Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

unequivocal terms, as the matter was of great practical importance and the scope or aim of the decree was to secure uniformity throughout the Province. Now, domicile' has a definite meaning, and so we are forbidden to give it a complex one, as would be involved by making it include quasi-domicile. (b) The occasion on which this decree was formulated seems to point to the exclusion of this latter term, as the Ne Temere had just been issued and had discarded the quasi-domicile in connexion with matrimony, owing to the danger of nullity to which its use exposed the sacrament. In such circumstances we are not readily to presume that such a disturbing factor was given an important status in a Council aiming at peace and uniformity-at least without notice, of which there appears no evidence. (c) In confirmation of this viewthat the term 'domicile' in this decree was meant to be taken in its strict or ordinary sense-I may mention the fact that such also is the opinion of one who attended the Armagh Synod and took a prominent part in it, and so should have first-hand knowledge of the sense of so important a term in this important decree.

If this be the correct meaning of the term 'domicile,' the solution of the case made is simple-the nurse dies outside her domicile-outside her parish, and three-fourths of the offerings are due to the clergy of her domicile and one-fourth to the clergy of the parish where she dies.

(3) But in the opposite hypothesis, namely, that the term 'domicile ' includes also quasi-domicile, it seems to me the case proposed is outside the scope of the Armagh decree, and so not solvable by its provisions. For in this hypothesis the nurse does not die outside her parish, as she dies in one of the two parishes she had, namely, in the parish of the quasi-domicile. The case, in this aspect, may be put as follows:

A person dies outside the parish of his domicile, but in that of his quasi-domicile, is waked and buried in the parish of his domicile and offerings taken up there. To whom do the offerings belong?'

I mention the place whence the funeral starts in this connexion, as such a place, according to my experience in this diocese, had well-recognized rights previous to this decree of Armagh Synod, and though these rights are extinguished by this decree in the case of a person dying outside one's parish, nothing is said or implied in the decree to this effect in case of a person dying elsewhere-and so these rights of the 'place of funeral' remain unless the person dies outside his parish. This important fact will, therefore, have to get proper consideration in apportioning the offerings if it does not determine them all in favour of the domicile.

(4) The only other point that occurs to me is that perhaps the Armagh decree-with domicile' used in the strict sense-has been annulled by the new Code or by some special recent decrees of the general law.

Here again, positive proof must be forthcoming, as a decree of such importance as that of the Armagh Synod is not to be set aside by mere surmises or doubts arising from the general law.

It has been well stated by you that appeals for the application of the general law in this connexion are very undesirable, and would lead to results that anyone would pronounce inequitable. The only evidence of the alleged relevancy to such cases as ours of the general law in the new Code and recent decisions, so far presented, is that of Canon 1236, § 1, but the important qualifying clause without prejudice to particular laws' seems to rule out its application; and as to the decision in the

August issue of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the matter referred to there was that of the place of funeral, not offerings (a quite different matter); and may we not fairly assume as implied also the clause already mentioned, without prejudice to particular laws'? So the application of this decision is far from clear, consequently should we not hold that the Armagh decree, as explained in No. 2 above, is still in full possession? Thanking you in anticipation.

F.

This matter has been given so much attention in past issues1 that, if it were not for a special request contained in a covering letter, we should have compressed the query considerably. F.'s' intention, obviously, is to protest against an arrangement by which the offerings over a deceased person-who has had a domicile (parental or other) in a parish where his people live, and where, out of respect to these people, the parishioners contribute generously-should go to the clergy of an extern parish, from which perhaps few offerings come, and with which, at any rate, he has had only the slender and temporary connexion sufficient to establish a quasi-domicile. That is a matter that deserves the careful consideration of the legislators: with its merits or demerits, we have no special concern. We would only point out that the grievance is not confined to this department. In some parts of the country, for instance, there are large marriage offerings: they go almost entirely to the parish priest of the bride: if a lady acquires a quasi-domicile outside her native parish (as she may do in a few hours, any time she wishes), and if she is married there, the offering will go to a priest whom she has perhaps never seen before in all her life. Apparently unfair to the clergy of her home: yes, but was there ever a human law that would give good results in every case? And this doctrine on the quasi-domicile has been found so useful in its general results that we may be sure it has come to stay. Through Canon Law generally we find the principle (stated in brief form in Canon 94, § 1, of the Code) that the lesser bond is just as important as the greater that a person becomes a full member of a parish, with all the rights and obligations such membership entails, as scon as he has acquired, if we may use the expression, a 'home or quasi-home' within its boundaries.

