6. Conceptualization
7. Foresight
8. Stewardship
9. Commitment to the growth of people
10. Building community
This list is by no means exhaustive; subsequently, researchers have identified
other specific attributes that are consistent with the theory of Servant Leadership and the

17
literature reveals that there are more distinguishable characteristics of a servant-leader
(Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003; Wong & Page, 2000). Russell and Stone (2002) list 20
characteristics categorized by functional attributes and accompanying attributes (see
Table 2).
Table 2
Servant-Leadership Attributes (according to existing literature)
Functional attributes Accompanying attributes
1. Vision 1. Communication
2. Honesty 2. Credibility
3. Integrity 3. Competence
4. Trust 4. Stewardship
5. Service 5. Visibility
6. Modeling 6. Influence
7. Pioneering 7. Persuasion
8. Appreciation of others 8. Listening
9. Empowerment 9. Encouragement
10. Teaching
11. Delegation
Source: Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 147
Functional attributes are the “operative qualities, characteristics, and distinct
features belonging to leaders and observed through specific leader behaviors in the
workplace”; they are the “effective characteristics of servant leadership” and “are
identifiable characteristics that actuate leadership responsibilities” (Russell & Stone,
2002, p. 146). All the attributes are distinct, yet related. Researchers have identified the
accompanying attributes as characteristics “that supplement or augment the functional
attributes” and are not “secondary in nature, but rather complementary and, in some
cases, prerequisites to effective servant leadership” (Russell & Stone, 2002, p. 147).

18
This study will focus on the five characteristics from Barbuto and Wheeler (2006)
SLQ, derived from and based on Spears’ (1998) original ten servant-leadership
characteristics (Table 3):
Table 3
Spears (1998) and Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) Servant-Leadership Behaviors Matrix
Spears’ 10 Barbuto & Wheeler’s 5
Altruistic
calling
Emotional
healing
Persuasive
mapping
Wisdom
Organizational
stewardship
Listening
Empathy
Healing
Awareness
Persuasion
Conceptualization
Foresight
Stewardship
Commitment to the
Growth of the people
Building
Community

19
Altruistic Calling
Altruistic calling has been described by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) as, “A
leader’s deep-rooted desire to make a positive difference in others’ lives” (p. 318). It is a
generosity of the spirit consistent with a philanthropic purpose in life. Because the
ultimate goal is to serve, leaders high in altruistic calling “will put others’ interests ahead
of their own and will diligently work to meet followers’ needs” (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006, p. 318). In regards to the Servant Leadership theory, a servant-leader is consciously
called to serve others (Greenleaf, 1970), a fundamental purpose of servant-leaders who
have “operationalized it as a desire to serve and a willingness to sacrifice self-interest for
the benefit of others” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 305).
Emotional Healing
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) have described emotional healing as, “A leader’s
commitment to and skill in fostering spiritual recovery from hardship or trauma. Leaders
using emotional healing are highly empathetic and great listeners, making them adept at
facilitating the healing process. Leaders create environments that are safe for employees
to voice personal and professional issues. Followers that experience trauma will turn to
leaders high in emotional healing” (p. 318). Weymes (2003) suggests that leadership’s
principal intent is to influence individuals’ feelings in order to cultivate the organization’s
emotional heart.
Persuasive Mapping
Persuasive mapping refers to “the extent that leaders use sound reasoning and
mental frameworks” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 319). Leaders with persuasive
mapping skills are “skilled at mapping issues and conceptualizing greater possibilities

20
and are compelling when articulating these opportunities” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p.
319). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) express the significance of persuasion and its
relationship with character, ethics, and authentic leadership. Persuasion is to be
differentiated from being forceful; it is to be seen as an ability to “influence others by
means outside of formal authority” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 307).
Wisdom
Wisdom can be recognized as a combination of awareness of one’s surroundings
and the expectation of consequences, comparably illustrated by classic philosophers like
Immanuel Kant and Plato. It is a form of enlightenment that gives us the ability to see
things at face value or understand how things really are. It is the ability to put our
understanding in practice and have it make a positive difference in our lives and the lives
of others.
Organizational Stewardship
A fundamental part of service is stewardship (Nix, 1997). Stewardship involves
“choosing partnership over patriarchy” and “distributing ownership and responsibility”
(Block, 1993, p. 23, 25). Leaders and their followers are, in general, stewards or
representatives of the organizations they lead (Russell & Stone, 2002). Stewardship is the
willingness to take responsibility for the larger institution and go for service instead of
control and self-interest (Block, 1993). It is also the ability for which leaders act as role
models (Hernandez, 2008). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) describe organizational
stewardship as “the extent that leaders prepare an organization to make a positive
contribution to society through community development, programs, and outreach” (p.
319). Organizational stewardship encompasses a value or ethic of taking responsibility

21
for the community’s well-being and ensuring that the plans and choices taken emulate the
commitment to “give back and leave things better than found” (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006, p. 319).
Ultimately, servant leadership employs followers to become fully human (Beazly,
Beggs, & Spears, 2003). Servant-leaders enrich the lives “of their followers by
recognizing their gifts and talents and inviting them into full participation of the
organization” (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010, p. 328).
Servant Leadership in Organizations
Ebener and O’Connell (2010) claim that the practice of servant leadership is
“associated with greater work performance in the workforce and higher commitment
among workers for their organizations” (p. 316). Moreover, those led by servant-leaders
are more likely to cultivate the similar practice of serving others (Ebener & O’Connell,
2010). Servant-leaders promote people to “go above and beyond their own immediate
interest by performing organizational citizenship behaviors” (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010,
p. 315). According to Organ et al. (2006), organizational citizenship behaviors are
defined as “altruistic, prosocial activities that have been shown to enhance organizational
performance” (in Ebener & O’Connell, 2010, p. 315). Furthermore, Ehrhart (2004)
suggests that servant-leadership characteristics appear to be standard qualifications of
organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, Ebener and O’Connell (2010) claim servant
leadership works particularly well in a voluntary organization such as a church and
fosters organizational citizenship behavior.
Organizations have validated the successful result of servant leadership. North
Mississippi Medical Center (NMMC) is one such example. NMMD, the largest rural

