TOPIC VIII Module 3 Pt 2

So the first type of parish modification that the congregation

for clergy identified in its 2013 letter was this extinct

of union of parishes, what is generically called mergers, that

situation of parish a parish be uniting to form Paris

C and only Paris C remains.

There is no suppression going on here.

So in other words, no cannon 123 suppressions going on.

Uh, and therefore none of the things dealing with suppressions

is going on.

We're under a merger situation can and 121 and not

a suppression.

The second way, second modification that the, the, the Vatican

identified was this extinct of union of parishes called Amalgam

Ations instead, and it's practically the same as the other

one. Except it's a clear a little bit of a

distinction here and this is more of an amalgamation.

So perish A is subsumed under parish be, and Parish

B is the only thing that remains.

So, once again, this is not strictly a suppression.

This is not actually a suppression at all.

But it's not strictly a 1 21 merger either.

Because you don't have just two entities coming together together

to form a new entity.

But you do have a merger.

It's an amalgamation where one entity is subsumed by the

other one and that other entity Parish be still remains

the Vatican and saying, well, this is not strictly a

merger, But it is a 121 merger.

It's it's not, you know, to that that that that

that situation, one that we looked at.

However, it is clear that this is still a merger.

You cannot treat Parish A as suppressed in other words,

Parish A is not a suppression of what happened here.

Was a merger?

An amalgamation merger?

Yes, but a merger nonetheless, it's not a suppression of

Parish A.

Because it's been joined to amalgamated to perish be And

therefore we have to use the norms for murdering what

can 121 as opposed to suppression of of of of

of parish a under 21 23.

A very very good distinction.

Once again that the Vatican is making The 3rd type

of action that the Vatican identified it labelled as total

division. Total division is when you have one Parish, Parish

A. And Parish A.

Then is divided into Parish B and paris C.

So that only parish B and parish see remains.

Once again, here you do not have a suppression.

What's going on is a total division.

A division where you have one entity that's now split

into two.

That original entity does not exist but it is not

suppressed, it's been divided.

And so once this division has happened, We Go Under

Canon 1 22.

Once again, there's no suppression of Parish A.

So none of that applies, particularly when it comes to

the temporal goods.

Again, another very, very good distinction.

So, we have the first type, which is the merger

where we have perish Perish be, they unite so that

only paris C remains in the second, the amalgamation you

have Parish A Parish be, and then Parish is subsumed

under parish be said that only Parish Be remains.

That too is not a suppression in any way it's

a merger, but a merger in the in the form

of an amalgamation when it's taken to the other one

over no suppression, The 3rd 1 is a total division

where you have parish, a parish is divided to perish

be and Paris C.

So that parish a no longer exists, but only parish

B&C. Paris is not suppressed.

However, it's been divided.

So we're under 10 1 22 and its requirements not

under Can 1 23 of suppression?

The 4th way that it identified.

The fourth thing that it identified is a suppression suppression

is when you have parish a Parish A is extinguished

is suppressed.

Nothing remains.

This now is properly called the extinction of Canon 123.

Sometimes known as a closure.

But we'll look more closely at that that in the

next module.

But this the more proper term is actually extinction.

It's extinguished.

Not not amalgamated, not merged, It's extinguished is suppressed.

Notice What's going on here, the Vatican saying, look out

of all these four.

Only scenario four is a true suppression.

You cannot treat scenarios 1, 2 and three as a

suppression as an extinction of any of those entities.

They've been amalgamated.

They've been merged.

They've been been divided yes.

Under those other models.

But nothing has been suppressed in those models.

Only under four.

Now. Only under this situation.

Do you have a true suppression?

A true distinction that is going on.

So therefore you cannot use the cannons and the steps

and the rights and duties of a suppression for that.

Okay, There are then principles that the Vatican's letter laid

out and the Vatican's letter, by the way, it's in

the readings.

I I posted it up as one of the readings.

You should have read it already.

If not, I really suggest going and and reading it.

Uh, and we're just kind of walking through some of

the main points here.

The Vatican then gave the congregational clergy, gave principles for

parish modifications.

Any type of parish modifications.

And it reminded us of that Cannon 5 15, Section

two, that it's the diocesan bishop who is the competent

authority to erect to suppress to alter, perishes.

It speaks about territorial parishes since they are communities of

the faithful as a general rule can only be united

or divided.

What's he getting at there?

It's getting at look if something is a juristic person,

perish as a juristic person.

Remember the presumption is that it has perpetual existence.

Remember that when we talked about the establishment of juristic

persons and things like that.

One of the Presumptions is that it has perpetual existence

and we look at the time where it can be

suppressed when we get to suppression, but the presumption is

thus so if that's the presumption, then our movement should

be uniting it with something or dividing it, meaning merging

and division and things like that, not necessarily suppression, because

that's an unusual circumstance.

That's something that's not normally envisioned for a public juristic

person. Personal parishes, however, ordinarily are united or divided either

to another personal or territorial parish, though sometimes personal parishes

are truly suppressed.

So it's saying that, as a rule, generally speaking, we

don't suppress parishes.

The other ways are more preferable, and that's what we

should be looking towards and not suppression suppression, though you

can do it is actually an unusual circumstance.

Very extraordinarily unusual circumstances because public purity persons continue.

What about the reasons for modifications?

Remember where we are?

We're under modifications of parishes, the Vatican.

Then the congregational clergy lays out the reasons for modifications

of parishes.

