Parish registration

[FrDavid96]

Father, I’m not suggesting that a ‘stranger’ write to the Holy See and urge canon law changes. (OTOH, I guess I don’t consider myself a “stranger” to the Church. Hmmm.)

I’m suggesting that Church administration converse with the Holy See about this, if Canon Law is the controller here. I’m suggesting that domestic dioceses might want to take a look at experiences such as Pug’s parish, and parishioners of many other parishes in this country, report. Not for the sake of personal preferences, but for the sake of the Church – its continuity, its financial health, etc.

Canon law is one thing. But worship and ongoing community is something else; it is personal, not legalistic or (primarily) geographical, particularly in the 21st century.

The point remains though, that if you’re suggesting that parishes be operated in some way other than geographical boundaries, that’s something you’ll have to address to the Holy See because canon law does say that parishes are geographic. What people just don’t seem to understand (even though I keep repeating it) is that a parish IS a geographical location (a territory). Just like our states are geographical locations. It’s the same thing. Parishes are no’t church buildings–they are territories (more precisely, they are the people living within a given territory). Any attempts to change that would require a change in canon law, and only the pope can do that.

 

[Samson01]

The point remains though, that if you’re suggesting that parishes be operated in some way other than geographical boundaries, that’s something you’ll have to address to the Holy See because canon law does say that parishes are geographic. What people just don’t seem to understand (even though I keep repeating it) is that a parish IS a geographical location (a territory). Just like our states are geographical locations. It’s the same thing. Parishes are no’t church buildings–they are territories (more precisely, they are the people living within a given territory). Any attempts to change that would require a change in canon law, and only the pope can do that.

You have a tough job. Thanks.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, I’m not suggesting that a ‘stranger’ write to the Holy See and urge canon law changes. (OTOH, I guess I don’t consider myself a “stranger” to the Church. Hmmm.)

I’m suggesting that Church administration converse with the Holy See about this, if Canon Law is the controller here. I’m suggesting that domestic dioceses might want to take a look at experiences such as Pug’s parish, and parishioners of many other parishes in this country, report. Not for the sake of personal preferences, but for the sake of the Church – its continuity, its financial health, etc.

Canon law is one thing. But worship and ongoing community is something else; it is personal, not legalistic or (primarily) geographical, particularly in the 21st century.

Please let me pose a few questions:

Let’s say that someone lives in Hoboken, New Jersey (a suburb of New York City).

When it comes time to vote for governor, which candidate does the resident of Hoboken NJ get to vote for, the governor of New Jersey or the governor of New York?

When a resident of Hoboken NJ gets a drivers license, which state issues the license, NY or NJ?

When a resident of Hoboken NJ wants to buy a life insurance policy, which state’s laws apply, those of NY or NJ?

 

[MtnDwellar]

You have a tough job. Thanks.

I think that’s an understatement. Thanks from me too.

 

[EasterJoy]

But what you apparently don’t know, and what you’re certainly not addressing here is what canon law has to say about parish membership.

When it comes down to it, you’re advising the OP to consider himself a member of a parish other than his own proper parish under canon law. Although you’re not using the words, and I think you’re not intending it this way, the end result is that you’re advising someone to disregard canon law.

You’re citing your own anecdotal examples of a local policy of weddings, and using that to advise the OP to choose whatever parish he likes best and consider that to be his own parish. That’s not how parish territories work.

Father, I think you misunderstand me.

I’m telling the OP to contact his local chancery office, and ask them what his bishops’ policies are, realizing that if the policy is more permissive than canon law gives him the right to expect, the policy could change. Do you contend that the bishop does not have the perogative to grant this kind of permission? I am not talking about permission to be a member of a parish outside one’s own geographic boundaries, but rather the permission to *enjoy the priveleges of parish membership *in a parish outside of one’s geographic boundaries: that is, to expect to be able to have full access to the sacraments within that parish without getting special permission, and so on. (I’m not saying the bishop has the right to take bodies out of the census for a particular geographic parish, to the detriment of that parish.) If not, I fail to see how I am advising someone to disregard canon law. I tell you honestly, that is the farthest thing from my intention.

