Internal Forum in regard to annulments.

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003,

I think the other parts of the Ecclesiastical Forum article explain quite nicely how the internal forum represents God’s truth as opposed to what can be proved in the external forum:

I believe you are reading into the article what you want it to say.

Who, according to the article, has judicial jurisdiction over the internal forum? The article tells us that the CHURCH has judicial jurisdiciton over both forums, the internal and external. “ecclesiastical jurisdiction is distinguished into that of the internal and external forum.” (ibid.)

The article is speaking of the exercise of that jurisdiction. For the internal forum, it is exercised in two ways: in the Sacrament of Penance and extra-penitentially. The exercise of that authority is by the lawful pastor, not private opinion.

The internal forum and the external forum have different judges. Just like one diocese tribunal may come to a different judgment than another in the external forum, the internal and external judicial authorities may have come to different judgements. That’s what the article is talking about. It is not justifying actions that contradict the judgement of the internal or external forum. If that is your thesis, than I disagree. The subject of internal and external forum is covered by many other texts. I believe you interpretation does not hold up to scholastic scrutiny.

John Paul II wrote " I am pleased to welcome all the participants in the Course on the Internal Forum. This Course, organized each year by the Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, is not only followed with special interest by priests and confessors, but also by seminarians who want to prepare themselves to exercise with generous care the ministry of Reconciliation, so essential to the life of the Church**."** (Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the Course on the Internal Forum organized by the Tirbunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, 27 March 2004)

“Internal forum” means the EXERCISE of the judicial authority in the ministry of Reconciliation, to which the only lawful pastors have judicial jurisdiction, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally.

“Internal forum” does not mean, “Do as your private conscious tells you, even if contrary to the lawful judgment of the pastors of the Church.”

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe you are reading into the article what you want it to say.

Except that I don’t “want” it to say anything. I have studied this from many perspectives, including reading about medieval Church teachings on the subject, and I just want to find out what the truth is.

However, this topic has now become rather “political” in the Church, with the result being that the latest magisterial documents seem to be vague and equivocating, making it hard to figure out what the real answer is. The CDF letters definitely mention an internal forum, and do not explicitly call for the couple to live as brother and sister, but only according to Christian moral principles. These CDF letters were under the old canon law. The Pennsylvania bishops make it a key part of their argument against the current day use of the internal forum that every single invalid marriage can be so proved in the external forum, i.e., before a Church tribunal. However, I have trouble accepting the perfection of the post-1983 tribunal system.

I do grant that if the modern day external forum is perfect, then the internal forum has no legitimate use today.

“Internal forum” does not mean, “Do as your private conscious tells you, even if contrary to the lawful judgment of the pastors of the Church.”

I have not suggested that it does. In my hypothetical, the priest was involved to representing the Church. My understanding is that you would accept my hypothetical if the only thing that I changed was that the couple A and C lived as brother and sister. Yet since A and C are validly married, there is no requirement either in moral theology or canon law that they refrain from marital relations.

If evidence were available for an annulment of man A’s marriage to woman B, then all that would be required would be this annulment. There is no need for a convalidation in this case. (This relates to Ratzinger’s comment about the public reality of marriage.) And since annulments don’t change who you are married to, but only declare what is already true, couple A and C truly are validly married.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003,

Here’s another more concrete example of a conflict between the internal and exernal forum. The bottom line is that the person who is the subject of an unjust external forum judgment MUST STILL obey what they are subjectively certain is an unjust decision, but does so meritoriously, not penitentially.

Observe,

Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. … a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile BOUND TO OBEY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication.
(CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Excommunication)

---

The same is true of ANY UNJUST YET VALID judgment of the lawful external forum. You have to obey. Disobedience is a grave sin. You may very well be a saint in the eyes of God and an excommunicated enemy of the Church in the eyes of the Church. However, in Catholic moral theology, one must obey the lawful pastors of the Church in all things lawful within their scope of authority, even if the lawful pastor is WRONG. The moment the saint in God’s eyes disobeys the unjust yet valid judgement of the external forum, he falls from grace. Not because of the unjust judgment, but because of his subsequent sin of disobedience.

