I have some questions, as this issue is some interest to me…
-1- What is the driving force behind parish closures? I see people making a lot of comments about the finances, but some of the parishes seem to be debt free and at least one has a substantial endowment. It looks like the procedure is for the new pastor of merged parishes to handle the disposal of assets and physical plant, or keep them as he decides.
If the bishop is not touching the money it seems like there must be something else at work here. Is it actually due to a lack of priests?
-2- Doesn’t the parish actually belong to the diocese anyway? Everything is supposedly in the possession of the bishop as corporation sole. If that is the case, isn’t all this talk about what a parish owes or what a parish owns simply academic? It looks to me like the bishop ultimately owns it on behalf of the entire diocese.
-3- If an office of the Vatican (some congregation) orders a bishop to open (or re-open) parishes it is, apparently, only able to do so because it is delegated this authority by the Pope. In other words, it is Papal authority no matter the name of the organization, so I wonder what obligations are attached to the authority …
If the reason is lack of money, is the Vatican responsible for coming up with the shortfall? I personally doubt it. I would suppose the bishop would have to get the money out of assessments on other parishes.
If a bishop closes 12 or thirteen (or 50) parishes for (hypothetically) a lack of priests, is the Pope or the Vatican under any obligation to provide those priests when they order a reopening? If (supposing) a bishop has no priests to spare, how can he reopen the parish, where does he get the men to obey the mandate in a timely fashion and serve Mass?
I am just trying to understand the case better.