But yes: The OP should be very clear that he wants to know what his bishop’s actual policies are, and not an account of “what everyone does.” As you have pointed out, “what everyone does” can land people in a pot of soup they had not prepared themselves to be in. Only the local bishop has the perogative to give permission to members of the faithful in his diocese that are above the rights of the faithful as they are described in canon law. If it is not the bishop’s permission, it is not real permission. In the end, too, only the rights spelled out in canon law can be depended upon to remain set in stone. On that point, I cannot disagree with you.

Is that correct?

 

[EasterJoy]

Please let me pose a few questions:

Let’s say that someone lives in Hoboken, New Jersey (a suburb of New York City).

When it comes time to vote for governor, which candidate does the resident of Hoboken NJ get to vote for, the governor of New Jersey or the governor of New York?

When a resident of Hoboken NJ gets a drivers license, which state issues the license, NY or NJ?

When a resident of Hoboken NJ wants to buy a life insurance policy, which state’s laws apply, those of NY or NJ?

Did the OP say he wanted to attend a parish outside his own diocese, and I missed that? This analogy sounds far more fitting for that situation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What people just don’t seem to understand (even though I keep repeating it) is that a parish IS a geographical location (a territory). Just like our states are geographical locations. It’s the same thing. Parishes are no’t church buildings–they are territories (more precisely, they are the people living within a given territory). Any attempts to change that would require a change in canon law, and only the pope can do that.

I do understand that. I did understand that. Apparently we’re having a communication problem, because I never suggested that I didn’t understand that a parish is a territory. (For example, “parish” has sometimes been, sometimes still is applied to a civil territory.) I apologize if I wasn’t clear.

I know they’re not church buildings. That was the point of my earlier post. But given many demographic changes today, and the level of diverse needs within communities (reflected in how a particular parish church celebrates its liturgies – or doesn’t), I, a lay parishioner, believe based on my conversations with others, that most practicing Catholics commit to worshipping communities, not to territories. I know that this was not always true, as several of us have noted – such as for our own parents & grandparents. In my own childhood we walked to our parish church. Perhaps these canon laws were created with a different era in mine, or have not been updated to reflect migration (particularly extreme in certain areas).

If my (actual) parish weren’t a locked empty fortress that doesn’t allow me to worship in English or Latin, and whose priest is almost never available, I would attend.

I understand it’s Rome’s choice to leave things the way they are. Personally, in my area, what I see is that this traditional way of defining “membership” seems, seems, to be jeopardizing the existence of many parish churches, because people are choosing to go elsewhere than where there is only one or two Masses per week. In many cases (such as my neighborhood parish), there aren’t even many Catholics left in that parish, period. The parish population consists largely of Baptists and of evangelical Protestants. (Many of these used to be Catholics.) That raises a whole different problem that clusters cannot address, because when there’s no critical number of parishioners to support basic costs, what you have is a parish church on the chopping block.

I did not mean to confuse or frustrate the conversation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree with Easter Joy’s recent post. I don’t see the analogy to NJ and NY, when people are worshipping within the same diocese (and in my case, the church I’m attending is equidistant to my “parish” church.)

 

[FrDavid96]

Did the OP say he wanted to attend a parish outside his own diocese, and I missed that? This analogy sounds far more fitting for that situation.

No, because it’s the same thing. Just as a diocese has its boundaries, a parish has its boundaries and a state has its boundaries.

They all work exactly the same way with regard to territory.

If a person lives in New York, that person is a resident of New York.
If a person lives in New Jersey, that person is a resident of New Jersey.
Why? Because there’s an imaginary line on the ground that says “this side is NY and this side is NJ.”

If a Catholic lives in St. Peter parish, that Catholic is a parishioner of St. Peter parish.
If a Catholic lives in St. Paul parish, that Catholic is a parishioner of St. Paul parish.
Why? Because there’s an imaginary line on the ground that says “This side is St. Peter parish and this side is St. Paul parish”

 

[FrDavid96]

I agree with Easter Joy’s recent post. I don’t see the analogy to NJ and NY, when people are worshipping within the same diocese (and in my case, the church I’m attending is equidistant to my “parish” church.)

