Excerpt from:
http://stjosephcanonlaw.com/.../Future-Church-Commentary...
‘The initial goal named in this DECREE “to study the vibrancy of parish communities” is important when assessing the Bishop of Cleveland’s radical restructuring of the diocese. The amalgamation consisted of suppressing and/or merging parishes, with the intent to close or sell church buildings. The DECREE seemed to indicate that the Bishop of Cleveland did not consider the right of the parish to exist perpetually, nor did he consider the “vibrancy” of existing parishes to remain open “for the salvation of souls”.
The second goal: “sharing resources among parishes” could be accomplished in various ways as the law provides. Models for “possible sharing of resources among parishes” include “clustering” of two or more parishes or “merging” two or more parishes. Clustering supports the goal to enhance vibrant parish life and protects the faith centers of the people. Clustering was not an option for any of the parishes in the restructuring implemented by the Bishop of Cleveland. The Bishop of Cleveland chose to merge parishes, and in some cases “close” parishes. These options do not automatically promote vibrancy. Parish suppressions and mergers, when not implemented appropriately, or without just cause, decimate parish communities, disenfranchise parishioners, and alienate their patrimony (property). A benefit of the restructuring made by the Bishop of Cleveland was the acquisition of money, from the sale of the subsequently closed churches, which was planned for every parish that was suppressed, and not merged.’
COMMENTARY ON DECREES FROM THE CONGREGATION FOR CLERGY UPHOLDING PETITION FOR RECOURSE MADE BY THIRTEEN PARISHES OF THE CLEVELAND DIOCESE Kate Kuenstler, PHJC, JCD