"Lapsed" Catholic or Migrant Labourer

[Typek]

Here’s the situation:

I was baptized and confirmed in the same parish church to which my grandparents were founder members and to which my parents (now parent - father deceased) belong(ed) together with my extended family:thumbsup:. After high school I left my home town (and indeed my country of residence) to study my undergraduate degree abroad. I completed my graduate studies in still a third country and my post-doc work in a fourth. Since high school (20 years ago) I have lived in 4 different countries in (my now) ten different cities. [Living in a city being defined as a period of 6 months or more]. I have an international career but still consider my initial parish my “home parish”, returning to it whenever I visit my family. *. Still I am a practicing Catholic, attend Mass every Sunday, go to confession at least once a year and pray my rosary daily!

In essence although I left home after high school I never really “settled down” in any particular place. In each parish I have been to (including my current one) I get involved in parish activities, but reservedly so, in anticipation of yet another move as my career develops. My mother retired ten years ago (and at that time, no longer receiving a formal income, stopped her monthly contribution to the Parish in question) and recently her health has required her to move in with my brother who belongs to another parish, where she often attends mass out of convenience but has never registered as a member.

I am now at that point where I feel I should settle down and will begin this process by looking to marry. Although I believe that Marriage as a sacrament can validly occur wherever I am based, I also believe that marriage is a social institution to which I would like my family to be a part.

Recently I heard about a person who wanted to celebrate her 80th birthday at the parish but was denied that privilege by the pastor on the grounds that she was a “lapsed” Catholic (i.e., had ceased to worship regularly at that Parish).

My concern relates to my situation: If I were to marry I would like to be married out of my “home” parish where the largest concentration of my family belongs, but would I too be considered a “lapsed” member of the parish?

Is there a teaching on this point to which I can refer or is this matter left to the subjective judgement of the current parish priest? [The latter may present difficulties depending on his own outlook (i.e., whether conservative or liberal)].*

 

[1ke]

Firstly, what you “heard” about a denied request for use of parish facilities may or may not be accurate.

Regarding marriage specifically, Canon Law obliges you to contract marriage before your ordinary (which is the bishop of your diocese), your pastor, or a priest, deacon, or other person delegated by the ordinary or pastor or that of your intended:

Can.* 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Canon law further stipulates that you are to contract marriage in the parish of either party:

Can.* 1115 Marriages are to be celebrated in a parish where either of the contracting parties has a domicile, quasidomicile, or month long residence or, if it concerns transients, in the parish where they actually reside. With the permission of the proper ordinary or proper pastor, marriages can be celebrated elsewhere.

You can receive permission to exchange vows before someone other than your pastor, and in a location other than your parish church. But it does require permission.

The pastor of the parish you grew up in is under no obligation to accept your request to be married there. It is certainly common for people to request to be married in a parish that they belongd to as children, especially if most family remains in that area. I would think this is routinely granted unless the parish is already booked up. You may have to pay some extra fees.

Typically the pastor of the parish to which you belong can write a letter to the pastor of the parish you want to marry in attesting to your standing in the parish in which you reside.

There are some parishes, however, who simply have a “parishioner only” policy-- this is typically true of particularly beautiful churches (i.e. lots of requests to get married there due to the pretty backdrop), resort/tourist locations, etc.

Before you say you don’t have a parish, yes you do. You reside in a territory, and that is your parish. That has nothing to do with where you may or may not be registered. Certainly if you plan to marry, to ask permission to marry elsewhere, etc, it is to your benefit to be personally acquainted with the pastor of your parish, to be registered there, to be a regular contributor or otherwise involved.

 

[Typek]

Firstly, what you “heard” about a denied request for use of parish facilities may or may not be accurate.

Actually I KNOW that it is accurate because the person in question was my grand-aunt and mother of the parish’s choirmaster.

Regarding marriage specifically, Canon Law obliges you to contract marriage before your ordinary (which is the bishop of your diocese), your pastor, or a priest, deacon, or other person delegated by the ordinary or pastor or that of your intended.

Thank you for the information you have provided, most of which I am already aware of. The larger question remains whether Catholic cannon law (such as the terriotorial definition of a Parish) is keeping up with an increasingly globalized village?

