It's unfortunate that the bishop is so bound and determined to close this parish after all the work the parishioners put into keeping it alive. I hope and pray he will reconsider, especially given that there are people leaving the Church because of his actions.
Unfortunately, people saying they'll leave the church over it has been part of every parish closing I've read about, ever. It wouldn't be a reasonable way to decide.
(I do think the bishop should take it seriously in other ways though -- making sure the communications about closing are clear, compassionate and pastoral; committing to praying for his people throughout the transition; making sure he's communicating a realistic and inspiring vision for the future -- what are they closing parishes to redirect resources /to/, etc)
I wonder how many baptisms this parish has per year? I wonder how many priestly vocations came from this parish? The number of sacramental marriages? Might there have been good reasons for its closure? Mere financial stability is not a complete reason to keep a parish open.
iirc, yep, this parish is unsustainably small in people given the vocations crisis (and the closeness of the next nearest parish). But it's a mess because the bishop didn't have that conversation transparently - he implied it was only closing because of the financial issues. The people came up with a plan to both buy the parish building and sustain it financially - and I think are rightfully frustrated to have found out only afterwards that the bishop had already decided it needed to close anyway. And they don't have a financially viable way to keep it open just for prayer, they were counting in typical Sunday Mass donations.
It reminds me a lot of the Steubenville diocese question - sometimes a closure is necessary, but how you communicate throughout that process matters
This is my parish. The church was sold BEFORE the parish was suppressed and church relegated solely to pay off abuse claims. The Dicastery clearly states that the archdiocese had no right to sell the church out from underneath our feet. With regard to vocations, this is diocesan problem. We presently have one seminarian with a Catholic population of approximately 100,000. There has been maybe two in the last 5-10 years. We need a revival .
Well, and financial stability seems to be a stretch.
Sure, they raised money to buy the property, but what condition is it in "under the hood"? They want a full-time priest, how will he be paid? Where will he live now that the rectory is sold off? Some office space is necessary to store records and keep the books, where will that happen? Sure, maybe we can grant that there are enough priests right now, but what about in five years? Even less? Can fifty people (and likely that's broken down even further into families/couples) even maintain the building, let alone the other costs?
I often get frustrated by these "save our parish" campaigns and, by extension, some of the canon lawyers that drum up all kinds of false hope for people. The bishop didn't do this right, that's for sure, and sticking up for people's rights is important. But the people cannot possibly expect that the bishop is just going to cut his losses and kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with? Slim chance, I think.
Don't get me wrong, I am not passing blame from the bishop to anyone else. If he had followed the process appropriately, been forthright and clear, the pain of these people losing their parish wouldn't be so prolonged. But lose their parish they will, I think.
My brother is a priest in Kentucky with three parishes, none of which is being closed. The smallest has about 15 parishioners for whom he says Mass twice a week.
Kudos to the parishioners, but there remains an unasked question, "How many seminarians came from this parish?" If this parish hasn't been a place where vocations are fostered, then why would they think they should have a full-time priest. Notice, I didn't say how many priests came from this parish but only seminarians. Too often I hear laments from people whose parishes close, "We had our wedding there," "We baptized all our children there," but I have never seen in any article, "Our son offered his first Mass there."
I heard the story about a bishop in the midwest who was consolidating parishes but there was one small parish with 50 families that he kept open. He did so because that little parish provided 5 priests to the diocese. If people want priests from a diocese they need to provide seminarians to the diocese.
Is that really what makes a community deserving of a parish? Genuinely wondering. If that’s the case, a whole lot of churches should close in the US. I looked up this diocese’s stats, and according to this site, they have ~100,000 Catholics, 38 priests and 34 parishes and it looks like this was before the consolidation. It makes sense to me that if they are consolidating several parishes that would allow for at least this one church to remain unconsolidated and have a priest. Another commenter said that they have 1 seminarian in the entire diocese. Can’t fact check that because I don’t know where to get that info, but if that’s the case, sounds like the problem here needs a fix that goes deeper than simply consolidating. They will consolidate until they disappear at this rate. Perhaps giving this small community with great zeal some special love would be fruitful.