22
hospital in the United States, acknowledges servant leadership as the enabling leadership
style that allowed its managers to successfully deliver quality products and services.
Moreover, Patterson (2003) and Winston (2003) posit that followers led by servant-
leaders (as opposed to any other form of leadership) demonstrate a higher level of
commitment to their leaders, resulting in an increase in organizational commitment.
Higher levels of commitment to one’s organization produce higher levels of follower
performance, thereby positively affecting organizational goal contributions (Dury, 2004;
Jacobs, 2006). Northouse (2004) states, “Organizations stand to gain much from having
leaders who can create good working relationships. When leaders and followers have
good exchanges, they feel better, accomplish more, and the organization prospers” (p.
51).
Further research suggests that organizations are evolving toward a more
meaningful leadership model, one based on community, teamwork, morals, involving
others in decisions, and promoting follower growth (Irving, 2005; Lubin, 2001; Spears,
2004; Yukl, 2002). Regardless if it is in the corporate, non-profit, religious, or education
sector, leaders have recognized and encouraged servant leadership as a valid leadership
style for cultivating a positive and productive environment (Black, 2010). Spears (2004)
further acknowledges that servant leadership is necessary in building a profitable
business.
Servant-leaders’ behaviors also set norms for organizational citizenship within
religious organizations (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010). Ebener and O’Connell’s (2010)
study found that the personal care and concern that servant-leaders demonstrated for
others, combined with the culture of service connected with the empowerment of

23
parishioners, increased the likelihood of organizational citizenship, thus creating vital
parishes. Moreover, parish cultures are cultures of service because they enhance the
people’s service (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010); concluding, there is a distinct need for
servant leadership among parish leaders.
The literature previously reviewed showed that servant leadership is valuable
within organizations. However, there is limited research based on the demographic
perceptions of followers and servant leadership. There is evidence, however, that certain
demographics such as, age, gender and ethnicity does affect follower’s preferences of
certain leadership styles and specific leadership characteristics with organizations
(Andert, 2011; Arsnault, 2004; Balon, 2004; Chong, & Wolf, 2010; Ehrhart, & Klein,
2001; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012); and that both male and females utilize servant leadership
dimensions equally (Barbuto, & Gifford, 2010). Thus, the demographical effects on
follower’s views and preference of leadership behaviors are no exception within the
Catholic Church or any other organization.
Servant Leadership vs. Transformational Leadership
There are several similarities between the servant-leader and Bass’s (1985)
Transformational Leader theory. In fact, according to Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003)
some researchers question whether there is any difference between the two models,
leaving transformational leadership the closest leadership theory to that of the servant
leadership model. As servant leadership requires leaders to develop people and
community, “to dream great dreams and instill those in others and to heal people in the
organization” (Reinke, 2004, p. 35), so does a transformational leader. The main concept
behind transformational leadership is that leaders are moved to help inspire

24
organizational vision, rally the organization to achieve the dream, and facilitate whatever
changes are needed to make that dream become a reality (Bass, 1996; Reinke, 2004;
Tichy & Ulrich, 1984). Transformational leadership is about healing and inspiring
organizations. Transformational leaders pull organizations “through the beauty of a
shared vision, into new ways of being and doing” (Reinke, 2004, p. 35).
Furthermore, interactions between transformational leaders and their followers
also foster an environment of trust, loyalty, and commitment, all traits that are conducive
to organizational citizenship (Organ et al., 2006). In this aspect, transformational
leadership and servant leadership are very similar. This is also true for the characteristic
of empowerment, as empowerment is foundational behavior of transformational
leadership (Northouse, 2007); it is also a behavior of servant leadership. Moreover,
servant-leaders can inspire by modeling service (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010). A role
model presents a guide for action. Just as many kinds of modeling can be assisted by
social modeling (Bandura, 1986), pro-social behaviors can be, as well. This is congruent
with transformational leadership role-modeling, in which transformational leaders show
the way to effective action (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Therefore, while a servant-leader is
“concerned for the welfare of the followers, he or she also demonstrates a way in which
they might conduct themselves” (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010, p. 328). In these respects,
servant-leaders can have a transformational affect.
However, servant leadership and transformational leadership do have their distinct
differences, as transformational leadership can be authoritarian as well as participative
(Bass, 1996). Greenleaf (1977) wholly rejects the notion of authoritarian and coercive
approaches to leadership; he asserts that the use of coercive power is detrimental to an

25
organization and will ultimately result in its failure to achieve its mission. Moreover,
according to Bass (1996), “transformational leaders transcend their personal self-interests
for either utilitarian or moral purposes” (Reinke, 2004, p. 36); contrarily, Greenleaf
(1977) emphasizes that servant-leaders contain a “moral component of leadership
virtually to the exclusion of the utilitarian concerns” (Reinke, 2004, p. 36).
A more recent empirical study by Linden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008)
also found that servant leadership was a construct distinct from transformational
leadership. Table 3 from Wheeler and Barbuto (2006) further illustrates these similarities
and differences.
Table 4
Comparing Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership
Servant Leadership Transformational
Theory Leadership
Nature of Normative Descriptive
theory
Role of leader To serve followers To inspire followers;
to pursue organizational
goals
Role of follower To become wiser, To pursue organizational
freer, more autonomous goals
Moral component Explicit Unspecified
Outcomes expected Follower satisfaction, Goal congruence, increased
increased development and increased effort satisfaction
and commitment to service; and productivity;
societal betterment organizational gain
Individual level Desire to serve Desire to lead
Interpersonal level Leader serves follower Leader inspires follower