It is certainly true that necessity dispenses from the law. If in danger of death, an excommunicated person does not require absolution from the judicial authority of the external forum, but the judicial authority over the internal forum–the parish priest–may absolve. Only in necessity is this true (eg. danger of death). Otherwise, the parish priest cannot absolve matters of the external forum, as they have no jurisdiction within the external forum.

The same canonical norms apply to one who is banned from the Sacraments because they have re-married without prior annulment. The priest does not have the authority to dispense contrary to canon law or magisterial teaching. His authority rests solely in the internal forum, the tribunal of conscience, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally. The only internal forum solution is that which Paul VI’s Holy Office called “approved.”

Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly stated that the ONLY way that a re-married Catholic can have access to the Sacraments without an annulment is if they abstain from conjugal relations, receive absolution, and receive without public scandal. This is the internal forum solution. No other magisterial texts have been provided that pertain the internal solution EXCEPT the one’s that I’ve provided which explain the conditions of this internal forum solution. Do you have a magisterial texts which says something different?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Paul II: “*whenever doubts arise as to the conformity of an act—for example, in the specific case of a marriage—with the objective norm, and consequently, the lawfulness or even the validity itself of such an act is called into question, reference must be made to the judgment correctly emanating from legitimate authority (cf. c. 135, §3), and not to an alleged private judgment, and still less to the individual’s arbitrary conviction… ***care should be taken to avoid answers and solutions “in foro interno,” as it were, to situations that are perhaps difficult but which can be dealt with and resolved only by respecting the canonical norms in force. This must be kept in mind particularly by pastors who may be tempted to distance themselves in substance from the established and approved procedures of the *Code *[of Canon Law.]” **(Address of John Paul II ot the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, 10 February 1995)

**Catholic2003, **how do you reconcile the above with your understanding of the “internal forum solution?”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… couple A and C truly are validly married.

This may be the case, but it is also clear that couple A and C are canonically barred from the Sacraments, truly married or not, because the lawful marriage of couple A and B is PRESUMED valid UNTIL the exernal forum judges othewise.

So, couple A and C may not be, in fact, committing adultery by their living as a married couple. However, they DO COMMIT SIN by partaking of the Sacraments, as they violate canon law to do so. There is no provision in canon law for partaking the sacraments if you have been remarried without annulment, EXCEPT the internal forum solution that I described, which both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI describe. No other means exists. If it does, please cite the magisterial texts that describe such a means.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Here’s another more concrete example of a conflict between the internal and exernal forum. The bottom line is that the person who is the subject of an unjust external forum judgment MUST STILL obey what they are subjectively certain is an unjust decision, but does so meritoriously, not penitentially.

The direct application of this statement to marriage cases would be that those who are in externally irregular marriages MUST STILL refrain from communion, even if in a perfectly just world, they could regularize their marriage situation in the external forum.

Yet this is not what the Church teaches. The internal forum exists (1973 & 1975 CDF letters), and it allows couples in these situations to receive communion under certain conditions, which you claim must always include the condition to live as brother and sister. Nonetheless, even this exception means that the analogy to unjust excommunication is already broken.

The reason for living as brother and sister is not to proclaim to the world that they are living as brother and sister, because scandal is avoided another way, by receiving in a parish where their situation is not known. The reason for living as brother and sister is to avoid sinning before God. Yet if it is possible for the couple to be validly married before God’s eyes, i.e., if the external forum is not perfect, then this need not always be the case.

itsjustdave1988:

The same canonical norms apply to one who is banned from the Sacraments because they have re-married without prior annulment. The priest does not have the authority to dispense contrary to canon law or magisterial teaching. His authority rests solely in the internal forum, the tribunal of conscience, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally. The only internal forum solution is that which Paul VI’s Holy Office called “approved.”

The CDF letters clearly indicate that there is an approved internal forum solution. They did not create this solution out of thin air, but refer to an existing Church teaching. Yet I have only been able to find non-magisterial documents (i.e., from theologians) about this existing Church teaching.

itsjustdave1988:

Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI has explicitly stated that the ONLY way that a re-married Catholic can have access to the Sacraments without an annulment is if they abstain from conjugal relations, receive absolution, and receive without public scandal. This is the internal forum solution.

