**1. Introduction**

Against the background of a decline in number of people who partake in regular liturgical celebrations, as well as a decline in church finances, the question of what to do with the surplus of church buildings has become a pressing matter for several decades in western Europe (De Wildt and Plum 2019). The Dutch ritual studies scholar Paul Post speaks in this context of the fact that church buildings are becoming more and more of "a problem" and that there is a shift of interest from redesigning church interiors to the current problems of church vacancy and reuse (Post 2010, pp. 41–44). Post regards cases of:

"( ... ) redundancy, demolition, and disappearance of church buildings as the ultimate sign of disappearing ritual and, immediately in its wake, the sign of disappearing religion as well." (Post 2019, p. 46)

These "disappearing" church buildings do, however, in most cases not disappear without some sort of last ritual, before indeed leaving a ritual void.

In this contribution, I will focus on the deconsecration of Roman Catholic church buildings in the context of canon law (CIC/1983), with reference to the making and unmaking of sacred space, before I focus on contemporary deconsecration rites. When a Roman Catholic church is taken out of liturgical use, whether or not it is to be reused, or in fewer cases, demolished, usually the church building is desacralized by a formal act of deconsecration or profanation. This specific aspect of "changing" the status of a sacred space into that of a profane or secular space can be read against the background of the recent transformations of sacred space that take place in western Europe (De Wildt et al. 2019).

The topic of church conversion or church reuse has been given much attention in recent decades (see for instance the extensive bibliography on the topic of church conversions of the Swiss Religious Heritage Day–Schweizer Kirchenbautag of the University of Bern: Literatur zu Kirchenumnutzungen n.d.). The literature on church reuse, however, focuses predominantly on the many best practice examples of and on how such reuse processes can be managed from the perspectives of architecture, monument conservation and real estate management. The theme of church deconsecration in literature, although sometimes implicitly mentioned, seems either overlooked, assumed clear or perhaps it is not addressed at all because it is regarded outdated. In this day and age, in which there seems to be a growing awareness that the simple dichotomy sacred—profane is not an apt representation of the far more intricate reality of sacred space, it may seem as if a discussion on church deconsecration in the sense of canon law is superfluous because it represents a worldview most of us have said farewell to. In my contacts with people in the field, however, predominantly in West Germany, who are confronted with the prospect of their church being reused and who are responsible for the process of taking a church out of liturgical use, many of the questions they ask are about deconsecration. In these conversations, a need to know how to actually deconsecrate a church, in the sense of canon law, is still expressed. From these conversations, I learned that there is a lack of knowledge on what church deconsecration in the Roman Catholic church actually entails. Some of the people in the field, often even experts, I spoke with, assumed for instance that deconsecration is the act of transferring the host from the tabernacle to a new church, whereas others were under the assumption that the last celebration of Mass effects the actual deconsecration of the church. Most of them wished for a clear-cut answer, they especially expressed a desire to know the church's institutional stance concerning church deconsecration with regard to canon law. Therefore, in this contribution, outdated as its subject may seem at first glance, I will address this topic in a manner that will highlight the complexities of church deconsecration. These complexities can partly be attributed to the shift in our understanding of what deconsecration rites are and what they are meant to accomplish. As I will show later on, there has been a shift in these rites from a perspective that focused on the "legitimate" way of deconsecrating a church to a perspective that concerns itself with the design of such rites for the wellbeing of the parishioners who are departing their church. These two aims have gotten mixed up, thus creating a ritual muddle in which it does not seem clear anymore what the actual function and status of such rites are, is it a way to undo the sacredness of a church building, or is it a ceremony that enables parishioners to cope with their feelings of loss and hurt? In most cases these two aims have gotten mixed up in one ritual, and therefore the ritual has become meaningless in the sense of canon law, since it is not a requirement for deconsecrating a church, and in a pastoral-liturgical sense as well because the focus on deconsecrating instead of focusing on dealing with the feelings of loss and transitioning makes it unclear what it is that is actually being ritualized here.

During my research on this topic, it soon became clear that there is no extensive literature on this topic, especially in contrast to the amount of literature there is on church reuse. There are some English-speaking contributions of canon lawyers, which I will present here, but the most extensive literature on this topic is in the German language. Here, the two German scholars of liturgical studies, Clemens Leonhard and Winfried Haunerland, proved to be the two main scholars that take on the problem of church deconsecration and deconsecration rites, not only from a historical perspective, but also from the perspective of the contemporary debates on church reuse. From my analysis of the English-speaking and German-speaking literature, I came to the conclusion that there are significant contradictions in the interpretation of the canon law articles that deal with church deconsecration. Moreover, the assessment of the German-speaking contributions showed that church deconsecration in the sense of canon law needs to be differentiated from deconsecration rites, rites that in fact have no part in bringing about the deconsecration of a church in the sense of canon law.

Canon law only recognizes three instances in which a church building is returned to a profane status: by its actual demolition, by the ongoing profane use of the building and by the disclosure of the deconsecration decree issued by the diocesan bishop (Haunerland 2016, p. 68).

There is, however, no official approved Roman Catholic rite for parish closure (Weldon 2004, p. xx). No formal rite is required for the deconsecration of a church building and there are no official deconsecration rites in the liturgical books issued by the Vatican, the issuing of a profanation decree by the responsible diocesan bishop suffices (Haunerland 2016, p. 68; Zimmerhof 2012, pp. 10, 19, 47–48; Leonhard 2012, p. 131). Still, there is a rise in the design of rituals for church buildings that are to be taken out of liturgical use. This ritual need is relatively new despite the fact that the closure of churches is not a new phenomenon (Simons 1998, p. 96).