If you still don’t see it, it’s because you still don’t get what I keep trying to say. Canon law says that a parish is a territory. I’m not making this up.

Can. 515 §1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.

Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes 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.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1U.HTM

Unless a parish is a “personal” one, it is territorial.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you still don’t see it, it’s because you still don’t get what I keep trying to say. Canon law says that a parish is a territory.

No, actually, I still do get it. BOTH a parish and a diocese are territorial descriptions, however. Easter Joy was pointing out that the analogy you were making was more like leaping a diocese than leaping a parish. (It seemed.)

Unless a parish is a “personal” one, it is territorial.

Aha. So now we do have a personal category of parish. (My point earlier: i.e., what’s wrong with recognizing both? It seems that the second of the two Canons cited already recognizes this.

I’ll be even more controversial on the issue of territory.

When it came time for my children to be Confirmed, I had serious reservations about their completing that preparation in our own diocese. I hate all late-adolescent Confirmation programs, but I won’t derail the thread in that direction. I was very firm that my children were going to be Confirmed before beginning high school. A neighboring diocese had a very different policy than our own diocese: it was way better, not just because of the age considerations, but the content of the preparation was light years away from that of our own diocese. So I simply inquired at the particular parishes which were conducting the centralized Confirmation prep programs in that neighboring diocese. That was approved, and they were both Confirmed in that diocese. I will note that I did present to the diocese my reasons for this unusual request. My children were the only non-local children in both cases.

I will also note that prior to this, I inquired at every single parish in our own diocese as to the content, and age, of their prep programs. It was not my first wish to make us a “difficult” family by hopping boundaries or making special exceptions for ourselves, but what my inquiries uncovered was what I had expected: those “programs” were 90% social (i.e., parties, not “social action”), 10% religious. They were very sparsely attended, by the admission of the various program coordinators, and some of them took as long as late sernior year in high school to complete the program and administer the sacrament.

 

[fieldsparrow]

How does one find out which parish they belong to by territory? There are several very close to my house and I am attending RCIA at one of them but I’m not sure it would be my geographical parish.

 

[Elizabeth502]

fieldsparrow, the diocese would know. Just call them. They’ll look it up.

 

[CMatt25]

I think I understand. It’s up to the policy of the individual diocese. And someone like Elizabeth can fully participate at another parish for the reasons she gave. But under current Canon Law she is a member of the parish she no longer prefers. And no one should expect a guarantee of being served in the future for marriage, funerals, what have you, by other than by the geographical parish.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you still don’t see it, it’s because you still don’t get what I keep trying to say. Canon law says that a parish is a territory. I’m not making this up.

Can. 515 §1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.

Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes 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.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1U.HTM

Unless a parish is a “personal” one, it is territorial.

I know what a parish is. A parish, though, is more like a county than like a state.

If the state constitution guarantees that a person has the right to access certain services in their own county and to discharge their duties as a citizen in their own county, that does not mean that the same constitution could not give the governor the perogative to direct counties to practice reciprocity with regards to those services and to the rendering of those duties.

If the governor exercised that perogative, then citizens of the state could be told “as long as this directive exists, you can get these services in any county you want, provided you are a citizen of the state.” If the governor withdrew that permission, then the citizens who were accustomed to accessing services in the convenient county or the one they liked would have no grounds to sue the state. As long as their county provided the services, those citizens could be denied access to the services in other counties. If you get used to having a library card in one county and are told that you can’t check out books in that county, but only in your own county, that could be a rude awakening.

In that case, though, to tell someone that they were allowed to access services outside their own county when there was legitimately an official policy of reciprocity in place would not be telling them to break the law. It might be getting them used to something that they had no right to and might lose at some time in the future, but it would not be breaking the law if they did have that permission.

So unless you are saying that a bishop has no right to direct pastors in his diocese to exercise reciprocity with regards to funerals, the sacraments, and where the faithful discharge their duties with regards to the Church, I don’t see where I’m telling anyone to break canon law by saying that bishops can allow the faithful to register and be active in parishes where they are not residents.

What am I missing in this analogy?

