Dear fatnotlazy,
I wasn't there, so I'm just speculating. However, my speculation is that the people of these diverse parishes were overpromised rather than underserved. Perhaps to buy peace, Bishop Wuerl overpromised what could be preserved in the new, consolidated parish.
sitetest
Thanks for your opinion. As I said, I know the Bishop had a job to do -- it was actually overdue. The diocese was maintaining these big old churches with maybe a handful of active parishioners and no money coming in for the expensive upkeep. For a lot of years, we had bishops and priests who really had no understanding of the ecomomy and business and were just letting the diocese slide into financial ruin. No doubt the closures probably should have been done years earlier. So I appreciate that the severity of the problem and that the Bishop was in a difficult position.
My objection though is how he went about it. There were some allegations that his decisions were influenced -- perhaps he was bribed into allowing some parishes to remain open, while closing others. Or he had friends in these parishes who used their influence with him. These allegations were never proven, but there were a few closings which didn't make sense. There was plenty of disillusionment and a number of people never really recovered. They could not adapt to the loss of what was in some ways their idenity and felt alienated. Had the traditions been maintained, perhaps that alienation could have been allieviated.
But whatever... as I said before, I wish the Bishop good luck in his new position.