**8. Deconsecration Rites: Present**

Dedication rites, according to Weldon, are rooted in ritual traditions of Eucharistic celebrations, funerals, exorcism and initiation, and so too are the more recent, newly designed un-dedication rites he experienced (Weldon 2004, p. 111). Nowadays these rites focus more on the meaning of the rite for the wellbeing of the parishioners than on the proper and legitimate ritual way of deconsecrating a church building (Weldon 2004, pp. 126–27).

The Canadian scholar of liturgical studies, Lizette Larson-Miller, gives a vivid account of the merger of four Roman Catholic parishes into one new parish and the move of these parishioners into a new built cathedral: The Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland, California (Larson-Miller 2010). Although her study does not explicitly deal with church deconsecration, it does provide insight in the complexities of parish mergers and the transition to a new church, especially in this case, in which four different parishes who are merged into one all have very different backgrounds, cultures, and theological and political emphases. For instance, the renaming of the community led to fears of losing their own identity (Larson-Miller 2010, p. 219) and the hanging of a crucifix from one of the former churches in the new church, an act that had not been permitted, became a representation of the fear of loss of "their parish, their liberal and progressive Catholic standing, their carefully maintained simplicity of space, their hard work at balance between communities and their baptismally-based call to be leaders of their own worshipping community" (Larson-Miller 2010, p. 221) for some parishioners. The replacement of the baptismal font and the adding of statues, as well as a lack of communication, were all reasons for people to get upset (Larson-Miller 2010, p. 221). Lawson-Miller describes a meeting, initiated by the ordained community leaders, which was:

"( ... ) a response to the out-pouring of confusion and hurt ( ... ), and to attempt to move forward." (Larson-Miller 2010, p. 225).

In her analysis, Lawson-Miller shows that the parishioners from the four parishes, who were still struggling to become one parish, were overwhelmed and not in a position to focus on the new cathedral in the timeframe that was wished for (Larson-Miller 2010, p. 227).

Haunerland emphasizes the fact that the anthropological turn has had consequences as well for the deconsecration rite: not just the legitimate and "objective" enactment of the rite is the point of focus anymore, but more so the spiritual benefit of the faithful. This also means, according to Haunerland, with reference to *Sacrosanctum Concilium* 14 and 69, that the *participatio actuosa* of the affected parish members is a prerequisite for any deconsecration rite (Haunerland 2016, pp. 74–75). Whereas in older rites, the acting of the clergy, according to Haunerland, was the main focus, even in those rites the involvement of the parish members as the ones who also transferred images and relics from the former church to the new church was an element that was clearly mentioned (Haunerland 2011, p. 249).

Closure rites nowadays, according to Weldon, consist of the following elements: a procession to the new church with the host and other symbols such as the paschal candle, the removal of relics, the crucifix and other objects, stripping and washing of the altar, walls and ambo, remembering the

deceased, a closing blessing near the baptismal font, and the closing and sealing of the doors (Weldon 2004, pp. 128–31). According to Leonhard, the demolition of or damage to a church building has been an immense indication, throughout the centuries, for the annulment or reduction in the sacredness of a place, and therefore an important part of deconsecration rites consists of the stylized and minimalized demolition of the building. For this reason, according to Leonhard, candles and candlesticks are occasionally tilted, or in the past, a part of the altar was purposely damaged (Leonhard 2012, p. 134). Leonhard critiques the fact that such "comparatively meaningless" rites, such as tilting candlesticks or the issuing of a bishops' decree, which involve human acting, could undo the auratic sacredness, by which he means a sacredness that can be discovered ("vorgefunden") in the world, and that is not manmade. Moreover, Leonhard points to the fact that a deconsecration rite presumes that the auratic sacredness can be undone by means of demolition. He regards the stipulation in historical texts that prescribe the erection of a crucifix at the site of the demolished church as an indication for the uncertainty surrounding whether or not the deconsecration ("Entheiligung") of a place even can or should be accomplished (Leonhard 2012, pp. 127–34). According to Leonhard, any attempt to eradicate the sacredness of a space is prone to fail since what is to be eradicated is perceived in very diffuse manners by the participants, if they even believe that said sacredness can be eradicated at all (Leonhard 2012, p. 148).

Winfried Haunerland points to the fact that the current liturgical books are not helpful when it comes to the question of whether or not a liturgical celebration that ritually marks the ending of the liturgical use of a church building could or should be performed (Haunerland 2016, p. 68). The substantial difference between the grandiose festive first use of a new church and the administrative act that marks the end of the use is, in Haunerland's assessment, hardly appropriate (Haunerland 2016, pp. 68–69). With reference to such an elaborate ritual start of a church building, Haunerland concludes that its ending should also be ritualized in an appropriate form (Haunerland 2011, p. 245). Haunerland has designed, on commission of the German Bishops Conference, a "model rite" for the deconsecration of churches (Zimmerhof 2012, p. 54; Ritus Anlässlich der Profanierung Einer Kirche 2003). Since this rite is the proposed "model rite"—it is not a compulsory form (Haunerland 2011, pp. 246–47)— for Roman Catholic church deconsecration in Germany, I will discuss this rite in more detail here.

