I remember reading this column from crux’s ‘spiritual’ columnist…The editor of Crux is Theresa Hanafin, who generally has opposed most positions of the Catholic Church over the last 3 decades. John Allen, who is associate editor, formerly worked for National Catholic Reporter (!). Compared to their other writers, or compared to Theresa Hanafin, or compared to the Boston Globe, he would be considered objective. I agree he is a very good writer.
But Crux is owned by the Boston Globe, which is considered possibly the most adversarial, to Catholicism, major daily newspaper in the US. I believe the late Fr. Benedict Groeschel “awarded” them his “Robie” award one year, for the most adversarial, non-objective, unfair, newspaper in the US. (Robie, named after Robespierre of French Revolution fame).
I would say there are 3 kinds of publications: there are those specifically pro Catholic; there are others, not in any way connected to the Catholic Church, not for or against; then there are those who are adversarial. I am not saying don’t read Crux; but better to call it what it is: an online department of the Boston Globe. I bet some of the more neutral or objective coverage might might come from Protestant sources, by the way.
.If you note, I specifically stated that they were not the same thing. A marriage tribunal will always reference the internal forum, which means that it is distinct from BEING the internal forum.
A Marriage Tribunal judges the marriage under the provisions of Canon Law, just like any other court of law judges a case. I would agree that a sacrament is in effect judged, but under canon law this is not what legally occurs.And a Marriage Tribunal focuses on the validity of the Sacrament. PART of that is Canon Law, to see if the marriage was conducted to Canonical Form. A tribunal can certainly discover that a marriage was correct according to Canon Law, but still invalid due to an issue brought forward by one of the parties via the internal forum.
Again, a marriage tribunal is of the external forum as provided by Canon Law. Were another person to hear from a person concerning the internal forum, as was suggested by the synod, the resulting determination by the other person is (or should be) objective and in any case is of the external forum. That is its very purpose.What the internal forum is NOT is a means of a person declaring, by themselves, apart from a Marriage Tribunal, that their marriage was invalid.
And no one has said they were. With all due respect, this assumption is why silence is sometimes preferable to trying to explain what one knows. I would only note that it seems as though what is sought is a legalistic approach. What one reads from a document is objective knowledge. What is spiritual is an experience. These also are two separate things.And no one in the Synod is attempting to make that claim.
When you say “there was at one time a specific…”, to what are you referring?“Of itself, the power of governance is exercised for the external forum; sometimes, however, it is exercised for the internal forum alone, so that the effects which its exercise is meant to have for the external forum are not recognized there, except insofar as the law determines it in specific cases” (1983 code of Canon Law, Can. 130).
There was at one time a specific reference concerning the internal forum with respect to divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion. However, in essence the certain judgment of conscience is recognized by canon law if not externally.
I would have to disagree with the statement that marriage tribunals “use” the internal and external forums. There is nothing “internal” about a trial. All that matters is what is external. Judicial power is always exercised in the external forum.Both the internal forum and the external forum are nothing new to the Annulment process. Both are used.
The External formum deals with what can be publically known or declared. , the presence or absence of Canonical form, the age of the participants, their use of drugs or alcohol during the wedding etc…
The internal forum dealt with acceptance or rejection of children, if one party felt duress or pressure to marry, undiagnosed mental issues, the view (or lack of view) of marriage as a permanent institution.
So use of the internal forum is not new in the least, and no one is suggesting that it is. And likewise, no one, least of all the Synod, is suggesting an EXCLUSIVE use of the internal forum, or one absent a marriage tribunal of some sort.
I have been unable to find the reference and can only paraphrase it from memory. In either the CCC or the code of Canon Law it was specifically stated that through the internal forum a divorced and remarried Catholic who had not obtained an annulment could in some instances be permitted to receive communion. The text went on to say that the Church could not recognize this practice in any widespread way. I am certain this was called the Internal Solution. This was a reference to the conscience. There was also the mentioning of a secret recognition, in special circumstances, that would not be revealed by either the person or the Church. This was possibly in the pre-1992 catechism but not at all certain.When you say “there was at one time a specific…”, to what are you referring?
Sorry to bring this up again. But these three sentences are pivotal.They already are part of church life. No one’s saying that they can’t go to church or participate in church activities. They just can’t receive communion while still committing adultery.
