Catholic Annulments

[inheaven4]

Hello,

This question is about annulments. Our new pastor has used the term “internal forum” when it comes to marrying a person who was previously married in the catholic church (but in mexico). The man has not received an annulment from his first wife and our new pastor has married him in the catholic church (in california) without his first marriage being annulled. He says he has the power to do it because of “internal forum”. Can you explain the circumstances when this can happen.

Thank you.

 

[puzzleannie]

what I cannot understand is why this is being discussed with third parties, or why they require explanation as the meaning of the internal forum is within the confessional. Now maybe it was used wrongly in this case but like anything else on that level, and like anything to do with annulments, that is completely confidential.

 

[Ocarm]

what I cannot understand is why this is being discussed with third parties, or why they require explanation as the meaning of the internal forum is within the confessional.

At the risk of being pedantic, I think I’m right in saying that the term has a slightly broader application than that, referring more generally to issues of conscience as internal phenomena. Consequently there is use in canon law of the expression ‘non-sacramental internal forum’ e.g.

Can. 1082 Unless a rescript of the Penitentiary provides otherwise, a dispensation from an occult impediment granted in the non-sacramental internal forum is to be noted in a book which must be kept in the secret archive of the curia; no other dispensation for the external forum is necessary if afterwards the occult impediment becomes public.

• and also ‘sacramental internal forum’ e.g.

Can. 1357 §1. Without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 508 and 976, a confessor can remit in the internal sacramental forum an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.

In these instances the former means a discussion of matters of conscience outside of the sacrament of reconciliation, and the latter a dialogue within reconciliation.

I completely agree that these are confidential matters, and am consistently concerned by the way in which a second-hand event like that described here by the OP leads to third-hand speculation here on CAF (sometimes masquerading as authoritative opinion!). In my opinion such questions need to be taken back to their source, since only the people involved can really provide valid answers.

 

[1ke]

This is not at all as the priest is representing it. If the facts are as you state, this couple is not validly married. There is no such thing as making a marriage valid through the “internal forum solution.”

Here are the sources available on the Vatican website that speak directly to this issue:

John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1981), paragraph 84.

Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law (1983).

Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1650 (1992).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful” (September 14, 1994), n. 4.

The Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “On Communion for Divorced and Remarried Persons” ( June 24, 2000).

John Paul II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, 1995. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19950210_roman-rota_en.html

XI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, proposition 40, 2005.

Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the
Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission, 2007

Here is an article from the Pennsylvania Bishops that explains it well:

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DIVCATH.HTM

 

[puzzleannie]

yes as Ocarm notes in his broader info, specifically matter related to annulment marriage etc. determined in this manner is, like annulment in general and certain other confidential canon law proceedings to be recorded in a Secret Archive, which mean in no circumstances should it be being discussed in general between pastor and parishioners. The individual’s baptismal record would merely note freedom to marry with reference back to the diocese where this permission was granted, and these records are also confidential with access only to the individual himself.

I am still very concerned about a grave breach of canon law if this pastor has introduced this matter to the rest of the parish, or even to certain individuals beyond their need to know–RCIA instructor for instance.

 

[1ke]

yes as Ocarm notes in his broader info, specifically matter related to annulment marriage etc. determined in this manner is, like annulment in general and certain other confidential canon law proceedings to be recorded in a Secret Archive, which mean in no circumstances should it be being discussed in general between pastor and parishioners. The individual’s baptismal record would merely note freedom to marry with reference back to the diocese where this permission was granted, and these records are also confidential with access only to the individual himself.

There is no such thing as declaring a marriage invalid through the “internal forum” and declaring someone free to marry in this way. See the links above.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hello,

This question is about annulments. Our new pastor has used the term “internal forum” when it comes to marrying a person who was previously married in the catholic church (but in mexico). The man has not received an annulment from his first wife and our new pastor has married him in the catholic church (in california) without his first marriage being annulled. He says he has the power to do it because of “internal forum”. Can you explain the circumstances when this can happen.

Thank you.

He may have made an investigation that you are not aware of and found there was a defect in form invalidating the first attempt at marriage, such that a formal tribunal investigation was not required to establish that the parties were in fact free to marry. It may relieve you to find that it doesn’t always take a tribunal and many months to do that. Simple cases based on facts that do not require witnesses can sometimes be ascertained in parish.

This forum can only provide the broad theoretical issues that might apply. We can’t say anything about the situation you know about. If our answers do not sound like the situation you know about, and if you are still concerned about this and do not get an answer from your pastor that satisfies you when you ask him again, it would be better to call the chancery office in your diocese with your concerns. They’re the ones who actually have access to the facts, know how to explain the facts to you, and are responsible to do something if an irregularity does in fact exist.

Having said that, because you are not the first spouse, there may be policies respecting privacy and prudence that keep them from discussing any particular case with you. They may take information from you, but they are unlikely to give information about a particular case to you. Even if reporting is your responsibility, getting the scoop isn’t usually going to be any of your business.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is no such thing as declaring a marriage invalid through the “internal forum” and declaring someone free to marry in this way. See the links above.

The priest may be doing exactly the right thing, but only using the incorrect term for it, though.

 

[puzzleannie]

There is no such thing as declaring a marriage invalid through the “internal forum” and declaring someone free to marry in this way. See the links above.

there are canon law matters that can be dealt with in this way, see a canon lawyer

what there cannot be is public discussion of them on the part of the pastor with third parties

 

[1ke]

The priest may be doing exactly the right thing, but only using the incorrect term for it, though.

Yes, certainly, a defect of form would be a paperwork case not a tribunal case in most US diocese.