The certainties in connexion with the Armagh law are:

1o, that it deals directly only with the case in which a person dies outside his parish;

2o, that, a person does not die outside his parish if he dies in a parish in which he has either a domicile or quasi-domicile (94, § 1);2

3°, that, when he does die outside his parish, one-fourth of the offerings goes to the clergy of the parish in which the death occurs (no matter where the funeral takes place), and that the extern clergy are bound to see that Mass be said for the deceased;

1 See I. E. RECORD, March, 1912 (pp. 301-9), April, 1912 (pp. 410-17), January, 1914 (pp. 84-7), March, 1914 (pp. 286-8), November, 1918 (pp. 404-7). 2 Cf. I. E: RECORD, January, 1915 (p. 68), November, 1918 (pp. 406-7).

4o, that, in the same circumstances, however, no offerings are to go to a parish in which the custom of collecting offerings does not exist;

5o, that, when a person dies inside his parish, we must fall back on the general law as modified by Ulster custom-and of this custom we have some indications in the subsidiary principles suggested by the decree 1°, that the parishes of domicile and of death have special claims; 2°, that no importance attaches to the place of burial; 3o, that, as above, no offerings go to a parish in which there is no offerings custom. Outside that, our opinion-based partly on these principles, partly on general law and on what we venture to think is common sense, partly on the views of those who attended the Synod or are in the best position to judge, and partly on custom and practice, the 'best interpreter of laws' (29), so far as we know it-is :

1o, that, in the decree, 'domicile' includes 'quasi-domicile.' shorter form is used for convenience;

6

The

2o, that, when a person dies outside his parish, the three-fourths ' should be divided equally among the different parishes in which he has a domicile or quasi-domicile 1 (cf. Canon 1236, § 2).

3o, that, when he has had a domicile and quasi-domicile and dies in the parish of domicile, all the offerings go to the parish of domicile (cf. Canon 1216, § 2). No one seems to question this.

4o, that, when he has had a domicile and quasi-domicile and dies in the parish of quasi-domicile, all the offerings go to the parish of quasidomicile (cf. Canons 1216, § 2, and 94, § 1). This is the point that is frequently questioned-by F.' among others. But it seems a clear conclusion-from principles that we must accept those mentioned in our opening paragraph, stated in general law and left unmodified by Ulster custom. If it is to be changed, a special law will be necessary.

For this opinion of ours-right or wrong-we have given our reasons already, and we need not repeat them.

In reply to 'F.'s' criticism-which is very fair and reasonable—we would say, taking his points as he has numbered them:

[ocr errors]

(1) Domicile, whatever this term means.' It means, in our opinion, domicile or quasi-domicile. But, whatever it means, the decree has no bearing on the nurse's case. She died in her parish. If F.' denies that he must reject the Code and all recent decisions, or he must show that the Armagh legislators gave paroecia sua an interpretation that is admitted nowhere else in the Catholic world, and not even in Armagh in any department outside that of funeral offerings. We question whether he will attempt to do these things. If he does not, his subsequent statements, under No. 2, do not affect the issue, except in so far as they tend to establish a' subsidiary' principle-like those referred to in No. 5° (above). Do they establish such a principle? We think not:

(2) (a) This argument, we admit, has considerable force. But the legislators, remember, were speaking of a man who died where he had no domicile or quasi-domicile. Did they mean, in regard to the

[merged small][ocr errors]

distribution of the three-fourths,' to differentiate between the rival claims of the clergy of domicile and quasi-domicile? It may be; but, since the general law puts both on the same footing,1 we should like to have some proof of it. Apart from all designs of the kind, the legislators had reason enough for adopting the shorter term: it was much more convenient: in what we have written above, and in previous contributions, we should have followed their example-if we were not afraid of keen critics like 'F.'

(b) The Ne Temere abolished the claims of quasi-domicile in one single department. Why should the Synod get excited about that, when it was legislating on a totally different matter? In the issue of the Acta to which 'F.' refers, a Maltese Bishop is stated to have urged the Ne Temere parallel in another case of funeral offerings. The reply of the Congregation of the Council was not encouraging.

