This month's Think PIece is written by Sarah David, ('26), who graduated this spring from the University of Notre Dame with a BBA in Finance, a BA in Political Science, and a minor in Real Estate. She is pursuing a career in National Security and Policy in Washington, D.C., following graduation. 

 

Across the United States and Europe, Catholic dioceses are experiencing a growing crisis concerning the underutilization and lack of sustainability of church property. Declining Mass attendance, demographic shifts, priest shortages, and rising maintenance costs have forced bishops to consolidate parishes, close churches, and sell ecclesiastical buildings at an accelerating pace.¹ Yet this framing obscures the deeper significance of the problem. The question of how the Church manages its real estate is not merely logistical or financial; it is fundamentally theological, requiring a clear account of what church property is and its uses.

This contemporary crisis reflects a structural asymmetry between the Church’s inherited material footprint and its modern pastoral realities. The Holy See has acknowledged that demographic decline and reduced participation have drastically reduced the support for churches in many regions, particularly in the West.² Unfortunately, historical evidence suggests that this condition is not new; as early as the late twentieth century, dioceses such as Philadelphia were forced to undertake large-scale parish restructuring in response to changing population patterns and financial constraints.³ While such restructuring may be necessary, it raises a more fundamental question: what principles should guide decisions about ecclesiastical property when its original function is no longer sustainable?

The varying intensity of parishioner resistance to church or parish closures reveals the inadequacy of purely administrative answers. Churches function not only as sites of worship but also as centers of communal identity, memory, and social life.⁴ As Susan Reynolds demonstrates, parish communities often experience closure as a form of social and spiritual dislocation, particularly among immigrant and marginalized populations for whom the parish serves as a primary locus of belonging and community.⁵ Responses like these reflect a genuine insight into the role of sacred space within the life of the Church. At the same time, however, they risk obscuring a crucial theological distinction: the importance of church property is not intrinsic but derivative. It does not possess value in itself but only to the extent that it participates in and serves the Church’s mission.

Catholic teachings consistently affirm this principle by basing the meaning of property in its orientation toward the common good. The Catechism teaches that “the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race,” establishing that all ownership is fundamentally a form of stewardship–the responsible care, management, and use of a good that does not belong to you but has been entrusted to you for a higher purpose.⁶ This principle reflects a broader theological claim: creation itself is given as a gift, ordered toward shared participation rather than exclusive possession.⁷ The Second Vatican Council further develops this insight, insisting that economic and material goods must serve “the whole man,” including his spiritual and communal needs.⁸ Therefore, property, as is understood by the underlying logic of this framework, is never self-justifying. It is always evaluated in relation to the ends it serves.

Particularly, this logic strongly applies to ecclesiastical property. Canon law defines its purpose in explicitly teleological terms: church goods exist for the sake of “divine worship, the support of the clergy, and works of the apostolate and charity."⁹ Thus, their legitimacy derives not from their existence as sacred objects but from their role within the life of the Church. Philosophical accounts of property reinforce this conclusion. For example, Maritain argues that material goods are ordered toward the flourishing of the individual and must be used in accordance with the common good rather than personal accumulation.¹⁰ Similarly, Mounier emphasizes that property is not just a legal structure but also a moral reality that reflects the proper ordering of human relationships to material goods.¹¹ Accordingly, these accounts converge on the central claim that property is a means, not an end.

When applied to Church real estate, this principle yields a clear implication; the value of a church building lies in its capacity to serve the Church’s mission. However, when this capacity substantially diminishes or disappears, the justification for preserving the building in its current form becomes exceedingly weak. The transcendence of God reduces the identification of divine presence with physical structures, while the sacramental nature of Christianity affirms the importance of material mediation. Sacred space matters, but it matters more so as an instrument for worship and mission rather than an absolute.