26
Group level Leader serves group to Leader unites group to
meet members’ needs pursue group goals
Organizational level Leader prepares Leader inspires followers
organization to serve to pursue organizational
community goals
Societal level Leader leaves a Leader inspires nation or
positive legacy for the society to pursue
betterment of society articulated goals
Source: Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 305
Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2004) determined that both transformational
leaders and servant leaders are visionaries, generate high levels of trust, serve as role
models, show consideration for others, delegate responsibilities, empower followers,
teach, communicate, listen and influence followers. Nonetheless, there are significant
points of variation in the concepts. Most importantly, “transformational leaders tend to
focus more on the organizational objectives while servant leaders focus more on the
people who are followers”. (Stone, Russell, and Patterson, 2004; p. 359)
Jesus Christ as the Original Servant-Leader
While servant leadership has been accepted as the corporate model of emergent
corporations, the practice of servant leadership is very different (Spears & Lawrence,
2002). It has been agreed by many for leaders to “lead like Jesus” (Blanchard, Hodges,
Ross & Willis, 2003). Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) state, “As appealing and refreshing as
Greenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership is, Greenleaf is not the individual
who first introduced the notion of servant leadership to everyday human endeavor” (p.
58); it was Jesus Christ. Jesus who has been considered by some academics to be the
greatest leader that ever lived (Carter, 2003; Kubicek, 2005).

27
It has been suggested that Jesus’ life and teachings epitomized that of a flawless
servant-leader (Blanchard & Hodges, 2002; Cintee-Broders, 2002; Moore, 2005). From
the “narrative accounts of Christ’s life in the Bible, it is evident that servant leadership
was taught and practiced more than two thousand years ago” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002,
p. 58). Servant leadership is grounded in religious teachings; as such, Greenleaf (1977)
frequently refers to Jesus Christ as a model for the concept of a servant-leader. With its
focus on the formation of a trusting community, servant leadership is substantially
consistent with the Judeo-Christian philosophical teachings and traditions (Reinke, 2004,
p. 34).
The most powerful and instructive biblical accounts of servant leadership are
encompassed in Jesus’ teachings to his disciples recorded in the Gospel of Mark (Pope
Francis I, 2015; Kraemer & Theiman, 1987). In this Gospel, Jesus was teaching his
disciples about the betrayal and impending death he would experience. Jesus’ disciples
did not understand this teaching’s meaning and instead began to argue about their own
superiority and positions over each other, as each claimed to be the greatest leader in
Jesus’ absence. John and James wanted Jesus to give them the highest leadership
positions in God’s kingdom, next to Jesus himself; they were blinded by their own
attraction and temptation of power. Ultimately, due to the arguing and preoccupation with
personal power positions, the harmony of the disciples deteriorated. Their suspicions of
each other’s motives consumed them; “it was following these incidences that Jesus taught
his disciples the principle of servant leadership” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 59).
Jesus called his disciples together and said, “You know that those who are
regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise

28
authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among
you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43). In this lesson, Jesus “used the term ‘servant’ as
a synonym for greatness” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 59). Jesus taught “that a leader’s
greatness is measured by a total commitment to serve fellow human beings” (Sendjaya &
Sarros, 2002, p. 59).
Jesus not only taught what it is to be a servant-leader, but “he applied the concept
in concrete ways” (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 59) when he performed the humbling act
of washing his disciples’ feet, as told in the Gospel of John (John 13:4-5). It must be
noted that during this time in history, washing someone’s feet was looked upon as one of
the most debasing tasks anyone could perform (Ford, 1991). During this account, Jesus
and his disciples, all of whom had dirty feet, entered into a house to eat. After dinner,
Jesus “got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his
waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet,
drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him” (John 13:4-5). When he was
done, he put on his clothes and returned to his seat, saying, “Do you understand what I
have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’ and rightly so, for that is what I
am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you should also wash one
another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you (John
13:13-15). According to Sendjaya and Sarros (2002), “the unusual twist of Jesus’
leadership through the feet washing example has redefined the meaning and function of
leadership power from ‘power over’ to ‘power to,’ that is power as an enabling factor to
choose to serve others” (p. 59).

29
Jesus is a profound example of a secure servant-leader, because he “did not
consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking
the very nature of a servant” (Philippians 2:3-8). When Jesus walked in Palestine, his
leadership style would have been completely distinct for his time, as the Roman Empire
engaged in the command-control approach to leadership (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010).
Command-control leaders focus on the attainment and exploitation of positional power
for their own benefit, as opposed to servant-leaders, who are more likely to apt for
referent power than rightful authority (French & Raven, 1959). Servant-leaders “view
power not as an ends for themselves but as a means to enhance the service that can be
deployed for the benefit of their team, their organization, or their community” (Ebener &
O’Connell, 2010, p. 319). Servant leaders, like Jesus, “are not motivated by a desire for
status and control but by a call to servanthood, with a primary responsibility to care for
others” (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010, p. 319). As Jesus states in Mark 10:33-43, “Anyone
among you who aspires to greatness must serve the rest.” Jesus did not avoid using power
by any means, but as a true servant-leader, he channeled the power that he had to achieve
the common goals of mankind.
The interest in servant leadership appears to be motivated by its connection with
religious teachings. One cannot deny the spiritual heritage of servant leadership, as it is
“evident in the golden rule, a core teaching in virtually every major religion” (Ebener &
O’Connell, 2010, pp. 322, 332). The golden rule states, “Do to others as you would have
them do to you” (Luke 6:31). The Servant Leadership theory was inspired by Hesse and
developed by Greenleaf, but initiated by Jesus Christ – the original servant-leader.

