**5. The "Unmaking" of Sacred Space: Desecration and Deconsecration**

The "unmaking of sacred space" (Della Dora 2016) presupposes that sacred space was "made" at some point in time and therefore can be "unmade". As the cultural geographer Veronica Della Dora points out, transformation processes in western Europe, such as the conversion of church buildings, are changing the current landscape. These processes, as Della Dora states, can shed light on:

"( ... ) the contestations between different grounded theologies and on the fluidity of the boundaries between sacred and secular, or rather, on the complex coexistences between the two." (Della Dora 2016, p. 45).

She discerns between desacralization—sacred places returning or transforming into secular uses—and desecration: sacrilege, willful destruction, defilement, in short:

"( ... ) a violent breach of the rules of behavior towards sacred things ( ... )" (Della Dora 2016, p. 45).

Della Dora regards these contemporary transformed sites of worship as expressions of social and cultural transformations, as well as:

"transformed relationships to sacred space, and of shifting perceptions of the sacred itself." (Della Dora 2016, p. 46).

With the use of Eliades' sacred and profane distinction, she shows that in this line of thought there has been much emphasis on the "making" of sacred space. However, since the 1990s the academic understanding of sacred space shifted more towards regarding such spaces as places that are socially constructed instead of being products of theophanic events (Della Dora 2016, pp. 50ff). Della Dora shows furthermore that desacralization, or the unmaking of sacred space, is not a purely modern, western phenomenon, but a phenomenon that has a long history and is not confined to any specific area in the world (Della Dora 2016, pp. 54ff). In her focus on converted churches in contemporary western Europe, she states that these new processes of desacralization strongly differ from past ones because of:

"( ... ) the privatization, museification and commodification of the sites, alongside an increasing tendency to adapt them to secular use, or to a mix of religious and non-religious functions ( ... )" (Della Dora 2016, pp. 60–61).

Bearing this in mind, the desacralization of sacred space is not an undisputed phenomenon. Whereas it may seem, at first glance, unambiguous to deconsecrate a church in the sense of canon law, the question remains if a church is indeed a profane space after the act of deconsecration. If one were to apply the line of abductive reasoning by means of the well-known duck test: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" to a church building

that has been deconsecrated according to canon law, one would probably still regard such a profaned building a church or at least a sacred space in most senses of the word. The Vatican guidelines make the following observation:

"Sacred buildings are a visible sign of the presence of God in a society that is today more and more secularized and simultaneously multireligious. They often have a role in giving quality to an urban or rural environment, as well as in giving structure to that environment in architectural terms. Their evangelizing *readability* remains even if they lose their liturgical functionality." (Guidelines 2019, p. 281).

Moreover, even canon law concerning the reuse of church buildings is not as clear-cut as one would presume because, in addition to it being interpreted differently and even contrary among canon lawyers, the fact that even when a church is relegated to profane use, this new use may never be sordid according to can. 1222 §1, seems to imply that it is recognized that even after deconsecration a church building still cannot be considered a secular building as any other.

Winfried Haunerland also rightly points to the remarkable fact that any form of reuse or complete deconsecration actually contradicts the dedication rite, since the texts of the dedication rite imply that a church building is dedicated for all times (Haunerland 2011, p. 246). Clemens Leonhard also mentions the paradox of extinguishing inextinguishable sacredness, which in his assessment is something that can only be addressed, but not actually dissolved in a deconsecration celebration (Leonhard 2012, p. 147).

In the context of un-dedicating a sacred space according to the Code of Canon Law (1983), we can discern three dimensions: first, such a space loses its dedication because it suffers major destruction. Second, it loses its dedication if such a space is factually given over to profane use. Third, it loses its dedication if the space is relegated to profane use by the issuing of a decree of the bishop (Weldon 2004, p. 52). The articles can. 1211 and can. 1212 refer to such instances in which rites need to be performed to reinstate the sacredness of the place when its sacredness has been violated:

"Sacred places are violated by gravely injurious actions done in them with scandal to the faithful, actions which, in the judgment of the local ordinary, are so grave and contrary to the holiness of the place that it is not permitted to carry on worship in them until the damage is repaired by a penitential rite according to the norm of the liturgical books." (can. 1211).

"Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been destroyed in large part, or have been turned over permanently to profane use by decree of the competent ordinary or in fact." (can. 1212).

It is important to discern between the violation or desecration of a church building because of unworthily treatment, and a case in which a church building will be taken out of liturgical use, which is on the part of the church an intentional act. Both these extremes need to be differentiated from the intentional symbolical demolition of parts of the church building. This last aspect will be addressed later on.

"If a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship and there is no possibility of repairing it, the diocesan bishop can relegate it to profane but not sordid use." (can. 1222, §1).

"Where other grave causes suggest that a church no longer be used for divine worship, the diocesan bishop, after having heard the presbyteral council, can relegate it to profane but not sordid use, with the consent of those who legitimately claim rights for themselves in the church and provided that the good of souls suffers no detriment thereby." (can. 1222, §2).

Mostly the words "desacralization", or "deconsecration" are used to designate profanation in the context of can. 1222 and the words "violation" or "desecration" are used in the context of can. 1211. In the case of the desecration of a church, a penitential rite of reparation should be performed as soon

as possible, ideally by the diocesan bishop. In the meantime, no other rite may be performed in the church. Preaching and devotional exercises should prepare the faithful for the rite of reparation (Huels 2000, p. 1427). In the case of a destruction of the building, to which can. 1212 refers, the church would lose its dedication. In the case of a major restauration in which a new altar is constructed, a new dedication or blessing of the altar is also required (Huels 2000, p. 1427).
