Source: http://www.clsadb.com/document/e70a304f-c959-4e12-84f6-0129e1575855
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:57:18+00:00

Document:
Congregation for the Clergy, Suppression of a parish and reduction of a church building to profane but not sordid use, 25 January 2011, Private.
Following a study of parish modifications, the diocesan bishop determined, after consultation with the presbyteral council, that certain parishes were to be merged and communicated his decisions to the parishioners of the affected parishes. Following issuance of a decree for the merger by the diocesan bishop, parishioners appealed the decision to the Congregation for the Clergy. Citing “canonical confusion” surrounding the decrees for merger of the parishes and reduction of the church, hierarchical recourse was accepted by the Congregation for the Clergy. The response of the Congregation for the Clergy follows.
1. Whereas the Most Rev. ________, Bishop of ________, [the Ordinary] cre-ated the Office of Pastoral Planning in 2004 in order to address the configuration of the parishes of the Diocese in light of the reduction in the number of priests and faithful in the Diocese.
2. Whereas the Office of Pastoral Planning provided for a consultation of priests and faithful of the Diocese to consider the amalgamation of parishes and the reduction of churches to profane but not unbecoming use, referred to in the acts as the “closing” of a church (cf. can. 50 CIC).
3. Whereas the Ordinary consulted the Presbyteral Council on 5 August 2008 with regard to the amalgamation of the parish of St. ________ with the parish of ________ in the town of ________, citing the requirements of can. 515 §2 CIC, making no mention of the reduction of the church of St. ________ to profane use. The Presbyteral Council was presented with the “Report and Recommendations of the Diocesan Pastoral Planning Committee,” which formed the basis of the consultation.
4. Whereas the attestation to the consultation of the Presbyteral Council referenced only can. 515 §2 CIC, to which no objection was raised with respect to the merger of the parishes in question.
5. Whereas the Ordinary’s decision was communicated to the parishioners of the above named parishes orally on 9 August 2008 and in written form on 15 August 2008, in the format of a letter.
6. Whereas ________ et al [the recurrents] wrote to the Ordinary seeking clarification as to whether the letter of 9 August 2008 constituted his decision, and thus his Decree, or merely manifested his intention with regard to a future canonical act. If a Decree, the recurrent’s letter was to be considered a request for its revocation in accord with the provisions of can. 1734 CIC; if merely an indication of a possible decision however, the recurrent’s letter requested the formal decree.
7. Whereas on 26 August 2008 the Ordinary acknowledged receipt of the recurrent’s letter, noting some motivations for his decision, which the recurrents reasonably assumed to be his negative response.
8. Whereas on 8 September 2008 the recurrents made hierarchical recourse to the Congregation for the Clergy [the Congregation] against the Ordinary’s presumed Decree in accord with the provisions of can. 1737 CIC.
9. Whereas the Ordinary issued a formal decree for the “merger” of the parish of St. ________ with the parish of ________ on 8 October 2008 [the Decree], the seat of the new parish (named ________) being the church of ________, although it is not clear that this formal document was ever communicated to the community of the faithful to which it is addressed (Acts, Vol. I, Exhibit 5).
10. Whereas the Ordinary, having been averted by the Congregation to the deficient nature of his decree of 8 August 2008 with respect to the reduction of the church of St. ________ to profane use, reconvened the Presbyteral Council on 6 October 2009 for the consultation required by ca. 1222 §2 CIC, although noting that the consultation of 5 August 2008 was understood by all concerned to be directed to this act, albeit having neglected to cite can. 1222 §2 CIC: the Ordinary issued a formal Decree to reduce the church of St. ________ to profane but not unbecoming use on 5 November 2009. It is not clear whether this Decree has been communicated to the community of the faithful to whom it is addressed.
12. A Hierarchical Recourse is by its nature a documentary process which proceeds on the basis of examination of authentic documents provided by interested parties at the request of the Dicastery; thus, having provided ample opportunity for all interested parties to respond, the Dicastery judges as complete the documentation in its possession and proceeds therefore to its decision per cartas.
13. Noting that a Parish is a public juridic person (cf. c. 515 §3 CIC) and therefore enjoys the quality of perpetuity (cf. c. 120 §1) to allow it to reach the ends for which it is established, but also requiring the means sufficient for it to reach that purpose (cf. c. 114 §3 CIC), and that a parish is a specific type of juridic person established within a Particular Church, namely a certain community of the faithful with a priest as its proper pastor, which therefore cannot lack a priest as its proper pastor.
18. Whereas the original formal Decree of 8 October 2008 makes mention of c. 515 §2, it makes no mention of the closing of St. ________ church or of c. 1222 §2, and yet the Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Priests of 5 August 2008 merely mentions the “closing” of the “parish” of St. ________.
22. Neither the acts nor the impugned Decree demonstrate the grave cause which motivates the decision to reduce the church of St. ________ to profane but not unbecoming use, and thereby neglect to demonstrate what avenues have been pursued to preserve its sacred character without detriment to the pastoral care and patrimonial stability of the newly created parish of ________, notwithstanding that such grave motivations may exist in fact.
With regard to the recourse against the amalgamation of the parish of St. ________ with the parish of ________ in ________, that this petition for recourse as presented, has no canonical basis in law or in fact and is hereby rejected both de procedendo and de decernendo.
With regard to the reduction of the church of St. ________, ________, to profane but not unbecoming use, that this recourse as presented is rejected de procedendo, since the necessary consultation took place and the Ordinary understood himself to be issuing a decree of reduction to profane use, but the recourse is upheld de decernendo insofar as the necessary grave motivations for the decision are not provided in the acts.
Recourse against this Decree may be made before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura within the peremptory time limits established in the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, art. 123 §1.
Congregation for the Clergy, Suppression of a parish and reduction of a church building to profane but not sordid use, 25 January 2011, Private, CLSA, Roman Replies and Advisory Opinions, 2011, 5-10.

References: §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §3
 §1
 §3
 §2
 §2
 art. 123
 §1