That's probably going to be necessary here in America. If anything, the South and West should think about splitting some dioceses, and the Northeast and Midwest should think about combining them. We also need to shuffle the metropolitans to where Catholics actually are now (no reason to have a province in Hartford and Boston, for example).
We have 193 dioceses for 75 million nominal Catholics (400k per diocese) and 15 million active Catholics (80k per diocese). Any diocese with less than half those numbers should be combined. Any diocese with more than double those numbers should be split.
Metropolitans should number about 30, and have about 5 suffragan dioceses each.
I agree about reshuffling the metropolitan sees, but disagree that one bishop can adequately shepherd 80k Catholics. Most people rarely see their bishop. I think we should double or even triple the number of dioceses here in the US to allow for more fruitful relationships with the bishop.
Merging chancery departments could make it sustainable. As this article mentions, Pope Francis recommended that the Calabrian dioceses combined seminaries. We already do that in the US to great results. Why does each diocese need its own administration offices? They should combine them across regions as appropriate.
Case in point is the reporting on the Diocese of Steubenville here on the Pillar. The priests are overwhelmingly united about remaining separate from Columbus, partially because they don't want to get lost in a huge diocese. Let's have more Steubenvilles that share chanceries with Columbus and Youngstown.
--> First of all, another great in-depth report, Luke.
--> I can begin to understand this situation, albeit on a smaller scale. In my small town, there are three Catholic parishes: two of them with near 100% white congregations, and a separate very small and dwindling black congregation. I often say that the black parish needs to be shuttered and its parishioners welcomed into the other two parishes. It would certainly make better use of financial, physical, and personnel resources. However, that's easy for me to say: I'm not a member of that parish. I try to imagine how I would feel if it was the parish where my parents and grandparents received their sacraments that was made redundant. The scale may be smaller, but at a personal level it's all the same.
--> We need courageous bishops to preach the Gospel to the modern world. But, until the pews are full again, we also need courageous - and prudent - bishops to make these kinds of decisions.
We were stationed in southern Italy near Naples for many years. There truly is a ridiculous quantity of dioceses. Where we lived we were very near the border of two individual dioceses- Aversa and Caserta I believe. But we could drive into the heart of Pozzuoli probably through another diocese if we’re being completely honest in 30 to 40 minutes. The same amount of time would get us downtown to the diocese of Naples to their cathedral. A little bit of a longer drive (hour?) would take us to the Amalfi coast and that diocese.
All this said there have been some volcanic activity (supervolcano) near Pozzuoli so anyone who’s reading this spare prayer for the people in that area .
So there were discussions about having dioceses collaborate and share resources, like shared metropolitan seminaries, as a partial fix. What other things are difficult for a small diocese such that popes have routinely sought to suppress or merge Italian dioceses? Because honestly, pastorally, it sounds nice to be in a small diocese where you might have the chance to regularly engage with your bishop because he has fewer souls to shepherd in a smaller territory (in persona episcopi experiment aside)
I would add that the Bishop is not really the issue. This can be applied to the situation with Steubenville.
What is difficult is the additional resources a diocese requires: A Vicar General, Judicial Vicar, Tribunal, Chancellor, archives, review panels, finance, superintendent of schools, etc., etc.
In my opinion it makes far more sense to keep a separate Bishop, but merge the support staff. This is not completely unheard of, I believe the Diocese of Knoxville used Nashville's tribunal up until very recently.
We have a house in northeastern Washington. The pastor of our church has 5 parishes to take care of and I don’t know how he does it. He can’t say masses every Sunday because he is only one person.
Canon law question: Imagine you are both the bishop of Assisi-Nocera Umbra-Gualdo Tadino and of Foligno; how are you supposed to fulfill canon 395? For Christmas, Holy Week, Easter Sunday, Pentecost and Corpus Christi bilocation?
That's probably going to be necessary here in America. If anything, the South and West should think about splitting some dioceses, and the Northeast and Midwest should think about combining them. We also need to shuffle the metropolitans to where Catholics actually are now (no reason to have a province in Hartford and Boston, for example).
We have 193 dioceses for 75 million nominal Catholics (400k per diocese) and 15 million active Catholics (80k per diocese). Any diocese with less than half those numbers should be combined. Any diocese with more than double those numbers should be split.
Metropolitans should number about 30, and have about 5 suffragan dioceses each.
I agree about reshuffling the metropolitan sees, but disagree that one bishop can adequately shepherd 80k Catholics. Most people rarely see their bishop. I think we should double or even triple the number of dioceses here in the US to allow for more fruitful relationships with the bishop.
Merging chancery departments could make it sustainable. As this article mentions, Pope Francis recommended that the Calabrian dioceses combined seminaries. We already do that in the US to great results. Why does each diocese need its own administration offices? They should combine them across regions as appropriate.
Case in point is the reporting on the Diocese of Steubenville here on the Pillar. The priests are overwhelmingly united about remaining separate from Columbus, partially because they don't want to get lost in a huge diocese. Let's have more Steubenvilles that share chanceries with Columbus and Youngstown.
--> First of all, another great in-depth report, Luke.
--> I can begin to understand this situation, albeit on a smaller scale. In my small town, there are three Catholic parishes: two of them with near 100% white congregations, and a separate very small and dwindling black congregation. I often say that the black parish needs to be shuttered and its parishioners welcomed into the other two parishes. It would certainly make better use of financial, physical, and personnel resources. However, that's easy for me to say: I'm not a member of that parish. I try to imagine how I would feel if it was the parish where my parents and grandparents received their sacraments that was made redundant. The scale may be smaller, but at a personal level it's all the same.
--> We need courageous bishops to preach the Gospel to the modern world. But, until the pews are full again, we also need courageous - and prudent - bishops to make these kinds of decisions.
We were stationed in southern Italy near Naples for many years. There truly is a ridiculous quantity of dioceses. Where we lived we were very near the border of two individual dioceses- Aversa and Caserta I believe. But we could drive into the heart of Pozzuoli probably through another diocese if we’re being completely honest in 30 to 40 minutes. The same amount of time would get us downtown to the diocese of Naples to their cathedral. A little bit of a longer drive (hour?) would take us to the Amalfi coast and that diocese.
All this said there have been some volcanic activity (supervolcano) near Pozzuoli so anyone who’s reading this spare prayer for the people in that area .
So there were discussions about having dioceses collaborate and share resources, like shared metropolitan seminaries, as a partial fix. What other things are difficult for a small diocese such that popes have routinely sought to suppress or merge Italian dioceses? Because honestly, pastorally, it sounds nice to be in a small diocese where you might have the chance to regularly engage with your bishop because he has fewer souls to shepherd in a smaller territory (in persona episcopi experiment aside)
I would add that the Bishop is not really the issue. This can be applied to the situation with Steubenville.
What is difficult is the additional resources a diocese requires: A Vicar General, Judicial Vicar, Tribunal, Chancellor, archives, review panels, finance, superintendent of schools, etc., etc.
In my opinion it makes far more sense to keep a separate Bishop, but merge the support staff. This is not completely unheard of, I believe the Diocese of Knoxville used Nashville's tribunal up until very recently.
We have a house in northeastern Washington. The pastor of our church has 5 parishes to take care of and I don’t know how he does it. He can’t say masses every Sunday because he is only one person.
Canon law question: Imagine you are both the bishop of Assisi-Nocera Umbra-Gualdo Tadino and of Foligno; how are you supposed to fulfill canon 395? For Christmas, Holy Week, Easter Sunday, Pentecost and Corpus Christi bilocation?