The contemporary crisis of church property reveals what happens when this principle is inconsistently applied. In practice, dioceses tend to oscillate between the two inadequate responses of preservation or liquidation. This results in said buildings being either maintained beyond their functional viability due to emotional or historical attachment or being sold and converted for private residential or commercial uses.¹² As such, both approaches reflect distortions of the Church’s broader teaching. The first (preservation) risks absolutizing material form and treating church buildings as intrinsically sacred. The second (liquidation) reduces sacred space to a financial commodity, severing what was supposed to be a connection to ecclesial mission. To offset such distortions, The Vatican has explicitly warned against this latter tendency, encouraging new uses that preserve cultural, social, and charitable functions rather than purely commercial redevelopment.¹³ Yet, the persistence of these approaches indicates the absence of a realistically applicable alternative.

A more adequate response requires the development of a systematic strategy of adaptive reuse that is grounded in Catholic teachings, both social and canonical alike. Adaptive reuse should not be understood only as a pragmatic solution but as a normative model of stewardship. It should recognize that church property must remain ordered towards mission while simultaneously allowing that mission to evolve, so long as it remains aligned with Catholic teachings. In this regard, The Congregation for the Clergy explicitly calls for “pastoral conversion,” which encourages the Church to adopt new structures and forms that better correspond to contemporary social realities.¹⁴ Adaptive reuse attempts to operationalize this call by transforming underutilized properties into spaces that continue to serve ecclesial and social purposes alike.

In order to effectively function, adaptive reuse must be implemented through a structured and principled framework. The first stage can be viewed as diagnostic in the sense that dioceses would evaluate their property portfolios according to a set of criteria that reflect both theological and practical concerns like liturgical viability, community significance, financial sustainability, and mission potential. Under this framework, liturgical viability concerns whether a building continues to support an active worshiping community. Community significance evaluates its role within the social and cultural life of its neighborhood. Financial sustainability assesses the relationship between maintenance costs and available resources, and mission potential examines the extent to which the property could be repurposed to serve the Church’s larger apostolic and charitable goals. This would ensure that decisions are guided by proper ends of ecclesiastical property rather than by financial sustainability alone.

The second stage of this framework is strategic classification. Based on the aforementioned criteria, properties can then be categorized as active, transitional, or surplus according to the extent of their purposeful service. Active properties would be those who continue to function effectively as centers of parish life. Transitional properties would require restructuring, including but not limited to consolidation or shared use, and surplus properties would be those that no longer serve their original function and must be repurposed. This classification system would allow dioceses to transition beyond reactive decision-making to a more proactive, mission-oriented approach in terms of property management.

The third stage of this structuring process is implementation through adaptive reuse. With respect to surplus properties, dioceses should prioritize redevelopment projects that align with the Church’s mission. In this light, affordable housing is one of the most compelling options for the implementation of this strategy, and faith-based organizations control significant amounts of land–much of which remains underutilized despite growing housing shortages.¹⁵  Additionally, policy research indicates that the vast majority of these properties have the potential to generate substantial numbers of housing units, especially when supported by zoning reform and development (tax) incentives.¹⁶ Such projects would capitalize on the opportunity to serve the common good while remaining consistent with Catholic Social Teaching (CST), seeing as both the integrity of the former church property is upheld and is now serving a charitable cause.

At the same time, the most theologically coherent approach is a form of hybrid development, not full conversion. This hybrid development incorporates mixed-use models that integrate residential units, community services, and liturgical space allowing church property to retain its symbolic and functional connection to sacred space. These developments might include chapels, community centers, or parish offices alongside housing or social services. Additionally, such models can reflect the Church’s sacramental understanding of space as both dynamic and relational. They also align with Pope Francis’s emphasis on how cultural and ecclesiastical goods can serve as instruments of evangelization that continue to mediate spiritual meaning in changing contexts.¹⁷

The feasibility of this approach is supported by both historical and contemporary evidence. The restructuring of parishes in Philadelphia demonstrates that large-scale institutional change is possible, albeit usually contentious.¹⁸ At the same time, these cases reveal the importance of community engagement. Top-down closures without consultation generate resistance and undermine trust within the larger congregation and community, whereas participatory approaches foster greater acceptance and long-term stability.¹⁹ Similarly, the decree uniting St. Thaddeus Parish with St. Margaret of Scotland Parish in Chicago illustrates how declining attendance, financial constraints, and demographic shifts can render existing parish structures unsustainable, perpetuating the need for consolidation and reconfiguration.²⁰ These examples underscore the necessity for strategic planning that integrates theological principles with pastoral realities.

