The merger of dioceses is something that absolutely needs to be discussed and happen across the USA.
At the same time, the union of them ‘in persona’ is absolutely unacceptable. One bishop ruling one diocese is the standard that multiple ecumenical councils have upheld. If we need to merge, we need to merge. But let us hold fast to this standard.
There are many dioceses in the US that probably need to be merged for the reasons you outlined, but also there are a number that probably need to be split up because they've grown so much (Southwest US). If you were creating dioceses from scratch today, I would imagine the map would look very different. I'm wondering if the USCCB and/or Vatican need to do some sort of "redistricting". It would be very expensive and difficult, but with big population and demographic shifts throughout the US, rolling with decades or centuries old boundaries doesn't seem like the best way to effectively govern the church (or anything for that matter).
I think dioceses should be able to Trade Bishops, like NFL Clubs swap quarterbacks for players, cash and future draft choices. I can think several that would joyfully trade their current Ordinary for somebody else’s Diocesan Vicar, two transitional deacons and a DCM to be named later.
If I understand correctly, every bishop is bishop of a diocese, so auxiliariary bishops of bigger US dioceses are actually bishops of an obscure and probably neglected diocese in another part of the world. Is that accurate? How does that play into all this?
The situation in the United States is much different than in Ireland, for instance. Ireland has 28 total bishops serving a million fewer Catholics than the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, all on an island the size of Indiana. Some of the U.S. dioceses with fewer than 100,000 Catholics might stand to be consolidated, but there's something to be said for having a sufficient geographic dispersion of bishops as well.
An alternate take. While I understand the desire to merge dioceses from an efficiency perspective, I think it is at least potentially detrimental to the spiritual component of the office. They are priest, prophet, and king. So yes, they do have a governing office, but not that alone. It seems to me that merging dioceses into progressively larger entities merely ensures that the bishop is a bureaucrat with abundant paperwork, which is a necessary part of his job but shouldn’t be the focus. This is particularly true in cases where the geographic areas are large. Already, most bishops shamelessly ignore their duty to visit all of their parishes regularly, because they have “other” things to do. And in many cases the bishops don’t “have enough time” to do the confirmations. This is unacceptable, and giving bishops larger dioceses will only exacerbate this problem.
Also, the email today was a little insulting to suggest that there aren’t enough episcopabili to go around. I would venture to bet that most of us know a priest or two who would make a fine bishop. I think the more likely explanation is that there aren’t enough priests who fit a certain political and theological mold, and there is an aversion in Rome to giving governing offices to enemies.
My anecdotal experience of this from rural America: NO ONE is ready for the demographic sinkhole that's about to open up under us. We all know that *some* parishes and dioceses *somewhere* have to merge or close, but none of us are ready for the day that it's *my* parish or *my* diocese. That conversation becomes very personal, and often ugly, very quickly.
The merger of dioceses is something that absolutely needs to be discussed and happen across the USA.
At the same time, the union of them ‘in persona’ is absolutely unacceptable. One bishop ruling one diocese is the standard that multiple ecumenical councils have upheld. If we need to merge, we need to merge. But let us hold fast to this standard.
There are many dioceses in the US that probably need to be merged for the reasons you outlined, but also there are a number that probably need to be split up because they've grown so much (Southwest US). If you were creating dioceses from scratch today, I would imagine the map would look very different. I'm wondering if the USCCB and/or Vatican need to do some sort of "redistricting". It would be very expensive and difficult, but with big population and demographic shifts throughout the US, rolling with decades or centuries old boundaries doesn't seem like the best way to effectively govern the church (or anything for that matter).
I think dioceses should be able to Trade Bishops, like NFL Clubs swap quarterbacks for players, cash and future draft choices. I can think several that would joyfully trade their current Ordinary for somebody else’s Diocesan Vicar, two transitional deacons and a DCM to be named later.
The photo on this article had me like: "The archdiocese of Washington is being merged?!"
If I understand correctly, every bishop is bishop of a diocese, so auxiliariary bishops of bigger US dioceses are actually bishops of an obscure and probably neglected diocese in another part of the world. Is that accurate? How does that play into all this?
The situation in the United States is much different than in Ireland, for instance. Ireland has 28 total bishops serving a million fewer Catholics than the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, all on an island the size of Indiana. Some of the U.S. dioceses with fewer than 100,000 Catholics might stand to be consolidated, but there's something to be said for having a sufficient geographic dispersion of bishops as well.
An alternate take. While I understand the desire to merge dioceses from an efficiency perspective, I think it is at least potentially detrimental to the spiritual component of the office. They are priest, prophet, and king. So yes, they do have a governing office, but not that alone. It seems to me that merging dioceses into progressively larger entities merely ensures that the bishop is a bureaucrat with abundant paperwork, which is a necessary part of his job but shouldn’t be the focus. This is particularly true in cases where the geographic areas are large. Already, most bishops shamelessly ignore their duty to visit all of their parishes regularly, because they have “other” things to do. And in many cases the bishops don’t “have enough time” to do the confirmations. This is unacceptable, and giving bishops larger dioceses will only exacerbate this problem.
Also, the email today was a little insulting to suggest that there aren’t enough episcopabili to go around. I would venture to bet that most of us know a priest or two who would make a fine bishop. I think the more likely explanation is that there aren’t enough priests who fit a certain political and theological mold, and there is an aversion in Rome to giving governing offices to enemies.
My anecdotal experience of this from rural America: NO ONE is ready for the demographic sinkhole that's about to open up under us. We all know that *some* parishes and dioceses *somewhere* have to merge or close, but none of us are ready for the day that it's *my* parish or *my* diocese. That conversation becomes very personal, and often ugly, very quickly.