Seminarians from a parish are not the only, nor even the primary factor, but they are an important consideration. How can people expect to have priests if they don't provide the diocese with seminarians? In many dioceses, there are often only a handful of them that provide the great majority of seminarians. I would say that if a parish has not produced a vocation to the seminary in the last 30 years, they should make an examination of conscience and discern why that is the case. It could be bad or even scandalous priests, which is not the fault of the parishioners, but there could also be other factors that they can change.
Certainly true. I just think in the meantime there are big things at stake for this community. Seems like they are going about the proper methods to keep the church they love intact. If lack of seminarians is the reason the Bishop is consolidating this parish, he should have communicated that and not allowed them to purchase the property. He also shouldn't have sold the parish outside of what appears to be the proper order of a suppression. Now that this all has unfolded it seems to me like it would be a good thing for him to have some open dialogue with the parish. Clearly the community cares, this seems like it might be a good opportunity to try some of that "change" you mentioned.
My objection to this and many other diocese's approaches to "consolidation" is that they seem to be conducted from purely a business perspective. "Oh, look, lots of Catholics have moved out of this neighborhood, let's shut the Parish down," when the response should always be "Oh, look, lots of non-Catholics have moved into of this neighborhood, how can we evangelize them?"
It seems that so many bishops are clueless or timid about evangelization, but very comfortable working with business consultants and plenty aggressive about shutting down parishes - perhaps that's the way things are now, with this current generation. But I believe bishops should fight for the soul of every single person in their diocese, Catholic or not. Until bishops think this way, our Church will continue to be defensive, retreating against the forces of evil, and not a Church Militant.
This is definetly a way to go, but the unfortunate reality is that these evangelization efforts end up falling back upon the parish priest's to-do list. At the end of the day, bishops will be more concerned about the cathedradic numbers than he is about the number of new parish members.
We've created a passive laity that will only follow the priest's lead. Better to raise up mature lay people with a heart for evangelization who will move to these parishes (and with the spiritual support of the pastor) go out to find the lost and invite others to become a member of the Church.
I guess what I left unspoken is that troubled parishes (or diocese) are where the reinforcements need to be - including paid staff, purchased resources, whatever it takes. Our Church doesn't seem to consider widespread atheism or paganism to be an emergency requiring an emergency response.
When my father was a teenager, during WWII, he and another altar server would accompany their parish priest to the rail yards of Indianapolis. There, the priest would engage with passing railroad workers, calling to them, encouraging, debating and even arguing with them. Several times, one or more of the more belligerent workers would try to attack the priest (thus the presence of my dad and his friend, as bodyguards more than "assistants"). The point is, that priest contended with the faithless as - and where - they were. Today's priests and bishops have an opportunity to contend in every struggling parish and diocese - it's a wonderful, exciting opportunity for them, not an occasion for retreat. And the fact that so few do that is precisely the real problem of our Church. Metrics like "fewer vocations" or "shrinking numbers attending Mass weekly" are just symptoms of a sickness that begins - and ends - with our priests and bishops.
The laity are key, absolutely central, but whenever possible they must be guided and led, in the spiritual and motivational sense, by our clergy. This effort has to come from the top.
I see so many Protestant churches where the congregants do such a good job of evangelization - or at least, a more extroverted job. I'm talking about little things like Internet advertising. Small flyers with internet links and QR codes to access more info (and "show this flyer to someone at your local parish when you arrive"). A true parish welcoming committee - they should be a non-Catholic visitor's first catechist, someone who's trained to act when a newcomer shows them that flyer or whatever. Public speaking (by trained, designated speakers). Billboards. Whatever works.
It seems there are always laity or consecrated religious who are thrilled to run a soup kitchen for homeless people, but precious few are willing to think through and execute the unglamorous work of delivering the Truth of our Holy Mother Church to someone in their neighborhood. If we don't change that, we'll continue to decline as a faith and a people.
I am always impressed by the groups of evangelical men who get together for breakfast to read Sacred Scripture and share their faith. Catholics, for the most part, seem to be uncomfortable with sharing and talking about our faith. We love demonstrating our faith (food kitchens, schools0 but not so much in sharing it.
My parish is basically an experiment in this - small, aging population, in a trendy, growing neighborhood but distinctly non religious (you'll understand the area well if you know that the local Lutheran church shut down; and was bought by an org that turned it into the "Church of Cannabis").