For Haunerland, the historical ritual preoccupation with the altar in deconsecration rites should not be reinstated, but, nevertheless, the memory thereof should enforce a reverent dealing with sacred places and objects today. The same applies to the reverence for statues and images, as it is expressed in some of the descriptions of the historical rites (Haunerland 2016, pp. 76–77). Another point that Haunerland furthermore stresses is the importance of the liturgy in a pastoral sense, since the process of church conversion is often a painful one. Here, the transferal of the relics and statues and images in a procession to the new church should function as the start of a new chapter in a new home (Haunerland 2016, pp. 77–78; Haunerland 2011, p. 247). As churches are usually used liturgically right up until the moment they are taken out of liturgical use, the last Mass should be celebrated just before the church is deconsecrated. Haunerland also feels it is sensible to read the profanation decree out loud, not as a means to provide information, but as a performative act in which the public proclamation of the decree actually effects the bishops' decision (Haunerland 2016, pp. 78–79). Here, it is implied that this performative act should function as a speech act (Austin 1962) and that this act has the power to create another reality, namely make the sacred space into a profane place by saying these words out loud. Due to the church functioning as the custodian of the Eucharist in the tabernacle and the sanctuary lamp functioning as a sign of its presence, Haunerland proposes that the ciborium is taken out of the tabernacle and carried out of the church and that the light is extinguished as a sign that this space will no longer be used for liturgical means. Furthermore, he suggests the consideration to celebrate the Eucharist as a way of thanksgiving or read a votive Mass for the titular saint, since the patronage ceases to exist (Haunerland 2016, pp. 79–80). Haunerland puts considerable emphasis on the future outlook, which could be expressed in a festive procession of the parish members as they transfer the

ciborium to the new church. He also puts forth the option of transferring other objects of meaning to the new church. As a concluding rite in the new church, Haunerland suggests requesting God to let the faithful find a new home there and that both communities may be successful in their communal path thereafter. A final suggestion he makes is to sing a song of praise for the statue or image of the former patron saint in the new church to show that the saint and the community have arrived in the new parish. An informal gathering in which hopes and fears are discussed should conclude it all (Haunerland 2016, pp. 80–82; Haunerland 2011, p. 245).

In the description of the rite, Haunerland discerns two parts, the first he names "The last Eucharistic celebration—the farewell rite" ("Die letzte Eucharistiefeier—der Abschiedsritus") and the second part he names "Procession and final station in the 'new' church—a rite of passage" ("Prozession und abschließende Statio in der 'neuen' Kirche—ein Übergangsritual"). This second header refers to the theory of the French ethnologist Arnold van Gennep. To Haunerland, the deconsecration rite should indeed function as a rite of passage, it should not focus too much on leaving the old church, but more so on a new phase of being church. He applies the tripartite structure of Van Gennep to the deconsecration ritual: 1. separation rite: church deconsecration, extinguishing of the sanctuary lamp, procession out of the church, 2. transition rite: procession, and 3. incorporation rite: setting up the image of the patron saint in the new church, liturgical completion, and the repositioning of the ciborium. If it is not possible to have a procession towards the new church, the ciborium should nevertheless be transferred to another church. The incorporation in the new church could take place at a later point in time by celebrating Mass there for the first time. The rite Haunerland designed aims at helping people to cope with the pain of the valediction and their sadness and enabling people to become mutually active once again (Haunerland 2011, p. 247; Haunerland 2016, pp. 81–82). The officiator of the rite should ideally be the diocesan bishop, according to Haunerland, since a bishop is the person who originally dedicated the church and since he is the one who decides whether or not a church is to be taken out of liturgical use. Only if the diocesan bishop is indisposed, another bishop, or if that is not possible, another priest, could perform the last ritual. The officiator should ideally celebrate the last liturgy with those priests who were responsible for the liturgical celebrations in that church (Haunerland 2016, pp. 82–83).

Clemens Leonhard also underscores the fact that there is a huge discrepancy between the dedication of a church and its deconsecration and therefore there is a need to undertake ritual action if a church is to be deconsecrated (Leonhard 2012, pp. 131–32). He distinguishes three categories of reasons for designing deconsecration rites nowadays: first, there is an interest for the presentation and publication of legal instruments that are regarded as the only effective means in this context, second, there is an interest for the desacralization of sacred spaces and places as well as for the removal or disposal of the sacred objects within them, and third, there is an interest in communal farewell celebrations for church buildings (Leonhard 2012, p. 126). Leonhard discerns between deconsecration rites ("Profanierungsrituale") and farewell ceremonies ("Abschiedsfeiern"). Rites that aim to dissolve the dedication (legally) or to annihilate the sacredness of a building are deconsecration rites and they differ from farewell ceremonies in the sense that deconsecration rites, in contrast to farewell ceremonies, do not do justice to the social and ecclesiastical reality (Leonhard 2012, pp. 126–27). According to Leonhard, only the last designated use of the church effects the decommissioning of the church building. The eradication of sacredness, a ritual act of demolition, the transfer of sacred objects, or the issuing of a decree do not effect this. Therefore, according to Leonhard, the superior way of any liturgical celebration in this context should be a farewell ceremony and not a liturgical staging of the deconsecration of the church. The farewell ceremony should preferably incorporate a Mass because it is to assume that the celebration of the Mass was the main reason for people using the church building and also because the use of a church starts with the celebration of the first Mass and in this sense a concluding Mass bridges the start and the end of the use (Leonhard 2012, pp. 147–48).

