LOOKING BEYOND THE PARISH: DEFINING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILDING
A SHORT PAPER
By Brody Hale, JD, MPA
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps the most central tenet of the practice of Roman Catholicism is the requirement that the faithful attend the sacrifice of the holy mass both on Sundays and days on the church calendar declared to be those of holy obligation (or the vigils of such days, i.e. the day preceding them.) If the reader of this tract is a Roman Catholic, they will doubtless be aware of this fact. Aside from cases in which a Roman Catholic lay person finds themselves in close proximity to a monastery or other similar house of a religious congregation or a chapel located in a building whose primary purpose does not involve serving as a Roman Catholic place of worship, those seeking to satisfy their weekly mass obligation will do so by taking a seat in a building known as a “church.” For many decades it might very well have been the case that “Joe and Mary Catholic” as the average lay man or woman is often described, would not have had any reason to give a second thought to this state of affairs, that regardless of whatever changes might be occurring in the world, the church at which they attended mass every Sunday would remain a constant presence in their lives and in the community in which it was located. It has of course generally been the case for many centuries in the western world in nations where Roman Catholicism is practiced, aside from those periods when conflict and religious intolerance caused great societal upheaval that a Catholic “church” has been at the center of life in communities both large and small. The faithful have thus been able to enter such a church on those days when attendance at mass is obligatory, for masses celebrated at other times, such as once per day especially in churches host to a resident priest, and for such joyous occasions as a marriage, and at those mournful times when a funeral commends the sole of one to God. Barring destructive conflicts or calamities, it has not been uncommon for a Catholic church building to stand sentinel over a place for centuries, triumphantly announcing the presence of the faith in a location in order that the way to salvation might be lit for its inhabitants as the path for ships around hazardous rocks is illuminated by the strong beacon of a lighthouse.
Unfortunately, in the United States and many other nations, extreme disorder within society, including the Holy Roman Catholic Church itself has led to substantial challenges emerging in recent decades to the permanence of Catholic church buildings. In many dioceses in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, throughout Western Europe and other parts of the world, local church leaders have embarked on courses of action which have seen the closure and destruction of thousands of churches as places of Catholic worship. These sacred buildings, many of which have stood for generations in the communities where they were constructed, were often seen by the congregations who inhabited them as permanent outposts of the nest world in the present one, i.e. as the residence of God among his people. As such, the sudden loss of these churches has often been a jarring event in the lives of those attached to them, and one which they do not fully comprehend. Anger resulting from the permanent closure of Roman Catholic church buildings has led to numerous examples of open conflict between the faithful and church leaders, resulting in many individuals abandoning Catholicism altogether. Just as the Catholic faithful often fail to grasp the reasons behind the loss of their churches, a review of the statements made by those diocesan bishops directly responsible for setting into motion the processes which have led to the loss of many of the churches in question often seems to show that the bishops themselves lack a clear understanding of the true nature of the Roman Catholic church building itself and of alternatives that might avoid the need for such a drastic step as the permanent closure of churches to be taken. The faithful and church leaders involved in past circumstances which have led to the loss of Roman Catholic churches as a result of their permanent closure might have been greatly aided if they possessed a fuller understanding of the true and complete nature of Roman Catholic church buildings, the purposes for which they can be built and put to use, the legal realities under which they can exist, and canonically permissible alternatives to their permanent closure when it may no longer be opportune for them to continue carrying out the mission for which they were created. The following pages address each of these issues, in the hope that the conflicts which often accompany discussions of the difficulty of a church continuing to carry out the mission for which it was created, discussions which often involve a proposal to permanently close such a church, might be avoided through the implementation of canonically valid alternatives to closure which allow a church to remain a Roman Catholic sacred space.
I, WHAT IS A CHURCH?
To a Catholic, or a Christian of any denomination, the idea of a faithful Catholic such as the author of this piece propounding the question of what a church building is might seem bizarre to say the least. Given the experiences of the author, it is however doubtful that if the question is put to a sample of the most observant Catholic faithful that a correct answer will be forthcoming from even a small minority of those interrogated. Nearly all will acknowledge the obvious, a church is a building. In fact, many of those seeking to obliterate churches often emphasize that a church is a “building,”, though they curiously seem never to manage to quite go any further with their definitions. In order to understand the true nature of a church building however it is essential for one to look beyond the obvious fact that it is a structure, and to consider what about that structure has allowed it to become the site of the most sacred of practices associated with the Catholic faith, i.e. the sacraments.
In order to best understand what a church building is and why it is considered under canon law to possess special characteristics, i.e. to take on the properties of what is canonically known as “sacred space,” it is important that we turn to an analysis of the applicable canons. The Code of Canon Law of 1983 is presently the set of laws which serve as the “internal legal system of the Roman Catholic Church.” Let us then first turn to the definition of the church building found in this code. We find that the particular canon which defines a church building’s character is Canon 1214. It states: “Can. 1214 By the term church is understood a sacred building designated for divine worship to which the faithful have the right of entry for the exercise, especially the public exercise, of divine worship.” Having seen this definition, let us now explore exactly what it means.
We see in Canon 1214 that a church is a “sacred building” “designated for divine worship.” Thus, we learn that a church is not merely a “building,” but a “sacred building.” The importance of this point will become fully apparent later. It is also important to note that Canon 1214 also furnishes the faithful with the right of entry into a church building, giving them the right to enter it to engage in public and private worship. While all of this information is helpful in understanding a church building’s nature, broadly speaking, it is necessary to drill down still further to gain a complete understanding of its integral characteristics. We recall that canon 1214 states that a church is a “sacred building.” In order for a person to understand the true nature of a church building it is necessary for them to understand what makes it a sacred building, and for that matter, what the word “sacred” means in this context to begin with. We must therefore take an even deeper dive into the Canons.
We must first understand how the word “sacred” is being employed with regard to a church building’s status as “sacred space.” To do this, it is necessary to next turn to canon 1205. Canon 1205 states “Sacred places are those which are designated for divine worship or for the burial of the faithful by a dedication or a blessing which the liturgical books prescribe for this purpose.” If we break the language down, we see in the text of this canon that there are two types of “sacred places.” Sacred spaces are either church buildings, which are specifically designated as places where “divine worship” is held, or burial places for the Catholic dead, designated as such through the imposition of “a dedication or a blessing,” as prescribed by the liturgical documents of the Roman Catholic Church which govern the creation of sacred space. For the purposes of the topic of this paper, the sacred nature of Roman Catholic church buildings will be the only type of “sacred space” analyzed. Given that we now understand the context in which the term sacred is being used to describe a church, we must explore further what the sacred character of church buildings permits them to be used for. It is the case that Roman Catholic church buildings can be used, according to Canon 1205, only for “divine worship,” i.e. the celebration of mass, the other sacraments, and Catholic prayer. With the language of Canon 1205, we thus see that all other activities aside from Divine Worship and the burial of the dead are not to take place in sacred places, as such would be a violation of their sacred space.
The text of Canon 1210 further clarifies the purpose of sacred space, and outlines what can and cannot occur within it. It reads, “Can. 1210 Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden. In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.” In order to understand Canon 1210 properly, we must again carefully examine its language, and properly interpret each of its sections in accordance with its overarching purpose.
First, we see that there is a very limited group of things which are always permitted to occur within a sacred space, and thus within a church: “only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place.” We see thus unsurprisingly that activities of a religious nature are permitted with in a church. Turning to the words that appear immediately after those which discuss those activities always permitted within a church, we see the following, “anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden.” This is straightforward enough, unholy activities cannot occur in a sacred space. Now though, we have the last line of the canon to contend with, “In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.” So, what does this mean? Breaking it down, we see first the words “in individual cases.” This means that in very special and particular circumstances, something that would not ordinarily be permitted within a church can be held within it. This does not mean that individual churches can be used for non-sacred activity, or that an individual activity may be permitted to be routinely undertaken within a church. What is meant is that in “individual cases,” an activity that does not routinely occur within a church can none the less occur there. The final words of Canon 1210 however make clear that this does not mean that just any ordinary activity may be permitted from time to time to occur within a church. The words “the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place,” clearly illustrate that even in the individual cases in which a bishop or archbishop allows something which is not regularly done within a church to occur there, the activity cannot be one which is contrary to the holiness of the church as a “sacred space.”
II, MY CHURCH IS A…?
Having established that a church is a special type of building because it is “sacred,” and thus that a church is only supposed to be used for those purposes which conform to its sacred character, we next turn to questions of administration. Given that the word “church” is generally part of the name of the buildings where Catholics celebrate the milestones of their sacramental lives, it is likely that most of the faithful know they are going to church when they attend weekly mass. What may be less clear to the average Catholic however is what specific designation the church which they attend holds, or going further, what possible designations a church building may be granted. It is generally the case in the United States that the words “church” and “parish” have often become interchangeable. Given that the American church was generally constructed on a diocesan model (as opposed to that which has historically existed in some nations, where such entities as “territorial abbeys” have existed,) this fact is not surprising. When the church that someone attends also happens to be the seat of a parish, it is understandable that it might fail to become apparent that churches not always need be the seats of parishes in order to exist. If this fact is not grasped, it is doubtful that a Catholic might even consider what alternative arrangements might permit a church to exist if it is not the seat of a parish. Let us then explore first what a parish is, and from there, explore other designations which Roman Catholic churches may carry.
II.I, THE PARISH
Canon 515 contains the definition of a parish, and Canon 518 discusses different types of parishes which can exist. Turning first to Canon 515, we find the following language: “Can. 515 §1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop. §2. It is only for the diocesan bishop to erect, suppress, or alter parishes. He is neither to erect, suppress, nor alter notably parishes, unless he has heard the presbyteral council. §3. A legitimately erected parish possesses juridic personality by the law itself.” While this canon is composed of multiple sections, a relatively small number of words concern the topic under examination here. We see in this canon that a parish is composed of “a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church.” Let us break this language down into two parts. Through making mention of the fact that a parish is composed of “a certain community of the Christian faithful” that is “stably constituted,” we see that a “parish” is by definition an entity that is made up of the Catholic faithful themselves. In order to better understand this point, we must now turn to the language in Canon 518, which states “Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.” The language of this canon addresses what constitutes “a certain community of the Christian faithful.” In examining the language of Canon 518, we see first that it is primarily the case that parishes are supposed to be “territorial,” meaning that they are to include “all the Christian faithful of a certain territory.” While the average Catholic may not be aware of this, the canon literally says what it means.