It says, this primary reason for any sort of alteration

of parishes is a concern for souls and when the

good of the faithful, requiring first and foremost has to

be the concern of souls.

In other words, when we're looking at, quote, pastoral planning,

when we're looking at modification of parishes divisions, mergers.

God forbid suppression some parishes, The first and foremost goal

is always the salvation of Souls, the good of souls.

It cannot be the financial situation of the diocese.

It cannot be, although that can play into it, but

that can't be the primary goal.

The primary goal can't be that the demographics of change,

The primary goal can't even be something like, well, we're

not gonna have enough priests in 20 years.

Those are factors.

And though I'm not saying, I'm not belittling those and

I'm not saying those can't come into play and needs

to come into play as a matter of fact, but

those cannot be the primary reason.

We cannot change parishes, merge them, modify them anyway, simply

because of, of one of those reasons, the salvation of

Souls has to be the primary reason.

And that's what the Vatican's reminding us extinct of unions

and suppressions should be the last choice.

Other remedies must at least be considered seriously first.

So in any pastoral planning uh, situation, in any, any

sort of study and things like that, we have to

be able to show that we've explored these other ways.

We have to seriously be able to show that this

is just not the first thing that bishop went to

because he was too lazy to to explore any other

ways. That's not what we want, because it's a public

already person.

We want to be able to say, look, we have

explored every single way and this is what we came

up with for the good of souls.

We don't want to be able to people to point

to us to be able to say, look, the bishop

was just concerned about money and he was too lazy

to look at any other way of doing it.

That's the Vatican says.

Yeah, that's correct.

We need to look at the Salvation of Souls first

and then in looking at the Salvation of Souls, we

have to make sure before we do suppressions before we

even do these extinct of unions, these mergers and things

like that.

Those are the last choice is what other remedies may

be out there.

The good of the whole diocese, the congregation says, can

be considered by the diocesan bishop, but the reasons for

modifying a particular parish must be relevant to that individual

parish. This is so important.

In other words, the cause must be at room to

the thing itself.

In other words, generalized or diocesan motivations alone cannot justify

the modification of a specific perish.

The congregation here is being very, very clear and serious.

It's saying, look, parish a here parish be if you

modify them, whether it be extinct of unions, mergers, divisions

or suppressions.

God forbid if you do that, it cannot be for

the reason of the diocese.

It has to be a reason relative to that odd

question to the thing itself, to the parish itself.

These considerations Parish A is like this and this and

this and this.

Parish B is like this and this and this.

In other words, Parish A should not be modified just

because it happens to be part of the diocese.

That's what the congregation is saying here.

Reasons for modifying any specific parish has to be relevant

to that individual.

Perish the good of the entire diocese.

Yes, that can be taken into consideration, but that cannot

be the sole reason.

Can't even really be the overarching reason is what I

would say here.

It has to be relative to that parish.

What we're doing to that parish.

How we're reconfiguring that perish whether it be suppression or

whatever has to be for the reasons of that parish

can't just be a general what the diocese can't handle

it anymore.

We, we, we don't have enough priests to send their,

those are all diocese.

And reasons.

What about this parish is what the congregation is getting

at. A very, very good and sobering distinction to make.

What about this notion of shortage of clergy?

The shortest of clergy is the diocesan reason.

So it can be taken into consideration, but it cannot

be the sole reason, just like any other.

One reason usually doesn't suffice.

It's usually for difficult.

The congregation kind of kind of acknowledges for people from

one parish to see that there's an issue.

And that makes a lot of sense because you look

at, if you were in a parish and we're connected

with dialysis and politics or rumors or news or something

like that, you show up and there's a priest here,

it's very difficult to say, well now your parish is

shut down because we don't have enough clergy.

Now, that may be the case.

And I think people do need to understand that a

little bit more, but that being the case, the congregation

is saying a lot of times, that's a shock to

people. They don't understand that.

So we have to be sensitive to that.

Nonetheless, the shortage of clergy can't be, the only reason,

can't be the overriding reason.

We should seek other creative ways first before making this

a reason for modification suppression, for example, what about leahy

administrative help such as such as business managers?

Many places are going to business managers, models and things

like that.

And I hope that in ecclesia administration we can reach

out to those folks as well.

What about deacons or lay persons appointed according to Canon

517 section to that.

That that giving some sort of administrative oversight to the

parish. Those are all things that are already in our

economical system that could work.

That could be used in order to to to to

to address the situation of shortage of clergy.

What the congregation is getting at is that just because

we have a shortage and it's a serious shortage and

it's something that has to be considered.

Yes, but that's not an overriding reason.

That can't be the main reason it has to be

according to this parish.

How does it affect this parish?

What's it to add cream to this parish.

And then have we explored the other ways of of

of looking at it yet other solutions perhaps procedurally speaking

for validity, the diocese and Bishop has to follow all

the norms of law, especially regarding getting the necessary consents

and consultations that's going to be independent on which action

he is taking.

The consultations must be quote genuine and should consider relevant

arguments both for and against the proposed modification.

So the congregation is very clear here that for validity.

Remember, candle 1 27 to 2, the bishop really needs

to get the proper consent and and and consultations.

If he doesn't, it's invalid.

If he isn't doesn't, then this these things still go

on uh that's gonna be dependent on which which which

procedure he uses.

However.

TOPIC VIII Module 3 Pt 2

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated