Question on parish mergers

[victrolatim]

In the past years here in the Diocese of Buffalo we have had more than our fair share of parish closings and mergers. I’ve often wondered what the particular rules are regarding this. For example, I’ve noticed when two parishes merge the name of the parish changes instead of just remaining one or the other (For example St. Francis and St. Agnes merge to become St. Katherine Drexel at the St. Francis site instead of it just remaining St. Francis) . Is this required? Does this mean that the church itself needs to be “re-consecrated” in a way? Also some of the merged parishes continue to use both churches as “Worship Sites” with Masses held at each. Isn’t this the same as them both operating independently or does it have to do with the actual governance of the parish? I hope these questions aren’t too confusing.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I’ve noticed when two parishes merge the name of the parish changes instead of just remaining one or the other (For example St. Francis and St. Agnes merge to become St. Katherine Drexel at the St. Francis site instead of it just remaining St. Francis) . Is this required?

No. In a parish merger, the name is usually changed or combined, e.g. St. Peter’s Parish and St. Paul’s Parish may become Saints Peter and Paul Parish. A parish may also be suppressed and assigned to a neighboring parish.

Does this mean that the church itself needs to be “re-consecrated” in a way?

No. A church building and a parish are very different things.

Also some of the merged parishes continue to use both churches as “Worship Sites” with Masses held at each. Isn’t this the same as them both operating independently or does it have to do with the actual governance of the parish?

One parish can have more than one church building. A parish is a legal structure.

See:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-parishes-merge-or-close

 

[phil19034]

In the past years here in the Diocese of Buffalo we have had more than our fair share of parish closings and mergers. I’ve often wondered what the particular rules are regarding this. For example, I’ve noticed when two parishes merge the name of the parish changes instead of just remaining one or the other (For example St. Francis and St. Agnes merge to become St. Katherine Drexel at the St. Francis site instead of it just remaining St. Francis) . Is this required? Does this mean that the church itself needs to be “re-consecrated” in a way? Also some of the merged parishes continue to use both churches as “Worship Sites” with Masses held at each. Isn’t this the same as them both operating independently or does it have to do with the actual governance of the parish? I hope these questions aren’t too confusing.

regarding the name change: The traditional way is for one of the parish names to remain the name of the new parish (this is how parish mergers are done in Philadelphia).

However, some other Bishops feel that by creating a new parish name, it will limit hurt feelings and help speed up the merger. In some diocese all of the church buildings retain their original names, and the parish has a different name with no Church building with that name. But later in the future, when the parish is finally down to one building, the church building is typically renamed after the parish.

Basically, this is a prolonged process to spare the feelings of the parishioners who had their parishes merged.

When the multiple churches are remained opened as “Worship Sites” it is not the same thing as operating them independently because they have a merged budget and money. The parish will only operate multiple worship sites if the combined finances allow for it.

But money to upkeep a church building isn’t always the reason two parishes merge. For example, let’s assume that parish A has enough money to upkeep their building, pay the bills, etc; but they don’t have the money to spend on increasing their ministry and are only doing the bare minimum.

Parish B has money to pay their bills and has enough money to have an active parish life. But their Church building is smaller than parish A’s and they are slowly out growing their space in Parish B, while Parish A has lots of empty seats.

A merger between the two parishes allows Parish A to tap into the extra ministry money that parish B has and allows the combined parish to schedule more Mass times at Parish A to fill the larger Church and use the old Parish B church as the worship site.

Traditionally, one of these two church buildings would be identified as the parish church and the other as the worship site. And based on my description, Parish A (the poorer parish with the larger church) would most likely be identified as the Parish Church, which could upset parishioners from Parish B.

So some bishops have decided to allow the parishes to create new parish names, and allowing future parishioners to decide which church will be kept if and when they need to close one. Rather than determining the main church at the time of the merger.

I hope I’m explaining this well.

God Bless

 

[Usige]

I don’t know that there is a rule requiring the renaming of a parish. As far as I know it is generally done to express that a new community is formed from the formerly seperate communities. It also heads off the feeling that one parish absorbed the other.

As for multiple churches in the same parish, they are not independent. A parish is really a subdivision of the faithful where as a church is simply a building where they worship. From a governance standpoint there is only one pastor in a parish and would normally only have one pastoral council for the parish regardless of the number of churches. One of the reasons that multiple churches are left after a merger is that closing a church has a higher bar then merging or closing a parish. This is because a church must be deconsecrated and not be turned over for unseemly uses. I don’t remember the canons, but I seem to remember that a bishop can close/merge a parish for just reasons, but closing a church is only to be done for grave reasons.

 

[Phemie]

When parishes “merge” are 2 parishes “suppressed” and new parish with different boundaries “erected” ?

When our diocese, the Diocese of Labrador City-Schefferville, which had territory in two provinces (all the Labrador part of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and part of northern Québec) ceased to be, it was suppressed. Then the parishes in the Québec part of the former diocese were split between two Québec dioceses: Amos, which annexed the northernmost part of the territory, and Baie-Comeau which annexed the “Lower North Shore” part of the territory.

The Labrador part of the territory was annexed to the diocese of St. George on the Island of Newfoundland and the name was changed to the Diocese of Corner Brook and Labrador.

 

[1ke]

In the past years here in the Diocese of Buffalo we have had more than our fair share of parish closings and mergers. I’ve often wondered what the particular rules are regarding this.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1U.HTM

For example, I’ve noticed when two parishes merge the name of the parish changes instead of just remaining one or the other (For example St. Francis and St. Agnes merge to become St. Katherine Drexel at the St. Francis site instead of it just remaining St. Francis) . Is this required?

If Parish A and Parish B are suppressed and Parish C is created from the territories formerly encompassing A and B, yes.

Does this mean that the church itself needs to be “re-consecrated” in a way?

no

Also some of the merged parishes continue to use both churches as “Worship Sites” with Masses held at each. Isn’t this the same as them both operating independently or does it have to do with the actual governance of the parish? I hope these questions aren’t too confusing.

Two parishes = two parish councils, two finance councils, two independent bank accounts/monies belong to each parish, two sets of sacramental records, two sets of everything basically.

One parish = one legal entity, one bank account/monies belong to one parish; one pastoral council, one finance council, one sacramental record book, etc.

 

[Sunbreak]

It’s not universal that a new name is given to merged parishes. It seems that when this is done it is to make parishioners feel they are going to “one” church instead of now we have to go to “your” church. Sometimes in a merger, two parishes buildings may still be used for awhile but one eventually closes - kind of like a transition phase into using only one church building.

 

[Brendan]

It’s not universal that a new name is given to merged parishes.

Even in our diocese, there are differences. Some parishes do consolidate into a parish and the remaining parish retains it’s name ( one parish suppressed, another parish receives new boundaries)

Other times, it is exactly what the OP described.

And I know of one case where three parishes consolidated, but each building retained it’s name. One pastor, one parish council, three buildings.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

But later in the future, when the parish is finally down to one building, the church building is typically renamed after the parish.

I don’t really have experience with parish closings to know what is typical, but if the church buildings are being renamed this might require papal permission.

Can. 1218 Each church is to have its own title which cannot be changed after the church has been dedicated.

Not all churches get dedicated, so if it has only been blessed this might provide a loophole for a bishop to change the name on his own authority. But if the building has been dedicated he’ll need the pope to dispense from this canon.