BUT, note the OP indicated the marriage was in the Catholic form (“in the Catholic Church”). So, that doesn’t seem to be that his is simply using the wrong term.

The only way a marriage that is presumed valid can be determined invalid is through a decree of nullity via the Triubnal or a person can seek a dissolution of the bond through Petrine or Pauline privilege when applicable.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, certainly, a defect of form would be a paperwork case not a tribunal case in most US diocese.

BUT, note the OP indicated the marriage was in the Catholic form (“in the Catholic Church”). So, that doesn’t seem to be that his is simply using the wrong term.

The only way a marriage that is presumed valid can be determined invalid is through a decree of nullity via the Triubnal or a person can seek a dissolution of the bond through Petrine or Pauline privilege when applicable.

What I’m thinking is that the first marriage may not have actually been in the Catholic Church. If you get a so-called “rent-a-priest” without priestly faculties or somebody “ordained” by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, that isn’t getting married in the Catholic Church, even if the marriage is between two Catholics, not matter what people at the wedding thought it was. That is one possibility: that is, that the invalid judgement by the priest happened at the first attempt at marriage, not the second.

Also, if you have a birth certificate showing that the bride had not reached the age of marriage by the date the marriage was recorded, or she was already married on that date, or something like that, then it would be a defect that wouldn’t require witnesses, either. I’m sure there are other examples.

 

[1ke]

What I’m thinking is that the first marriage may not have actually been in the Catholic Church. If you get a so-called “rent-a-priest” without priestly faculties or somebody “ordained” by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, that isn’t getting married in the Catholic Church, even if the marriage is between two Catholics, not matter what people at the wedding thought it was. That is one possibility: that is, that the invalid judgement by the priest happened at the first attempt at marriage, not the second.

Yes, an invalid marriage due to lack of form (which all of your examples are) would be evident when the sacramental records of the man were provided during the premarital investiagation for the (2nd) marriage and showed no entry for a Catholic marriage. It would then be a matter of paperwork to the diocese.

I was going by the OP’s statement that the first marriage was in the Catholic Church and taking that at face value, not that he really meant some rent-a-priest scenario. If it is as the OP described, this would mean it would not be lack of form (paperwork only) but rather a full tribunal process.

Also, if you have a birth certificate showing that the bride had not reached the age of marriage by the date the marriage was recorded, or she was already married on that date, or something like that, then it would be a defect that wouldn’t require witnesses, either. I’m sure there are other examples.

It might not require *witnesses *but it would require the tribunal investigation and declaration of findings.

Again the “internal forum solution” is not the way in which this would be resolved.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, an invalid marriage due to lack of form (which all of your examples are) would be evident when the sacramental records of the man were provided during the premarital investiagation for the (2nd) marriage and showed no entry for a Catholic marriage. It would then be a matter of paperwork to the diocese.

I was going by the OP’s statement that the first marriage was in the Catholic Church and taking that at face value, not that he really meant some rent-a-priest scenario. If it is as the OP described, this would mean it would not be lack of form (paperwork only) but rather a full tribunal process.

Normally, when someone says they are married in the Church, I would of course take it at face value. When I hear that a priest married a couple and explained to someone questioning him that the situation had in fact been investigated and was kosher, then I start think a wire got crossed in the communications somewhere.

It is unfortunately possible that this priest could have been making up an answer out of thin air and blustering a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo so as to not be cornered doing something he knew was not kosher, or that he had made a huge mistake instead of simply mis-speaking on the use of one legal term, but one doesn’t like to go there. That’s the last possibility you want to consider. Nevertheless, if things simply don’t add up, a call to the chancery office would not be out of place, assuming caller is ready to bow out and mind his own business after the ones with authority to look into these things has been notified.

There is a huge temptation towards rash judgement and gossip here, one to be studiously avoided. It is possible to do the right thing but no more, and then just let go of it.

It might not require *witnesses *but it would require the tribunal investigation and declaration of findings.

Again the “internal forum solution” is not the way in which this would be resolved.

It is also possible, then, that the decision by the parish priest was entirely correct, and very obviously so from the objective facts, but not arrived at by the correct juridical channels? It would seem that this would come up when one sent the paperwork into the diocese. The parish does have to wait for an affirmative reply before proceeding with the intended marriage.

 

[otjm]

There are numerous areas in South and Central America which do not have regular Mass, but because of the distance, a priest might get to the area once a month or even less frequently. It is my understanding that there have been circumstances where couples would “marry” (whether before some magistrate or within the local community) and eventually a priest would come around and “regularize” those marriages.

It may be that the first marriage was of such circumstance, but had not be “regularized” and that the couple then either separated or went through some legal proceedure to separate or divorce.

It also may be that the priest in question believes that there is such a thing as “internal forum” available to those married, divorced, and subsequently remarried and unable to provide sufficient evidence to a tribunal to come to a decree of nullity regarding the first marriage. At least, it was my experience some years ago that there was such an idea floating around; whether sourced from tribunals, or Canon lawyers, or seminary education, the idea of the internal forum certainly was not unknown, incorrect that it is. And in fact, it is entirely possible we have parish priests still around who are of the innocent belief that such exists; we ought not presume that priests, once ordained are keeping up on all matters.

There is also the old issue of “he said she said” - the fact that 2nd hand and farther removed accountings of what the speaker actually said become more and more inaccurate as they are repeated.

As far as the OP, the priest may have actually said what he is alleged to have said; it is possible there are facts not known to others which would render any current marriage status as regular; it is possible the statement was incorrectly conveyed or misunderstood, and the bottom line is there is probably not a lot anyone can do, except dwell on an issue which is most likely not their business to begin with.