In the offices of each of the world’s Catholic dioceses resides a collection of maps. Just as the United States and other nations and political entities are broken down into smaller pieces, such is also the case with the Roman Catholic Church. If one thinks of the U.S. as being first subdivided into 50 states, with each state in turn being subdivided into counties and smaller municipalities, they will be best able to understand the similar process which takes place within the Roman Catholic Church. Just as the surface of the globe is the starting point for the mapping of each of the world’s nations, so too is this the case for the cartographic depiction of the delineation of the geographic components of the Roman Catholic Church universal. While a basic political map of the world will first divide the globe into nation states and other geopolitical territories, an ecclesiastical map depicting the largest subdivisions of the Roman Catholic Church will illustrate its dioceses and archdioceses as its largest constituent parts. Just as a political map of a specific nation will illustrate its constituent parts, so too will the map of a diocese. Just as 50 states make up the United States, the geographic composition of a diocese or archdiocese is based on the territory contained within its parishes. A map of a diocese will divide the entire territory of the diocese into territorial parishes, so that every square inch of the diocese’s territory falls within the boundary of one or another territorial parish. Thus, the “certain community of the Christian faithful” which make up a “territorial” parish consists of those Roman Catholics residing within the piece of territory illustrating the boundaries of a territorial parish on the map of a diocese.
One other piece of Canon 518 is important to consider, for purposes of understanding what constitutes “a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted” with regard to the definition of a parish. While Canon 518 states that the “community of the Christian faithful” which generally makes up a parish is based on considerations of the territory in which the faithful reside, the canon also makes clear that it is also possible for a parish to be established under alternative circumstances: “When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.” We see in this language of Canon 518 that “a certain group of the Christian faithful” can under some circumstances be said to exist based on some other consideration aside from the territory which they inhabit. Often known as “personal parishes,” it has long been the case in the United States and all other nations that certain parishes have been established with no set territorial boundaries to address the needs of Roman Catholics who would best be served through the existence of a parish which caters to the specific needs of “a certain community of the Christian faithful” that might not be able to be met in a parish established to serve all of the members of the Christian faithful residing in a geographic area. Parishes could in theory as Canon 518 states, be established for those Catholics who follow some other rite of the faith other than the “Latin” or “Roman” right, such as one of the eastern rites of the faith that are in communion with Rome. In the United States, it has often been the case that “personal parishes” have been established to serve Roman rite Catholics who arrived in the country from other nations whose language is not primarily English, or even for Catholics who came from various regions of other countries that were in some way distinct. It is also the case in the United States that personal parishes or “quasi parishes” (a distinction which will not be explored in this paper) have been established to serve Roman Catholics who prefer to worship using the “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite. While those Catholics who are served by personal parishes may not reside within a contiguous piece of geographic territory, they none the less are held by Canon 518 to constitute “a certain community of the Christian faithful” if by virtue of some commonality they come together to be “stably constituted” as such.
Having thus defined a parish, we can now turn to the relationship between the parish and the church building which stands at its core. Canon 515 makes note of the fact that the “certain community of the Christian faithful” is “stably constituted” in “a particular church.” The words “particular church” are those that explain this relationship. Each parish has at its heart a church in which the Christian faithful who lie within the parish’s boundaries or who belong to it on account of their ethnicity or for some other reason attend in order to satisfy their sacramental obligations, to receive other sacraments which they may be obliged to partake of owing to their state of life (i.e. marriage, extreme unction, etc.,) and in which they may engage in private prayer and participate in other devotional activities. It is for this reason that most Catholics consider their parish and the church which sits at its heart to be coterminous. While it is the case that a parish church is most definitely a church, most Catholics might be surprised to realize that it is but one of several types of Catholic church buildings which canon law permits to exist. It is thus important that all of the possible types of church buildings, in addition to parish churches that can exist are defined.
II.II, ORATORIES
Canon 1223 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 provides for the establishment of an “oratory.” While an oratory is not required to specifically be a church building, it is possible for a church building to be designated as an oratory. Canon 1223 states, “Can. 1223 By the term oratory is understood a place for divine worship designated by permission of the ordinary for the benefit of some community or group of the faithful who gather in it and to which other members of the faithful can also come with the consent of the competent superior.” If we break this canon down, we see that the canon defines an oratory as “a place for divine worship,” and that it is up to the “ordinary” (generally the head of a diocese or archdiocese,) to give the permission for the establishment of an oratory. We see that the canon also states that an oratory is established for the “benefit of some community or group of the faithful who gather in it,” and that “other members of the faithful can also come with the consent of the competent superior.” An oratory can thus be described as a place of worship that is not established to serve as a parish for those inhabiting a given area or belonging to a community of the faithful who might be served by an oratory, but merely as a place of worship for a group which for some reason or another could benefit from the existence of one. Canon 1225 further states “Can. 1225 All sacred celebrations can be performed in legitimately established oratories except those which the law or a prescript of the local ordinary excludes or the liturgical norms prohibit.” This canon thus states that while not serving as a parish church, an oratory can none the less hold the same types of liturgical celebrations that might be held within a church, unless a specific prohibition against the conduct of such an activity in an oratory exists, or the local ordinary has declared that something ought not to be done within an oratory. Canon 1224, Section 2 however, and guidelines issued by the Congregation for the Clergy at the Vatican regarding the usage of churches, as well as principles contained within the 1917 Pio Benedictine Code of Canon Law incorporated through Canon 2 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 mandate that if a church exists as an oratory or holds any other designation, a minimum of two masses per year, one on the anniversary of the dedication of the church building and the other on the feast day of the saint to whom the church is dedicated, or a Marian feast day if the church is dedicated to the Blessed Mother must be celebrated within the church building. Canon 1224, Section 2 states, “§2. After permission has been given, however, an oratory cannot be converted to profane use without the authority of the same ordinary.” This language affirms the fact that an oratory may not be permanently closed unless the ordinary requirements to close a church are satisfied.
II.III, CHAPELS
Another designation which a Catholic church building may hold is that of a “private chapel.” Within the code of canon law of 1983, one finds the definition of a “private chapel” to be contained in Canon 1226. Canon 1226 states “Can. 1226 By the term private chapel is understood a place for divine worship designated by permission of the local ordinary for the benefit of one or more physical persons.” In examining the language of this canon, we again see that like an oratory and a parish church, a “private chapel” is a “place for divine worship,” and that the “ordinary” is the authority that brings it into being. The canon goes on to state that private chapels are created “for the benefit of one or more physical persons.” Just as is the case with oratories, private chapels need not necessarily be churches, but they can be. Many churches have been designated as “chapels,” at such time when it has been determined that they no longer ought to serve as parish churches. Unlike an oratory however, a private chapel can be created merely to benefit one person who wishes to undertake divine worship within it. Canon 1228 further makes clear under what conditions sacramental activity may take place within a private chapel, “Can. 1228 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1227, the permission of the local ordinary is required for Mass or other sacred celebrations to take place in any private chapel.” This canon makes clear that while the permission of the ordinary is required for the celebration of mass or other sacraments within a private chapel, that such sacramental activity can take place within a private chapel if it is authorized. While no explicit reference is made within the code of canon law as to the specific procedure which must be followed to close a private chapel permanently, it logically follows that when a private chapel is contained within a church building, the requirements of canon 1222 of the code of canon law which deals with the permanent closure of church buildings, and the guidelines issued by the Congregation for the Clergy in 2013 that address the permanent closure of Catholic church buildings must be observed in such a situation.
II.IV, SHRINES
Yet another designation which can be given to a Roman Catholic church building is that of “shrine.” The definition of a Roman Catholic shrine is contained within Canon 1230, which states “Can. 1230 By the term shrine is understood a church or other sacred place to which numerous members of the faithful make pilgrimage for a special reason of piety, with the approval of the local ordinary.” We see in the text of this canon that a shrine can be either a “church” or some “other sacred place” that “numerous members of the faithful” are able to travel to on a “pilgrimage” for “a special reason of piety.” Thus, while we learn that some shrines are contained within church buildings, just as with oratories and private chapels, others are not. All shrines are however designated, like oratories, chapels and parish churches for a special purpose. Canon 1232 makes clear that in order for a shrine to exist, a set of “statutes” must be prepared and approved. Section 2 of canon 1232 explains in greater detail the purpose of these statutes, “§2. The statutes are to determine especially the purpose, the authority of the rector, and the ownership and administration of goods.” The text of this section of canon 1232 is fairly self-explanatory; the statutes must address the purpose for which the shrine is to be established, what powers the shrine’s “rector” (in this context, Canon 556 defines a rector as the priest who is in charge of a church that is not a parish church, cathedral, or a church used by any type of religious order that celebrates religious services in it) will possess and to determine who will own and administer the shrine. The question of ownership of shrines and other churches will be revisited in a later section of this paper. Section 1 of Canon 1232 Addresses who is capable of approving the statutes for the establishment of a shrine after they are prepared, “Can. 1232 §1. The local ordinary is competent to approve the statutes of a diocesan shrine; the conference of bishops for the statutes of a national shrine; the Holy See alone for the statutes of an international shrine.” Diocesan shrines are those which are established within a diocese, and are intended to provide the faithful of a local area with the opportunity to express their devotion to a particular saint or to the blessed mother. National shrines are intended to serve as the most important location within a nation for devotion to a particular saint or to the blessed mother, while international shrines serve as the most important location globally for such devotion. Canon 1233 also makes it clear that privileges can be granted to shrines under certain circumstances, such as if they become a site of pilgrimage, and canon 1234 makes clear that they are to be sites where mass and penance are freely available, and where art and other objects denoting piety are to be freely displayed. Regardless of whether a shrine is diocesan, national or international, a shrine is yet another designation that can be given to a church building.