My understanding is the parish was slated for closure in 2021, but because of the neighborhood factors was handed over to a missionary group instead. They came in with a lot of resources (priests, trained lay missionaries, "interns" who go door to door for a couple months) and it's still an uphill climb I think - it takes time to build that kind of culture at a parish, time for people to grow into it (like I would have said I was comfortable with the idea of evangelization, but now I'm watching this happen and thinking no way would I want to go knock on doors). I would put no better than 50/50 odds on the parish still being open in 5 yrs
That's extremely interesting, thank you for posting that. I expect more success in the kind of parish areas where there's some degree of receptivity to the Christian message, not someplace where a "church of cannabis" might gain traction with locals. Still, the whole point is to contend - just maybe prioritize that work, right?
I don’t believe that the “number of seminarians per parish per year” is a fair metric to decide which parishes close. Even if it were, not every person with a religious vocation stays within their childhood diocese.
This is my diocese. I agree, if the number of seminarians was a fair metric, then the whole diocese should be closed down. I believe the diocese has had one seminarian in the last decade. We are in desperate need of a revival.
Although if the people started making holy hours for vocations one might soon find the problem resolved, and replaced with the problem of paying for the education of all those seminarians. That's what happened here.
Amen x1,000. In every parish in my diocese that opened a perpetual adoration chapel, there was at least one seminarian from that parish in the next few years.
"The reasons reportedly given: there were too few priests in the archdiocese, there was general concern about financial viability of parishes in the diocese, and a general decreasing and aging in parish populations."
None of these things are reasons why the Church building can't stay open, even if they don't ever have mass there for anything except special occasions.
Lay people are part of the Church too (not just repeat customers of a business). If these parishioners want to maintain this building as a place for their worship, as a center of their community, (and entirely at their own expense!) then why not?
This parish community should invite the Institute of Christ the King to provide for their sacramental needs. Yes, Holy Mass will be in Latin and according to the ancient formula, but hey, tant mieux, "Paris vaut bien une Messe."
My understanding is that when the local group ran the numbers on whether they could cover the building's expenses sustainably if they bought it, they were relying on there being a regular Sunday Mass (+collection). They can't make the ongoing expenses work without that
I hope (but do not expect) that the bishop will work with the parishioners for a true and proper resolution... and that parishioners will also work for the same. It appears to be a mess all around with guilty parties on both sides. The bishop doesn't look to have acted justly and continues not to, but the reaction of some parishioners is little better than idolatry.
How are the parishioners guilty? The archbishop, according to Rome, had no legal right to sell the church to pay off abuse claims. In addition, the archdiocese ignored the canonical process for closing a parish and church. Many people here can trace their ancestry back 200 years, and their grandfathers and great-grandfathers helped to build the church, so it's not surprising they might get a little emotional.
Thanks for replying. I agree with everything you've said. The burden for what is happening does lie on the archbishop. I apologize for my comment not being clear about "some" parishioners and how that plays into the current state of things (as opposed to the state of things when the trouble began). Not going to Mass during this time is extraordinarily serious, and is a reaction that far exceeds getting a little emotional. Regardless of what the archbishop does, how just or unjust his actions going forward are, we are called to faithfulness and love of Christ... in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. People opting to not go to Mass because of what the archbishop has done is not going to help in righting what has happened. I do sincerely hope the archbishop will work toward a just resolution for your parish that will result in the resumption of Mass being celebrated there and a vibrant parish life.
Would love to hear from any canon lawyers out there: what happens if people buy a church and the bishop says no? They own it--is it just a "private chapel" then? or whatever the term is. They could have masses if they hire their own priest for a mass, or have baptisms by a deacon, etc. Could they keep the blessed sacrament there in a tabernacle? And, if it wasn't officially "profaned" or whatever by the bishop (is that a thing??) then could basically do anything they want with it according to canon law?
On another note--who typically "owns" a parish these days in the US? I know that the dioceses aren't supposed to. Is there some "corporation" set up for each parish that is it's own business? I assume so, but then who legally makes decisions? Does the outgoing priest legally (according to civil law) "give" control to the new priest?
I am in no way demeaning or questioning the devotion of the folks who are fighting for their parish but it’s a flock of *fifty* people?!??
50 people is barely a mission chapel, not a parish.
