I hadn't realized that the diocese of Armagh would presently span territory in both Ireland and Northern Ireland, as I did not realize that some dioceses may or even could cross national borders. But it makes sense, especially in cases of national boundaries which have been redrawn (sometimes many times) in the past century. I am curious if is common at all for dioceses to re-arrange when national borders are rearranged, or if the Church tends to preserve historic boundaries of dioceses in an effort to maintain the reality and titles of the Churches which have existed therein. I am curious, too, how bishops manage dioceses which have territory within multiple present-day nations, and if there are any particular administrative challenges associated with that.
It took a few decades for the Church to recognize the post-Yalta boundaries. New western Ukraine was still classified as eastern Poland, and in turn new western Poland was still considered eastern Germany. If I recall correctly it was during the 1970s Ostpolitik that the Vatican gave in and admitted Breslau was now Wroclaw etc. Also interesting is the question of the first created, then eliminated boundary between the FRG and GDR. Based on the current map, the Archdiocese of Hamburg seems to clearly cross the ex-boundary, while other dioceses seem basically aligned with where it used to be. But I don't know when these present diocesan lines were drawn, whether before, during, or after the divided interlude.
In Ireland I assume there was zero support among the Catholic populace for realigning the boundaries. Anything that made the national boundary seem like a mistake would have been a thing they wanted to see continue.
The Archdiocese of Cardiff (south east Wales) includes the adjacent English county of Herefordshire. As another commentator noted, the multiple brutal 20th century national boundary changes across Europe produced all sorts of anomalies.
One of my favourites is Alsace, which has migrated between France and Germany. The street names are displayed in French and Alsatian German. It is in France for the time being. In 1905 the anti clerical French government nationalised Church property. But Alsace was in Germany at that time, so that appalling law has never been applied on that area.
Longer term history produces some really odd looking dioceses. My own diocese Portsmouth, in southern England, stretches from the south edge of Oxford to the Channel Islands, which are a few miles west of Normandy. The Channel Islands were once part of the Duchy of Normandy.... And then there was the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.
Although most of Belgium's dioceses line up with the secular provinces, the Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels covers two distinct cultural and linguistic people: The Walloons and the Flemish. I'm not sure how that works out on the parish level.
Part of it is probably because of the location of Armagh being in the North. Because of its association with St. Patrick (and some early medieval political considerations), Armagh has been the preeminent see in Ireland for over a millennium, beginning in a time when Dublin didn't even exist yet. By the time Dublin emerged as a capital with actual administrative power over the whole island rather than just a de jure control of Ireland on paper, the English who controlled Dublin had become protestants. To impose partition (the 6 counties in the north being split from the 32 in the south) by putting the north (and Armagh) in a separate territory while making Dublin the capital of Irish Catholicism would have been intolerable. It's a bit like if Baltimore had been the hub of American Catholicism for centuries before New York or DC even existed or had any real importance.
Archbishop Duffy says that the discernment about whether to merge the dioceses will involve those affected. Even involving those affected would be an improvement over simply imposing restructuring from on high. However, I think that the clergy, employees and laity in general should be more than involved in such a decision. I think that they should be the primary ones making the decisions. After all, they are on the ground and know the situation, they built the churches and parishes in general, and they are the ones most affected. I think that there should be representatives selected by the clergy and the laity who propose (or reject) changes, and that their joint decisions should be adhered to if at all reasonable and practicable.
I’m afraid I completely disagree, at least in the case of Ireland. The clergy in Ireland are in a sorry state. Many of them are sadly diminished by the fall of the Catholic Church in our lifetimes, some are quietist with the new Ireland, but some of them are bat-poo crazy and really priests of a non-Christian religion. Better have outsiders come in and see what can be salvaged in Ireland.
My unpopular opinion on this is that most people (particularly laypeople) ought to be left out of the decision to merge/close parishes and dioceses.
Most laity are less than worthless to have in these discussions. They typically have little clue about the sustainability of their parishes (sacramentally and/or financially), have the greatest amount of sentimental attachment, and are thus generally delusional in their expectations. The people who are most vocal and up-in-arms about closing a parish are typically the ones who have no idea just how dire and unsustainable their parish’s situation is. They’ll stand in front of bulldozers, protest the bishop’s office, and write to Rome, but never bothered to give $10+/week in the collection for the past 15 years. They’ll draft dream proposals of how they can miraculously “raise funds to save the parish” but never significantly gave or volunteered for years while the parish annually runs in the red.
This is 95% of parishioners on a parish roll, and they’re better off not being involved in bogging down discussions. I can only imagine this even more true at the diocesan level.