The pastor of the parish you grew up in is under no obligation to accept your request to be married there. It is certainly common for people to request to be married in a parish that they belongd to as children, especially if most family remains in that area. I would think this is routinely granted unless the parish is already booked up. You may have to pay some extra fees.

I believe that is the correct Cannon-Law interpretation but is it the right one? The parish I grew up in was built through the financial contributions that my grandparents and their generation provided, with no support from the diocese at that time. The Professor of Moral Theology at my University believes that in fact I do have, simply due to my ancestry, a right to make use of the facility. [After all the grandparents generation dedicated it to the glory of God and not to the glory of the Diocese].

There are some parishes, however, who simply have a “parishioner only” policy-- this is typically true of particularly beautiful churches (i.e. lots of requests to get married there due to the pretty backdrop), resort/tourist locations, etc.

This is certainly the case in my Parish. The Parish was built just over 150 years ago and the marble pillars, stained glass windows etc. which would now be unaffordable for any parish has earned it “National Monument” status from the government.

Typically the pastor of the parish to which you belong can write a letter to the pastor of the parish you want to marry in attesting to your standing in the parish in which you reside. Before you say you don’t have a parish, yes you do. You reside in a territory, and that is your parish. That has nothing to do with where you may or may not be registered. Certainly if you plan to marry, to ask permission to marry elsewhere, etc, it is to your benefit to be personally acquainted with the pastor of your parish, to be registered there, to be a regular contributor or otherwise involved.

All-well said but too many parish priests today are just not approchable. When I first moved to this city (in my first week actually - so as not to miss Sunday mass) I visited the Church to find out about Mass times etc. I met and introduced myself to the Parish Priest and had a discussion with him regarding my relocation. I gave him a copy of my new business card. He has not once called / stopped after mass etc. to enquire how I am doing, if I have settled in appropriately etc. Personal acquiantance is a two way street. Talk about welcoming strangers!

During our conversation he said that in order for me to be registered as a Parishoner and in fact start contributing to the parish I would have to provide a testimonial from my former parish priest. Certainly this is odd. I have never in the twenty-years before been asked for such a thing when I joined a new parish. And wonder how evangelization happens in this parish if it is such a closed-shop? I am now not too interested in developing a relationship with someone who prefers to keep his distance from new parishioners because it is likely that I will be moving again to a new city and in fact a new province of the country within the next three months.

I think your suggestions/interpretations are just not appropriate to an increasingly changing world.

 

[LilyM]

‘Built for the glory of God’ absolutely, but not for the glory of the builders, nor as the personal playground of their descendants, especially when those descendants no longer live in the area nor contribute to the ongoing needs of the parish on any meaningful way.

I am a second-generation migrant, who has been back to the country of my parents’ birth maybe four times in my near-forty years of life. Imagine I went back there and, purely on the strength of the fact that my grandparents lived there, demanded the benefits of citizenship - say the right to social security payments or something. I would rightly be laughed at.

 

[Typek]

‘Built for the glory of God’ absolutely, but not for the glory of the builders, nor as the personal playground of their descendants, especially when those descendants no longer live in the area nor contribute to the ongoing needs of the parish on any meaningful way.

The question the ethicists return to is whether the land would have been acquired and the building built by the people in the first place if they knew that their grandchildren would have a problem using the facilities. The answer is more likely to be that they made those contributions simply so that their children/grandchildren would have use of the facilities.

I am a second-generation migrant, who has been back to the country of my parents’ birth maybe four times in my near-forty years of life. Imagine I went back there and, purely on the strength of the fact that my grandparents lived there, demanded the benefits of citizenship - say the right to social security payments or something. I would rightly be laughed at.

Actually you wouldn’t be: The United Kingdom is a typical example of many of the countries where the descendents of migrants are automatically entitled to British passports (even if they have never been to the country before).

 

[Typek]

‘Built for the glory of God’ absolutely, but not for the glory of the builders, nor as the personal playground of their descendants.

Isn’t “personal playground” a bit harsh? We are talking about the church building being used to celebrate a sacrament that both parties by their baptisms are entitled to.

 

[Typek]

Imagine I went back there and, purely on the strength of the fact that my grandparents lived there, demanded the benefits of citizenship…I would rightly be laughted at.

