The restructuring of the Diocese of Scranton has been quickly moving forward, with a number of churches already closed and many more to close in the weeks and months ahead. As parish after parish is suppressed, new consolidated parishes are being created. One of the primary tasks of the teams responsible for implementing the changes in parish structures is to propose several names for the new parish from which Bishop Martino will ultimately decide. While I haven’t seen all of these lists, I’ve noticed an interesting trend among those I have seen. The proposals seem generic at best. And they represent a departure from the traditional nomenclature for parish churches in this diocese. Don’t expect to see a new parish under the patronage of the Sacred Heart (many parishes barely even noticed this solemnity earlier this month – even though most churches have a statue or even an altar under this title). Don’t expect to see many parishes named after a saint, either, perhaps with the exception of St. Katherine Drexel. No, in the profoundly renewed Diocese of Scranton, we will see parishes with names like “Divine Mercy,” “Resurrection,” “All Saints,” “Holy Family,” and “Happy Family.” Just kidding about the last one, by the way.
While there is nothing wrong with naming a church after a mystery of the faith or a title of Christ, it seems to me that the new names represent yet another unnecessary break with the past. With so many changes looming in the Diocese, is it too much to ask for traditional Catholic names for these new parishes? When a parish is given a generic title such as “Precious Savior,” the parishioners will miss out on developing a devotion to a particular saint, or to a specific title for Christ or Mary. The parish will miss out on celebrating its patronal feast, a solemn day in honor of its namesake and intercessor in heaven.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the prospect of disastrous “renovations” at these new parishes, undoubtedly fueled by lingering misconceptions about church art and architecture in the contemporary church. It’s hard to find a parish in the Diocese of Scranton that was spared from the destructive renovation projects of the 1970’s and 80’s. High altars were destroyed and a “presidential chair” planted in their place. A waterfall and baptismal pool often took the place of side altars. Statues and devotional shrines were removed, except for a token statue of St. Mary and St. Joseph. Of course, none of these steps were called for by the Second Vatican Council, whose constitutions and documents never even required that “people’s altars” be constructed or that Mass must be said facing the people.
What does this have to do with our current situation in the Diocese of Scranton? The creation of new, consolidated parishes will undoubtedly bring about another round of renovations. Such projects can alter a church positively or negatively. According to an implementation report from one local community, their parish church will undergo extensive renovations in the near future that will provide “…the contemporary environment necessary for modern worship.” Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but that statement is quite unsettling. What environmental changes are necessary for “modern worship” as opposed to worship according to Catholic liturgical tradition? If parishes want to truly update their sanctuaries, they will need to ensure that they can facilitate both the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Mass. Furthermore, historic high altars should under no circumstances be removed, nor should statues or devotional shrines. Wherever renovations happen, they need to be done tastefully and in accord with Catholic tradition.