II.V, CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE FUNCTIONAL STATUS OF CHURCH BUILDINGS
While it is possible for a church to gain various other titles, such as being designated as the “cathedral” of a diocese or archdiocese, or as a basilica, the rarity or purely honorific nature of these designations is such that they lie beyond the scope of this paper which is merely concerned with those designations of a functional nature that an active Catholic church may carry. Any Catholic church building which serves as a place of even occasional worship must carry either the designation of being a parish church, an oratory, a chapel or a shrine. While it is proper to call a Roman Catholic house of worship a “church,” it must also hold one of these designations, in order that its exact role as a sacred space may be specifically defined. An exploration of the different designations which a church may be given illustrates that churches can and do serve as much more than the centers of parish life and the location to which the faithful proceed on Sundays and holy days of obligation in order to fulfill their sacramental obligations. Merely understanding the different designations which a church can gain however does not fully explain how it comes to hold these designations, or what can lead a church to be opened and closed. To understand this, we must also understand the ownership and decision making structure into which each category of church fits, thereby understanding how each type of church is controlled, and who owns it.
III, WHO OWNS A CHURCH, AND WHY?
For better or worse, all of the issues discussed within this paper are complex. It is perfectly understandable if the reader finds him or herself rereading some or all of this paper multiple times in order to understand all of the points explained within it. With that said, the next section of this paper will most likely be found by the reader to be by far the most complex of all. Questions of ownership and church management have long vexed many of the lay faithful who struggle to understand how and why a church they dearly love is being closed. It is the opinion of this author that in many cases, ecclesiastical authorities may themselves not fully understand all of the finer points of the issues which they must consider prior to determining that a church should be permanently closed. It has taken this author many years to research and fully grasp all of the issues associated with this topic and this writer freely admits that these issues are still not the easiest to be understood even after thorough research has been conducted. What follows is this author’s best attempt to explain these difficult points in as straightforward a manner as it can probably ever be hoped this information may be presented.
III.I, WHO BUILDS CHURCHES, AND WHY?
While the definition of a church has been provided in an earlier section of this paper, the question of why and how a church is constructed in the first place has not yet been examined. The particulars associated with the construction of church buildings are addressed in canon 1215 of the code of canon law of 1983. Canon 1215 states “Can. 1215 §1. No church is to be built without the express written consent of the diocesan bishop. §2. The diocesan bishop is not to give consent unless, after having heard the presbyteral council and the rectors of the neighboring churches, he judges that the new church can serve the good of souls and that the means necessary for building the church and for divine worship will not be lacking. §3. Although religious institutes have received from the diocesan bishop consent to establish a new house in the diocese or the city, they must also obtain his permission before building a church in a certain and determined place.” This is a very long canon made up of multiple sections, so let’s break it down.
Section one is straightforward enough; no church, regardless of the designation those seeking its construction intend for it to hold can be constructed without the permission of the ordinary of the place where it is to be constructed. Section 2 explains how an ordinary arrives at his decision as to whether a church ought to be built; he first must discuss the matter with the “presbyteral council,” (a simple definition for this body is that it is made up of priests who advise an ordinary on matters related to the governance of the “particular church” he oversees, i.e. his diocese or archdiocese,) and the “rectors” (clerical leaders” of those churches which exist in close proximity to the site where it is proposed that the new church be constructed. Only if all of those with whom the bishop consults indicate that the faithful would be in some way well served through the construction of an additional church building, and further, if the ordinary determines that it will be possible to construct eh church and to carry out divine worship there is permission supposed to be given to build the church. Section 3 of the canon pertains only to “religious institutes,” stating that even when a diocesan bishop has given permission for them to establish themselves in a diocese or city, they must still seek his permission yet again to construct a church. Given that we will return to the topic of “religious institutes” at a later point in this paper, their nature will be defined at that time. In short, Canon 1215 makes clear that a church cannot simply be built on account of one or another person’s decision that a parish church, oratory, chapel or shrine ought to be constructed in a certain place. How then is it determined where churches are built, and which type of church ought to be built in a specific place? In order to understand this, we must explore and thoroughly understand the concept of “juridic personality.”
III.II, JURIDIC PERSONALITY
When one thinks of the word “personality,” it is likely they consider those traits which describe a person’s baring and temperament. While such thoughts sum up well the generally understood definition of the word, it has an entirely different meaning in the context of canon law. Canonically, it is essential that any entity which wishes to own” temporal” (material) goods which it intends to use for Roman Catholic religious purposes possesses what is known as “juridic personality.” Juridic personality is a state of being which describes the characteristic of “juridic persons,” creatures which exist only within the realm of canon law. Juridic persons are described in canon 113, section 2 of the code of canon law as “subjects in canon law of obligations and rights which correspond to their nature.” The full meaning of this definition will attain a greater level of clarity in the following paragraphs. It is sufficient to think of juridic persons as entities which are purely creations of the law, similar to corporations that are created under civil law which are said to possess “corporate personhood.” Juridic personality allows those entities upon which it is conferred the ability to function as official organizations within the Roman Catholic Church, in ways that entities which lack juridic personality cannot. This is made clear through Canon 113’s declaration that juridic persons have both “obligations” and “rights” in accordance with the type of juridic personality they possess. These “rights” and “obligations” are similar to the rights and obligations associated with the various types of civil corporations which can be formed under a nation’s corporation statutes. Just as an entity which lacks juridic personality cannot enjoy the benefits that would be associated with possessing juridic personality within the Roman Catholic Church, neither can an entity which has not been granted the status of a civil corporation enjoy the benefits which would flow from existing as a civil corporation. Canon law makes clear that juridic persons are different from “physical persons,” which are defined as human beings.
III.II.I, PERSONS AND THINGS
Canon 114 expands upon the definition of juridic personality. It states, “Can. 114 §1. Juridic persons are constituted either by the prescript of law or by special grant of competent authority given through a decree. They are aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum) ordered for a purpose which is in keeping with the mission of the Church and which transcends the purpose of the individuals. §2. The purposes mentioned in §1 are understood as those which pertain to works of piety, of the apostolate, or of charity, whether spiritual or temporal. §3. The competent authority of the Church is not to confer juridic personality except on those aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or things (universitates rerum) which pursue a truly useful purpose and, all things considered, possess the means which are foreseen to be efficient to achieve their designated purpose.” Like many canons, canon 114 contains a great deal of language which must be broken down in order that it may be more easily understood.
Canon 114 explains that there are two types of juridic persons, those made up of “aggregations of persons,” (meaning groups of individuals who have come together for a specific purpose,) or aggregations “of things,” (meaning objects that have been gathered together in order that they be directed toward the fulfillment of an aim which in some way furthers an objective in keeping with the Catholic faith.) Section 1 of the canon also makes clear that the reason that juridic personality ought to be granted is on account of the fact that the objective for which the individuals or objects have been gathered together is such that it is one that cannot be achieved through the efforts of the individuals or objects acting on their own. Section 1 of canon 114 also explains the manner in which juridic persons come into being. When statutes prescribe it, juridic personality is automatically conferred in some situations. The second way in which juridic personality is conferred is through its being granted by “competent authority” (indicating that there are different individuals who can grant juridic personality,) through the issuance of a written decree. Section 2 of canon 114 explains that juridic personality is to be accorded to groups of individuals or things that further piety, an apostolate, or charity of a spiritual or temporal form. Section 3 of the canon states that juridic personality is not to be conferred unless the purpose for which the things or persons have been assembled is deemed to be a truly useful one, and it is judged that sufficient means exist to achieve their objectives. If the canon is to make logical sense, it can be assumed that a purpose which falls within the language of section 2 of the canon would be found to be a purpose that is truly useful and thus would justify the granting of juridic personality.
III.II.II, PUBLIC VERSES PRIVATE JURIDIC PERSONALITY
Just as canon law makes clear that there are both juridic and physical persons, it also explains that there are two forms of juridic personality, those being “public” and “private” juridic personality. Both types of juridic personality are defined in canon 116 of the code of canon law, a canon which also clarifies how each type of juridic personality is conferred. Canon 116 states “Can. 116 §1. Public juridic persons are aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum) which are constituted by competent ecclesiastical authority so that, within the purposes set out for them, they fulfill in the name of the Church, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, the proper function entrusted to them in view of the public good; other juridic persons are private. §2. Public juridic persons are given this personality either by the law itself or by a special decree of competent authority expressly granting it. Private juridic persons are given this personality only through a special decree of competent authority expressly granting it.” This canon may be among the most dense in terms of language yet explored within this paper.
Section 1 of the canon defines public juridic persons. It states that they are constituted in order to achieve a purpose in the name of the church, in conformity with canon law and other regulations of the Roman Catholic Church. This section of the canon also makes clear that a public juridic person carries out their objective in furtherance of the common good. While this section of the canon references private juridic personality, it is not defined concretely; rather, its definition must be arrived at through the subtraction of those tasks entrusted to public juridic persons from all of the tasks a juridic person may engage in. Given that public juridic persons are said by the canon to fulfill their mission “in the name of the church,” it stands to reason that private juridic persons carry out their mission for some other purpose. Fr. Mark J. Gantley, JCL explains that while the activities of public juridic persons are closely regulated by the church, those of private juridic persons are not as closely regulated. The reason for this is on account of the way in which private juridic persons come into being. While the church is heavily involved in the activities of public associations of the Christian faithful, private associations of the Christian faithful come into being through the agreement of individual members. One might think of private associations of the Christian faithful as grass-roots efforts, while public associations of the Christian faithful are more directed in terms of their construction. Fr. Gantley gives the example of a parish’s financial accountability to the bishop of the diocese of which it is a part, on account of its public juridic personality, as opposed to the lack of such financial accountability a private association of the Christian faithful might have, on account of its private juridic personality as a way to distinguish the difference between the two types of juridic personality. Canon 116 also makes clear that while public juridic persons can be granted their juridic personality either automatically through a provision of the law itself or through the decree of the person whose authority is deemed competent to grant it, private juridic persons are only able to gain their juridic personality when the competent authority issues a written decree.
