[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
The results of deputy elections for 2006 thus far
[As sent to the bishops-deputies discussion list -- see
It is interesting to look at the information we already have about
deputations for 2006.
At http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/deputations2006.html I report the
results of deputy elections in 71 (64%) of the dioceses. (I am missing
the results for only one -- Honduras.) The next elections will not
occur until January. The index at this site shows when the remaining
elections are scheduled.
Dioceses Reported: 71 (64.0%)
2006 2003 2000 1997
New deputies: 40.6% 42.3% 43.9% 39%
Female deputies: 43.5% 38.8% 38.8% 36%
% of clergy w/ are female 33.4% 26% 24.2% 20%
% of females w/ are clergy 38.4% 33.5% 31.2% 27%
Deputies of Ethnicity: 11.4% 14.0% 12.1% 9%
Deputies Under 30: 3.8% 2.3% n/a n/a
Out Lesbian and Gay Deputies: 2.1% 1.9% n/a n/a
Deputies with email: 86.2% 93.3% 77.4% 19%
Average Age at GC 56.0 55.3 52.6 53.86
If you have difficulty seeing the columns above, visit
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/deputations2006.html#stats where you can
always find the most recent updates of these tallies, together with
lists of all the deputations known to date.
Please check the tallies of your own diocese regarding several of
these categories and alert me to any errors.
If you are not get listed in the GC Prayer Calendar at
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/praygc.html, please let me know your
birth date so that I can add you and can include your data in the
Note well the increase in the female percent of the House.
Do the results in any way comment on the more controversial decisions
at GC 2003?
I list all 2003 deputies not returning in the dioceses that have
already elected, at
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/notreturning2006.html Of those, I do not
know who chose not to run again, who ran again and were defeated, or
who have died.
I do not know of any diocese that has elected a new slate that
explicitly contrasts with the slate elected for 2003, but my sources
for such information are random and not statistically reliable.
Please let me know of any known to you.
I have not learned of a single bishop or deputy from 2003 who says she
or he would change her or his vote on consents if we had an
opportunity to do that vote over again (we won't have that
opportunity). Does anyone here regret her or his vote on consents?
We will not get a definitive answer for the whole House. That
information is sensitive, and many may choose not to share it.
You can review the votes on consents and on blessings at
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/2003_c045.html -- including maps
that show where the votes were geographically.
I know of no diocese where the election of new deputies would appear
to reverse the position on sexuality issues taken by the same diocese
in 2003. For example, the vote by orders in Pittsburgh and in Western
Louisiana, (neither of which re-elected their best-known clergy
deputy, each a cathedral dean) will not change: in 2003 all three
orders in both those dioceses voted not to consent. Those two appear
to have gone farther in the same direction.
Next summer, when all deputies have been elected, I will prepare an
extensive profile of the House. You can see my profiles of deputies
for 2003 at http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/mainms2003.html and my
profile of bishops for 2003 at
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bpsprof2003.html. My ongoing reports on
bishops are at http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bishops/
Even before all elections are complete, I expect to publish lists of
the female deputes, deputies of color, deputies under thirty, deputies
out as lesbian or gay, deputies who have degrees in law, deputies who
have degrees in medicine.....
Call on me if I can help you connect in any way.
Have a blessed Advent!
Lutibelle/Louie, Newark 94, 97, 00, 03. Member of Executive Council