Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Sizing up Richmond and other dioceses
Amy Welborn reports on the question of splitting the Richmond diocese and references it here: http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=8804. On her blog the usual suspects emerge to compare the "wacko nut jobs in the western part of the Diocese and some good orthodox priests" in the east. On the other hand, there are those who think all the "good, faithful priests" have been exiled far from the "burbs." (Given the natural beauty of just about everything west of Charlottesville, it's hard for me to imagine a hardship ministry assignment outside of the bright lights and big cities of Virginia. My wife and I have a priest friend who has repeatedly asked to be kept in assignments in small parishes deep in Appalachia. He loves it there, and I loved my time in Virginia, too.)
Getting back to the issue at hand, the Richmond diocese is just too big for a bishop to serve effectively. Catholic population is irrelevant. It's a ten-hour drive from one tip to the other. I suppose people who'd rather not see much of their bishop would like the situation, but this is what I'd hope to see:
- Dioceses with a maximum of fifty parishes, so a bishop can easily make an annual visit of substance to each.
- Small dioceses banding together to provide services mega-dioceses do now: Catholic charities, tribunals, the usual chancery suspects.
- Fewer priests doing chancery work -- no need for them to staff offices when degreed lay people can determine annulments, teach, archive, run the paper, and do the non-sacramental stuff.
Any more thoughts?