III.II.IV, GRANTING AND RECINDING JURIDIC PERSONALITY
Canon 117 of the code of canon law makes clear that no entity can gain juridic personality prior to the drafting of statutes for the governing of its conduct, and the approval of these statutes by a competent authority. It states, “Can. 117 No aggregate of persons (universitas personarum) or of things (universitas rerum), intending to obtain juridic personality, is able to acquire it unless competent authority has approved its statutes.” Canon 118 makes clear that human beings, designated through one of several procedures, direct the affairs of juridic persons. Canon 120 makes clear that juridic persons enjoy a “perpetual” lifespan, unless they are “legitimately suppressed” by “competent authority” (a term which is assumed to refer to such a person who possesses the right to legitimately suppress the public juridic person.) Private juridic persons can be suppressed if they cease to exist in conformity with their governing statutes as determined by a competent authority, or if they have dissolved themselves in accord with their governing statutes. This canon also makes clear that inactivity of a juridic person for 100 years is grounds for it being deprived of its juridic personality. Finally, Canons 121 and 122 make clear that juridic persons can be divided into two or more new juridic persons if circumstances warrant it, and that two or more juridic persons can be merged into one new juridic person if such would be advisable. Given the multiplicity of circumstances in which either course of action could be justified and the considerable number of different types of entities which could gain juridic personality (from an association solely working to further an aim of charity, to a regular parish, to a public association of the Christian faithful who own a church that is operated as a shrine,) it is likely that many considerations will be involved in determining how exactly to conduct the division or amalgamation of any one or more juridic persons.
III.II.V, FINAL REMARKS ON JURIDIC PERSONALITY
While there are different types of juridic personality which can be attained by numerous different entities, any entity wishing to own ecclesiastical goods must attain juridic personality before it is legitimately able to do so under canon law. Just as corporations in the realm of civil law allow groups of individuals to undertake things that might be harder to accomplish were each individual working on their own, juridic personality allows those entities that gain it to undertake actions that would be impossible for those human beings who direct them to accomplish independently. While anyone is free to undertake whatever charitable efforts they wish, juridic personality allows groups of individuals to come together to carry out actions directly beneficial to the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic faith itself, such as the establishment of churches to meet particular needs of the faithful. While other actions specifically require juridic personality, such as the right to instruct others in the true meaning of the Roman Catholic faith, given that this paper is specifically concerned with the question of Roman Catholic Church buildings, we will focus specifically on how juridic personality allows for churches to be owned and controlled by different types of Roman Catholic entities. In order to do this, we will now focus on the different canonical arrangements under which a church can be owned and controlled by a Roman Catholic entity, and in so doing, explain how that entity’s juridic personality makes such an arrangement possible.
III.III, CONTROL OF CHURCH BUILDINGS
As was mentioned earlier, the average Roman Catholic man or woman generally equates the church they regularly attend and at which they fulfil their sacramental obligations with their “parish.” While it has been previously illustrated that such an understanding fails to grasp the multiplicity of purposes for which a church can be built and the different canonical designations it can hold, it is none the less a parish’s ability to own and administer a church building which ought to be focused upon at the outset. It is important at this point to discuss models of legitimate administration of Roman Catholic church buildings, and to illustrate how juridic personality facilitates their implementation. Section 3 of Canon 515 makes clear that the mere establishment of a parish endows it with juridic personality, and Fr. Gantley makes clear that the type of juridic personality which all parishes possess is that of public juridic personality. With knowledge of these facts, the reader thus sees the means by which it is possible for a parish to own ecclesiastical goods, i.e. on account of the public juridic personality that it possesses by virtue of its existence as a parish. While it is the case that juridic personality allows an entity endowed with it to acquire temporal goods that become ecclesiastical goods by virtue of their acquisition, this fact is explicitly spelled out in canon 1255, “Can. 1255 The universal Church and the Apostolic See, the particular churches, as well as any other juridic person, public or private, are subjects capable of acquiring, retaining, administering, and alienating temporal goods according to the norm of law.” The language of this canon is quite straightforward; a juridic person is able to own temporal goods. Canon 1257 makes clear that the temporal goods acquired by all public juridic persons are “ecclesiastical goods,” and that while private juridic persons follow the statutes specifically drawn up for their operation, it is none the less possible for language to be included which causes those canons which govern temporal goods with regard to public juridic persons to apply to them as well. The text of this canon reads, “Can. 1257 §1. All temporal goods which belong to the universal Church, the Apostolic See, or other public juridic persons in the Church are ecclesiastical goods and are governed by the following canons and their own statutes. §2. The temporal goods of a private juridic person are governed by its own statutes but not by these canons unless other provision is expressly made.” These canons dealing with the acquisition of property by juridic persons serve as the legal framework that allows for various models of church ownership and control to exist.
Parishes by their very nature require a church building that can be utilized to fulfill their mission. A parish’s juridic personality allows it to acquire a church or the materials necessary to construct one. The church building which a parish constructs to serve as its parish church is perhaps its most important temporal good. Owing to the liturgical uses to which it is put, a church attains sacred character. A parish’s status as a juridic person allows it to be combined with another parish, or divided into two new parishes. Given that a church building is a solid structure, it is not possible that it can be divided easily into multiple pieces, or combined easily into the structure of another church. It thus may come to pass that a parish which results from the combination of multiple parishes may be left with multiple churches, while a parish that is formed through the division of an existing parish may not have at the time of its creation a church building of its own, creating the necessity that it construct one. Such circumstances arise in conjunction with decisions being made regarding the allocation of temporal goods at times when changes in the boundaries of parishes occur. There are numerous examples of parishes containing multiple church buildings following the merger of multiple parishes into one parish. In such a situation, as we have seen, canon law allows for one or more of the former parish churches which will not serve as the new parish church to be declared chapels, oratories, or shrines within the boundaries of the new parish. An example of this is the multi-church parish of St. Monica in Atlantic City NJ, a parish of the Diocese of Camden. Within this parish, three church buildings are utilized; the main parish church and two former parish churches which are retained as additional churches within the new parish. The creation of St. Monica Parish also illustrates how a former parish church not seen as essential to the mission of a new parish can none the less be retained as a Roman Catholic sacred space, supported by those dedicated to helping to ensure it is maintained and supporting it for use in furtherance of the Roman Catholic faith.
The evolution of St. Monica Parish provides an illustrative example of the beneficial results which can flow from the incorporation of sound alternative plans developed by parishioners as a means of avoiding the permanent closure of a church building into the parish development process. St. Monica’s Parish came about as a result of the June 2015 merging of the five pre-existing parishes located in Atlantic City NJ into a single new parish. Initially, the Diocese of Camden planned to retain two of the former parish churches as places of worship in the new St. Monica Parish, the churches of St. Nicholas of Tolentine and Our Lady Star of the Sea. Our Lady Star of the Sea Church was to serve as the parish church for the newly created St. Monica Parish. Reacting to the diocese’s announcement, parishioners of St. Michael Church voiced their objections to this plan, as it did not provide for the long-term retention of St. Michael Church as a Roman Catholic sacred space and place of worship within the new parish.
The Italian immigrants who built St. Michael’s Church in 1912 following their settlement in Atlantic City’s Ducktown section left little doubt through its construction of both their devotion to the Catholic faith and their desire to provide God with a dwelling place on earth befitting his status as the creator of all things. With its ceiling covered in hand-painted angels, hand-crafted stained glass windows set into its walls, murals painted on other sections of its interior walls, and marble statuary, St. Michael’s Church itself, through its interior, draws the mind of one within it to God. The early fathers of the church described the purpose of sacred art as being “anagogic,” meaning that it should exist with the aim of “leading one upward.” These church fathers wrote that sacred art should “raise the soul and mind of the beholder to the incorruptible and eternal realm of the Spirit.” The decision of the builders of St. Michael’s Church to include within it a multitude of examples of Italian Renaissance style sacred art spoke to their desire that those who came to it to practice their faith would turn their minds upon entry into the church away from the world which lay outside its walls toward God.
For decades, St. Michael’s Parish served as the main source of spiritual nourishment for many of Atlantic City’s Italian immigrants and their descendants. As in so many other parts of the United states however, as the twentieth century drew to a close and the twenty-first century dawned, many of the descendants of those who built St. Michael’s Church either moved out of Atlantic City and began attending other parishes or fell away from the Catholic faith. Thus, by 2015, it was not uncommon for only a couple of dozen parishioners to attend a Sunday mass at St. Michael’s Church. With so few parishioners attending mass, the financial situation of St. Michael’s parish by 2015 had also significantly deteriorated. In the summer of 2015 following the Diocese of Camden’s announcement of the merging of Atlantic City’s parishes into one new parish, it was reported that St. Michael’s Parish was carrying a debt of $236,000. The low number of those attending mass at St. Michael’s on a regular basis and the substantial debt the parish was carrying on their face may have seemed to be compelling reasons for the elimination of the parish and possibly also of St. Michael’s Church. The events which transpired following the announcement of the elimination of St. Michael’s Parish however make clear that the level of support a parish and church enjoys may not be as clear as one might think, and that when planning for the future of parishes and churches, honest and careful examination of such support must be undertaken.
As often happens when those who have been at one point or another in their life attached to a Catholic Church building learn that a decision has been made to close it, some of those who grew up within St. Michael’s Parish objected to the diocese’s decision to eliminate the parish, both on account of their wish for the parish to continue to exist as it had since its inception and on account of a fear that once the parish was gone, without a clear purpose and means of support, St. Michael Church would be seen as an unnecessary building by the Camden Diocese and sold. In the months prior to the last scheduled weekly mass at St. Michael’s Church, many parishioners gave interviews to the press, recounting some of the life events and lasting memories tied to their connection with St. Michael’s church. One woman recalled how as a 5 year old child in 1950 she had participated in the May Crowning ceremony at St. Michael’s Church. Another parishioner recounted that even after having prayed in many churches throughout the world, he felt the prayer he undertook at St. Michael’s Church was a “special kind of prayer.” These feelings of connection to St. Michael’s Church were not limited to those who remained in the Atlantic City area. Bob Venafro, the Virginia resident who had grown up in Atlantic City and described as “special” the prayer he undertook at St. Michael’s Church began in the wake of the parish closure announcement a campaign called “Save St. Mike’s” to convince the Bishop of Camden to reverse his decision to close the parish. Mr. Venafro and those supporting him offered to pay off the St. Michael Parish debt if the bishop would reverse his decision to close the parish. The Bishop of Camden, Dennis Sullivan, did not accept the offer however, and St. Michael’s Church held its final scheduled weekly mass on September 27, 2015.