This was encouraging news as it needs to happen across Ireland. The amount of resources being wasting on chancellory staffs must be staggering. When Bishop Denis Nulty was Apostolic Admin for Ossory, he did an excellent job proving Kildare & Leighlin could be paired with Ossory. Bishops must also have the courage to close churches or suppress/amalgamate parishes now because active priest numbers will fall off a cliff edge in Ireland by the end of the decade.
The article starts with "The Vatican" but then immediately afterwards the actor becomes "the pope" or "Pope Francis". In America, when I read that "President Biden" did something I almost unthinkingly assume that what is or should be meant is really "the White House", since it's very unlikely that the president is fully informed and engaged in much of anything. Isn't it much the same here, since Pope Francis is unlikely to know or, really, care much of anything at all about Ireland?
By the way, sincere thanks to those who have commented here on current events and history in Ireland and elsewhere. Not infrequently, an article's comments add greatly to understanding the article itself.
Traditional Diocesan boundaries in Ireland are a bit funny because they made sure that every Diocese had access to the coast, so a Bishop could always get to Rome without interference from any other Bishop. Makes for some odd shaped strips of territory at boundary edges. The population distribution of Ireland are changed in the last century with the depopulation of rural areas and the huge expansion of Dublin into neighboring towns and counties as suburbs and dormitory towns expand. With respect to amalgamations and suppression of parishes or dioceses and so on, I do think the laity are actually ahead of the clergy here in being ready to deal with realities on the ground. Between knowing how to balance a family budget and professional expertise in many areas, lay people have plenty to contribute in the forward planning of the church. The most important concept to advance in this respect, is to promote and catechize that the Church is the people of God, and that a parish or Diocese is the people of God on mission in a particular place. If we can prayerfully advance the kingdom together as God's people, the buildings and boundaries issues are just details to be worked out. If we are not seeking first the kingdom, they will never be sorted.
I hadn't realized that the diocese of Armagh would presently span territory in both Ireland and Northern Ireland, as I did not realize that some dioceses may or even could cross national borders. But it makes sense, especially in cases of national boundaries which have been redrawn (sometimes many times) in the past century. I am curious if is common at all for dioceses to re-arrange when national borders are rearranged, or if the Church tends to preserve historic boundaries of dioceses in an effort to maintain the reality and titles of the Churches which have existed therein. I am curious, too, how bishops manage dioceses which have territory within multiple present-day nations, and if there are any particular administrative challenges associated with that.
It took a few decades for the Church to recognize the post-Yalta boundaries. New western Ukraine was still classified as eastern Poland, and in turn new western Poland was still considered eastern Germany. If I recall correctly it was during the 1970s Ostpolitik that the Vatican gave in and admitted Breslau was now Wroclaw etc. Also interesting is the question of the first created, then eliminated boundary between the FRG and GDR. Based on the current map, the Archdiocese of Hamburg seems to clearly cross the ex-boundary, while other dioceses seem basically aligned with where it used to be. But I don't know when these present diocesan lines were drawn, whether before, during, or after the divided interlude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_dioceses_in_Germany#/media/File:Deutschland_Kirchenprovinzen_beschriftet.png
In Ireland I assume there was zero support among the Catholic populace for realigning the boundaries. Anything that made the national boundary seem like a mistake would have been a thing they wanted to see continue.
The Archdiocese of Cardiff (south east Wales) includes the adjacent English county of Herefordshire. As another commentator noted, the multiple brutal 20th century national boundary changes across Europe produced all sorts of anomalies.
One of my favourites is Alsace, which has migrated between France and Germany. The street names are displayed in French and Alsatian German. It is in France for the time being. In 1905 the anti clerical French government nationalised Church property. But Alsace was in Germany at that time, so that appalling law has never been applied on that area.
Longer term history produces some really odd looking dioceses. My own diocese Portsmouth, in southern England, stretches from the south edge of Oxford to the Channel Islands, which are a few miles west of Normandy. The Channel Islands were once part of the Duchy of Normandy.... And then there was the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.
These are great questions. I remember this report during the coronavirus crisis, about a parish which covers both sides of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. On one side, public Masses were suspended, while on the other, they were permitted, creating a peculiar situation in the parish: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/46220/its-quite-sad-at-the-moment-coronavirus-curbs-deprive-part-of-border-parish-of-public-masses
Although most of Belgium's dioceses line up with the secular provinces, the Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels covers two distinct cultural and linguistic people: The Walloons and the Flemish. I'm not sure how that works out on the parish level.