I don’t disagree that the bishop handled this poorly and obfuscated at best and lied at worst, but it’s not financially or practically viable to keep a parish runni for 50 people.
And might I ask what is the age range of this flock? Are there any baptisms at all? Priests don’t grow on trees and if another parish is merely down the road this just doesn’t make much sense 🤷🏽♀️
This is my parish. The 50 figure was from May, 2022. The Covid restrictions here had only ended 6 weeks or so earlier. The community is one of the fastest growing in the province. A new high school was just announced. New subdivisions etc. Not sure what it would be if back to pre-Covid levels. In addition, we requested at least a mission chapel with just a Sunday Mass. Even then, the archbishop said no.
Yes, unfortunately. In addition, once the archdiocese announced the bankruptcy in December 2021, a lot of people gave up and didn't come back after Covid restrictions lifted.
I can see the Bishop's point of view. It's a tiny church in a tiny place. Holy Trinity is less than 10 miles away and has an elementary and high school. But the church building itself has an unfortunate aesthetic. You would think the parish would want to maintain at least one of the little seaside churches.
I may have the unpopular opinion of being particularly bothered by the people quoted in the article who won’t go to church unless their particular building is reopened. Do they not know that the Church is much more than a building? My unpopular opinion is that I can see why the bishop wants to close this church if the people don’t have their priorities straight. Of course, he should’ve gone about it much differently, through the correct channels, but I don’t understand how a church with 50 people is sustainable. A single priest can say mass three different times to 50 people, or save his energy and precious time, and say it once to 150 people!
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.
It's unfortunate that the bishop is so bound and determined to close this parish after all the work the parishioners put into keeping it alive. I hope and pray he will reconsider, especially given that there are people leaving the Church because of his actions.
No one has the "right" to leave the Church over this. That is not God speaking to the people, that is the father of lies speaking.
I agree, but according to the article it's happening and I think the bishop should take this into account in deciding what to do.
Unfortunately, people saying they'll leave the church over it has been part of every parish closing I've read about, ever. It wouldn't be a reasonable way to decide.
(I do think the bishop should take it seriously in other ways though -- making sure the communications about closing are clear, compassionate and pastoral; committing to praying for his people throughout the transition; making sure he's communicating a realistic and inspiring vision for the future -- what are they closing parishes to redirect resources /to/, etc)
I wonder how many baptisms this parish has per year? I wonder how many priestly vocations came from this parish? The number of sacramental marriages? Might there have been good reasons for its closure? Mere financial stability is not a complete reason to keep a parish open.
iirc, yep, this parish is unsustainably small in people given the vocations crisis (and the closeness of the next nearest parish). But it's a mess because the bishop didn't have that conversation transparently - he implied it was only closing because of the financial issues. The people came up with a plan to both buy the parish building and sustain it financially - and I think are rightfully frustrated to have found out only afterwards that the bishop had already decided it needed to close anyway. And they don't have a financially viable way to keep it open just for prayer, they were counting in typical Sunday Mass donations.
It reminds me a lot of the Steubenville diocese question - sometimes a closure is necessary, but how you communicate throughout that process matters
This is my parish. The church was sold BEFORE the parish was suppressed and church relegated solely to pay off abuse claims. The Dicastery clearly states that the archdiocese had no right to sell the church out from underneath our feet. With regard to vocations, this is diocesan problem. We presently have one seminarian with a Catholic population of approximately 100,000. There has been maybe two in the last 5-10 years. We need a revival .
Proper canonical procedures were not followed, that is reason enough not to close the parish.
Of course, if the bishop will not allow Mass because he will not send a priest that is a problem.
Well, and financial stability seems to be a stretch.
Sure, they raised money to buy the property, but what condition is it in "under the hood"? They want a full-time priest, how will he be paid? Where will he live now that the rectory is sold off? Some office space is necessary to store records and keep the books, where will that happen? Sure, maybe we can grant that there are enough priests right now, but what about in five years? Even less? Can fifty people (and likely that's broken down even further into families/couples) even maintain the building, let alone the other costs?
I often get frustrated by these "save our parish" campaigns and, by extension, some of the canon lawyers that drum up all kinds of false hope for people. The bishop didn't do this right, that's for sure, and sticking up for people's rights is important. But the people cannot possibly expect that the bishop is just going to cut his losses and kick the can down the road for the next guy to deal with? Slim chance, I think.