(c) We are aware that this has been stated by some. We are also aware that the opposite has been stated by others. Both sides are equally trustworthy. Nothing, then, remains except to fall back on the wording of the decree as interpreted by general law and custom.

[ocr errors]

Our position, therefore, is that 'the nurse dies [inside] her parish and that all the offerings are due to the clergy of the parish where she dies.' That is different from 'F.'s': we are very sorry, but we cannot help it.

(3) With the first two paragraphs we agree. The third is one that the local Bishops might examine carefully. It is the best statement in 'F.'s' query-the best, in fact, we have seen on the subject—and deserves every consideration. The Armagh statute certainly did not deal directly with the case he gives: if the custom he refers to still exists, it is, therefore, not directly opposed to the statute and might, in a crisis, prevail. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to say what the local customs All we can say is :

are.

1o, that the custom was mentioned with approval by the Synod of Drogheda (1854, p. 38)-in connexion with the case with which the Synod did deal-but, again in connexion with the same case, was discarded by the Synod of Armagh and replaced by the present regulation. That furnishes one of the 'subsidiary' principles that tend to convince an outsider that the custom has been abolished everywhere;

2°, that the abuses which grew up under the old system, and (we may suppose) contributed to its suppression in the one case settled by the Synod, affected 'F.'s' case just as well, and would, in that case, naturally lead to a similar result;

3o, that, in all the parishes about which we have been fortunate enough to secure definite information, the custom has certainly ceased. (4) The Canon referred to does not directly affect the statute in any way. As for the decision in the Acta we have only to note:

1o, that, according to the general law, the division of the offerings

1 All recent decrees; Canon 94, § 1, sums them up.

2 It will be found in the I. T. Quarterly, Oct., 1918 (pp. 374-8).

depends largely on the 'place of burial.' The two questions are, therefore, not very 'different.' 'F.' might weigh the statement that [quaeritur] de iure [exequias] faciendi, quod iusta proventuum perceptio sequitur.' 1

2°, that the Congregation, while leaving the way open for reasonable arrangements in the future, abolished the local decree and custom, and reaffirmed the principle of the general law.

DIVISION OF FEES

REV. DEAR SIR,-Will you kindly solve this case? Bertha has a parental domicile (A) whilst going to, and intending to reside for a halfyear in, another parish (B). Whilst there a good opening presents itself in a third parish (C), but it will last for only half-a-year, or at most eight months. She is allowed to avail of it on the understanding that she will return and put in her half-year in the second parish. Accordingly, she goes to the third parish and spends half-a-year there, and leaves for the seaside in a fourth parish (D) with the family, remaining there a month and a few days, except that she returns to her master's house to look after things and take to the seaside resort some home-grown food for the following week. In all, she spends twenty-five days at the seaside and there determines to contract marriage with a young man from a different parish (E), who resides in a town where they at once get married before the urban parish priest, as there seemed no chance of the other four parish priests arranging for her marriage as promptly as she wished. Is the urban parish priest to retain the marriage fee or to restore it to one or all four rural rectors? Could each one of them assist at the marriage lawfully?

DUBIUS ET ANXIUS.

Whatever may be wanting in the data, there are parishes enough to satisfy everybody.

Who were the parochi proprii who might lawfully have assisted at the marriage?

1o. The parish priest of A was certainly one.

2o. As for the parish priest of B, the matter is doubtful. The lady had a quasi-domicile there at first: the only question is whether she lost it when she went to C. It may be reasonably claimed that she had then given up the intention required for quasi-domicile, and that the absence was too protracted to justify us in holding that her 'residence' in B still continued. But the point is not quite certain: we may quote the words of a man who wrote extensively on these matters, but was unable to come to any definite conclusion in a very similar case:--

A person buys or rents, on the 1st of January, two houses situated in two different parishes, A and B, with the intention of spending six months in A and the second half-year in B. He cccupies both immediately; that is to say, he furnishes them and takes personal possession. For that purpose, he goes and spends the first two or three days of January in his second house in B, to which he is to return definitely at the beginning of July: he leaves his servants there to finish the furnishing

1 Ibid. p. 377.

« PrécédentContinuer »