 

[EasterJoy]

I know what a parish is. Remember, I’m the person who actually called the chancery office to find out what parish I was moving into! A parish, though, is more like a county than like a state.

If the state constitution guarantees that a person has the right to access certain services in their own county and to discharge their duties as a citizen in their own county, that does not mean that the same constitution could not give the governor the perogative to direct counties to practice reciprocity with regards to those services and to the rendering of those duties.

If the governor exercised that perogative, then citizens of the state could be told “as long as this directive exists, you can get these services in any county you want, provided you are a citizen of the state.” If the governor withdrew that permission, then the citizens who were accustomed to accessing services in the convenient county or the one they liked would have no grounds to sue the state. As long as their county provided the services, those citizens could be denied access to the services in other counties. If you get used to having a library card in one county and are told that you can’t check out books in that county, but only in your own county, that could be a rude awakening.

In that case, though, to tell someone that they were allowed to access services outside their own county when there was legitimately an official policy of reciprocity in place would not be telling them to break the law. It might be getting them used to something that they had no right to and might lose at some time in the future, but it would not be breaking the law if they did have that permission.

So unless you are saying that a bishop has no right to direct pastors in his diocese to exercise reciprocity with regards to funerals, the sacraments, and where the faithful discharge their duties with regards to the Church, I don’t see where I’m telling anyone to break canon law by saying that bishops can allow the faithful to register and be active in parishes where they are not residents.

What am I missing in this analogy?

 

[FrDavid96]

I think I understand. It’s up to the policy of the individual diocese. And someone like Elizabeth can fully participate at another parish for the reasons she gave. But under current Canon Law she is a member of the parish she no longer prefers. And no one should expect a guarantee of being served in the future for marriage, funerals, what have you, by other than by the geographical parish.

Almost there.

It isn’t “up to the policy of the individual diocese” What ONE person quoted was ONE exception made by ONE bishop with regard to which pastor can witness a wedding–an exception to canon law that the bishop can make (it isn’t technically a “dispensation” though, it’s a matter of delegating faculties for weddings).

This is a lot like someone saying “my bishop dispensed this diocese from the Lenten obligation of abstaining from meat on Friday March 20 in Lent, therefore all Catholics reading these posts should make up their own minds as to the Lenten fast, and just ignore what canon law says.”

It is also much more than just being worried about weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. It’s about the integrity of the parish institution as the Church defines it.

 

[FrDavid96]

I know what a parish is. A parish, though, is more like a county than like a state.

If the state constitution guarantees that a person has the right to access certain services in their own county and to discharge their duties as a citizen in their own county, that does not mean that the same constitution could not give the governor the perogative to direct counties to practice reciprocity with regards to those services and to the rendering of those duties.

If the governor exercised that perogative, then citizens of the state could be told “as long as this directive exists, you can get these services in any county you want, provided you are a citizen of the state.” If the governor withdrew that permission, then the citizens who were accustomed to accessing services in the convenient county or the one they liked would have no grounds to sue the state. As long as their county provided the services, those citizens could be denied access to the services in other counties. If you get used to having a library card in one county and are told that you can’t check out books in that county, but only in your own county, that could be a rude awakening.

In that case, though, to tell someone that they were allowed to access services outside their own county when there was legitimately an official policy of reciprocity in place would not be telling them to break the law. It might be getting them used to something that they had no right to and might lose at some time in the future, but it would not be breaking the law if they did have that permission.

So unless you are saying that a bishop has no right to direct pastors in his diocese to exercise reciprocity with regards to funerals, the sacraments, and where the faithful discharge their duties with regards to the Church, I don’t see where I’m telling anyone to break canon law by saying that bishops can allow the faithful to register and be active in parishes where they are not residents.

What am I missing in this analogy?

What you’re missing in this analogy is that you’re operating on the assumption that parish boundaries just don’t exist. That’s what you’ve been saying all along, suggesting that others should simply ignore parish boundaries and consider themselves parishioners wherever they feel like. That’s exactly what you said in your own post that I’ve quoted at the end here.

It’s one thing to say that a bishop may do this–the problem is that you’re making a broad suggestion that every bishop does do it.