In his analysis of the rite designed by Haunerland, Leonhard assesses that the transfer of the host, relics, statues, etc., from the former church to the new church implies that the sacredness is also transferred or even ceases to exist when it is removed. He doubts whether these acts can annihilate the auratic sacredness and puts forth that this implies a mobile understanding of sacredness that does not take into consideration a specific part of the buildings use, namely its purpose as an assembly room for the faithful. The transferal of objects also suggests that the sacredness of the space predominantly consists of it being a container of sacred matter. The explicitly desired procession within this ritual design is also ambivalent, since a procession is not a prerequisite for deconsecrating a church and this makes Leonhard ponder whether or not the people in the procession should only be regarded as decorum for the sacred objects they transfer and that they actually play a secondary role (Leonhard 2012, pp. 140, 149). He also problematizes the bishop as being the one who celebrates the last Mass, the bishop is not a member of the assembly and performs an act that in most cases people do not wish to be performed, namely the closing of their church. The bishop thereafter leaves without suffering a loss in the same sense the parishioners do and he does not have to deal with the everyday problems of the parish (Leonhard 2012, p. 142). Furthermore, since the issuing of the decree is, according to canon law, the legitimate way to deconsecrate a church, and requires no additional liturgical staging, the participation of the bishop is not required in a farewell celebration. In this way, having the bishop act as the officiator of the last rite could lead to the erroneous assumption that this rite actually is a rite that reverses the rite of church dedication (Leonhard 2012, pp. 145–46, 148). Leonhard prefers a last celebration without any form of ritual demolition or ritual transfer of objects, he proposes a celebration that deals with feelings of thankfulness and sadness, without triumphalism (Leonhard 2012, pp. 146–47). He indicates that ritual designs that try to instill a sense of hope and that predominantly focus on the future are simply out of place and he paints the following picture:

"The procession of the faithful through the neighborhood, which is witnessed by the other residents on the sidewalk in incomprehension, is no victory parade. The church building is not given up for a new building, but abandoned for demolition or reuse. The churchgoers do not move out of the slave house towards the promised land, but give up territory that once was filled with life forever. The refill of these empty spaces with shelves and containers for the ashes of the deceased is also a powerful sign pointing in the same direction. At least the Catholic church in Germany stages the death of the national church vividly by using the church buildings that the living no longer have use for, for putting on display the mortal remains of their former members."1 (Leonhard 2012, pp. 142–43).

Leonhard refers here to the West German popular form of the reuse of churches into columbaria. As Paul Post remarks, the Roman Catholic church uses processions as ways of "occupying" the public domain and thus profiling itself (Post 2010, p. 201). If, as Leonhard states, such processions are actually incomprehensible for the bystanders that witness them, one could indeed ask if the performative message the church wants to send is in fact the opposite message senders receive.

Haunerland is aware that the deconsecration rite he proposes is no substitute for the mourning work that must be done to alleviate the hurt and anger people may feel (Haunerland 2011, pp. 247–48). Haunerland responds to the critique uttered by Albert Gerhards who states, with reference to deconsecration rites, that a church cannot lose its sacredness just by declaring that the space is a profane space from now on, that although this critique may be just, the question still remains of what one should do if church closure is inevitable. Even if one is critical of church closure, the situation still demands that one reflects on the way in which one deals with those affected (Haunerland 2011, pp. 250–52).

<sup>1</sup> "Der Zug der Gläubigen durch das Stadtviertel, den dessen übrige Bewohner vom Bürgersteig aus verständnislos betrachten, ist kein Triumphzug mehr. Das Kirchengebäude wird auch oft nicht zum Neubau, sondern zum Abriss oder zur Umwidmung aufgegeben. Das Kirchenvolk zieht nicht aus dem Sklavenhaus in Richtung des gelobten Landes aus, sondern gibt Territorium, das es früher einmal mit Leben gefüllt hat, für immer auf. Die Auffüllung solcherart freiwerdender Leerräume mit Regalen und Behältern für die Asche der Toten ist ebenfalls ein mächtiges Zeichen, das in dieselbe Richtung deutet. Zumindest inszeniert die katholische Kirche in Deutschland den Tod der Volkskirche anschaulich, indem sie in den Kirchengebäuden, die die Lebenden nicht mehr benützen, die sterblichen Überreste der ehemaligen Mitglieder zur Schau stellt." Translation: KdW.
