Priests will be assigned according to where the money is. Affluent areas will see more priests than poorer ones.

Poor parishes in the Minneapolis St. Paul area share priests. More affluent parishes do not.

However, many parishes with their own priests have priests who speak English as a second language these days. Many are Hispanic. It's very interesting, I think.

The celibacy rule and ban on female clergy should be lifted.

Protestant seminary admissions are down across the board, too. Married pastors and women pastors are common in Protestant churches. No, I think the problem is not that at all. I think it is that the life of a clergy person is not all that attractive these days. The pay's lousy, job tenure is iffy, and the intellectual demands are high.

Besides, standing up in front of a crowd every week, often more than once is a tough gig. And congregations are fickle, too. In most Protestant churches, pastors are at-will employees of a board of church elders or deacons. Those are unforgiving groups.

Finally, how many young people today really believe that stuff, anyhow? I don't see how anyone could be part of the clergy without a strong belief. Even then...I don't see this situation changing, frankly.

Smaller churches yes you don't get paid as much, but most don't go in for the pay.

earn that much. It's a competitive field when you get to that level. It's like any other class of employment, really.

Some churches it is just tradition to pay your clergy a pretty penny.

But the young people and older people who go into seminary these days are not doing it for money. They do it because they feel called by God to serve his church.

well enough to know what they earn? I know a few clergy members, but I've never inquired into their income.

Do tell...

Not happening.

They used to have them about 1,000 years ago. Eastern Rite priests are still allowed to marry.

they collapse completely.

The fastest-growing religious segment of western population are people who consider themselves spiritual but non-religious.

Each person has a unique definition of what it means to be "spiritual."

but in general i think it means people who are not non-believers, but do not belong to an organized religion.

Yes it is a general term for something on a personal level.

I may be wrong, but i think most accept it as that.

I've hear people say their "spiritualism" consists of wonder at the magnificence of nature. I have that, too, but do not attribute it to anything but natural causes. They're amazing enough.

Others have referenced their "meditations" as spiritualism, but with no details. I also meditate, but my meditations have no spiritual content.

I just wish there were a reasonable definition of that word, so we could all be more or less on the same page when using it.

"blank" but not religious?

Believer but not religious?

or; non-organized religion believer?

I don't know, really. Often, when I meet someone who says he or she is "spiritual but not religious," I just let it slide by. Occasionally, when it is someone I know, I inquire further and ask what they mean by "spiritual." Often what I hear is a general sort of belief in "a higher power." When asked about the nature of that "higher power," there's rarely any answer forthcoming.

Sometimes, I end the conversation with "How about nature and its processes as the 'higher power?'" That usually gets an, "OK. That works for me."

Saying one is "spiritual" is a shortcut to ending the conversation in most cases. I find that it's rarely a thought-through designation. It's just a bland, undefined word to describe a bland, undefined concept.

but can't accept that there is nothing "more" to their lives and the universe than the physical reality.

There have been long discussions, here and elsewhere, about consciousness being more than the function of the brain.

As you said, it requires a deeper discussion.