30
The Mission of the Catholic Church
Now that we have discussed the foundations of servant leadership, it is essential
to discuss the mission of the Catholic Church, whose purpose directly correlates with the
Servant Leadership theory. According to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (2012), “the
mission of the Church is the mission of Jesus Christ” (p. 5) and as previously iterated,
Jesus is the epitome of a servant-leader. The mission of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia
(2012), in conjunction with that of the entire Catholic Church, is as follows:
 […] create and nourish Christian community in the domestic church of the
family, in the life of every parish, and in society as a whole; this aspect of
the Church’s mission directly correlates with the emotional healing and
organizational stewardship SL behaviors. This notion fosters a safe
environment for members which promote service instead of self-interest.
 Proclaim in word and deed the Good News of Jesus Christ to all persons,
inviting each of our sisters and brothers in the human community to share
our faith and our mission; this correlates with the persuasive mapping SL
behavior which conceptualizes greater possibilities and opportunities for
an organization.
 Teach the saving message of Christ so that all believers may come to
deeper understanding, conversion and personal witness to Christ; this
correlates with the SL behaviors of wisdom and altruistic calling. This
ideal had promotes a deep-rooted desire to make a positive difference in
the lives of other by sharing and teaching Christ’s message.

31
 Serve all our sisters and brothers, particularly the poor and needy, by
generous acts of charity and by working together with all people of good
will for justice and peace (“Mission Statement,” p. 1). This idea
encompasses all five (5) of Barbuto and Wheelers (2006) SL behaviors,
and the fundamental idea of servant leadership itself, as a call to serve
those in need for the greater good.
The mission of the Church is a social call to serve, like that of a servant-leader.
Black (2010) has stated, “The doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church encourage
members of the Catholic community to live the principles of servant leadership” (p. 442).
Ultimately, “leadership founded on spirit is that the leader is a servant first. Many of the
problems we have as leaders, or working with other leaders, result because we often
reverse this order” (Fairholm, 1997, p. 147).
Pope Francis I (2014) has stated, “Each individual Christian in every community
is called to be an instrument of God for the liberation and promotion of the poor, and for
enabling them to be fully part of society” (p. 23). He claims that “humility, meekness,
magnanimity, and love to preserve unity […] are the true roads of the Church” (p. 28).
Because of the Catholic Church’s social mission, the goals that the people are concerned
with are essentially the goals of the organization. These goals are not specifically chosen
or intentionally determined (Vroom, 1964), but they initially emerge from the kind of
person who established the organization (Schein, 1985), as we see in the case of the
Catholic Church, which was founded by Jesus Christ, the original servant-leader.

32
The Purpose of a Roman Catholic Priest
After reviewing the mission of the Catholic Church, it is essential to understand
the purpose of its leadership. The ordained hierarchy of the Catholic Church is as follows
(Figure 1):
Figure 1. The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church
While there are many layers to the chain of command, priests are the individuals
who have the most contact with parishioners; and it is the priests who go on to become
Bishops, Archbishops and eventually, a priest will become a Pope.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, the vocation of the priesthood is a
calling from God to serve (Archdiocese of Sacramento, 2014). Pope Francis I stated to
the Seminarians and Novices on July 6, 2013, “Becoming a priest […] is not primarily
our decision […] rather it is a response to a call and a call of love” (Unites States
Conference of Bishops, 2014). The foremost duty of the priesthood is to preach the
Gospel of Jesus Christ (Vianney Vocation, 2014). The United States Conference of
The Pope
Cardinals
Archbishops
Bishops
Priests
Deacons

33
Bishops (USCB; 2006) states, “Priests are called to a way of life that gives evident and
transparent witness to the power of the Gospel at work in their lives” (p. 22).
Priests give themselves completely to the Church, and they embrace celibacy “to
show that the real marriage – the one on which earthly matrimony is based – is the
wedding feast of the Lamb! Celibacy is a supernatural sign that heaven is real” (Vianney
Vocation, 2014, p. 1). Priests commit to a three-fold process of human formation, which
includes self-knowledge, self-acceptance, and self-gift, all in faith (USCB, 1982).
According to the Vatican Guidelines (1974), as this process evolves, the individual
becomes “more perfectly conformed to the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ, the Word
made flesh” (as cited in United States Conference of Bishops, 2006).
The nature and mission of the priesthood have Trinitarian, Christological, and
ecclesiastical foundations (United States Conference of Bishops, 2006). A priest, through
the Sacrament of Orders, is chosen by God through Jesus Christ and the power of the
Holy Spirit to live his life and work for “the service of the Church and for the salvation of
the world. […] Consequently, the nature of and mission of the ministerial priesthood
cannot be defined except through this multiple and rich interconnection of relationships
which arise from the Blessed Trinity and are prolonged in the communion of the Church,
as a sign and instrument of Christ, of communion with God and of the unity of all
humanity” (Pastores dabo vobis, 1992) . Priests exist and act “in order to proclaim the
Gospel to the world and to build up the Church in the name and person of Jesus Christ the
Head and Shepherd” (Pastores dabo vobis, 1992). Priests are chosen to continue Christ’s
mission (Unites States Conference of Bishops, 2003). Ecclesiologically, “priests, like the

