Domiciles, jurisdiction, marriage etc

[twf]

For work reasons, I currently maintain “domiciles” - or at least quasi-domiciles in two diocese (in two different countries for that matter). When the time comes for me to marry, or any other sacrament that involves jurisdiction, how is it determined which pastor/bishop I am subject to?

 

[dans0622]

For work reasons, I currently maintain “domiciles” - or at least quasi-domiciles in two diocese (in two different countries for that matter). When the time comes for me to marry, or any other sacrament that involves jurisdiction, how is it determined which pastor/bishop I am subject to?

Hello,

If you have a quasi-domicile in a diocese/parish, that bishop/pastor would be “yours” with jurisdiction over you. See canon 107.1: “Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.”

Dan

 

[twf]

Hello,

If you have a quasi-domicile in a diocese/parish, that bishop/pastor would be “yours” with jurisdiction over you. See canon 107.1: “Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.”

Dan

But the question is - if you maintain a domicile or quasi-domicile in two distinct parishes/dioceses, which pastor/bishop has jurisdiction?

 

[dans0622]

But the question is - if you maintain a domicile or quasi-domicile in two distinct parishes/dioceses, which pastor/bishop has jurisdiction?

Hello,

They all do. Even if you are physically present in diocese/parish “A”, you are still the subject of the bishop/pastor in diocese/parish “B”, too, since you maintain at least a quasi-domicile in their territory.

Dan

 

[twf]

Hello,

They all do. Even if you are physically present in diocese/parish “A”, you are still the subject of the bishop/pastor in diocese/parish “B”, too, since you maintain at least a quasi-domicile in their territory.

Dan

But then if I required a dispensation or wished to marry, etc, who would grant it? Both? And if they disagreed?

 

[dans0622]

But then if I required a dispensation or wished to marry, etc, who would grant it? Both? And if they disagreed?

Any of the local ordinaries (i.e., bishops, vicar generals, episcopal vicars) of both dioceses could grant such matrimonial dispensations (cf. c. 1078.1) and either bishop could grant other dispensations (c. 87). The law does not address the scenario of when they might disagree (canon 65 speaks of vicars and the bishop in one diocese and their disagreement, not the officials in difference dioceses) so there would be nothing preventing you from going to the other diocese’s authorities if the first one’s refused you. They cannot bind each other to a certain course of action in this regard–they are of equal hierarchical authority and are independent of each other.

I hope this helps.

Dan

 

[Brendan]

If the Wedding is to be witnessed in one of the two diocese where you maintain a domicile, that should be the bishop to request a dispensation from.

If not, either of the two bishops may grant a dispensation.

 

[Vico]

But then if I required a dispensation or wished to marry, etc, who would grant it? Both? And if they disagreed?

You personally said you have two of domicile or quasi-domicile.

Can. 100
A person is said to be: an incola, in the place where he or she has a domicile; an advena, in the place of quasi-domicile; a peregrinus, if away from the domicile or quasi-domicile which is still retained; a vagus, if the person has nowhere a domicile or quasi-domicile.

Can. 102
§1 Domicile is acquired by residence in the territory of a parish, or at least of a diocese, which is either linked to the intention of remaining there permanently if nothing should occasion its withdrawal, or in fact protracted for a full five years.

§2 Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence in the territory of a parish, or at least of a diocese, which is either linked to the intention of remaining there for three months if nothing should occasion its withdrawal, or in fact protracted for three months.

§3 Domicile or quasi-domicile in the territory of a parish is called parochial; in the territory of a diocese, even if not in a parish, it is called diocesan.

Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.

§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient [vagus] is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.

§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile [incola, advena, peregrinus] is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.

 

[twf]

Thanks for the replies. Would that also mean that I am bound by the obligations of both dioceses? For example, today is a holy day of obligation in the one diocese where I maintain a domicile (it is a solemnity and day of obligation on the local calendar of that country and the bishops), but not where I am currently staying…am I bound? If one diocese requires abstinence from meat on every Friday, but the other doesn’t, to which am I bound? I am going to be flying between the two dioceses on a regular basis and will have an apartment in both.

 

[malphono]

Thanks for the replies. Would that also mean that I am bound by the obligations of both dioceses? For example, today is a holy day of obligation in the one diocese where I maintain a domicile (it is a solemnity and day of obligation on the local calendar of that country and the bishops), but not where I am currently staying…am I bound? If one diocese requires abstinence from meat on every Friday, but the other doesn’t, to which am I bound? I am going to be flying between the two dioceses on a regular basis and will have an apartment in both.

In cases where a person has a domicile and quasi-domicile, any obligation that may attach is dependent on where the person is at the time. Say, for example, a person lives (i.e. has a primary residence) in Chicago (domicile) but works and has a secondary residence in Toronto (quasi-domicile). OK. So let’s say today is a Holy Day in Chicago. If the person is in Toronto, where it is merely a ferial day, the obligation does not attach.

 

[twf]

In cases where a person has a domicile and quasi-domicile, any obligation that may attach is dependent on where the person is at the time. Say, for example, a person lives (i.e. has a primary residence) in Chicago (domicile) but works and has a secondary residence in Toronto (quasi-domicile). OK. So let’s say today is a Holy Day in Chicago. If the person is in Toronto, where it is merely a ferial day, the obligation does not attach.

Thank you. Hmm - as it happens one of the two dioceses in question is Toronto - but the other is not Chicago .

 

[VivienneJ]

I always find this interesting, having been in twf’s position for over 5 years now. The kind of strange practicality that can arise from this: here we abstain from meat on Wednesdays; there we abstain on Fridays. So if I fly there on a Friday (which is usually when I do) I can have meat for breakfast and lunch, but not for dinner.

 

[malphono]

I always find this interesting, having been in twf’s position for over 5 years now. The kind of strange practicality that can arise from this: here we abstain from meat on Wednesdays; there we abstain on Fridays. So if I fly there on a Friday (which is usually when I do) I can have meat for breakfast and lunch, but not for dinner.

Isn’t being subject to airline food (even in the J/C or F cabins) enough of a penance on its own???

 

[VivienneJ]

Isn’t being subject to airline food (even in the J/C or F cabins) enough of a penance on its own???

That’s a point, although as the Friday flight is the one to my true home, where excited grandchildren wait to give me a royal welcome, the food is spiced with excitement. On the way back here though, that is a huge penance.