Is Church-Hopping a Real Problem?

A recent Substack post, “The parish you hate might need you,” went viral for suggesting that “church-hopping is killing our parishes.” The author, Patrick Neve, believes that Catholic church hoppers harm the common good of their parish, that a parishioner faced with a parish church he, for whatever reason, “hates” should consider sticking it out and weathering the storm of a bad pastor. Parishioners, Neve argues, have the power to affect their churches. 

Neve provoked a huge number of reactions—the great majority of which were negative: “I would rather let those parishes die than let the faith of my children die”; “If they really needed me, they would have actually attempted to dialogue on music and authentic liturgy”; “Everything you do or spend to build up your local parish can be destroyed overnight.” 

Neve’s critics are aided by the fact that priests are failing to meet the normative obligations set upon them as pastors. The priest shortage in the United States means that parishes are closing or merging, that pastors are split between many parishes. Where Neve calls for stability and the construction of communities over decades, parishioners have no guarantee that their parish church will exist in a decade. 

All of which raises a perennial question: What obligations does a layman have toward his parish? And are parishioners obligated to go to their parish church on Sundays?

Debates over these questions are often worsened by a widespread misunderstanding over what parishes actually are. They are not the nearest church alone but rather “a certain community of the Christian faithful.” A parish must have, according to the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law, a particular church, but its substance is the people. Catholics living within the boundary of a territorial parish—whether or not they know it, whether or not they’ve registered there—are members of that parish. The only way to opt out of a specific parish is to move. Some do not live within a territorial parish, while others are members of non-territorial parishes, which are “to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.” But the territorial parish and membership in it are by far the most common situation for American Catholics.

A second misunderstanding of the parish is its orientation. Bishops establish parishes for the good of the laity. Historically, the parish has developed as a series of obligations placed upon priests. As such, the canons regarding the care of parishes set out norms for how often a parish’s pastor celebrates Mass, when he preaches, where he lives (preferably within the parish), and how he should keep his records. No such requirements exist to regulate parishioners’ relationship with their parish. The laity’s obligations are found rather in the precepts of the Church, the first of which obliges them to attend Mass on Sunday.

The law of the Church is silent on the question of where Catholics must fulfill their Sunday obligation. However, the laity do have other obligations. Relevant here is an addendum to the fifth precept of the Church, which states that the faithful “have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities.” The precepts of the Church are obligatory minimums established for growth in the love of God and neighbor. And, since it is natural to prefer what is near and visible in the order of love, it would seem that the laity ought to support the Church locally and perhaps their local church. This needn’t be an ironclad rule to be a prudential preference.

While not a precept of the Church, the Code of Canon Law does provide useful guidance beyond material needs: “The Christian faithful, both as individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others.” Thus parishioners do seem obligated to display a degree of conscientiousness regarding the common good of their parish. Neve seems to judge that “tak[ing] into account the common good of the Church” overrides, in many cases, other prudential judgements for not wishing to attend Mass at a specific church.

What, then, should a parishioner at a parish church he “hates” do? Should he stay or should he hop? Two principles can guide him. First, a reason for church-hopping is virtuous or vicious outside of the act. Abandoning a parish church for reasons of race hatred or seeking out a heterodox pastor—perhaps one who does not preach on a sensitive issue—is indicative of a much larger problem. Alternatively, a father concerned about the formation of his children has a compelling reason to attend a church outside of his parish that offers more coherent catechesis. The prospective church hopper should examine his or her conscience.

And second, from St. Thomas Aquinas: “One’s obligation to love a person is proportionate to the gravity of the sin one commits in acting against this love.” A parishioner’s obligations to his parish may be ranked proportionately lower than those to his family or even to himself, because he is capable of sinning far more gravely against those in his power than he is against his comparatively distant fellow parishioners.