Part of it is probably because of the location of Armagh being in the North. Because of its association with St. Patrick (and some early medieval political considerations), Armagh has been the preeminent see in Ireland for over a millennium, beginning in a time when Dublin didn't even exist yet. By the time Dublin emerged as a capital with actual administrative power over the whole island rather than just a de jure control of Ireland on paper, the English who controlled Dublin had become protestants. To impose partition (the 6 counties in the north being split from the 32 in the south) by putting the north (and Armagh) in a separate territory while making Dublin the capital of Irish Catholicism would have been intolerable. It's a bit like if Baltimore had been the hub of American Catholicism for centuries before New York or DC even existed or had any real importance.
The comments in this sub thread were interesting to me. I’m ignorant of these topics, but I enjoy a brief history lesson as much as the next guy!
Archbishop Duffy says that the discernment about whether to merge the dioceses will involve those affected. Even involving those affected would be an improvement over simply imposing restructuring from on high. However, I think that the clergy, employees and laity in general should be more than involved in such a decision. I think that they should be the primary ones making the decisions. After all, they are on the ground and know the situation, they built the churches and parishes in general, and they are the ones most affected. I think that there should be representatives selected by the clergy and the laity who propose (or reject) changes, and that their joint decisions should be adhered to if at all reasonable and practicable.
I’m afraid I completely disagree, at least in the case of Ireland. The clergy in Ireland are in a sorry state. Many of them are sadly diminished by the fall of the Catholic Church in our lifetimes, some are quietist with the new Ireland, but some of them are bat-poo crazy and really priests of a non-Christian religion. Better have outsiders come in and see what can be salvaged in Ireland.
My unpopular opinion on this is that most people (particularly laypeople) ought to be left out of the decision to merge/close parishes and dioceses.
Most laity are less than worthless to have in these discussions. They typically have little clue about the sustainability of their parishes (sacramentally and/or financially), have the greatest amount of sentimental attachment, and are thus generally delusional in their expectations. The people who are most vocal and up-in-arms about closing a parish are typically the ones who have no idea just how dire and unsustainable their parish’s situation is. They’ll stand in front of bulldozers, protest the bishop’s office, and write to Rome, but never bothered to give $10+/week in the collection for the past 15 years. They’ll draft dream proposals of how they can miraculously “raise funds to save the parish” but never significantly gave or volunteered for years while the parish annually runs in the red.
This is 95% of parishioners on a parish roll, and they’re better off not being involved in bogging down discussions. I can only imagine this even more true at the diocesan level.
That’s a bit patronising. The People of God are wiser and more shrewd than you assume.
From I’ve seen happening in Ireland, it appears there’s consistently more episcopal actuon than priestly action.
Can a native of the old country enlighten me: What are the current enrollment numbers at Maynooth? How is the Irish College in Rome still open?
My understanding is that domestic vocations in Ireland have all but disappeared.
"Other countries where the pope has united sees in persona episcopi include Canada, Italy, Spain, and Wales."
And the United States, in the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh.
This was encouraging news as it needs to happen across Ireland. The amount of resources being wasting on chancellory staffs must be staggering. When Bishop Denis Nulty was Apostolic Admin for Ossory, he did an excellent job proving Kildare & Leighlin could be paired with Ossory. Bishops must also have the courage to close churches or suppress/amalgamate parishes now because active priest numbers will fall off a cliff edge in Ireland by the end of the decade.
Unless, of course, the people start making holy hours for an increase in vocations.
// The Vatican announced //
The article starts with "The Vatican" but then immediately afterwards the actor becomes "the pope" or "Pope Francis". In America, when I read that "President Biden" did something I almost unthinkingly assume that what is or should be meant is really "the White House", since it's very unlikely that the president is fully informed and engaged in much of anything. Isn't it much the same here, since Pope Francis is unlikely to know or, really, care much of anything at all about Ireland?
By the way, sincere thanks to those who have commented here on current events and history in Ireland and elsewhere. Not infrequently, an article's comments add greatly to understanding the article itself.
Traditional Diocesan boundaries in Ireland are a bit funny because they made sure that every Diocese had access to the coast, so a Bishop could always get to Rome without interference from any other Bishop. Makes for some odd shaped strips of territory at boundary edges. The population distribution of Ireland are changed in the last century with the depopulation of rural areas and the huge expansion of Dublin into neighboring towns and counties as suburbs and dormitory towns expand. With respect to amalgamations and suppression of parishes or dioceses and so on, I do think the laity are actually ahead of the clergy here in being ready to deal with realities on the ground. Between knowing how to balance a family budget and professional expertise in many areas, lay people have plenty to contribute in the forward planning of the church. The most important concept to advance in this respect, is to promote and catechize that the Church is the people of God, and that a parish or Diocese is the people of God on mission in a particular place. If we can prayerfully advance the kingdom together as God's people, the buildings and boundaries issues are just details to be worked out. If we are not seeking first the kingdom, they will never be sorted.