**6. The Deconsecration of Sacred Space: Procedures and Reality**

In Canon 1212, it is stipulated that the diocesan bishop is the one who has the authority to decide whether a building intended for liturgy may be used in other ways (Weldon 2004, p. 55). Only the diocesan bishop has the authority to decide if a church is relegated to profane use, even if the church building is owned by a juridic person other than the parish or diocese (Huels 2000, p. 1432). Other "grave causes", as addressed in can. 1222 §2, allow for the bishop to relegate a church to profane use, but still some requirements should be met, information needs to be gathered in order to determine the reason for the relegation, the bishop has to consult the presbyteral council, he needs to get the consent of those who have legitimate claims to the church (see also can. 50) such as other owners of the church property, also the founders and their heirs (in a field study I conducted a group of churchgoers who objected the sale and demolition of their church wanted to make use of the argument that the founding deed of the church stipulated that its founder had his eternal resting place there (De Wildt 2019, p. 55)) (Schöch 2007, pp. 497–500). Whereas Schöch also includes financial donors who made substantial donations for the church building in the category of those who may have legitimate claims (Schöch 2007, p. 498), Huels specifically excludes this category (Huels 2000, p. 1433). Furthermore, the bishop has to determine that the good of the souls is not harmed by this act. Finally, in accordance with local and cultural circumstances the new use may not be sordid (Huels 2000, pp. 1432–1433; Schöch 2007, pp. 497–500). The meaning of the "good of the souls" and the non-"sordid use" are held vague, according to Schüller. The argument that the good of the souls could be harmed—one might argue this, if there is for instance a massive protest on the side of the parish members against church closure—is counteracted if the bishop is able to explain that the affected faithful still can depend on pastoral care after the church is closed. Any appeal against the decision of the bishop hardly stands a chance, according to Schüller (Schüller 2012, pp. 273–74).

The term "sordid" refers to such uses that are contrary to Christian morality (Schöch 2007, p. 486). The procedural guidelines state that:

"Under no circumstances can the edifice be alienated for use inconsistent with its inherent dignity as a former church. Contractual agreements are to be put in place to safeguard this point in civil law as well as canonically." (Cardinal Piacenza and Iruzubieta 2013, p. 218).

A problem may, however, arise if the church is resold again to a second owner and there is no way of safeguarding that the church will not be used in a "sordid" manner. Moreover, what actually constitutes a "sordid use" is nowhere explicated and this poses a problem for the stakeholders who do not only have to determine what forms of reuse are possible from the perspective of architecture, from a financial point of view and from the point of view of monument preservation, but who also have to take into consideration that such a use may not be "sordid". The German Bishops Conference issued a document in 2003 on church reuse in which it offers guidelines and a whole spectrum of possible forms of reuse ranging from a small transformation in which the church remains the owner of the building and few adjustments are made to the sale, or partial demolition, or ultimately complete demolition of the building. In this document the preference is formulated that a church is preferably sold to a public authority for public and cultural uses rather than to a commercial partner, although the document explicitly states that a commercial use may not be ruled out as an option. The document states further that the dignity of the space limits secular uses ("Die Würde des Raumes setzt der profanen Nutzung Grenzen."), but it is stipulated nowhere what these actual limits are (Umnutzung

von Kirchen 2003, pp. 16–22). Although this document does not provide clarity as to what forms of use may be considered sordid, it provides some insight in a form of use that is prohibited: the liturgical use of a former church by non-Christian religious communities. The document names as examples Buddhism, Islam and sects (Umnutzung von Kirchen 2003, pp. 18–22). The Vatican guidelines also mention the term "sordid" and here it is referred to as:

"planning for an improper use ("sordid" cf. canon 1222) of a church after its reduction to profane status" (Guidelines 2019, p. 277).

I have described the way in which churches are deconsecrated in the sense of canon law, but when we focus on the actual practice of church deconsecration, it seems that the situation is even less straightforward. The German scholar of liturgical studies Albert Gerhards shows that in specific cases churches may very well be deconsecrated in the sense of canon law, such as has been the case with the church St. Nikolaus in Aachen, but that after deconsecration, Mass is still regularly celebrated in the choir of the church. The same applies to the "Grabeskirche" St. Josef, a church that is situated in Aachen as well, where Mass is still celebrated regularly in the choir after it has been deconsecrated. An opposite example is the church building "Kreuzung an St. Helena" in Bonn, a church that has been repurposed as a cultural meeting center, but that has never been deconsecrated (Gerhards 2020).
