In my diocese there currently is a situation where a priest has been placed in charge of three parishes which were recently "clustered" (that is to say, they now share resources and staff). The planning group for this cluster (as well as the other 2 parishes in the town) decided that one worship site should be used in the cluster, and crafted a proposal where two parishes should be closed, while the third remains open.

Parishioners are very upset in the parishes being recommended to close because they feel the priest in charge is not representing their interests, but rather is maintaining his loyalty to the parish he was assigned to prior to this clustering. Parishioners are also upset with the parish representative to the planning group, who voted along with the other representatives to recommend the closing of these two parishes.

Question: Does the priest have a Canonical duty to do whatever possible to keep all three parishes open? Shouldn't he have to fight for their best interests, and not only one of the parishes entrusted to his care? May the people demand a new representative in the Planning Group if they feel the person is not fairly representing them, and the priest refuses to replace this representative?

Thank you.

First, I understand how difficult these situations can be for the people involved. People get very attached to their buildings, especially when they are the places for weekly worship for years, for baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc.

However, the priest does not have a canonical duty to maintain multiple church buildings. I believe that the people should be guided by logic and not merely emotion in forming their opinions. They should not fight for their personal opinions but what is best for the overall Church in the area.

Still, if the people believe that unreasonable preference has been given to one location but there are logical reasons for another choice, then they may take recourse to the bishop.

COPYRIGHT 2009

Click here to send this Question and Answer to a friend