Don't get me wrong, I am not passing blame from the bishop to anyone else. If he had followed the process appropriately, been forthright and clear, the pain of these people losing their parish wouldn't be so prolonged. But lose their parish they will, I think.
My brother is a priest in Kentucky with three parishes, none of which is being closed. The smallest has about 15 parishioners for whom he says Mass twice a week.
Consolidation or multiple assignments is a possible solution, but not for every diocese or in every parish and certainly not for every priest.
True. And it helps to have a permanent deacon in that situation.
Kudos to the parishioners, but there remains an unasked question, "How many seminarians came from this parish?" If this parish hasn't been a place where vocations are fostered, then why would they think they should have a full-time priest. Notice, I didn't say how many priests came from this parish but only seminarians. Too often I hear laments from people whose parishes close, "We had our wedding there," "We baptized all our children there," but I have never seen in any article, "Our son offered his first Mass there."
I heard the story about a bishop in the midwest who was consolidating parishes but there was one small parish with 50 families that he kept open. He did so because that little parish provided 5 priests to the diocese. If people want priests from a diocese they need to provide seminarians to the diocese.
Is that really what makes a community deserving of a parish? Genuinely wondering. If that’s the case, a whole lot of churches should close in the US. I looked up this diocese’s stats, and according to this site, they have ~100,000 Catholics, 38 priests and 34 parishes and it looks like this was before the consolidation. It makes sense to me that if they are consolidating several parishes that would allow for at least this one church to remain unconsolidated and have a priest. Another commenter said that they have 1 seminarian in the entire diocese. Can’t fact check that because I don’t know where to get that info, but if that’s the case, sounds like the problem here needs a fix that goes deeper than simply consolidating. They will consolidate until they disappear at this rate. Perhaps giving this small community with great zeal some special love would be fruitful.
https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dstjn.html
^forgot to post the source
Seminarians from a parish are not the only, nor even the primary factor, but they are an important consideration. How can people expect to have priests if they don't provide the diocese with seminarians? In many dioceses, there are often only a handful of them that provide the great majority of seminarians. I would say that if a parish has not produced a vocation to the seminary in the last 30 years, they should make an examination of conscience and discern why that is the case. It could be bad or even scandalous priests, which is not the fault of the parishioners, but there could also be other factors that they can change.
Certainly true. I just think in the meantime there are big things at stake for this community. Seems like they are going about the proper methods to keep the church they love intact. If lack of seminarians is the reason the Bishop is consolidating this parish, he should have communicated that and not allowed them to purchase the property. He also shouldn't have sold the parish outside of what appears to be the proper order of a suppression. Now that this all has unfolded it seems to me like it would be a good thing for him to have some open dialogue with the parish. Clearly the community cares, this seems like it might be a good opportunity to try some of that "change" you mentioned.
My objection to this and many other diocese's approaches to "consolidation" is that they seem to be conducted from purely a business perspective. "Oh, look, lots of Catholics have moved out of this neighborhood, let's shut the Parish down," when the response should always be "Oh, look, lots of non-Catholics have moved into of this neighborhood, how can we evangelize them?"
It seems that so many bishops are clueless or timid about evangelization, but very comfortable working with business consultants and plenty aggressive about shutting down parishes - perhaps that's the way things are now, with this current generation. But I believe bishops should fight for the soul of every single person in their diocese, Catholic or not. Until bishops think this way, our Church will continue to be defensive, retreating against the forces of evil, and not a Church Militant.
This is definetly a way to go, but the unfortunate reality is that these evangelization efforts end up falling back upon the parish priest's to-do list. At the end of the day, bishops will be more concerned about the cathedradic numbers than he is about the number of new parish members.
We've created a passive laity that will only follow the priest's lead. Better to raise up mature lay people with a heart for evangelization who will move to these parishes (and with the spiritual support of the pastor) go out to find the lost and invite others to become a member of the Church.
I guess what I left unspoken is that troubled parishes (or diocese) are where the reinforcements need to be - including paid staff, purchased resources, whatever it takes. Our Church doesn't seem to consider widespread atheism or paganism to be an emergency requiring an emergency response.