The language we use is interesting. For example, you said, " They just can’t receive communion while still committing adultery." Normally, when we used the word “while” we think of two things occurring at the same time, as in chewing bubble gum while walking. This does not convey the idea that one chewed gum a few times this month and will likely chew gum next week, while walking. Yet I know you do not mean that the person is actually involved in an adulterous act at the moment in time he is receiving communion.They already are part of church life. No one’s saying that they can’t go to church or participate in church activities. They just can’t receive communion while still committing adultery.
It is certainly the most common “state of sin” out there. It results from the fact that divorce/remarriage are countenanced by the civil law and so, by/in civil law, the people involved are in a public state which is contrary to the faith.…
This seems absurd and silly, yet underneath it is why this particular sin is so unique, as there is no other sin in Catholic theology that we treat as a “state” instead of an act, though one can be in a state of mortal sin as a result of an act.
Well my wife’s aunt was in just that situation for a long time. She had always been active in her parish, was good friends with the pastor, was active in many parish functions, attended Mass every Sunday. When she married, her husband walked away after a few months, never to return. She remarried a non-Catholic civilly. Her application for annulment was denied. In those days, declarations of nullity were rare. In her relationship to her parish, nothing whatever changed, except that she no longer went to communion. She was still active in the parish, attended Mass every Sunday, was friends with the pastor. In today’s parlance, she was always welcomed. Later, her husband became ill and impotent, and she returned to communion.Just out of curiosity how can remarried Catholics who have not or cannot receive an annulment…cannot receive the Eucharist which is central to the Catholic faith and are considered adulterers living in grave sin…yet expected to be incorporated back into the life of the church…it won’t work.
Yes, but the state of sin is a result of an act. I have never heard any being in the state of theft, for example, or the state of abortion, or even a state of premarital sex. Yet I have heard state of adultery.It is certainly the most common “state of sin” out there. It results from the fact that divorce/remarriage are countenanced by the civil law and so, by/in civil law, the people involved are in a public state which is contrary to the faith.
If there was a state approval (like a license) for, let’s say an abortion doctor or a pornographer or a mafia boss (a favorite target of the Pope) or, etc., then such a person would be said to be in a state of sin for as long as they are in that situation. That’s the way it seems to me.
Dan
No, The external forum deals with certain canonical elements, such as the place and time of the attempted marriage. If the Catholic form of marriage was used, and if not, was there a dispensation from the valid ordinaryI would have to disagree with the statement that marriage tribunals “use” the internal and external forums. There is nothing “internal” about a trial. All that matters is what is external. Judicial power is always exercised in the external forum.
Dan
Maybe the phrase came about because we talk about “the state of marriage”Yes, but the state of sin is a result of an act. I have never heard any being in the state of theft, for example, or the state of abortion, or even a state of premarital sex. Yet I have heard state of adultery.
It is an act that is state-sanctioned and, in state/civil law, public.Yes, but the state of sin is a result of an act. I have never heard any being in the state of theft, for example, or the state of abortion, or even a state of premarital sex. Yet I have heard state of adultery.
I think this is the most likely answer. After all, the Church normally does not develop theology or terminology around civil immorality. Anyway, I still hold this one issue to be theologically unique, and singular in its canonical treatment.Maybe the phrase came about because we talk about “the state of marriage”
…and contrast that with the “state of adultery”.
I’m pretty confused by what you say here…and will just leave it at that.No, The external forum deals with certain canonical elements, such as the place and time of the attempted marriage. If the Catholic form of marriage was used, and if not, was there a dispensation from the valid ordinary
the external forum cannot determine the dispositions of persons, if they were compelled, if they had hidden reservations at the time, if they had intentions of rejecting children. All of that are matters of the internal forum. But these all have a bearing on the validity of the Sacrament which is the focus of the tribunal.
That is why the tribunal attempts to discover these matters via the interviews and testimony of the participants. Such testimony, in a marriage tribunal INCLUDES questions related to the internal forum of the participants.
PeeboJust out of curiosity how can remarried Catholics who have not or cannot receive an annulment…cannot receive the Eucharist which is central to the Catholic faith and are considered adulterers living in grave sin…yet expected to be incorporated back into the life of the church…it won’t work.
May I?I’m pretty confused by what you say here…and will just leave it at that.
Dan