**9. Deconsecration Rites: Future?**

Contrary to what one may assume, the deconsecration of church buildings is not as straightforward as one would think, not even with reference to canon law as the contradictory interpretations of Huels and Schöch with reference to what may be considered "grave reasons" for church deconsecration or the position of substantial financial donors in such cases show. In addition to this, the fact that a church, even after it has been deconsecrated according to canon law, may not be used in a "sordid" way, leaves room for the interpretation that the church recognizes that said sacredness is not completely annulled by the issuing of the profanation decree, something that the historical practice of erecting a crucifix at the place where a church once stood as a remembrance, as Leonhard points out, also alludes to.

With regard to deconsecration rites it is noteworthy that a shift has taken place in the perception of reasons why such a rite should be conducted. In contrast to historical requirements that mainly focused on such acts for the purpose of the "legitimate" way of relegating the church to profane use, nowadays the wellbeing of the affected parishioners seem to be the main reason for the performance of such rites. One element that Leonhard clearly points out and that seems to be a complicating factor for the success of such rites is the fact that such a rite is, in the eyes of the church officials, not necessary for the effective deconsecration of a church building. The "staging" of the deconsecration could be considered a meaningless rite since it has no effect in the sense of canon law, it does not bring about the profane status of a church building. The mixture of the deconsecration act and rites that aim to help parishioners cope with feelings of anger and sadness creates a ritual muddle. Leonhard's proposal of not mixing these two different acts seems to be a solution in cleaning up this ritual muddle.

It can also be questioned whether or not the official Roman Catholic church should issue official ritual regulations for a deconsecration rite at all. There obviously is a ritual void and a ritual need, but the necessity for any prescribed and universally applicable form may be questioned since every case of church closure or reuse and the history of a particular church is quite individual. Whereas in one case the relegation of a church to profane use may cause a lot of pain and sorrow, in another case it may not be all too painful, and parishioners may even feel freed from a burden. Individual cases may ask for individual solutions. In the case of St. John Baptist in Altenessen (De Wildt 2019), the opponents of church closure I interviewed expressed being far too angry to attend any farewell celebration and said that they would not attend such a last ceremony as a sign of protest.

It is also noticeable that two German scholars of liturgical studies, Clemens Leonhard and Winfried Haunerland, chose the following titles, which are phrased in the form of questions, for their respective contributions on the topic, Leonhard: "Profanierungsritual oder Abschiedsfeier?": "Deconsecration Rite or Farewell Ceremony?" and Haunerland: "Abschiedsfeier oder Übergangsritual?": "Farewell Ceremony or Rite of Passage?" Both Haunerland and Leonhard seem to underscore, with the choice of these titles, the unclarity of what actually entails church deconsecration and what the status is or should be of the rites involved here. This unclarity is exemplary for the current situation regarding church closure: what does it mean to deconsecrate a church building, notwithstanding the fact that the deconsecration of a church building is a matter of canon law too, is a juridical discourse alone able to do justice to this multilayered phenomenon? Does a church building cease to be a sacred space by the issuing of a decree? Does it require an "official rite" to undo the sacredness of the church building and thus, if that is even ritually possible, transform it into a profane space? Does the design of a rite that takes the feelings of those affected into consideration suffice as a means to appease all those affected?

Moreover, the design of a rite by a ritual expert, even if it does not aim to be a rite of the sort that says one size fits all, is a top down approach that does not take into consideration the particularity of each and every specific case with its own history. If such a rite is meaningless in the sense of canon law and actually unnecessary to deconsecrate a church—if it is only performed for the good of the souls—should such a rite even be performed at all? The shift towards more subject orientation in ritual designs for church deconsecration seems incongruent with the liturgical approach in Roman Catholic rites for dedicating a church building, which are more object orientated, but this shift can also be regarded as an effort to keep in pace with the emotional needs of the faithful. However, do the faithful feel taken seriously in their emotional needs if they are aware that they are taking part in a ritual that, in the logic of the church they adhere to, is completely unnecessary and has no effect?

In conclusion, it can be said that the diverse rationales that underlie the concept of sacredness within the Roman Catholic church complicate the deconsecration of church buildings. Furthermore, the question of what constitutes a successful deconsecration should be answered first. However, whom should be asked? The church as an institution? If that is the case, one could simply refer to canon law, since a juridical act suffices. If one were to ask the faithful, more than a juridical act would probably be needed. Nevertheless, if a rite has no official status for the church as an institution that those affected adhere to, it will remain questionable if such a rite indeed can fulfil the needs of those faithful.

The simple dichotomy between sacred and profane does not reflect the more complex reality that underlies the problem church deconsecration poses. If reality is far more complex than this dichotomy presumes, then the way in which a transformation of sacred space should be managed ritually is also complex and multilayered and should be handled in an individual and differentiated manner. Making and marking a clear distinction between the act of church deconsecration and the last farewell celebration is helpful in the sense that it clears up the current ritual muddle. The intra-ecclesiastical conviction that an act of deconsecration is required could be met by the issuing of a decree. This should then be differentiated from the farewell ceremony, which should be explicitly understood as a ritual that does not bring about the unmaking of sacred space in the sense of canon law, but can be helpful in tending to pastoral needs. These pastoral needs can be very diverse, a need to deal ritually with anger and hurt, a need to ritually mark the end of the liturgical use, a need to ritually frame a new beginning, and even a mixture of all these and other elements. Therefore, a bottom-up approach of ritual design of those affected would be the obvious answer. A ritual design that, already in the preparation phase, considers the needs of those affected and tries to frame this ritually. Church closure is a process that cannot be effected at a certain point in time. In analogy: when does one actually let go of a deceased loved one? When that person actually dies? During the farewell service? In the grieving process afterwards? Or perhaps one is not able to ever really say goodbye.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the GERMAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION, grant number 387623040, research unit FOR 2733: "Transformation of Sacred Space: Function and Use of Religious Places in Germany".

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