I will address this via the specific teaching you quote in your post.

itsjustdave1988:

No other magisterial texts have been provided that pertain the internal solution EXCEPT the one’s that I’ve provided which explain the conditions of this internal forum solution. Do you have a magisterial texts which says something different?

No, all the magisterial texts that I know about have already been brought up. The CDF letter refers to the couple following Christian moral principles, not necessarily living as brother and sister. What Christian moral principle requires a validly married couple to abstain from marital relations?

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

John Paul II: “whenever doubts arise as to the conformity of an act—for example, in the specific case of a marriage—with the objective norm, and consequently, the lawfulness or even the validity itself of such an act is called into question, reference must be made to the judgment correctly emanating from legitimate authority (cf. c. 135, §3), and not to an alleged private judgment, and still less to the individual’s arbitrary conviction… **care should be taken to avoid answers and solutions “in foro interno,” as it were, to situations that are perhaps difficult but which can be dealt with and resolved only by respecting the canonical norms in force. This must be kept in mind particularly by pastors who may be tempted to distance themselves in substance from the established and approved procedures of the *Code ***[of Canon Law.]” (Address of John Paul II ot the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, 10 February 1995)

**Catholic2003, **how do you reconcile the above with your understanding of the “internal forum solution?”

If my understanding of the internal forum was that it is merely an ecclesiastical practice of the Church that the Pope could “turn on and off” at whim, then I would certainly read recent magisterial statements by Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger as “turning the internal forum off”. However, my understanding of the internal forum is that it is more than a merely ecclesiastical discipline, so I discount this possibility, and I try to read magisterial texts relative to this viewpoint.

Taking all the magisterial statements at the “sound-bite” level quickly leads to an impasse, as the 1973 & 1975 CDF letters say that there is such a thing as the internal forum applied to marriage cases, yet then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement seems to say that there is not any application of the internal forum to marriage cases. So we need to dig deeper than the “sound-bite” level, and look at all the magisterial statements in full detail. Cardinal Ratzinger made a very key point that if a Catholic remarries outside the Church because he or she cannot obtain an annulment, then the second marriage is null by lack of canonical form alone regardless of any application of internal forum to the validity of the first marriage. I took this point into consideration with my hypothetical.

As to the Pope John Paul II quote above, the first thing I notice is that it doesn’t refer to “living as brother and sister” anywhere in the text. So I might just as well ask you how you reconcile this statement with your understanding of the internal forum solution being allowed when the couple lives as brother and sister. Whatever your answer is might just as easily apply to my understanding of the internal forum.

More specifically, I notice that the phrase “situations that are perhaps difficult but which can be dealt with and resolved only by respecting the canonical norms in force” leaves open the possibility of situations which cannot be dealt with and resolved by respecting the canonical norms in force. (This is part of the vagueness that I referred to in an earlier post.) This possibility is reinforced by the relative weakness of the phrase “care should be taken to avoid answers and solutions”. After all, imagine if Pope John Paul II had said, “care should be taken to avoid ordaining women to the priesthood”!

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

This may be the case, but it is also clear that couple A and C are canonically barred from the Sacraments, truly married or not, because the lawful marriage of couple A and B is PRESUMED valid UNTIL the exernal forum judges othewise.

So, couple A and C may not be, in fact, committing adultery by their living as a married couple. However, they DO COMMIT SIN by partaking of the Sacraments, as they violate canon law to do so.

My claim is that couple A and C, even when they have marital relations, are in exactly the same canonical situation as a couple with small children in an invalid marriage who are living as brother and sister. In the external forum, their marriage situation is completely irregular (i.e., actually invalid or presumed to be invalid), and for either couple to publically partake of the sacraments would be a cause of scandal.

itsjustdave1988:

There is no provision in canon law for partaking the sacraments if you have been remarried without annulment, EXCEPT the internal forum solution that I described, which both John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI describe. No other means exists. If it does, please cite the magisterial texts that describe such a means.