A final component of an effective adaptive reuse strategy concerns the institutional and procedural mechanisms through which redevelopment is carried out. The challenge is not simply identifying surplus properties or proposing alternative uses, but ensuring that decisions are made in a manner consistent with both ecclesial authority and the participatory nature of parish life. Historical cases of parish restructuring demonstrate that processes perceived as overly centralized or opaque often generate significant resistance, even when the underlying decisions are pastorally and canonically justified.²¹ On the contrary, models that incorporate structured consultation with parish councils, local stakeholders, and diocesan planning councils tend to produce more stable and enduring outcomes.²² This suggests that adaptive reuse must be understood not only as a technical or economic process but as an ecclesial one, requiring forms of discernment that reflect the communal character of the Church.

However, procedural inclusion must be balanced with the need for coherent strategic planning at the diocesan level. Centralized authority has historically enabled the Church to redistribute resources and respond effectively to large-scale structural challenges, even if it risks alienating local communities.²³ An effective model must therefore balance these two dimensions, combining diocesan oversight with meaningful local participation. In practical terms, this could take the form of diocesan-led planning frameworks that establish clear criteria for property evaluation while mandating consultative processes prior to final decisions. Such an approach would enhance legitimacy, reduce conflict, and increase the likelihood that redevelopment projects succeed both pastorally and materially.

A further consideration concerns the long-term governance and accountability of redeveloped properties. Adaptive reuse is not a one-time intervention. It must be embedded within ongoing oversight structures that ensure alignment with ecclesial missions. Without clearly structured guidelines for use, there is a risk that properties initially repurposed for charitable or community use may gradually drift toward purely commercial functions, particularly in high-value urban markets.²⁴ To mitigate this risk, dioceses should incorporate mission-based covenants, long-term lease agreements, or partnership structures that legally bind future uses to specified social and ecclesial purposes.²⁵ Such mechanisms are already successfully employed in various forms of nonprofit and public-interest development, and their adaptation to ecclesiastical property would provide a concrete means of preserving the theological integrity of adaptive reuse over time.²⁶ This would allow the Church to ensure that its material resources remain ordered toward the common good not only at the moment of redevelopment but across the full lifespan of the property.

Another justification for adaptive reuse emerges when the Church’s teaching on property is considered in its full theological depth. CST does not merely regulate the use of goods; it defines the meaning of ownership itself. As the Catechism, along with St. Thomas Aquinas, makes clear, the right to private property is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods, such that ownership is justified only insofar as it serves the common good.²⁷ This principle is not a secondary ethical constraint but a constitutive feature of Christian anthropology, grounded in the belief that material creation is ordered towards shared participation rather than individual control.²⁸ Maritain extends this claim by arguing that the use of property must remain “common” in its effects, even when privately held, such that its benefits are directed towards the flourishing of others.²⁹ Similarly, Mounier insists that property must be understood not as a static possession but as a dynamic responsibility, requiring continual reevaluation of how goods are used in light of changing social conditions.³⁰

When applied to ecclesiastical property, this framework strengthens the case for adaptive reuse in a decisive way. If ownership is justified only by its orientation toward the common good, then maintaining underutilized church buildings–or transferring them for profit-driven uses–represents a failure to fulfill that obligation. In contrast, adaptive reuse directly embodies the Church’s teachings by reordering material goods towards modern needs, particularly in areas such as housing, social services, and community development. Thus, adaptive reuse is not simply permissible but normatively and intuitively required by CST itself; it represents a concrete occurrence of what the Second Vatican Council defines as the subordination of economic and material structure to the “service of man,” understood in his full spiritual and social reality.³¹