34
Apostles, act as ambassadors of Christ. This is the basis of the missionary character of
every priest” (Pastores dabo vobis, 1992).
According to the United States Conference of Bishops (2006), a priest must be apt
in instruments of Christ’s grace; these graces include the following:
• A free person: A person who is open to God’s design individual design for them
• A person of solid moral character with a finely developed moral conscience; a
man open to and capable of conversion: “A man who demonstrates the human
virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance, justice, humility, constancy, sincerity,
patience, good manners, truthfulness, and keeping his word, and who also
manifests growth in the practice of these virtues” (p. 30).
• A prudent and discerning man: Someone who demonstrates a “capacity for
critical observation so that [he] can discern true and false values, since this is an
essential requirement for establishing a constructive dialogue with the world of
today” (John Paul II, 1999).
• A man of communion: A priest must have “real and deep relational capacities,
someone who can enter into genuine dialogue and friendship, a person of true
empathy who can understand and know other persons, a person open to others and
available to them with a generosity of spirit” (pp. 30-31).
• A good communicator: A priest should be articulate and a good listener, have
effective communication skills, and be a successful public speaker.
• A person of affective maturity: The ability to be aware of oneself, which
includes a necessary awareness of his body both physically and mentally (Grieger,
n.d.).

35
• A man who respects, cares for, and has vigilance over his body: “A person who
pays appropriate attention to his physical well-being, so that he has the energy and
strength to accomplish the tasks entrusted to him and the self-knowledge to face
temptation and resist it effectively” (p. 31)
• A man who relates well with others, free of overt prejudice and willing to work
with people of diverse cultural backgrounds
• A good steward of material possessions: A priest should be able to live a simply
and avoid vanity and earthly possessions. His want of material possessions should
be minimal, since his “portion and inheritance” is the Lord (Psalms 16:5-6).
Moreover, he should be charitable to those less fortunate.
• A man who can take on the role of a public person: A priest should be “secure in
himself and convinced of his responsibility who is able to live not just as a private
citizen but as a public person in service of the Gospel and representing the
Church” (p. 31).
Inherent in these graces are the servant leadership qualities of altruistic calling, emotional
healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom and organizational stewardship.
According to Vigini (2014), priests are the first to be called “whose duties are to
welcome and serve” (p. xii). Pope Francis (2014) further states that there are three aspects
to the vocation:
1.) To be called by God. As Jesus stated in John 15:16, “You did not choose me,
but I chose you” I appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that
your fruit be authentic.”

36
2.) To be called to proclaim the Gospel. “Go and make disciples of all nations”
(Matthew 28:19). It is this form of evangelization that Paul VI claimed “is
[…] the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She
exists in order to evangelize” (apostolic exhortation, Evangelii nutiandi, no.
14).
3.) To be called to promote the culture of encounter. Be courageous to go against
the tide of a culture of exclusion and rejection. Clergy must welcome
everyone and build solidarity – “solidarity and fraternity: these are what make
our society truly human” (Pope Francis, 2014, p. 61).
Pope Francis (2014) claims that being a pastor means “being prepared to walk
among and behind the flock; being capable of listening to the silent tale of those who are
suffering and of sustaining the steps of those who fear they may not make it; attentive to
raising, reassuring, and to instilling hope” (p. 67). Pope Francis (2014) further asserts,
“We are called and constituted pastors, not pastors by ourselves but by the Lord; and not
to serve ourselves but the flock that has been entrusted to us, and to serve it to the point
of laying down our life, like Christ the Good Shepherd” (p. 85). Pope Francis (2014)
states that “priests are established coworkers of the Order of Bishops, with whom they
are joined in the priestly office and whom they are called to the service of the people of
God” (p. 89). The purpose of the clergy is to spread the Gospel, serve the community,
and bring Christ to the people through humble actions and the sacraments. There are
seven Roman Catholic sacraments, all of which require servant-leadership behaviors to
be properly administered. These sacraments are outward signs of inward grace,
administered by the ordained. The seven sacraments include the following:

37
1.) Baptism
2.) Holy Communion
3.) Confirmation
4.) Penance
5.) Anointing of the Sick
6.) Marriage
Clergy Leadership and Development
To properly conjugate servant leadership theory, the mission of the Catholic
Church, and the purpose of its clergy, it is essential to understand the formation and
development of its leaders. Studies have shown that younger priests have shied away
from the Servant Leader model, and have become more conventional (CARA, 2004).
According to CARA (2004) after Vatican II in 1965 the model of leadership shifted from
“cultic leadership” to the servant leadership model. Table 5 illustrates the fundamental
difference between a “cultic” priest and a “servant-leader” priest. A study was conducted
in 2001 which compared earlier periods during the 40 years of Vatican II council with
modern-day, younger priests; the conclusion showed that today’s younger priests have
become more orthodox and cultic (CARA, 2004). CARA (2004) further stated “these
shifts are likely to affect the US Church and its priesthood in the twenty-first century” (p.
10):
Table 5
Cultic and Servant-Leader Priests Differentiation
CULTIC MODEL
“man set apart”
Values strict hierarchy
Follows established rules
Defends “orthodoxy”
Essential to the priesthood
AREAS OF DIFFERENCE
Ontolological Status of Priests
Attitude Toward Magisterium
Liturgy and Devotions
Theological Perspective
Attitude Toward Celebacy
SERVANT-LEADER MODEL
Pastoral leader
Values flexible structure
Allows creativity
Allows for theological differences
Optional for the priesthood