Just out of interest I am posting this link *

livingingreece.gr/2008/03/18/how-to-acquire-eu-citizenship-through-ancestry-or-naturalization/

The right to citizenship through ancestry applies to all EU member countries and to the non-EU member countries of Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The Indian government also accedes this right through a Person Of India Origin Passport, descendents are allowed all benefits of citizenship (except voting, unless they renounce their citizenship of birth):banghead:*

 

[Pink_Lemonade]

I was married at the parish I grew up in, though I didn’t live there. We got permission from the pastor, and there were no issues- although, the whole thing was made easier because a family member was still a registered, contributing member. If you don’t have any family members registered with your home parish, it may or may not be possible, but I believe it is up to the priest. Also, you are referencing a birthday celebration as opposed to a wedding. The allowances the priest would make may be different if it involved a sacrament.

Are you engaged? If you are not even engaged, I would not even be concerned with this yet. You could contact your home parish to see what the “rules” are- a simple solution to your question. In the end, it doesn’t really matter where you get married, and we aren’t “entitled” to marry in any particular place outside of our residential parish.

 

[LilyM]

Just out of interest I am posting this link *

livingingreece.gr/2008/03/18/how-to-acquire-eu-citizenship-through-ancestry-or-naturalization/*

The right to citizenship through ancestry applies to all EU member countries and to the non-EU member countries of Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Liechtenstein. The Indian government also accedes this right through a Person Of India Origin Passport, descendents are allowed all benefits of citizenship (except voting, unless they renounce their citizenship of birth):banghead:

And lunacy like this is a huge part of why so much of Europe is in the massive economic and social hole that it’s in. Letting anybody and their dog who has the remotest connection to a country claim citizenship and other benefits from it and so burden those who do live and work there honestly and pay honest taxes.

Thank God my country, Australia, is relatively free of this foolishness, and only children of citizens can apply rather than grandchildren. And with good reason - it’s as foolish as selling or giving your grandfather’s house away to someone else but somehow claiming that you have a right to come back and live there any time you want. Well you don’t if you choose to sell or give it away and live somewhere else.

 

[1ke]

Waaa. You sound like a spoiled child, frankly.

No you do not have a “right” to be married anywhere you choose. No you do not have a “right” to be married in that parish.

Again, Canon Law stipulates where you are to be married, by whom, and how to obtain permission to be married elsewhere.

It’s really not that complicated. You ask, and they respond. If they respond in the affirmative, move forward with those plans. If they respond in the negative, then you make other plans.

Again, I suggest you engage in your current parish in a meaningful way. You gave your priest your business card? The Church is not a business, the priest is not a client or vendor. Get involved, invite your priest for dinner, engage in a personal way.

 

[ExGratia]

Maybe you’ll marry at your future wife’s parish! Conversely, I always thought I’d marry at my mother’s home parish (her grandparents were involved in the building of it) but as it turns out, I met the man I’m going to marry at the Church we will wed in, which isn’t the one either of us grew up in although we are active there now. You could start a new family tradition!

 

[Typek]

…we aren’t “entitled” to marry in any particular place outside of our residential parish.

Thank you for your suggestions, most of which seem quite level-headed, however I think you have missed the point of why I raised this matter in the first place, and that is that the Catholic Church’s definition of “residential parish” has become antiquated.

 

[Typek]

And lunacy like this is a huge part of why so much of Europe is in the massive economic and social hole that it’s in. Letting anybody and their dog who has the remotest connection to a country claim citizenship and other benefits from it and so burden those who do live and work there honestly and pay honest taxes.

Thank God my country, Australia, is relatively free of this foolishness, and only children of citizens can apply rather than grandchildren. And with good reason - it’s as foolish as selling or giving your grandfather’s house away to someone else but somehow claiming that you have a right to come back and live there any time you want. Well you don’t if you choose to sell or give it away and live somewhere else.

Thats probably why the ONLY country outside of the North-Atlantic to have suffered massive write-downs during the recent financial crisis was Australia, with the National Bank of Australia having made losses of over US$1bn.

Thank God the rest of the world isn’t as prudent as the Australians

 

[Typek]

Waaa. You sound like a spoiled child, frankly…I suggest you engage in your current parish in a meaningful way. You gave your priest your business card? The Church is not a business, the priest is not a client or vendor. Get involved, invite your priest for dinner, engage in a personal way.