You are assuming that such exceptions exist universally, based on one single example, that has to do with weddings NOT parish membership, and you’re advising the OP based on that false assumption.

The question of this thread is “which is my parish?” NOT “where can I get married”

You’re taking the fact that your own bishop extends permission to local pastors within their own parish boundaries to witness the marriages of Catholics who live outside those boundaries, and trying to use that policy to suggest that Catholics should disregard parish boundaries with regard to membership. Again, you said this in your first post.

The policy you quoted says specifically “for the purpose of celebrating weddings” but you’re trying to apply that to mean “for the purpose of parish membership.” That’s problematic to say the least.

This is what you posted earlier:

It is not currently required by canon law to be registered in your geographic parish. Generally speaking, people register in their Sunday parish, not their daily Mass parish or the one that happens to have Eucharistic adoration, because that is where they make their regular donations. Certainly you want to be registered at the church that you would want to be married in, since it is generally easier for everyone involved to arrange a wedding in that church. (Presumably, that’s the church where the most other parishioners know you, where your funeral Mass would be held, and so on, as well.)

And technically, the permission given by the bishop isn’t always needed. The bishop is doing this as a courtesy, for the sake of making things easier on parishioners and pastors alike. I have never said that the bishop doesn’t have the right to do this–on the contrary, I’ve consistently said that he can.

What you cannot do though is extend your own anecdotal example of the bishop’s generosity in marriage jurisdiction to apply to Catholics universally with regard to parish membership. And that’s exactly what you’ve been doing from the very start.

 

[EasterJoy]

What you’re missing in this analogy is that you’re operating on the assumption that parish boundaries just don’t exist. That’s what you’ve been saying all along, suggesting that others should simply ignore parish boundaries and consider themselves parishioners wherever they feel like. That’s exactly what you said in your own post that I’ve quoted at the end here.

It’s one thing to say that a bishop may do this–the problem is that you’re making a broad suggestion that every bishop does do it.

You are assuming that such exceptions exist universally, based on one single example, that has to do with weddings NOT parish membership, and you’re advising the OP based on that false assumption.

The question of this thread is “which is my parish?” NOT “where can I get married”

You’re taking the fact that your own bishop extends permission to local pastors within their own parish boundaries to witness the marriages of Catholics who live outside those boundaries, and trying to use that policy to suggest that Catholics should disregard parish boundaries with regard to membership. Again, you said this in your first post.

The policy you quoted says specifically “for the purpose of celebrating weddings” but you’re trying to apply that to mean “for the purpose of parish membership.” That’s problematic to say the least.

This is what you posted earlier:

And technically, the permission given by the bishop isn’t always needed. The bishop is doing this as a courtesy, for the sake of making things easier on parishioners and pastors alike. I have never said that the bishop doesn’t have the right to do this–on the contrary, I’ve consistently said that he can.

What you cannot do though is extend your own anecdotal example of the bishop’s generosity in marriage jurisdiction to apply to Catholics universally with regard to parish membership. And that’s exactly what you’ve been doing from the very start.

When I called the chancery office of our archdiocese, I was told to register wherever I regularly attended. I didn’t draw conclusions from the marriage policies. I called up and asked. That was what I was told to do by a member of the archbishop’s staff.

So while it is special permission that cannot be counted on to be durable and which might be limited (which I have agreed that you are wise to point out), in some dioceses, the permission to register where you like is currently being given. So how is it a violation of canon law to register in a parish that isn’t your territorial parish, when the archbishop is giving blanket permission to do it?

PS I cannot believe I’m even in this discussion. I called our chancery office all those years back not to ask for permission to register where we liked, but to find out what territorial parish our new house was in. Having been told to register where we liked, we decided it was best to register in our territorial parish simply because it was our territorial parish, even though we didn’t particularly like it that much at first. We couldn’t be happier.

 

[EasterJoy]

What you’re missing in this analogy is that you’re operating on the assumption that parish boundaries just don’t exist. That’s what you’ve been saying all along, suggesting that others should simply ignore parish boundaries and consider themselves parishioners wherever they feel like. That’s exactly what you said in your own post that I’ve quoted at the end here.

Counties do have real boundaries, BTW.