The 1973 & 1975 CDF letters are the magisterial texts that justify the application of internal forum to marriage cases. And they do not require living as brother and sister, only living according to Christian moral principles. I certainly agree with you that for invalidly married couples, Christian moral principles necessarily implies no sexual relations. But to require validly married couples to live as brother and sister makes no sense.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Well, it is clearly illicit to disobey such a conscience. So it seems to me that the only reasonable choice is to obey one’s conscience, and hope that Church teaching is wrong. Because if the Church teaching is correct, the person is sinning regardless of which way they choose.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

I would think one has the responsibility to form their conscience correctly. Doing something contrary to Church teaching, even if one thinks it is licit, would not necessarily lessen guilt since one has the duty to learn and obey Church teaching.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

If my understanding of the internal forum was that it is merely an ecclesiastical practice of the Church that the Pope could “turn on and off” at whim, then I would certainly read recent magisterial statements by Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger as “turning the internal forum off”. However, my understanding of the internal forum is that it is more than a merely ecclesiastical discipline, so I discount this possibility, and I try to read magisterial texts relative to this viewpoint.

Aside from a mention in the old Catholic encyclopedia are there other references that say the internal forum, for use as you say, is possible?

Can it be that the internal forum as a solution can be understood differently today or applied differently without causing the teaching to have been in error?

From Dave’s very good reasoning it seems the internal forum, in these cases we speak about, is really the confessional and each priest is limited in his authority to dispense from the conditions?

 

[jpad93]

There is an active forum at defendingmarriage@yahoogroups.com that discusses the annulment process. The group was started by Bai McFarlane, wife of Bud McFarlane, as a response to the outright injustice experienced by her through the secular courts.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

I would think one has the responsibility to form their conscience correctly. Doing something contrary to Church teaching, even if one thinks it is licit, would not necessarily lessen guilt since one has the duty to learn and obey Church teaching.

This is true. What I am saying is that doing something contrary to one’s conscience, even it is in order to follow Church teaching, would not necessarily lessen guilt since one has the duty to follow one’s conscience by CCC 1800.

It’s the old rock and a hard place dilemma.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

This is true. What I am saying is that doing something contrary to one’s conscience, even it is in order to follow Church teaching, would not necessarily lessen guilt since one has the duty to follow one’s conscience by CCC 1800.

It’s the old rock and a hard place dilemma.

I can’t agree. A certain conscience would intend a properly formed conscience. For example, if one were certain they should murder someone, that can’t be a certain conscience. The context of a “certain” conscience must mean that the conscience is not one in error.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Aside from a mention in the old Catholic encyclopedia are there other references that say the internal forum, for use as you say, is possible?

The 1973 & 1975 CDF letters. The fact that those letters refer to a pre-existing teaching of the Church, even though I cannot find earlier magisterial documents. The fact that Msgr. Pompedda (dean of the Roman Rota) admits to the theoretical possibility of the internal forum being applied to marriage cases, even though the possible circumstances of application being less likely than winning the lottery.

fix:

Can it be that the internal forum as a solution can be understood differently today or applied differently without causing the teaching to have been in error?

I believe that there are general principles regarding the internal forum that have existed for nearly a millenium. When individual bishops try to write policy for their diocese, I believe they are applying those general principles to the specific situation at hand.

fix:

From Dave’s very good reasoning it seems the internal forum, in these cases we speak about, is really the confessional and each priest is limited in his authority to dispense from the conditions?

Dave and I are in 99% agreement, I believe. Our only disagreement is whether the “Christian moral principles” referred to in the 1975 CDF letter require that all internal forum couples live as brother and sister, or only those couples who are not married to each other before the eyes of God.

As to the role of the priest, I don’t see any disagreement between Dave and myself. The priest isn’t authorizing anything, nor dispensing from anything. He is merely advising the couple, and might possibly contact the priest in the parish where the couple will receive communion to clue the other priest in.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

I can’t agree. A certain conscience would intend a properly formed conscience. For example, if one were certain they should murder someone, that can’t be a certain conscience. The context of a “certain” conscience must mean that the conscience is not one in error.

But since non-infallible Church teachings can be wrong, I don’t see the contradiction.

Anyway, my point was that misunderstanding of this teaching is leading a lot of Catholics into sin, just as misunderstanding of the internal forum is leading a lot of Catholics into sin. However, in battling either or both of these problems, the magisterium does not have the ability to change the longstanding Church teaching on the issue. Thus, harshly worded magisterial documents must be taken as addressing the misuse of the teaching without affecting its proper use, however rare that proper use may be.