Are you unwilling to accept that there are some priests who are unapproachable? I gave the priest my business card so that he would have my contact detials, considering he was not prepared to given me a parish registrarion form without a testionial from my past parish priest. There is nothing I wish to sell to him nor would he be able to afford my professional services. But with my card he had information about where I could be found.

He is resident here, I am the stranger/newcomer surely he has to initiate the engagement you speak of. Or does his clerical state place him above Jesus’ command to welcome strangers? To use a phrase CA is become quite used to: Either Jusus meant what he said nor he didn’t (Matthew 25) “…I was a stranger and you invited me in”. shrug:

 

[Typek]

No you do not have a “right” to be married in that parish.

Again, Canon Law stipulates where you are to be married, by whom, and how to obtain permission to be married elsewhere.

I am getting a bit bored by this discussion, and by your continual reference to Canon Law to determine my rights! I am a South African national, I live in a constitutional democracy with a bill of rights. There is, unlike in the United States, expressly no provision limiting civil court judgement on church issues. Unless a piece of ground within her borders has been acquired by a foreign government (such as the case of an Embassy or Consulate) every centimeter of ground within South Africa is subject to South African secular law and it is that law which determines whether I have a “right” to use a building or not.

Funds contributed for charitable purposes do not represent an investment. Donors do not contribute them with the expectation of profit. Rather, their interest is to further a charitable cause. Once their donation is complete, they have no legal interest in the fund they created. The reason for this is that, by definition, a charitable trust benefits the indefinite public.

Since there are no specific beneficiaries of a charitable trust, legal title to the property is vested in the trustee, while beneficial ownership resides with the indefinite public. The question then is one of whether it is the Local Bishop or the Parish Council which acts as trustee? To answer this question South African law will be guided by Canon Law insofar as it establishes a grounding for the incorporation of the entities. Canon Law in fact recognizes
both the diocese (Canon 369) and an individual parish (Canon 515) as two separate entities, each having the power to sue and be sued and hold property in its own name. Canon Law further recognizes both the Diocese and the parish as “seperate juridic persons”.

The question then of whether it is the Bishop or the Parish Council which administers the property as trustee can be gained from the intent of Canon Law to provide for each parish to have a “parish council” (Canon 536) and a “parish financial council” (Canon 537) and assigns only “pastoral care” of the parish to the parish priest acting “under the authority of the diocesan bishop.”(Canon 515) [Canon Law describes a diocese as follows: “A diocese is a portion of the people of God [Note: No mention of property] which is entrusted for pastoral care to a bishop [Note: No mention of feduciary obligation] with the cooperation of the presbyterate so that, adhering to its pastor and gathered by him in the Holy Spirit through the gospel and the Eucharist, it constitutes a particular church in which the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and operative.” [Emphasis and notes my own].

The proper authority to determine whether I have “right” of use of the building is not the Bishop but rather the Parish Council who is ultimately accountable to the Auditor General given that the property is part of the assets of the charitable trust the original donors established.

Therefore the local bishop has NO LEGAL SAY in whether I can use the building or not (and therefore cannot determine my “rights”) and if the Parish Council refuses me the right they must do so with the permission of the Auditor General to whom they must prove that their reasons are in harmony with the intentions of the original donors, or face the consequences of legal action. In this case the courts will simply order my use of the building and that is that!

Whether the Bishop will allow his priest to act as officiant is another matter.

 

[Pink_Lemonade]

Thank you for your suggestions, most of which seem quite level-headed, however I think you have missed the point of why I raised this matter in the first place, and that is that the Catholic Church’s definition of “residential parish” has become antiquated.

I am confused regarding what your actual question is, then. It sounds like you don’t actually have one, you have a strong opinion. Any concerns you have would be better addressed by your own diocese, since most of us are unfamiliar with South African law and how it applies to the use of Church property.

I’d say that if you are in fact getting married, you’d best be focusing on the sacrament and not on all the rest of this, which is meaningless compared to that. And if you’re not getting married, I’m not sure where the problem is.

 

[1ke]

I am getting a bit bored by this discussion, and by your continual reference to Canon Law to determine my rights!

Canon Law governs you as a Catholic. Until you understand that, the rest of your post is simply hot air. Your country of residence and their civil laws are not relevant. The virtues of humility and obedience might be something to ponder and embrace.

I can foresee a negative resonse to your request with the attitude you are presently presenting.