When my father was a teenager, during WWII, he and another altar server would accompany their parish priest to the rail yards of Indianapolis. There, the priest would engage with passing railroad workers, calling to them, encouraging, debating and even arguing with them. Several times, one or more of the more belligerent workers would try to attack the priest (thus the presence of my dad and his friend, as bodyguards more than "assistants"). The point is, that priest contended with the faithless as - and where - they were. Today's priests and bishops have an opportunity to contend in every struggling parish and diocese - it's a wonderful, exciting opportunity for them, not an occasion for retreat. And the fact that so few do that is precisely the real problem of our Church. Metrics like "fewer vocations" or "shrinking numbers attending Mass weekly" are just symptoms of a sickness that begins - and ends - with our priests and bishops.
Pray for them.
Wonderful experience wouldn't it be great though if we could find laity to do what the priest did? We could multiply this by 1000.
The laity are key, absolutely central, but whenever possible they must be guided and led, in the spiritual and motivational sense, by our clergy. This effort has to come from the top.
I see so many Protestant churches where the congregants do such a good job of evangelization - or at least, a more extroverted job. I'm talking about little things like Internet advertising. Small flyers with internet links and QR codes to access more info (and "show this flyer to someone at your local parish when you arrive"). A true parish welcoming committee - they should be a non-Catholic visitor's first catechist, someone who's trained to act when a newcomer shows them that flyer or whatever. Public speaking (by trained, designated speakers). Billboards. Whatever works.
It seems there are always laity or consecrated religious who are thrilled to run a soup kitchen for homeless people, but precious few are willing to think through and execute the unglamorous work of delivering the Truth of our Holy Mother Church to someone in their neighborhood. If we don't change that, we'll continue to decline as a faith and a people.
I am always impressed by the groups of evangelical men who get together for breakfast to read Sacred Scripture and share their faith. Catholics, for the most part, seem to be uncomfortable with sharing and talking about our faith. We love demonstrating our faith (food kitchens, schools0 but not so much in sharing it.
Since they are right there with the homeless perhaps they should focus their evangelization efforts on them first.
My parish is basically an experiment in this - small, aging population, in a trendy, growing neighborhood but distinctly non religious (you'll understand the area well if you know that the local Lutheran church shut down; and was bought by an org that turned it into the "Church of Cannabis").
My understanding is the parish was slated for closure in 2021, but because of the neighborhood factors was handed over to a missionary group instead. They came in with a lot of resources (priests, trained lay missionaries, "interns" who go door to door for a couple months) and it's still an uphill climb I think - it takes time to build that kind of culture at a parish, time for people to grow into it (like I would have said I was comfortable with the idea of evangelization, but now I'm watching this happen and thinking no way would I want to go knock on doors). I would put no better than 50/50 odds on the parish still being open in 5 yrs
That's extremely interesting, thank you for posting that. I expect more success in the kind of parish areas where there's some degree of receptivity to the Christian message, not someplace where a "church of cannabis" might gain traction with locals. Still, the whole point is to contend - just maybe prioritize that work, right?
Thanks for the update on this story.
I hope their bishop grows a pair, eats his humble pie and takes that meeting.
I don’t believe that the “number of seminarians per parish per year” is a fair metric to decide which parishes close. Even if it were, not every person with a religious vocation stays within their childhood diocese.
This is my diocese. I agree, if the number of seminarians was a fair metric, then the whole diocese should be closed down. I believe the diocese has had one seminarian in the last decade. We are in desperate need of a revival.
If it is diocesan wide, then the problem resides with the clergy and less so with the laity.
Although if the people started making holy hours for vocations one might soon find the problem resolved, and replaced with the problem of paying for the education of all those seminarians. That's what happened here.
Amen x1,000. In every parish in my diocese that opened a perpetual adoration chapel, there was at least one seminarian from that parish in the next few years.
"The reasons reportedly given: there were too few priests in the archdiocese, there was general concern about financial viability of parishes in the diocese, and a general decreasing and aging in parish populations."
None of these things are reasons why the Church building can't stay open, even if they don't ever have mass there for anything except special occasions.
Lay people are part of the Church too (not just repeat customers of a business). If these parishioners want to maintain this building as a place for their worship, as a center of their community, (and entirely at their own expense!) then why not?
