|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Diocese of Steubenville, under the apostolic administration of Bishop Lohse of Kalamazoo, has published a report detailing the state of the diocese. This report comes over two years after the initial news broke of a potential merger between the Dioceses of Columbus and Steubenville. Bishop Lohse succeeded Bishop Bradley as Steubenville’s Apostolic Administrator upon Bradley’s removal. Steubenville locals speculate that Bradley’s removal was partly due to his openness to the Steubenville Diocese proceeding without a merger. Nearly nine months have passed since Bishop Lohse’s appointment, and the contents of the report do little to dispel that notion.
This report outlines many challenges facing the Diocese of Steubenville. The challenges are real, and they need to be addressed sooner rather than later. However, the contents of the report sound detached rather than objective, listing truisms that could apply to nearly any diocese but presenting them as if they apply almost exclusively to Steubenville. Lohse’s report is concerning not simply because of Southeast Ohio’s population decline—that’s far from breaking news—but because of the precedent the report may set should a merger take place based on its conclusions.
The report cites decreased general and Catholic population, financial issues, and other challenges as reasons why the Steubenville Diocese would eventually need a merger. The conclusion says, “If indications point to the likelihood that there is no long-term viability, then is it better to merge now while the diocese is still viable, or to do so only after the diocese is no longer viable?” According to this standard, Catholicism, or at least control of one’s own diocese, would eventually be reserved for wealthy metropolitan areas, as they are automatically the most “viable.” A church not of the poor but of financially secure city slickers. How uninspiring.
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
Using the standard laid out in the report to justify a merger of Steubenville and Columbus could justify a merger of every Ohio diocese. Ohio has an aging population, a declining birth rate, and a lack of priestly vocations. Ohio’s population is expected to decline over the long term, economic uncertainty persists, and so does the decline in religious affiliation. Is that to suggest that every diocese should merge while they remain viable? Of course not. These challenges are not exclusive to Steubenville. These challenges are not even exclusive to Ohio.
Eighteen years have passed since Cardinal Arinze and Bishop Conlon blessed the cornerstone of Steubenville’s new cathedral. In that time, Holy Name Cathedral deteriorated past the point of repair, and the only problem that has been exclusive to the Diocese of Steubenville is an astonishing lack of leadership. Steubenville has been without a bishop since September 2023. In the overview, Bishop Lohse asks: “When does a diocese simply become too small?” My response to that question is, “How much and for how long can one expect a diocese to endure without leadership?”
Aside from that, the Diocese of Steubenville is geographically larger than those of Cleveland, Youngstown, and even nearby Pittsburgh. If Columbus took Steubenville back, as Steubenville did break off from Columbus 80 years ago, it would make Columbus-Steubenville more than double the size of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Do we expect Ohio’s population to boom thereafter? A sudden influx of new Catholics? Priestly vocations to increase? More donations to materialize? Will the Columbus-Steubenville Diocese be more manageable now than in 1942? If the answer to any of these is in the affirmative, that is a report that I would be happy to read.
When Steubenville last had a bishop, the diocese endured a financial scandal that violated the trust of many Catholics and likely scared some would-be Catholics away. There was an international pandemic that left Catholics worldwide feeling abandoned; and after the pandemic, some of them never returned. Despite this, Steubenville remains what it always has been: a vibrant and unique Appalachian diocese, sparsely populated, temporally poor, and spiritually rich—the periphery that Pope Francis has preached about throughout his entire pontificate. When Steubenville last had a bishop, the diocese endured a financial scandal that violated the trust of many Catholics and likely scared some would-be Catholics away.Tweet This
To merge for the reasons outlined in the report would be to destroy a diocese based on population trends. Relying on these projections, serious as they are, makes us sound more like fickle day traders than hopeful missionary disciples—more “Sell Dio-Steub before it goes to zero” and “Close on this merger while there’s still time” and less of an attitude motivated to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
By my count, the report lists eighteen bullet points summarizing the Diocese of Steubenville’s needs regardless of a merger. Bishop Lohse and his consultors might have noticed that the list sorely needed one point: a bishop. Without bold leadership (or any leadership) to give direction, vision, and encouragement to the Steubenville faithful, can one expect anything but a steady decline? Mass time reductions, parish consolidations, evangelization campaigns, development efforts; these are serious decisions that require deep pastoral sensitivity. They are also the exact responsibility of a bishop. Tend the flock, feed the lambs.
Many of these issues could be addressed, some even solved, by the appointment of a dynamic bishop dedicated to and invested in doing the bittersweet work of a Fisher of Men as bishop of Steubenville. Is that to say a new bishop will solve all of Steubenville’s problems? No. Will a great bishop (which Fernandes is) already charged with tending the flock in Columbus solve Steubenville’s problems instead? Also no.
The defeatist outlook that the report presents reminds me of someone else who, while called to leadership, thought there was little use in persisting as he was. Simon Peter once said “Master, we’ve toiled all night and caught nothing.” Thankfully, he had the perseverance in faith to let down the nets at Christ’s word. Whatever the course, may God’s will be done. Let us pray for Church leadership at every level. In all things, may God be glorified.
I am sympathetic to the plight the author articulates, but I confess to being less sympathetic now than I would have been 6 years ago, when I started to realize that the clericalism inherent in the system was part of the problem. Good Catholics are trained in apologetics and will remind us that “we are a hierarchal church”, but that is often as excuse for lay people to bitch about poor leadership and do nothing.
You want a vibrant, growing diocese that lives and preaches the Gospel? You won’t get it from the bishops or even from the priests. Stop waiting for them to tell you what to do as if you don’t already know.
You don’t need a local bishop to live a holy Catholic life.
Rolex Reverends often make bad choices.
I hear there is a Bishop, by the name of Strickland, I believe, who is currently without a job. But then, appointing him to Steubenville would make way too much sense for our 21st century Church to countenance. 🙄
Little if anything really improves when a rural parish falls under the regime of an urban Bishop. Priests assigned to rural parishes that are often considered to be Siberia.