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.
Though I agree that it would be unacceptable if there were any idea of sinecures or if the dioceses were not neighboring, it is not so objectionable to me that one bishop could run two neighboring diocese with a view toward eventually combining them, so long as he actually is the bishop of both dioceses and that this does not expand further to some absurdity where a single bishop is "technically" running 10 dioceses. The combination "in persona" is a reasonable first step while the other canonical and legal matters are worked out.
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).
Priest of the diocese of Cheyenne here, the largest geographical diocese in the lower 48. "Redistricting" is an interesting idea, but I wonder how large of a geographical diocese a bishop can be expected to govern well.
Also, I'd hate to see Arizona or New Mexico merged into a single diocese and take away Wyoming's claim to fame as the largest geographical diocese in the lower 48. But that's just my own vanity :)
Some bishops are already "emotionally absent" from their dioceses.
If we are to really evangelize don't we need more smaller dioceses, maybe with shared Tribunals and less administrative excess? Maybe allowing the faithful and clergy to have some say in the "election" of priests known to them to be their bishops could solve a number of problems (and create a few).
A priest of a diocese appointed its bishop might make it easier to accept the Episcopate instead of appointing a man with no connection to a diocese. A man going to a small Midwestern diocese from a large urban one could be enough for a priest to turn down an appointment and vice versa.
So much for His Holiness "decentralizing" the Church. Less talk Holy Father, more concrete action!
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?
That's not quite accurate. Titular bishops, whether auxiliaries in a diocese or Curial officials in Rome, do have "titular dioceses", but these aren't actual territories so much as defunct or suppressed jurisdictions. The actual pastoral care of the faithful in the present day territory of a defunct or superceded diocese is handled by the bishop of the modern diocese in the same territory, or Propaganda Fide.
Not obscure and neglected, but no longer existent. All the dioceses in Algeria and Tunisia etc. that were pushed into oblivion by the Muslim invasions, as well as dioceses abolished in other parts of the world for various reasons. I think a few U.S. locations are already on the list. (E.g., the see of Jamestown, North Dakota, was long ago moved to the larger city of Fargo, so Jamestown is now available as one of these titular sees, as they are called.) A curious practice that maybe the Vatican should re-assess.
Thanks. Yeah this is really odd. Part of me wants to say, if you need three bishops to govern a territory then maybe that should be split into three dioceses. But on the other hand, it's probably better if it's not a super easy and common thing to create and dismantle dioceses. It could get political really fast - plus, architecture. But this practice does seem to display a confused understanding of what a bishop is (or at least a need to organize things better), or maybe a confused understanding of the relationship between a particular church and the universal church.
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.
Or perhaps there aren't enough good priests willing to take on the job. Do you really think those good priests want to be pulled away from the people to become a bishop?
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.
Though I agree that it would be unacceptable if there were any idea of sinecures or if the dioceses were not neighboring, it is not so objectionable to me that one bishop could run two neighboring diocese with a view toward eventually combining them, so long as he actually is the bishop of both dioceses and that this does not expand further to some absurdity where a single bishop is "technically" running 10 dioceses. The combination "in persona" is a reasonable first step while the other canonical and legal matters are worked out.
Agreed, but it really must be clear and true that it's provisional.
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).
Priest of the diocese of Cheyenne here, the largest geographical diocese in the lower 48. "Redistricting" is an interesting idea, but I wonder how large of a geographical diocese a bishop can be expected to govern well.
Also, I'd hate to see Arizona or New Mexico merged into a single diocese and take away Wyoming's claim to fame as the largest geographical diocese in the lower 48. But that's just my own vanity :)
Some bishops are already "emotionally absent" from their dioceses.
If we are to really evangelize don't we need more smaller dioceses, maybe with shared Tribunals and less administrative excess? Maybe allowing the faithful and clergy to have some say in the "election" of priests known to them to be their bishops could solve a number of problems (and create a few).
A priest of a diocese appointed its bishop might make it easier to accept the Episcopate instead of appointing a man with no connection to a diocese. A man going to a small Midwestern diocese from a large urban one could be enough for a priest to turn down an appointment and vice versa.
So much for His Holiness "decentralizing" the Church. Less talk Holy Father, more concrete action!
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.
It’s a short path from this to an online fantasy clerical league.
A needlessly frivolous comment on a serious issue.
Frivolous? Yeah, but I think a little frivolity is not so bad now and then.
I’ll take a bit of frivolity over the typical “muh side yurr side” sniping that is common in comboxes.
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?
That's not quite accurate. Titular bishops, whether auxiliaries in a diocese or Curial officials in Rome, do have "titular dioceses", but these aren't actual territories so much as defunct or suppressed jurisdictions. The actual pastoral care of the faithful in the present day territory of a defunct or superceded diocese is handled by the bishop of the modern diocese in the same territory, or Propaganda Fide.
Thanks! Reply under James's comment.
Not obscure and neglected, but no longer existent. All the dioceses in Algeria and Tunisia etc. that were pushed into oblivion by the Muslim invasions, as well as dioceses abolished in other parts of the world for various reasons. I think a few U.S. locations are already on the list. (E.g., the see of Jamestown, North Dakota, was long ago moved to the larger city of Fargo, so Jamestown is now available as one of these titular sees, as they are called.) A curious practice that maybe the Vatican should re-assess.
Thanks. Yeah this is really odd. Part of me wants to say, if you need three bishops to govern a territory then maybe that should be split into three dioceses. But on the other hand, it's probably better if it's not a super easy and common thing to create and dismantle dioceses. It could get political really fast - plus, architecture. But this practice does seem to display a confused understanding of what a bishop is (or at least a need to organize things better), or maybe a confused understanding of the relationship between a particular church and the universal church.
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.
Or perhaps there aren't enough good priests willing to take on the job. Do you really think those good priests want to be pulled away from the people to become a bishop?
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.