RootsChat.Com

Personally, I haven't looked through many Catholic church records from the US, so I was hoping I could draw on the experience of others regarding dispensations in the US.

In the US, I have only ever seen notation in the marriage register which means that the bride and groom are first cousins, and this I have only encountered very rarely.

In the US, I haven't ever seen any notation that means that people were second or third cousins.  Or second or first cousins once removed.  Though, I have seen this sort of info very frequently in Ireland.

I am wondering if they basically didn't record these other categories in America other than first cousins.

I read recently that the only cousins that require a dispensation are first cousins, which surprised me greatly, as I have seen all these other notations in Ireland.

Can anyone confirm this idea that they basically didn't record these other categories in America?

(I am trying to evaluate one marriage in particular where I think the couple were some other type of cousins rather than first, but which gives no notation.)

I was wondering if anyone could explain whether there was any procedural difference in a consanguineous marriage. (Catholic)

Like, did it require a longer waiting time?  Or did it require some special fee?  Or some kind of research work?

I'm basically wondering if there would be any motivation for lying and saying a consanguineous marriage was non-consanguineous.

I have a kind of suspicious case in mind.

The two mothers of the bride and groom had the same maiden surname.  The mothers were born about in neighboring townlands.  (That is, ignoring possible subdivisions)

What's more, I think one mother was living in the same townland as the other was born, when she was married.

The mothers had different fathers, so the bride and groom would have to be no closer than second cousins.

The groom had an uncle who married his second cousin, in a neighboring parish.  I only understand the relationship through the notation.  The records don't go back far enough to detail it out.

The bride and groom lived about 10 km apart in neighboring parishes.  Mountainous country.

The marriage happened in America.  I haven't read many pages of American church records, but I never noticed any notes other than for first cousins.  Very different to Ireland, where I never saw first cousins being married, but lots of other notes for other relationships.

I was thinking that they would probably have viewed relationships more distant than first cousins less important in America, due to the lesser danger of inbreeding.

It also occurs to me that the records to outline any possible relationship would not have survived, and they might have known that, in a bureaucratic sense.  That is, if formal research was required, the priest would have known it was impossible to carry out.

Of course, another possibility is that they were related more distantly than was required to be stated.

I guess there is no digital index for the stuff that survives, and the only way is to fill out forms.  Or at least that is my impression.

That is basically what I was after.

If I understand correctly, it was the bishop who had the power to define parishes.  Not sure what factors he would have weighed.

I understand that in1678, the diocese of Leighlin was put into administration of the Kildare bishops and later amalgamated in no small measure because the revenues of both places were considered very low.

I wonder if a similar thing could have happened with parishes.

It is really quite confusing to hear the old names of parishes.  Sometimes they seem to change the name entirely, and I wonder why.  Maybe, the location of the church moved.  Or of the PP.

In particular, he was known as a healing priest, with people making pilrimages to his grave. That last I can personally attest to, as I have myself seen the many rosary beads and other religious objects left on his table tomb as late as 2000 or so.

Fr. Duggan was similar.

I know there was some pilgrimage 100 years after his death.  I believe his vestments are still preserved.  But his hat is missing pieces, as touching a piece of it to the head was supposed to be a cure for headaches.

Notice that he was the Administrator - "Admr" in this case - because that was a mensal parish.

I was able to puzzle that out, but just barely because it isn't one of the terms I've seen.  I've seen 'assistant' and I think possibly 'substitute', but I'm not sure.

Vicar is a very non-Catholic term to use for ordinary diocesan clergy. No particular logic as to where assigned.

'Vicar' was my lazy way of saying 'vicar general.'  I think I've seen a few in the same parish, over the years, so it had me wondering if there was some geographic ideal in the diocese or else some tradition of them being in a certain parish or parishes.

But I don't think what I saw was necessarily strong enough to indicate a pattern.  Maybe, parishioners just like to brag about their vicar generals.

I have no idea what a mensal parish means for the CofE

I had the very vague idea that it was a particular area of land regularly set aside for all successive bishops for financial support and that often they were not resident in it at all.

Whereas with Catholics, I had the idea it was meant to denote that the bishop lived there.  That it was specifically his parish, and not necessarily one set place over time for succesive bishops.  But that a particular bishop living their made it a mensal parish.

But I could be very wrong about all that, though I had heard there was some difference.

It's a bit difficult for me to understand how the financial aspect of it worked.  Weren't there curates there that had to be supported, just like any other parish?  Was it supposed to be a richer parish?  Didn't the church not have any land in Ireland, on which to gather rents?