38
Source: CARA Report, 2004, pg. 10
It is obvious that these shifts have affected the Church; however, we have also
seen with the election of Pope Francis that the Church has come full circle with the
affinity towards the servant- leader model, as Pope Francis’ globally recognized efforts to
use the servant leadership has contradicted this veering by younger priests.
Many of the Church’s leaders have not studied leadership theory or pondered the
significant role that leadership plays in the importance of parish life (Woodley, 1999).
The study of leadership in the seminary has not been a priority among clergy, nor after
ordination (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010). Members of the clergy traditionally study
theology and philosophy in preparation for parish ministry “and then find themselves in
situations where they need to know more about leadership”. (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010,
p. 331). However, leadership should be seen as a fundamental subject to clergy,
specifically that of servant-leadership. Unfortunately, seminary focus on leadership is
minimal, as seen in the curriculum of St. Charles Borromeo Seminary located in
Wynnewood Pennsylvania. Their 2013-2014 curriculum only includes one mandatory
discussion class for first year students during their formation conference on the subject of
‘Priest as Servant Leader’, and one other leadership course under humanities and science,
titled ‘EDU 359 LEADERSHIP—A MORAL IMPERATIVE’. This course however,
does not cover servant-leadership; it looks “at leadership and its moral purpose […]
viewed through its historical roots of management theory, as well as through the lens of
the best practices of both transactional and transformational leaders” (St. Charles
Borromeo Seminary Course Catalog, 2014, p. 40).

39
According to Manala (2010), “A Christian leader operates within the faith
community in accordance with God’s call” (p. 2). A Christian leader’s call is “always
from God for a specific God-given purpose” and never for the leader’s own agenda
(Bishop, 1995, p. 60). Therefore, God’s call should decide the motivation of the leader’s
actions (Bishop, 1995). For those of the Catholic faith, the priest is seen as a
representative of Christ; thus, his actions must be Christ-like. As a representative of
Christ and one who is supposed to perpetuate Jesus’ work, a priest should be a servant to
all; which is what they are indeed taught in seminary (www.scs.edu). According to
Greenleaf (1970), a pastor must be a servant first and then a leader. For the Christian
pastor, Manala (2010) states pastoral service provision is “the call and command of Jesus
to his disciples – past and present […] serving is, therefore, a matter of faith, obedience
and following the Christian lifestyle” (p. 5).
Effects of Clergy Leadership on Parish Life
As we have discussed clergy leadership and its development and the lack of
formal leadership training, it is the effects of that leadership which has lasting corollaries
on the Church as an organization and it parishioners. The leadership of the parish priest is
of the utmost importance to parishioners and the parish as a whole. Mason and Fennessy
(1996) conducted a study confining the research problem to an exploration of the
Catholic parish priest’s leadership as a source of influence on parish vitality. Their
research concluded that parish vitality, as perceived by the parishioner, was directly
influenced by the parish priests’ leadership. Therefore, the leadership of the parish priest
is of the utmost importance to parishioners and parish life as a whole. In the Roman
Catholic denomination, the parish priest is of central significance for the formation of

40
what is distinctive in a parish (Nauta, 2007). Moreover, it is the priest who forms the
greatest influence on the parishioners’ loyalty to the church (Gremillion & Castelli, 1987;
Peyrot & Sweeney, 2000).
The CARA Report (2005) presented a study which identified “excellent pastors”
and defined pastoral excellence, and those factors that promote and sustain pastoral
excellence as perceived by their parishioners (p.8). This study surveyed all priests and
seminarians of the Archdiocese of Washington, and included focus groups and interviews
of selected “excellent pastors”, as well as, 40 active parishioners from selected parishes.
The findings of the study concluded several instrumental efforts that a priest must exhibit,
as perceived by their parishioners:
1.) The first role of a pastor is to be a priest, and a leader in faith.
2.) Bring people to the sacraments.
3.) Be ‘Christ-centered’.
4.) Impart to the parishioners that you love your job.
5.) Be a part of their parishioner lives and be seen by them – being out front, and
knowing the families personally.
6.) Bring Christ to the people.
7.) Exercise leadership.
Ebener and O’Connell (2010) conducted a case study developed from a question
posed by Bishop William Franklin of the Catholic Archdiocese of Davenport, Iowa.
When facing the issue of closing, consolidating, and clustering parishes, the bishop
asked, “How do you measure the life of a parish?” Ebener and O’Connell (2010) created
a three-part model of parish life with strategic, operational, and behavioral measures. The

41
findings demonstrated that the Parishioners illustrated “that humble service on the part of
the parish leaders was a source of inspiration for them” (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010, p.
325). Ebener and O’Connell (2010) further explained, “When the parish leaders humbly
placed themselves at the service of others in the parish, the members of the parish were
inspired to reciprocate with service to the congregation” (p. 325). A number of
parishioners reported that “when the parish leaders listened carefully to the members of
the congregation, ministered to their particular needs, or demonstrated in some other way
that they cared for the parishioners, the members of the parish were more inclined to help
or participate in parish activities” (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010, p. 326). Other parishioners
claimed that people were operating in an environment of encouragement and support,
thus empowering individuals to take up servant leadership.
Servant-leaders’ behaviors set norms for organizational citizenship (Ebener &
O’Connell, 2010). The personal care and concern that servant-leaders demonstrated for
others within the Ebener and O’Connell (2010) study, along with the culture of service
associated with the empowerment of parishioners, increased the likelihood of
organizational citizenship, thus creating vital parishes. Moreover, parish cultures are
cultures of service because they enhance the people’s service (Ebener & O’Connell,
2010); thus, there is a distinct need for servant leadership among parish leaders.
According to Ebener and O’Connell (2010), “Servant leadership is more than a
leadership style that fits normative advice and religious norms for leadership […] Servant
leadership not only fits the prescriptions of religion. It works” (p. 333).
Strong leadership is demanded from pastors and is essential for a healthy church
(Manala, 2010). The literature reviewed showed that the leadership of a pastor/priests