If the above information regarding the closure of St. Michael Parish in Atlantic City NJ were given to anyone who closely follows news coverage of contentious parish mergers in the United States or other parts of the western world on a regular basis, and if such a person were then asked to write what they believed happened after the mass at St. Michael’s Church which took place on September 27, 2015, it would be completely understandable if the story that was written followed one of the following plot lines. Based on what often happens when parish mergers become contentious, our imaginary author might write of a series of drawn out canonical appeals to the Vatican being filed, or civil action being taken in U.S. courts. They might even write of an occupation of the church by aggrieved parishioners, one that might end at the crack of dawn with police ripping off the church’s door with a tow truck (such a police action actually took place in Detroit MI in 1981.) While all of the above scenarios have played out at one time or another in the United States in relation to the loss of parishes, it is thankfully the case that none of them occurred in relation to St. Michael’s Church in Atlantic City NJ.
Following the closure of St. Michael’s Parish, some of those who had formed Save St. Mike’s refocused their efforts toward saving St. Michael’s Church. Conducting research, Mr. Venafro and others in the group found that there were dozens of former Roman Catholic parish churches in the United States being cared for by groups established to raise the funds necessary to pay for their continued existence as Roman Catholic sacred spaces and places of at least occasional worship. With this information, Mr. Venafro and others formed the St. Michael’s Church Preservation Society, approached the pastor of the newly created St. Monica Parish and with his blessing, began working to help ensure that all of the funds which would be needed to care for St. Michael’s Church would be available. The St. Michael Church Preservation Society realized that if St. Michael’s Church were to survive as a Roman Catholic sacred space and place of at least occasional worship, it had to gain support from the faithful and continue to be utilized as a means of drawing people to the Roman Catholic faith. Given that the sacred art within St. Michael’s Church had such a powerful effect on those who came in contact with it, the St. Michael Church Preservation Society chose to use this art in one of its first events aimed at increasing support for its mission and St. Michael’s Church.
On December 13, 2015, the society sponsored a discussion led by art history professor Dr. John Calabrese held within St. Michael’s church regarding the church’s sacred art and architecture. In addition to leading a discussion regarding the qualities of the church building most likely to draw the faithful to it, Calabrese served as an example of one of the constituencies the St. Michael Church Preservation Society sought to gain the support of. Residing in Texas, Dr. Calabrese had grown up in Atlantic City, living near the church and serving as an altar boy at St. Michael’s while attending the parish’s elementary school. In addition to discussing the church’s sacred art, members of the society also sought to create opportunities for it to actively fulfill its mission of drawing the faithful closer to God. In collaboration with the pastor of St. Monica Parish, Fr. John Thomas, the society planned following the discussion on the sacred art with in St. Michael’s Church to ensure that the church would be open at certain times in order that the faithful might enter it for such activities as prayer and the recitation of the rosary. In the months following the discussion of the church’s sacred art, St. Michael became the site of even more St. Monica parish activities. Masses in honor of the feast days of Italian saints were held on average once per month at St. Michael’s Church, and in June of 2016, St. Monica Parish announced that weekly mass would be celebrated at St. Michael’s Church during the summer months. In July 2017, the pastor of St. Monica’s Parish announced that the parish and the St. Michael Church Preservation Society were working together to refurbish the classrooms of the former St. Michael School, located on floors above St. Michael’s church, in order that they can be available for use by those associated with St. Michael’s Church, St. Monica’s Parish, the neighborhood surrounding St. Michael’s Church and all of Atlantic City. This plan resulted at its outset with one non-profit entity moving into one of the classrooms.
While keeping furtherance of the Roman Catholic faith at the forefront, the collaborative nature of the relationship that formed between St. Monica’s Parish and the St. Michael Church Preservation Society resulted not merely in a new religious purpose being found for the former parish church of St. Michael and the identification of supporters who were prepared to ensure that the church remained a Roman Catholic sacred space, it also resulted in the opening of non-sacred space for the benefit of the local community. Were it the case that St. Monica Parish leadership had chosen to simply proceed with the original plan of primarily utilizing only St. Nicholas of Tolentine and Our Lady Star of the Sea churches for parish activities, with the intention of forcing through the relegation to profane but not sordid use and sale of all remaining parish churches in spite of the presence of alternative plans that would allow one or more of them to continue to exist as Roman Catholic sacred spaces, all of the good will and beneficial collaboration which might have resulted from the implementation of an alternative plan would have been lost. Rather than gaining the support of those both living within parish boundaries and far beyond who wished to see St. Michael’s Church remain at least an occasional place of worship and who were prepared to contribute the time and financial resources necessary to make this happen, a dismissive or hostile attitude on the part of St. Monica Parish leadership could have possibly led to confrontation with such individuals that could have sapped parish resources and substantially degraded the condition of the parish. The cooperation that came about between Fr. Thomas and the leadership of the St. Michael Church Preservation Society led instead to increased utilization of St. Michael’s Church, the good will of individuals who wanted to see both St. Monica Parish and St. Michael’s Church succeed, and the retention of a Catholic place of worship that is especially well suited to drawing people into both St. Monica’s Parish and the Roman Catholic faith itself on account of the sacred art it contains. The success of the efforts that resulted from the cooperation between St. Monica’s Parish and the St. Michael Church Preservation Society should inspire other groups of parishioners to be prepared if they choose to voice their objections to the possible permanent closure of a former Roman Catholic parish church building, to also create a plan that allows such a church to remain a Roman Catholic sacred space in accordance with canon law, and then to be prepared to personally commit the financial resources necessary to make that plan a reality. Similarly, leaders of newly merged parishes should be prepared to engage in meaningful discussions with those who seek to avoid the closure of a former Roman Catholic parish church building, and are prepared to step forward with a canonically acceptable plan and the financial resources necessary to retain the church as a Roman Catholic sacred space. Defensively rejecting all such plans, out of fear of possible complications which might arise on account of their implementation or for some other reason can deprive a new parish of the very energy and parishioners which will contribute to its success, the material and spiritual benefits from the retention of a church building that might not have been considered, and can needlessly eliminate a tangible representation of the Roman Catholic faith in an area. Parishes like St. Monica Parish in Atlantic City NJ which give canonically sound efforts backed by those prepared to financially support them that maintain former Roman Catholic Parish churches as Roman Catholic sacred spaces the chance to succeed can enjoy all of the benefits which it has been shown can flow from this type of collaborative approach.
Just as parishes are public juridic persons, so too are religious communities of men and women. Known to most Catholics as religious orders, canon law divides religious communities into two distinct groups, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Canon 573 defines institutes of consecrated life, “Can. 573 §1. The life consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels is a stable form of living by which the faithful, following Christ more closely under the action of the Holy Spirit, are totally dedicated to God who is loved most of all, so that, having been dedicated by a new and special title to His honor, to the building up of the Church, and to the salvation of the world, they strive for the perfection of charity in the service of the kingdom of God and, having been made an outstanding sign in the Church, foretell the heavenly glory. §2. The Christian faithful freely assume this form of living in institutes of consecrated life canonically erected by competent authority of the Church. Through vows or other sacred bonds according to the proper laws of the institutes, they profess the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience and, through the charity to which the counsels lead, are joined in a special way to the Church and its mystery.’” While the wording of this canon is dense, its meaning is quite straightforward. Men and women who feel called to live lives of chastity, poverty, and obedience in service of the church can form themselves into religious communities established by “competent authority” for one or more purposes. For the purposes of this paper we will focus solely on one form of institutes of consecrated life, that of the religious institute. Religious institutes are defined in section 2 of canon 607, “§2. A religious institute is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common.” The language contained in this section of canon 607 spells out that those who eventually commit to living lives of chastity, poverty and obedience in service of the church do so first temporarily before doing so perpetually, and that members of religious institutes live in community. Finally, we find confirmation of the fact that institutes of consecrated life enjoy juridic personality, and that the canons which apply to the acquisition of ecclesiastical goods apply to them in canons 634 and 635. Canon 634 states “Can. 634 §1. As juridic persons by the law itself, institutes, provinces, and houses are capable of acquiring, possessing, administering, and alienating temporal goods unless this capacity is excluded or restricted in the constitutions. §2. Nevertheless, they are to avoid any appearance of excess, immoderate wealth, and accumulation of goods.” This canon makes clear that each individual house (community” of an institute of consecrated life (religious institutes such as the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) whose members live across the globe have many individual communities,) enjoys juridic personality, and thus the ability to acquire temporal and ecclesiastical goods. Canon 635 further confirms that those canons which deal with the acquisition of ecclesiastical goods apply to institutes of consecrated life. It states, “Can. 635 §1. Since the temporal goods of religious institutes are ecclesiastical, they are governed by the prescripts of Book V, The Temporal Goods of the Church, unless other provision is expressly made. §2. Nevertheless, each institute is to establish suitable norms concerning the use and administration of goods, by which the poverty proper to it is to be fostered, protected, and expressed.” Aside from the explicit confirmation of the ecclesiastical nature of those goods possessed by institutes of consecrated life, this canon also makes clear that such institutes are not to violate their vows of poverty by accumulating goods that are not necessary to their carrying out the purpose for which they were formed.