Several objections to adaptive reuse must be addressed. The first concerns desacralization. Critics may argue that repurposing church buildings undermines their sacred character. However, this objection rests on a misunderstanding of sacred space. Catholic theology locates sacredness not in the material structure itself but in its relation to divine worship and ecclesial life. The Vatican guidelines explicitly state that new uses should be preferred when they continue to serve cultural, social, or charitable purposes.³² Adaptive reuse therefore represents a continuation, not a negation, of sacred meaning. The second objection concerns financial feasibility. Adaptive reuse projects can be complex and costly. However, this objection assumes that financial efficiency should be the primary criterion of decision-making. CST explicitly rejects this view, insisting that economic activity must serve human dignity and the common good.³³ Moreover, policy research demonstrates that redevelopment can be financially viable when supported by appropriate regulatory frameworks and partnerships.³⁴ The final objection concerns ecclesial identity. Some may argue that mixed-use developments blur the distinction between sacred and secular space. Yet this concern overlooks the incarnational nature of Christianity, which affirms the integration of spiritual and material realities. The Church has always adapted its institutional forms to meet changing pastoral needs. The call to pastoral conversion explicitly encourages such adaptation.³⁵ Adaptive reuse should therefore be understood not as a departure from tradition but as an extension of it.

Ultimately, the crisis of church real estate reveals a deeper theological question about the relationship between material resources and ecclesial mission. The transcendence of God ensures that no building can contain divine presence, yet the Incarnation affirms that material space remains essential for human participation in divine life. Holding these truths together requires a model of stewardship that neither abandons nor absolutizes church property. A systematic strategy of adaptive reuse provides such a model. By reorienting underutilized buildings toward worship, charity, and the common good, it preserves the theological meaning of sacred space while responding effectively to contemporary realities.

1 Pontifical Council for Culture, Decommissioning and Ecclesial Reuse of Churches: Guidelines (Vatican City, 2018), 2–3. 2 Pontifical Council for Culture, 2-3. 3 Thomas Rzeznik, “The Church in the Changing City: Parochial Restructuring in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in Historical Perspective,” U.S. Catholic Historian 27, no. 4 (2009): 73-75. ⁴ Susan Reynolds, People Get Ready: Ritual, Solidarity, and Lived Ecclesiology in Catholic Roxbury (New York: Fordham University Press, 2023), 188. 5 Reynolds, 188-190. 6 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §2402. 7 Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§2403-2404; Genesis 1:26-29. 8 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) (Vatican City, 1965), §64. 9 Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition, New English Translation (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1998), c. 1254 §2. 10 Jacques Maritain, “Personality, Property, and Communism,” University of Toronto Quarterly 3, no. 2 (1934): 168. 11 Emmanuel Mounier, "De la propriété capitaliste à la propriété humaine," Esprit 2, no. 19 (1934): 3–5. 12 Rzeznik, 75-76. 13 Pontifical Council for culture, 2-3. 14 Congregation for the Clergy, Instruction: The Pastoral Conversion of the Parish Community in the Service of the Evangelising Mission of the Church (Vatican City, 2020), §§1–3. 15 Vicki Been, Helen Ketema, and Matthew Murphy, Building Homes on Faith-Based Owned Land: State-Led Approaches to Increasing Housing Supply (New York: NYU Furman Center, 2025), 2–3. 16 Been, Ketema, and Murphy, 2-3. 17 Pope Francis, “Message on the Decommissioning of Places of Worship and Ecclesiastical Cultural Goods” (Vatican City, 2018), 274-275. 18 Rzeznik, 73-76. 19 Rzeznik, 74-75. 20 Archdiocese of Chicago, “Decree of Extinctive Union of St. Thaddeus Parish with St. Margaret of Scotland Parish,” 2016, 1–3. 21 Rzeznik, 74-75. ²² Ibid., 75. 23 Rzeznik, 74-76. 24 Congregation for the Clergy, “Letter and Procedural Guidelines for the Modification of Parishes and the Closure, Relegation and Alienation of Churches,” The Jurist 73, no. 1 (2013): 211–215. ²⁵ Rzeznik, 74-75. 26 Ibid., 75. 27 Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. II–II, q. 66, arts. 1–2., 620-621; Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§2403–2404. 28 Genesis 1:26-29. 29 Maritain, 168-170. 30 Mounier, 4-6. 31 Gaudium et Spes, §§64. 32 Pontifical Council for Culture, 2-3. 33 Gaudium et Spes, §§64–65. 34 Been, Ketema, and Murphy, 5-6. 35 Congregation for the Clergy, Instruction: The Pastoral Conversion of the Parish Community in the Service of the Evangelising Mission of the Church, §§3–5.