42
directly affects Church vitality, parishioner loyalty, organizational citizenship and parish
mission; and servant leadership behaviors have been positively linked to promote those
areas.
Post Vatican II Leadership
As the previous literature reviewed suggests that younger priests are shying away
from the servant-leader model (CARA, 2004), and that the leadership style exhibited by
leaders has a direct effect on their followers and followers often emulate (Ebner &
O’Connell, 2010; Patterson, 2003; Winston, 2003); it is essential to explore the
leadership of Vatican II and the various leadership styles exhibited by the previous Popes.
Based on the literature reviewed it is plausible that priests may exhibit the leadership
styles of the Church leaders of their time.
Pope Paul VI, who served from 1963-1978, was known to exhibit
transformational leader characteristics (Gibson, 2014; Hebblethwaite, 1993). Like a true
transformational leader, he transformed the Catholic Church post Vatican II, and gave it
direction and priority, while implementing positive reform. The magnitude and depth of
the Church’s transformation affected all aspects of Church life. He predecessor, Pope
John Paul I was his successor and only served 33 days as Pope before his death;
unfortunately, his leadership legacy cannot be measured due to his short reign. However,
Pope Paul VI transformational leadership style was successful in introducing a new
Church to the modern world. The previously literature reviewed shows that
transformational leadership is most commonly compared to servant leadership (Bass,
1985; Russell & Patterson, 2003).

43
After the death of Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II was named his successor
and served from 1978-2005. John Paul II was known to display servant leader behaviors
(Cnaan, 2014; Gallo, 2014; Cortes, 2005); whose goal was to place the Church at the
center of a new religious coalition that would bring together Jews, Muslims and
Christians in a grand religious armada (Odone, 1991). He had a personal philosophy that
advocated forgiveness and social justice. He was beloved by the faithful and he
successfully reigned as Pope for 25, and canonized a Saint after his death in 2014.
After the passing of Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI was selected to be his
successor. Pope Benedict XVI who served as Pope from 2005 to 2013, is known for his
authoritarian leadership style (Penn State, 2013). He was a disciplined scholar, strict with
doctrine and tradition (Baldoni, 2013). It was suggested that his strong conservative
views and authoritarian leadership alienated a lot of Catholics (Forbes, 2005). Despite his
authoritarian ways, he was humble enough to realize that it was best for the Church if he
would step-down (he was the first Pope to resign in more than 600 years); which has
resulted in the election of Pope Francis I.
Based on the preceding Papal leadership legacies, literature would suggest that the
servant leadership style has been the most successful leadership style to adopt for the
Roman Catholic leaders.
Pope Francis as Model for Parish Priests
Of the cited purpose and effects of a priestly leadership, there are numerous
correlations to the servant-leadership attributes previously discussed in the literature
review. Who better to be an example of what a priest should be than the leader of the
Church, Pope Francis I? When Cardinal Bergoglio was elected as pope, he chose a name

44
that no other before him had chosen: Francis. According to Lanser (2014) he chose this
name to “honor the life and legacy of Saint Francis of Assisi” (p. 80). Saint Francis,
himself, turned away from his comfortable life to live in poverty and was “intensely
interested in how Jesus lived his life and wanted his own to reflect Jesus’s as closely as
possible” (Lanser, 2014, pp. 81-82). Pope Francis’s “decision to take his name shows the
pope’s commitment to living simply and among the poor” (Lanser, 2014, pp. 82-83);
serving those who are less fortunate- a true servant leader.
Pope Francis’s philosophy and precursor to his leadership style was presented and
shown in his inauguration speech, in which he stated “Let us never forget that authentic
power is service, and that the pope, too when exercising power, must enter ever more
fully into that service which has its radiant culmination on the Cross […] only those who
serve are able to protect” (Ivereigh, 2014, p. 370). Ivereigh (2014) further claims that this
homily brought people to tears and Cardinals across the world were claiming “he speaks
like Jesus” (p.370). It was during this speech that hope sprung anew for the Catholic
faith, and Catholics everywhere felt a sense of restoration (Ivereigh, 2014).
Most recently, Fortune Magazine stated, “The wildly popular Francis is more
than a pontiff of the people. He’s an elite manager who’s reforming the Vatican’s
troubled finances” (Tully, 2014, p. 67). Pope Francis claims that in order for his “spiritual
message to be credible, the Vatican’s finances must be creditable” (Tully, 2014, p. 68).
Tully (2014) further states, “Strict rules and protocols must be adopted to end the cycle of
scandal that has plagued the Vatican in recent years” (p.68). Pope Francis has declared
that “sound financial management was a pillar of his greatest mission: aiding the poor