The second category of religious community defined in canon law is that of the society of apostolic life. The definition of a society of apostolic life is contained in canon 731, “Can. 731 §1. Societies of apostolic life resemble institutes of consecrated life; their members, without religious vows, pursue the apostolic purpose proper to the society and, leading a life in common as brothers or sisters according to their proper manner of life, strive for the perfection of charity through the observance of the constitutions. §2. Among these are societies in which members assume the evangelical counsels by some bond defined in the constitutions.” This canon both illustrates the similarities and differences between institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life. Like institutes of consecrated life, members of societies of apostolic life live in community and work together in order to achieve the aims for which the society was created in furtherance of the church’s mission. It is not necessarily the case however that members of a society of apostolic life would assume a vow of poverty, meaning that their lives in community might be slightly different from those lived by members of an institute of consecrated life. Canon 741 makes clear that like institutes of consecrated life, societies of apostolic life also enjoy juridic personality. Canon 741 states, “Can. 741 §1. Societies and, unless the constitutions determine otherwise, their parts and houses are juridic persons and, as such, capable of acquiring, possessing, administering, and alienating temporal goods according to the norm of the prescripts of Book V, The Temporal Goods of the Church, of cann. ⇒ 636, ⇒ 638, and ⇒ 639, and of proper law. §2. According to the norm of proper law, members are also capable of acquiring, possessing, administering, and disposing of temporal goods, but whatever comes to them on behalf of the society is acquired by the society.” Like canon 731, the text of this canon shows that societies of apostolic life share some similarities with institutes of consecrated life, but that they are also fundamentally different as well. Like institutes of consecrated life, individual communities of societies of apostolic life, whose members in societies such as the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest may be spread throughout the world, enjoy juridic personality, and thus the ability to acquire ecclesiastical goods. Members of societies of apostolic life who have not assumed a vow of poverty however are according to the text of this canon able to acquire personal possessions for themselves, so long as no means associated with the society was used to procure the items, and the items were not intended for the general benefit of the society. While there are significant differences between institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life, both types of religious communities enjoy juridic personality that allows them to legitimately own and direct the administration of ecclesiastical goods.
Just as the juridic personality of a parish and the express need for a church building to fulfill its mission gives a parish the ability to own and operate a church building, so too is it possible for religious communities in the form of institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life to own and administer a Roman Catholic church building. Whether the community is a purely contemplative one or one whose charism leads it to enter the world in order to fulfill its mission, a church building directly under the community’s control often proves beneficial. Whether it exists strictly for the use of the members of the community or also for the benefit of the public at large, the history of institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life constructing or obtaining church buildings in furtherance of their service to the church universal is a long one. An example of an institute of consecrated life erected as a religious institute constructing a church over which it would enjoy direct control is that of the members of the Society of Jesus who resided in the city of Limerick in Ireland. In 1868, the Jesuits of Limerick constructed the Church of the Sacred Heart which served as the church of the Society of Jesus in Limerick until the order chose to close it in 2006. The fact that Sacred Heart Church never functioned as a “parish church” is made clear by the fact that it is located within the boundaries of the parish of St. Joseph. The Jesuits used this church for themselves and those they served during the time of their presence in Limerick, but any members of the public who may have resided near it or who may for whatever reason have attended mass within it were not its parishioners but instead those of other parishes.
Just as it is the case that institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life can construct churches, so too can they purchase them. The juridic personality of a Roman Catholic entity also allows it to purchase a church building from or sell a church building to another Roman Catholic entity with juridic personality. Several examples of such transactions are worth noting, as both illustrations of their possibility and of the spiritual benefits of their occurrence. Following the closure of the Jesuit Church of the Sacred Heart in Limerick, it was sold to a non-religious entity, thus ending its status as a religious building. In 2012 however, a society of apostolic life called the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest purchased the church from the developer who had bought it from the Jesuits in 2006, with the intention of returning it to ecclesiastical use. As both the chapel for the community of members of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest who resided in Limerick and as a place for the public celebration of mass, the Church of the Sacred Heart has through its acquisition by a society of apostolic life once again begun to serve as a sacred space and place of sacramental celebration for the people of Limerick. Just as a society of apostolic life can purchase a church either from an institute of consecrated life or from secular parties who have purchased it from such an institute, so too can it purchase a church which formerly served as a parish from the diocese or archdiocese which owns it.
In 2004, a Roman Catholic church building in the Woodlawn neighborhood of the south side of Chicago which had been dedicated as St. Clara and was commonly later called (possibly improperly on account of the requirements of canon 1218) St. Gelasius, faced demolition. Closed as a parish church and having previously served as the parish church of a merged parish following the merging of several previous parishes, the church sat as a stripped shell, unwanted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, owing to the lack of a viable parish community that might make use of it as a Roman Catholic sacred space and cover the expenses associated with its operation and restoration. In December of 2004, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, a society of apostolic life, was given permission by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago to make use of the former St. Clara/St. Gelasius Parish church, to open within it a shrine, and to raise the funds necessary to restore the church to a pristine condition. Over the course of the next eleven years, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest worked to restore the church, however these efforts were dealt a major blow in October of 2015. It was then that a fire which began in the middle of the night gutted the church, destroying all of the progress toward its restoration that had been made in the nearly eleven years since the Institute of Christ the King began to utilize the structure.
Given the extent of the damage, the Archdiocese of Chicago made plans to demolish the church, on account of it’s lacking the resources to make repairs to a structure which it continued to own. As is often the case with agreements between dioceses and institutes of consecrated life or societies of apostolic life, the Archdiocese of Chicago had for nearly eleven years allowed the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign priest to make use of the former church of St. Clara and St. Gelasius parishes, but continued to serve as the owner of record, both civilly and in terms of juridic personality of the church building itself. In February of 2016 however, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest was able to demonstrate to the Chicago archdiocese that it had amassed a significant amount of money intended for the restoration of the fire ravaged church, and it was further able to convince the archdiocese that it was likely to be able to raise the additional funds necessary to complete the church’s restoration. Given these circumstances, the archdiocese chose to transfer the civil title of the church to the Institute of Christ the King, along with direct administration of the church and responsibility for its restoration. The juridic personality the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest enjoyed as a society of apostolic life made it possible for the Archdiocese of Chicago to transfer the church building to the religious community with no change occurring with regard to the church’s status as a Roman Catholic sacred space. While no longer a parish church, the church that now houses the Shrine of Christ the King will be upon its restoration no less a sacred Roman Catholic church building than it was at the time it served as the parish church of St. Clara and St. Gelasius parishes. It will serve as a shrine to Christ the King, and a site for the celebration of mass for members of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and the public at large. Rather than demolishing a badly damaged church, the Archdiocese of Chicago, the juridic person which owned it, chose to turn it and its care over to another juridic person which exists in the form of a society of apostolic life, in order that it might continue to serve as a Catholic sacred space within a neighborhood of the city of Chicago. While the mission of the former parish church of St. Clara and St. Gelasius parishes is different now that it is serving as a shrine to Christ the King, and while the juridic person which owns the church and administers it is not the same as the one who originally established it, the church is no less Roman Catholic, and it continues to remain able to serve as a site of Roman Catholic spiritual nourishment for all of those who enter it.
Parishes and religious communities taking the form of institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life are not the only Roman Catholic entities capable of acquiring juridic personality and thus the right of owning and directly administering Roman Catholic church buildings. Our exploration of the concept of juridic personality made clear that it was also possible for “associations of the Christian faithful” to be granted juridic personality. Associations of the faithful, both public and private are defined in canon 298 of the code of canon law. Canon 298 states, “Can. 298 §1. In the Church there are associations distinct from institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life; in these associations the Christian faithful, whether clerics, lay persons, or clerics and lay persons together, strive in a common endeavor to foster a more perfect life, to promote public worship or Christian doctrine, or to exercise other works of the apostolate such as initiatives of evangelization, works of piety or charity, and those which animate the temporal order with a Christian spirit. §2. The Christian faithful are to join especially those associations which competent ecclesiastical authority has erected, praised, or commended.” Just as the canons which defined institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life illustrated the similarities and differences between the two types of religious communities, this canon illustrates the similarities and differences between both of these forms of religious communities and associations of the Christian faithful. Like both types of religious communities, associations of the Christian faithful are organized for a specific purpose that furthers the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, be it in order to evangelize more effectively, undertake acts of charity, or for other reasons that would in some way further the faith. Just as institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life bring individuals together to carry out aims that are more easily achieved collectively than they are when undertaken by an individual, so too do associations of the Christian faithful operate through the collectivization of individual efforts toward the achievement of a common goal. Unlike religious communities however, it is not always, or necessarily often the case that members of associations of the Christian faithful live in community or assume vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
Private associations of the Christian faithful are more fully defined in canon 299. While public associations of the Christian faithful are established by officials of the church itself to further a specific purpose which the officials feel the establishment of the association will benefit, private associations of the Christian faithful are formed based on a desire of individual Roman Catholics to come together to further a purpose associated with the church they feel such an association can help to achieve. Canon 299 states, “Can. 299 §1. By means of a private agreement made among themselves, the Christian faithful are free to establish associations to pursue the purposes mentioned in ⇒ can. 298, §1, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 301, §1. §2. Even if ecclesiastical authority praises or commends them, associations of this type are called private associations. §3. No private association of the Christian faithful is recognized in the Church unless competent authority reviews its statutes.” Aside from further defining private associations of the Christian faithful, canon 299 makes clear that no private association of the Christian faithful will gain official recognition unless “competent authority” (a diocesan bishop or his equivalent,) reviews the association’s statutes, and does not object to them. Canon 301 makes clear that “competent ecclesiastical authority” alone can erect “public” associations of the Christian faithful, and it further reinforces that officials capable of erecting public associations of the faithful have the right to do so if in so doing a spiritual objective which is not presently being met through the actions of individual Roman Catholics might be better achieved. Canon 313 makes clear that public associations of the Christian faithful are granted juridic personality through the issuance of a decree by “competent ecclesiastical authority” that affords the association official recognition and acknowledges the purpose for which it was created. Canon 320 makes clear that public associations of the Christian faithful are not to be suppressed unless “grave cause” necessitates the taking of such action. The ability of private associations of the Christian faithful to gain juridic personality is confirmed in canon 322 of the code of canon law, which states, “Can. 322 §1. A private association of the Christian faithful can acquire juridic personality through a formal decree of the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned in ⇒ can. 312. §2. No private association of the Christian faithful can acquire juridic personality unless the ecclesiastical authority mentioned in ⇒ can. 312, §1 has approved its statutes. Approval of the statutes, however, does not change the private nature of the association.” This canon makes clear that the approval of the statutes of a private association of the Christian faithful, along with the issuance of a decree by “competent ecclesiastical authority” will allow such an association to be granted juridic personality. With juridic personality, such an association gains the ability to legitimately own “ecclesiastical goods,” including a Roman Catholic church building. This fact is illustrated through the examination of several situations in which private associations of the Christian faithful own Roman Catholic church buildings.
