Last week’s post began the discussion on the principle of territoriality, the eighth principle that influenced the 1983 Code. Today’s post explores territoriality and domicile.
A domicile in canon law is a territory where one has a long-term residence and, thereby, enjoys certain rights and privileges and is bound by the obligations of that place. Domicile is called parochial when it concerns the territory of a parish or quasi-parish. It is called diocesan when it concerns a diocese, vicariate or prefecture (Can. 102 §3). Civil boundaries do not determine ecclesiastical territories; rather, ecclesiastical territories are established when ecclesiastical authority establishes a parish or diocese.
Canon law distinguishes between domicile and quasi-domicile. A domicile is acquired by residence in a parish or diocesan territory with the intention of remaining there permanently or has been there for five years. A quasi-domicile is acquired by residence with the intention of remaining there for at least three months, or has lived there for three months (Can. 102). Persons lose their domicile or quasi-domicile when they depart from that place without the intention of returning. A transient (vagus) does not have any domicile or quasi-domicile (Can. 100).
A domicile and a quasi-domicile determine one’s proper parish priest and Ordinary. Domicile and quasi-domicile are also essential to determining the competent forum in which one can be called to trial (canon 1408). In the case of a vagus, the proper parish priest and Ordinary are the parish priest or Ordinary where the transient actually lives (Canon 107 §2). The competent forum for transients is the forum of the place where they live (Canon 1409 §1).
The purpose of the territoriality principle in canon law is to ensure pastoral order and sacramental discipline. Hence, one should receive the sacraments and participate in Church activities in one’s domicile or quasi-domicile. However, in light of increased mobility and choice-making regarding religious practice and affiliation, territoriality and domicile are becoming increasingly complex.
It is now common for one to live in a parish territory, but attend Mass at the cathedral parish or another parish territory. This can be problematic when the territoriality principle concerns obligations and rights. One must state here that there is no one-size-fits-all response to this, as the peculiarities vary due to the subject matter (what is being considered) and the location (rural or urban).
First, in line with the spirituality of canon law, the law is clear that Christ’s faithful “have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments” (Can. 213), and that “sacred ministers cannot deny (denegare non possunt) the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (Can. 843 §1).
Hence, since the purpose of canon law is to help the faithful in their journey of holiness (spirituality of canon law), one who decides to participate in the sacraments in another parish does not commit an offence. One who decides to go to another parish because one is physically or morally impeded from going to one’s proper parish is better off than the one who completely stops participating.
A physical impediment may be due to illness or old age. Many live at the boundaries of their parish or diocesan territories, where the neighbouring parish church or diocesan cathedral is much closer to them than their proper parish or diocese. Moral impediment may arise from the behaviour of priests, an offence committed against them by priests, the behaviour of some Church members, conflict within pious associations, or, as some argue, from a desire to avoid excessive requests for donations in their proper parish or diocese. Regarding the latter, the universality of the Church means that any donation made in another parish or diocese fulfils the obligation and right to support the Church (Cann. 222 & 1261).
Furthermore, there are situations in which one merely receives the sacraments in another parish without having officially joined it. For instance, when one goes to Mass or confession in another parish but has not joined the CWO, CMO, CYON, or any of the pious associations there. The person is entitled to receive the sacraments but may be denied the specific rights attached to membership in any of these groups in that parish. Ordination and marriage always require the proper (territorial or personal) parish priest or Ordinary because they have to process the documents and publish the bans. Funerals also require the proper parish priest, especially when the burial is at the family compound.
On the other hand, the territoriality principle also prohibits priests from encroaching into another territory to celebrate the sacraments without the proper parish priest’s permission. The law even attaches invalidity (defect of canonical form) to marriages done without the permission of the proper parish priest. The only exception to this invalidity is if the vicar general, the episcopal vicar, or the diocesan bishop authorised the marriage (Can. 1108 §1).
A more delicate reality concerns priests going to another territory to bless houses. Since the blessing of a house is a sacramental, rather than a sacrament, it is important to note some points. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “Among sacramentals, blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first” (CCC, 1671). It also states: “Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptised person is called to be a ‘blessing,’ and to bless. Hence, lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons)” (CCC, 1669). The blessing of a house does not necessarily concern ecclesial and sacramental life. Members of pious associations pray at people’s homes, and for those homes.
When Christ visited each house, he blessed them. While Jesus did not prescribe a formal “house blessing” ritual as the Church practices today, He commanded his disciples to bless homes with peace as part of their mission. The early Church applied this literally during missionary visits and house-church gatherings. The practice evolved into formal blessings as the Church grew. Today, the Catholic house blessing is a recognised sacramental rooted directly in Christ’s instruction. When a priest visits any house today, he ordinarily blesses the household. Even if the priest does not want to, the family often requests prayers and blessings.
When societies were homogeneous and often permanent, home blessings were easy to interpret and restricted to parish priests or their delegates. Contemporary societies are heterogeneous, allowing parishioners to have priest friends or relatives in addition to their proper parish priests. These priests also visit. With increased mobility and a constant flux of people, and as contemporary societies have also influenced residency and the proper parish priest, it becomes challenging to implement. A strict interpretation of obtaining permission from a parish priest requires that whenever a priest visits someone in another parish territory, he must inform the proper parish priest before blessing them.
The spirituality of canon law is that the law should help people deepen their journey toward holiness to promote the salvation of souls. Hence, the interpretation and decision of each priest are always to be guided by the territoriality principle, subject matter, location, and conscience.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
