There are two distinct issues here. First, there is the question of whether Holy Rosary parish should be merged into another parish or parishes. (Territorial parishes are not closed, unless there is no one actually in them; if a parish cannnot be maintained as a separate entity, the bishop can merge it into another parish or parishes.) S…
There are two distinct issues here. First, there is the question of whether Holy Rosary parish should be merged into another parish or parishes. (Territorial parishes are not closed, unless there is no one actually in them; if a parish cannnot be maintained as a separate entity, the bishop can merge it into another parish or parishes.) Second, there is the question of whether the parish church should be deconsecrated and sold. If in fact there are not enough priests to serve the parish, that would be just cause to merge it into another parish, whose priest would serve the people. If the bishop follows the required process, he can do so. However, if a parish is merged into another parish, that does not necessarily imply that its church should be deconsecrated and then sold. In fact, the preference is the opposite. If it is an all feasible to keep the church open, either by ownership of the parish or by being purchased and cared for by another group, that should be done. Furthermore, if the church is sold, the proceeds should go to the parish into which the former parish was merged. The proceeds do not belong to the diocese, for a parishes is its own juridic person not a mere subsidiary of the diocese. It is thus puzzling to argue that the diocese was proposing selling the church to pay for abuse claims. Those claims should be paid by the diocese, not the parish. And if the diocese cannot pay them, it should declare bankruptcy as other dioceses have done. To use proceeds from the sale of a parish church to pay diocesan obligations is both unjust and a violation of canon law. Those issues may have been behind the Vatican's reversal of the bishop's decision.
There are two distinct issues here. First, there is the question of whether Holy Rosary parish should be merged into another parish or parishes. (Territorial parishes are not closed, unless there is no one actually in them; if a parish cannnot be maintained as a separate entity, the bishop can merge it into another parish or parishes.) Second, there is the question of whether the parish church should be deconsecrated and sold. If in fact there are not enough priests to serve the parish, that would be just cause to merge it into another parish, whose priest would serve the people. If the bishop follows the required process, he can do so. However, if a parish is merged into another parish, that does not necessarily imply that its church should be deconsecrated and then sold. In fact, the preference is the opposite. If it is an all feasible to keep the church open, either by ownership of the parish or by being purchased and cared for by another group, that should be done. Furthermore, if the church is sold, the proceeds should go to the parish into which the former parish was merged. The proceeds do not belong to the diocese, for a parishes is its own juridic person not a mere subsidiary of the diocese. It is thus puzzling to argue that the diocese was proposing selling the church to pay for abuse claims. Those claims should be paid by the diocese, not the parish. And if the diocese cannot pay them, it should declare bankruptcy as other dioceses have done. To use proceeds from the sale of a parish church to pay diocesan obligations is both unjust and a violation of canon law. Those issues may have been behind the Vatican's reversal of the bishop's decision.