Among those types of associations of the Christian faithful that canon law has illustrated it is possible to create are associations made up either in whole or in part of clerics. An example of a private association of the Christian faithful that is made up entirely of clerics is that of the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist. Founded by priests dedicated to building a religious order devoted to the celebration of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church according to the practices associated with the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (including the celebration of the Tridentine mass,) the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist were established as a private association of the faithful by the bishop of Covington Kentucky, Roger Joseph Foys. Following their establishment, the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist sought to acquire both a church for the use of their community and in order that the faithful of the Diocese of Covington would be able to have a place in which they could attend the regular celebration of the Tridentine mass. As a result, the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist purchased a former Lutheran church that they intended to transform into a Roman Catholic place of worship. Following the acquisition of this church, Bishop Foys erected the “quasi-parish” (a community of the Christian faithful that is not yet a parish based on its particular circumstances, in accordance with Canon 516, section 1) of Our Lady of Lourdes, intending that it be a personal quasi-parish for those dedicated to the celebration of the Tridentine mass, and that it be staffed by the Missionary Society of St. John the Baptist. The situation of Our Lady of Lourdes Quasi-Parish of Park Hills Kentucky and the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist thus illustrate a unique combination of canonical designations which have been blended together for the good of the faithful; a private lay association of the Christian faithful owning a Roman Catholic church building which also serves as the parish church of the quasi-parish which the association has been entrusted with administering by the Diocese of Covington.
Another example of a private association of the Christian faithful owning and administering a Roman Catholic Church building is that of the Servants of Jesus of The Divine Mercy. Founded by Catherine Lanni, who states that Jesus healed her following the birth of her last child in 1986, the association was given recognition as a private association of the Christian Faithful by Cardinal Adam Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit on Easter Sunday of 2003. Dedicated to spreading God’s mercy through efforts aimed at healing his people, the association states that its charism is “daily devotion to Jesus the Divine Mercy through the intercession of The Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.” Among other activities, the association undertakes daily prayer, holds mass during the week, and engages in Eucharistic adoration and days of reflection. In 2013, the association purchased the parish property of the former St. Claude Parish in Clinton Township Michigan, within the boundaries of the Archdiocese of Detroit. St. Claude’s Church had been a chapel of St. Thecla’s Parish, the parish into which St. Claude Parish had been merged, since the time of the merger in 2007. With the sale of the St. Claude property to the Servants of Jesus of The Divine Mercy, the association was able to gain the facilities it needed to carry out its mission, renaming the complex the Divine Mercy Center. The former St. Claude Parish complex includes St. Claude Church which now serves as the site of the devotional activities of the members of the association, and a place where the public might join members of the association in the practice of the Catholic faith. Sale of the former St. Claude Parish property to the Servants of Jesus of The Divine Mercy also allowed the property, including St. Claude Church, to remain in Roman Catholic hands and to continue to be used for the furtherance of the faith.
Conclusion
While the average Catholic lay person and many members of the clergy may not realize the distinction, the information presented above clearly illustrates that a “parish” and a “church” are not one in the same. Through the exploration of the different functional designations a Roman Catholic church building may receive, the concept of juridic personality under canon law which allows a Roman Catholic entity to own a Roman Catholic church building which serves as a sacred space and the different types of entities which can by virtue of gaining juridic personality own and make use of a Roman Catholic church building as sacred space, it has been clearly illustrated that use as a parish church and ownership by a parish is but one of many canonically valid permutations of use and control of a Roman Catholic church buildings. While a lack of knowledge of these different options on the part of the faithful and perhaps on the part of diocesan officials struggling to free themselves from what might sometimes be the crushing burden of caring for churches which lack sufficiently large parish communities to maintain them seems to be prevalent in many parts of the United States and other western nations, the information and examples presented in this paper illustrate that permanent closure and sale are but one of multiple paths which can be taken when it becomes clear that a parish is not capable of caring for a historic church building any longer. Whether it is the case that the church is no longer the seat of a parish, and thus is serving as a chapel that has no group dedicated to its care or if it is a struggling parish on the verge of closure, if it proves to be the case that there is no possibility of establishing a parish community to care for the church and yet there are Catholics who wish to see it retained as a sacred Catholic space, one or a combination of several different approaches can be taken to allow this desire to become a reality.
If one or more individuals wishes to form a group dedicated to the care and continued preservation of a former Roman Catholic Parish Church still owned by a successor parish, thus relieving the parish of the responsibility of caring for the church building, the church can continue to exist as a chapel, shrine, or oratory within the parish, and be used to enrich the spiritual lives of those in the local community and points far beyond. The Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis Missouri is another example of the many dozens of former Roman Catholic parish churches throughout the United States and Canada maintained by groups who do not own them outright but who raise the funds necessary to care for them, so as to allow them to continue to be beacons of the Catholic faith within their parish and geographic communities and not at the same time drain parish resources from other necessary programs. Alternatively, a religious community could either take up residence within a former parish property and make use of the former parish church, or do so and additionally purchase the property outright. The example of the Friars Minor in Fort Wayne Indiana who have restored St. Andrew’s Church after being given permission to do so by the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend but who have not purchased the church, and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest who are in the process of restoring churches in both the Diocese of Limerick in Ireland and the Archdiocese of Chicago in the United States which they have purchased illustrate how a religious order can allow a former Roman Catholic parish church to continue to remain a Catholic sacred space. Alternatively, if no religious order exists which is capable of taking on care of a former Roman Catholic parish church and the diocese and/or parish in which it is located wish to be relieved of the responsibility of its maintenance and ownership, an association of the Christian faithful which has gained juridic personality could purchase the church and potentially other parish property and continue to allow the church to exist as a Roman Catholic sacred space.
While it is true that local bishops and archbishops must sign off on any of these potential options which would avoid the permanent closure and sale of a former Roman Catholic parish church building, we must remember that the third portion of a set of guidelines issued by the Congregation for the Clergy of the Vatican in 2013, regarding “alienation” (the sale) of Catholic church buildings makes clear that in the event such a church must be sold, the first preference of the party selling the church should always be to see that the church is sold to another Catholic entity, be it of the Roman or an Eastern Catholic rite. It is also the case that when a Roman Catholic Church is sold to another juridic person or Eastern Rite entity which intends to continue to use it for worship in one of the approved rites of the Catholic church, that the church building should not be relegated to profane but not sordid use. If such alternatives are seriously considered, and if the faithful attached to a church which can no longer be maintained through the traditional parish model are informed of potential alternative options, and even encouraged to take action to further the viability of one or another of them, bishops will find that the conflict often associated with the permanent closure of a parish or church will be avoided. Such conflicts often result from a lack of information on the part of those aggrieved by the permanent closure of a church building which is dear to them, and bishops, in the face of such opposition, often double down on their plan to eliminate a church, thus overlooking potential alternatives which if embraced by the opponents of permanent closure could make such closure wholly unnecessary. In centuries past, it was common in Europe for religious orders and such associations as professional guilds (such guilds and other similar associations which existed being juridic precursors of the associations of the Christian faithful which exist today,) to construct and acquire churches for the benefit of their members and the faithful at large. The fact that such practices are not common in the United States and other parts of the western world today does not mean that they are no longer canonically permissible. Just as it is often said that the Catholic Church benefits from having two lungs, the western (Roman) lung and that of the Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, the Roman Catholic church will benefit if all of the different models of Roman Catholic church building ownership and administrative control which exist are embraced and implemented. If this is done, limitations that prevent one model from being successful will often be overcome through the benefits of an alternative model or the combination of several such models, and the church universal and spiritual lives of the faithful will be strengthened on account of the increased presence of the Catholic faith which will result from the retention of Roman Catholic church buildings as Roman Catholic sacred spaces.
Category: Churches
A Note to Readers, January 6, 2026
To all who may be following activity on this site: the Catholic Church Preservation Society remains very much alive! My life as a graduate student has been intensely hectic these past several months, affording me no time to continue the assembly of this site. Being presently blessed with a bit of vacation time, it is my hope that additions may be made in the near future to this site, including additional posts featuring preserved Catholic churches, as well as commentary. I would ask for the prayers of all reading this post, that God grant me the time and strength to engage in this work, and that he may guide my hands in all areas of my life every moment of the day.
Brody Hale
St. Mary of the Rock, Batesville IN
https://www.facebook.com/StMarysOfTheRockCatholicChurchBatesville
Founded in 1844 to serve the mostly German Catholic residents in the area near Batesville, the walls of St. Mary of the Rock Church date from this time. The church caught fire in 1906, and the interior of the church dates from the restoration that took place after the fire. For 169 years, St. Mary of the Rock Parish was the center of the lives of the descendants of the founders of the parish, and other Catholics who moved into the area. St. Mary of the Rock and 11 other parishes in this part of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis were merged into neighboring parishes, during a parish consolidation program undertaken by the archdiocese in 2013. The parishioners to whom St. Mary of the Rock Church meant so much did not want the parish’s closing to be the end of the church as well. They thus organized the St. Mary of the Rock Preservation Society. The preservation society began in late 2013 to raise the money necessary to pay the expenses associated with maintaining St. Mary of the Rock Church as a sacred space, available for the occasional celebration of mass. The annual mass on the Feast of the Assumption, celebrated in the church’s out door grotto, continues to be observed, drawing many people to the church each year from the surrounding area.
