Case 25. A Notable Case

Henrietta, the daughter of Caia, who was French by nationality and retained her domicile in London throughout the entire time to which the case extends, lived for the sake of education in a certain convent of nuns in Paris. A German foreigner who fell in love with her there sought her in marriage. Henrietta promised him marriage and, immediately after her education was finished, left the convent; until the marriage could be celebrated after some weeks, she lived in rooms in a certain inn with her mother, who had come from London for this purpose; finally, the marriage was celebrated before the parish priest of that place. The outcome, however, was unhappy, for because of her husband’s adulteries and cruelty she sought and obtained in a civil court a divorce from the bond. Now, however, Henrietta would like to marry Julius if this is permitted to her by ecclesiastical laws. Hence it is asked:

1. What is the impediment of clandestinity, and whom does it bind in England and in France?

2. Who is one’s proper parish priest?

3. What is required for domicile and quasi-domicile, and where do daughters under parental authority have domicile or quasi-domicile?

4. What is to be said of the case?

The first question is answered above, p. 304.

2. Who is the “ proper parish priest ” of the Tridentine law of clandestinity?

He is the priest in whose parish at least one of the parties who wish to be married has a domicile or quasi-domicile.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 326.

3. What is required for a domicile or quasi-domicile and where have minors a domicile or quasi-domicile?

A domicile is acquired by living in a place with the intention of always living there; a quasi-domicile is acquired by living in a place with the intention of living there for the greater part of a year. Minors retain the domicile of their parents or guardians as long as they do not renounce it. They can also acquire a quasi-domicile of their own.²

4. The case. The parents of Henrietta lived in London, while she was educated in a convent in Paris. There she promised to marry a German stranger. After her education was finished Henrietta moved with her mother into a hotel situated in another of the parishes of Paris, and after some weeks she married in presence of the parish priest of this parish. The marriage was invalid if celebrated before April 19, 1908. Henrietta had neither a domicile nor a quasi-domicile in the parish where she married. She retained her London domicile. She was not a vaga, nor was her husband; therefore as the decree Tametsi bound her in Paris, she required the presence of her own parish priest in London or of his delegate in order to contract a valid marriage in Paris. This was not done,

‘Ibid., 326 ft.

and so the marriage was invalid. In substance the case is that In causa Parisien (Jan. 28, 1899, Analecta Eccles., 1899, p. 15).

The marriage would be valid if it were contracted after April 19, 1908, by virtue of the decree Ne temere.