This parish community should invite the Institute of Christ the King to provide for their sacramental needs. Yes, Holy Mass will be in Latin and according to the ancient formula, but hey, tant mieux, "Paris vaut bien une Messe."
My understanding is that when the local group ran the numbers on whether they could cover the building's expenses sustainably if they bought it, they were relying on there being a regular Sunday Mass (+collection). They can't make the ongoing expenses work without that
Ah, well that's the problem. thanks.
I hope (but do not expect) that the bishop will work with the parishioners for a true and proper resolution... and that parishioners will also work for the same. It appears to be a mess all around with guilty parties on both sides. The bishop doesn't look to have acted justly and continues not to, but the reaction of some parishioners is little better than idolatry.
How are the parishioners guilty? The archbishop, according to Rome, had no legal right to sell the church to pay off abuse claims. In addition, the archdiocese ignored the canonical process for closing a parish and church. Many people here can trace their ancestry back 200 years, and their grandfathers and great-grandfathers helped to build the church, so it's not surprising they might get a little emotional.
Thanks for replying. I agree with everything you've said. The burden for what is happening does lie on the archbishop. I apologize for my comment not being clear about "some" parishioners and how that plays into the current state of things (as opposed to the state of things when the trouble began). Not going to Mass during this time is extraordinarily serious, and is a reaction that far exceeds getting a little emotional. Regardless of what the archbishop does, how just or unjust his actions going forward are, we are called to faithfulness and love of Christ... in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. People opting to not go to Mass because of what the archbishop has done is not going to help in righting what has happened. I do sincerely hope the archbishop will work toward a just resolution for your parish that will result in the resumption of Mass being celebrated there and a vibrant parish life.
Would love to hear from any canon lawyers out there: what happens if people buy a church and the bishop says no? They own it--is it just a "private chapel" then? or whatever the term is. They could have masses if they hire their own priest for a mass, or have baptisms by a deacon, etc. Could they keep the blessed sacrament there in a tabernacle? And, if it wasn't officially "profaned" or whatever by the bishop (is that a thing??) then could basically do anything they want with it according to canon law?
On another note--who typically "owns" a parish these days in the US? I know that the dioceses aren't supposed to. Is there some "corporation" set up for each parish that is it's own business? I assume so, but then who legally makes decisions? Does the outgoing priest legally (according to civil law) "give" control to the new priest?
I am in no way demeaning or questioning the devotion of the folks who are fighting for their parish but it’s a flock of *fifty* people?!??
50 people is barely a mission chapel, not a parish.
I don’t disagree that the bishop handled this poorly and obfuscated at best and lied at worst, but it’s not financially or practically viable to keep a parish runni for 50 people.
And might I ask what is the age range of this flock? Are there any baptisms at all? Priests don’t grow on trees and if another parish is merely down the road this just doesn’t make much sense 🤷🏽♀️
This is my parish. The 50 figure was from May, 2022. The Covid restrictions here had only ended 6 weeks or so earlier. The community is one of the fastest growing in the province. A new high school was just announced. New subdivisions etc. Not sure what it would be if back to pre-Covid levels. In addition, we requested at least a mission chapel with just a Sunday Mass. Even then, the archbishop said no.
You had Covid restrictions on mass until may of 2022?!?
Mercy.
Yes, unfortunately. In addition, once the archdiocese announced the bankruptcy in December 2021, a lot of people gave up and didn't come back after Covid restrictions lifted.
My brother is pastor of 3 parishes in Kentucky. He says Mass twice a week for the one with 15 parishioners.
I can see the Bishop's point of view. It's a tiny church in a tiny place. Holy Trinity is less than 10 miles away and has an elementary and high school. But the church building itself has an unfortunate aesthetic. You would think the parish would want to maintain at least one of the little seaside churches.
I may have the unpopular opinion of being particularly bothered by the people quoted in the article who won’t go to church unless their particular building is reopened. Do they not know that the Church is much more than a building? My unpopular opinion is that I can see why the bishop wants to close this church if the people don’t have their priorities straight. Of course, he should’ve gone about it much differently, through the correct channels, but I don’t understand how a church with 50 people is sustainable. A single priest can say mass three different times to 50 people, or save his energy and precious time, and say it once to 150 people!
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.