Holy Rosary, Seelyville IN
https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfHolyRosarySeelyville/?fref=ts
Holy Rosary parish was established in 1908 to serve the Catholic population living in and around Seelyville. The church was constructed in 1912, and for the next century Holy Rosary parish served as the center of the spiritual lives of the area’s Catholic faithful. In 2012, Holy Rosary was one of four parishes in this part of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis to be merged into a neighboring parish, as part of the archdiocese’s parish consolidation program. Local Catholics however were not content to allow Holy Rosary Church to disappear as well. Thus, the Friends of Holy Rosary was formed to raise the funds required to care for the church, and make it possible for it to remain a sacred space available for at least the occasional celebration of the mass.
St. Joseph, Mount Holly NC
http://historicmountholly.com/highlighted-points/saint-josephs-catholic-church/
St. Joseph’s Church was the first Roman Catholic church constructed in western North Carolina, in what today is the territory of the Diocese of Charlotte. It was built in 1843, to serve as a place of worship for Irish Catholics who had come to the area to mine the gold which had been recently discovered there. The church was originally named St. Joseph and Mary, but following the Civil War it was simply known as St. Joseph’s. The funds to build the church were collected from people living in both North and South Carolina, as well as Georgia. One notable and generous contributor to the fund for the church’s construction was Justice William Gaston, a Catholic and justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. It is for him that Gaston County, in which the church is located was named. The rural nature of the church’s location meant life was quite hard for those who worshiped there. The Civil War also made conditions more difficult, as many of the church’s parishioners died as a result of the conflict. In 1877, services were relocated to the recently purchased Belmont Abbey, and the church sat vacant for nearly a century. At one time, hay was stored in the church, although the church’s original furnishings were never lost. In 1974, work was undertaken to restore the church, and mass has again occasionally been celebrated there since its rededication in 1975. The current group caring for the church has been in existence since 1993.
St. Francis Xavier, Warwick MD
http://www.catholicshrines.net/states/md5.htm
The church of St. Francis Xavier stands at the heart of the second mission of the Society of Jesus established in Maryland. The Jesuits first arrived at this location in 1704 to establish a base for their missionary activities in a wide region of the United States surrounding the church. This was difficult work, as Catholicism was at that time an outlawed religion, and the celebration of mass was itself a capital offense. The Jesuits disguised themselves as farmers and farmed the land surrounding their mission. At one time, the territory which now makes up the Diocese of Wilmington Delaware, along with the territory of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia PA was the sole responsibility of the priests assigned to St. Francis Xavier church. The Jesuits there also ran a covert academy, which counted among its students both John and Charles Carroll, the first bishop assigned to the United States and the signer of the Declaration of Independence respectively. The original church was replaced with a new brick church built in 1797. It is this church which stands on this site today. The interior of the church dates from 1915, as that year a fire destroyed all but the walls of the church. Regular mass ceased to be offered at the church as early as the 1920s, and the Diocese of Wilmington sold off all of the farmland the Jesuits had tended to pay debts during the Great Depression. By the 1950s, the church was falling victim to the ravages of time and the elements, as no group was overseeing its upkeep. In 1954, a Catholic, a Methodist, and a Quaker stepped forward to form the “Old Bohemia Historical Society,” to oversee the restoration and preservation of St. Francis Xavier Church. The group raised enough money to buy back 120 acres of farmland surrounding the church, and then set to work making repairs to the church itself. The group obtained donations from around Maryland and the nation to completely restore the church and the rectory located next to it. Today, the church and rectory are still maintained by the Old Bohemia Historical Society which raises the money necessary for their preservation. Mass is still celebrated at St. Francis Xavier Church several times a year. The rectory contains a museum with many historic artifacts associated with early Catholic life in the United States and this part of Maryland.
St. Patrick, Conowingo MD
http://www.stpatschapel.org/
St. Patrick’s was established as a chapel for Irish immigrants working as lumbermen in the Pilot Town section of Conowingo. The church was constructed in 1819, and given its age, it is one of the oldest Catholic churches still in existence in Maryland. The lumber that was produced was shipped on canals near the church. With the development of the railroad, the canals saw far less traffic, and the population that attended the church relocated. As a result, St. Patrick’s Church, which never became a parish in its own right, fell into disuse on several occasions throughout its history. The church was abandoned from 1908 to 1925, at one time being so neglected that its interior was open to the elements and inhabited by animals. It was restored in 1925, and used for mass again until 1934, when it again was closed. While an attempt at restoration was made in 1960, it was not until a restoration effort begun in 1971 that mass would again be celebrated in the church. The first mass said there in 38 years was celebrated at St. Patrick’s in 1972. Over the next 38 years, additional preservation work was undertaken on the church. In 2005, those who were determined that the church be cared for over the long term organized the St. Patrick’s Chapel Historical Society. Over the course of the next year, the group incorporated and obtained 501C3 tax-exempt status from the IRS. From that point to the present day, this group has maintained St. Patrick’s Church and insured that it remains in a state of good repair. Mass is still said occasionally at St. Patrick’s.
St. Joseph, St. Louis MO
http://www.shrineofstjoseph.org/index.html
St. Joseph’s parish was established in the city of St. Louis in 1843 to serve the mostly German speaking Catholics of one neighborhood of the city. The church was constructed between 1844 and 1846, and was enlarged between 1880 and 1881. Originally staffed by the Jesuits, this church became the site of the only approved miracle within the Archdiocese of St. Louis when in 1864 a relic of Blessed Peter Claver cured the terminal illness of a parishioner. It was this miracle that was cited as the second miracle by Rome when the canonization of Peter Claver was approved. As the twentieth century progressed, the neighborhood in which the church was located changed and the congregation decreased in size. The church deteriorated to such an extent that by 1979, the roof leaked, water had damaged the plaster of the church’s interior, birds flew at will throughout the church on account of broken windows, and bird droppings had piled up in the bell tower to a depth of several feet. The Archdiocese of St. Louis planned to permanently close and demolish the church, however the church’s pastor at the time refused to leave his rectory, saying that he had such devotion to the church that he was prepared to “die for it.” In 1979, three men broke into the rectory, murdered the pastor, and stole various objects. This act of violence inspired several men who had been seeking to restore and preserve the church to redouble their efforts. They formed the “Shrine of St. Joseph’s Friends,” a group which successfully obtained 501C3 status from the IRS. Over the next several years, the group raised several hundred thousand dollars, and with this money and the investment of a great deal of time, it restored the church to pristine condition. Today, mass is celebrated every Sunday and on the first Friday of every month at this church, now known as the Shrine of St. Joseph. The Shrine of St. Joseph’s Friends INC. continues to raise the money required to maintain St. Joseph’s church, in order to insure that it remains in good preservation long into the future.
Old St. Ferdinand, Florissant MO
Home
Founded in 1787 to serve as the church for the Catholic population of Florissant, St. Ferdinand’s original congregation mainly consisted of French planters who had settled in the area. The original church built to serve the parish was constructed of logs in 1788. This structure burned in 1836, however it had been replaced by the church which stands on this site today in 1821. This church is the oldest existing Catholic church building between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. The cornerstone of this church was donated by Mother Rose Philippine Duchesne, who had set up the first Catholic school between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains at St. Ferdinand’s in 1819. Care of this parish was given to the Jesuits in 1823, and this church was the site of the ordination in 1827 of Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, who ministered to many Native American tribes. The church was enlarged in 1880 and 1881, at which time the bell tower was added. The parish continued to minister to the people of the portion of the territory of Florissant which it encompassed until its boundaries were redrawn, and this church ceased to be the parish church in 1955. In order to insure that this historic church was not lost, and that it would continue to be maintained and preserved, the Friends of Old St. Ferdinand’s was established by those who cared about the church, and incorporated as a non-profit group to raise the funds necessary to accomplish this task. The group not only preserved the church, but also preserved the historic rectory, convent and school on the site. Following a fire in 1966, the Friends of Old St. Ferdinand restored the church and the rectory, both of which had been damaged. Following the canonization of Mother Rose Philippine Duchesne in 1988, the Archdiocese of St. Louis designated the church as a shrine to her. This church and the other buildings in the complex associated with it continue to be maintained by the Friends of Old St. Ferdinand. The group has preserved many historic religious artifacts within the buildings, and mass is held in the church on some first Fridays of the month, and for the feast of St. Rose Philippine Duchesne.
St. Patrick, Spring Fork MO
St. Patrick’s church was first constructed in 1876 to serve the Irish Catholic families who settled around the Area of Spring Fork. The original church served the congregation well for over forty years. In November 1917, plans were made to replace the church with a new church built of brick, a project that was estimated to cost $12,000. The cornerstone of the new church was laid September 21, 1918, and the finished church was dedicated on May 29, 1919. Several decades after the new church was constructed, the population of Spring Fork began to decrease. The number of priests who were serving in the Diocese of Jefferson City also decreased, and regular masses were discontinued at the church in 1973. When the congregation was able to find a retired priest who was willing to say mass on a regular basis, masses resumed in 1974. This priest retired again in 1980, and regularly scheduled masses again came to an end. St. Patrick’s church was made available at that time for occasional masses, the last one of which was celebrated in the late 1990s. After more than a decade of inactivity, lightning struck the church in the summer of 2012, and plans were made to permanently close the church. A group of former parishioners did not want the church to be permanently closed however, and in the fall of 2012, they formed the Friends of St. Patrick’s Church of Spring Fork. This group reached an agreement with the Diocese of Jefferson City that the church would remain available for occasional masses as a preserved sacred space, in return for the Friends of St. Patrick’s raising all of the funds required to restore and maintain the church. The group set about raising the funds required, and the church has now been restored. Thanks to the efforts of the Friends of St. Patrick’s Church of Spring Fork, this church will continue to stand in this part of Missouri as a tangible example of both the faith of those who built it, and of those who stepped forward to preserve and maintain it nearly a century later.