45
and underprivileged” (Tully, 2014, p. 68); “the Holy Father’s message was crystal clear:
‘Let us make money to go to the poor’” (Zahra, 2014, as cited in Tully, 2014, p. 69).
Pope Francis I is the spiritual shepherd of more than 1.2 billion Roman Catholics
around the world, and he has already done more in the last 18 months to “energize the
Church and burnish its image than anyone has since the heyday of John Paul II in the
mid-1980’s” (Tully, 2014, p. 69). According to Tully (2014), “although it is too early to
make a definitive judgment, the ‘Francis effect’ appears to be reversing the Church’s
fortunes” (p. 70). Pope Francis has transformed the Church like a great CEO: “his central
idea was revolutionary: Money matters are not a core competency of the clergy, as the
record shows […] so he began replacing the old guard of cardinals and bishops with lay
experts who are now largely setting strategy, heading regulatory oversight, and running
day-to-day operations” (Tully, 2014, p. 70). The Holy Father “does not talk about balance
sheets and cash flow […] he leaves the numbers to the experts; his forte is leadership”
(Tully, 2014, p. 72). Pope Francis understands that the culture of an organization begins
at the top (Tully, 2014). Lanser (2014) has suggested that under the direction of Pope
Francis the Roman Catholic Church may overcome some of the challenges that is has
been facing in the past and “strengthen the church and attract more people to the faith”
(p. 15).
Generational and Gender Perceptions of Catholicism
As previously discussed, there was a great transformation in the 1960’s within the
Catholic Church, in which “three social factors converged by historical accident” created
the “perfect storm”: first being Vatican II; the second, the demise of the Catholic
“ghetto”; and third, the cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s (Carlin, 2003, p.25.).

46
Despite this transformation under Vatican II; “nothing essential to Catholicism was
altered: no changes to dogma, Church polity, or fundamental moral principals” (Carlin,
2003, p. 27). A more humanistic and liberal Church was created, one which appreciated
other denominations, laypersons as Church leaders and a more participatory Mass.
However, these changes seemed to be radical for older generations of Catholics (Carlin,
2003).
Literature would suggest that generations “create their own traditions and culture
by a shared collective field of emotions, attitudes, preferences, and dispositions”
(Arsenault, 2004, p. 124). This concept is no different for Catholic perception of faith
(Williams & Davison, 1996). Williams and Davidson (1996) found that these
generational differences are a result of both changes within the Catholic Church and
societal changes; concurred by Carlin (2003). Research has shown that there are
significant generational differences between the pre-Vatican II, Vatican II and post-
Vatican II generations (D’Antonio, Davidson, Hodge, Meyer & Friend, 2001) and their
commitment to the Church. These differences “shift from higher to lower levels of
community and compliance with traditional teachings to greater autonomy” (D’Antonio,
et al., 2001, p.129).
Research has also discovered that gender can affect the perception of commitment
to the Church (D’Antonio, et al., 2001). Women have been found to be more religiously
active than men and donate more to the poor “but are less willing than men to grant the
Church leaders the final say on matters of sexual and reproductive ethics”, while both
genders are equally similar when it comes to their Catholic identity (p. 129).

47
Catholic Church in Decline
Although there has been resurgence within the Church, due to the election of Pope
Francis I, the Catholic Church is still in decline within America, particularly within the
focused area of this study. With the scandals that have befallen the Catholic Church,
parishioners have questioned the Church’s mission and identity. Church identity has been
described as “the persistent set of beliefs, values, patterns, symbols, stories and style that
makes a congregation distinctive” (Carroll & Roozen, 1990, p. 352; cf. Carroll et al.,
1986, p. 21). According to Nauta (2007), when the mission and identity of a religious
organization remains unclear, it becomes even more difficult to please members and
attract new ones; “if there is uncertainty about the exact nature of the church’s primary
task, about what one should be doing, and why, the congregation loses members and the
gospel’s good message gets lost” (p.2). Moreover, the parishioners’ mentality and climate
depend on the way in which the Church deals with temptations and threats (Mian, 1973),
such as the scandals that have befallen the Catholic Church and the lack of timely
advocacy for the children who were sexually abused (Lanser, 2014; Slobodzian, 2013;
Hurdle, 2011; O’Reilly & Phillips, 2011; Remsen & Holmes, 2005). Nauta (2007) claims
that an abrupt and unexpected threat, not mitigated or prevented as a consequence of a
lack of any empathetic understanding, results in fierce emotional and pessimistic
reactions by the congregation, thus impacting the Church, as a whole, negatively. The
Catholic Church has since embarked on efforts to correct this behavior and protect those
affected by initiating several programs and committees, such as The Charter for the
Protection of Young People.

48
Nauta (2007) suggests it is difficult for parishioners to separate the “good
shepherd” from the “evil pastor,” which only exacerbates polarization within a
congregation. As is the case with the Catholic Church, due to the sex abuse scandals,
some individuals unfairly stereotype and categorize all priests in this manner. Parish
priests are mortal human beings who are liable to make mistakes and are susceptible to
temptation. However, as a leader of the Church, a priest is supposed to “perform to the
best of his abilities, leadership functions and roles in the context of, and in cooperation
with, the faith community” (Manala, 2010, p. 2). Kouzes and Posner (2004) state that
“leaders are measured by the consistency of their deeds and words – by walking the talk”
(p. 12). Moreover, there is a “consistent demand for and reinforcement of right actions
and a refusal to accept or tolerate wrong actions. […] Thus, the pastor […] must
consistently reinforce the healthy behavior of the system and restrain the system from
destructive action” (Pattison, 1977, p. 69).
Contrary to Carroll and Roozen’s perspective of church identity, Schnieider
(1987) suggests that church identity derives from personality, persons, and the attraction
between people. Nauta (2007) states, “It is the people who gather together who
determine the identity of congregational life, people who have certain preferences and
who share them with others” (p. 1). When that circumstance changes, a congregation with
an identity based on affinity may be not be able to operate effectively in changed
environmental circumstances, and essential for adaptation “is a radical change of culture,
a change in personality brought forward by the leadership provided by the pastor” (Nauta,
2007, p. 6). This change in leadership can be seen in the Catholic Church with the
election of Pope Francis I.

Accardo Dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Accardo Dissertation

Similar to Accardo Dissertation (17)

Accardo Dissertation