 

[tuopaolo]

fix:

The link is to the new encyclopedia? Where is the link to the old one?

I don’t know what you mean. I’ve provided the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia two times already in this thread. Here it is again:

newadvent.org/cathen/06153b.htm

 

[tuopaolo]

fix:

A properly formed conscience can’t contradict Church teaching.

Church teaching holds that one is bound to obey the certain judgment of his conscience, whether that conscience is properly formed or not.

One’s conscience ought to tell him that Church teaching is true.

That doesn’t take away from the fact that one ought to obey one’s conscience, regardless of the content of that conscience.

Church teaching even explicitly states that one ought to obey one’s concience even if that would cause one to be excommunicated.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003,

Taking all the magisterial statements at the “sound-bite” level quickly leads to an impasse, as the 1973 & 1975 CDF letters say that there is such a thing as the internal forum applied to marriage cases, yet then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement seems to say that there is not any application of the internal forum to marriage cases.

That is because the internal forum solution is not applied TO THE MARRIAGE, but to access to the sacraments for those who have re-married without an annulment.

The solution does not pertain to the marriage validity or invalidity. The external forum alone has jurisdiction over such a judgement. The internal forum allows access to the Sacraments under certain specific conditions (abstaining from conjugal relations, sacramental absolution, avoidance of public scandal.) It think your confusion arises from trying to mame MARRIAGE the object of the internal forum solution, when it is not.

Those Catholics who remarry contrary to canon law are barred from the Sacraments. Period. The only solution is 1) refrain from the Sacraments, or 2) refrain from the illicit marriage in essence (that is, the conjugal act), sacramental absolution, and avoidance of public scandal. There is no other magisterial teaching on the matter. You interpret “live by Christian principles” as continueing in illicit conjugal acts with one who is not recognized by the Church as the spouse. I don’t. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that the Church’s magisterium has never approved of that interpretation. Whether your married in the eyes of the Church is important prerequisite for married Catholics to have access to the Sacraments.

I’ve asked the exec to our bishop to review my blog article ( Internal forum solution instead of an annulment? ) to determine if I’ve misrepresented Catholic teaching on the matter. I’ll let you know what he says. The best you can do is query your bishop and the Holy See on the matter, if there is a dubium. I am not bound to Penn bishops, but to my own “chain of command,” which is Fr. Brad, Bishop Michael Sheridan, and Pope Benedict XVI. It is their “school of thought” that I follow, according to my ecclesiology.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

The solution does not pertain to the marriage validity or invalidity. The external forum alone has jurisdiction over such a judgement.

Recall the old Catholic Encyclopedia statement:

Thus, for example, a marriage may be null and void in the forum of conscience, but binding in the external forum for want of judicial proofs to the contrary, and vice versa.

itsjustdave1988:

The internal forum allows access to the Sacraments under certain specific conditions (abstaining from conjugal relations, sacramental absolution, avoidance of public scandal.)

The only difference is that I think the first of these specific conditions is living according to Christian moral principles.

itsjustdave1988:

It think your confusion arises from trying to mame MARRIAGE the object of the internal forum solution, when it is not.

I think your confusion comes from overgeneralizing magisterial statements about couples in invalid marriages having to live as brother and sister.

itsjustdave1988:

Those Catholics who remarry contrary to canon law are barred from the Sacraments. Period.

Of course. Catholics who “remarry” contrary to canon law aren’t in a valid marriage.

itsjustdave1988:

You interpret “live by Christian principles” as continueing in illicit conjugal acts with one who is not recognized by the Church as the spouse.

You have yet to explain how conjugal acts within a valid marriage can be considered illicit. In fact, since the parties owe each other the marital debt, withholding relations would be illicit.

itsjustdave1988:

Furthermore, it seems clear to me that the Church’s magisterium has never approved of that interpretation.

As far as I know, the magisterium has not subsequently elaborated the requirement of “Chrisian moral pinciples” from the 1975 CDF letter. Nor has Rome stated that the letter was in error.

itsjustdave1988:

Whether your married in the eyes of the Church is important prerequisite for married Catholics to have access to the Sacraments.

I have never said otherwise.

itsjustdave1988:

I’ve asked the exec to our bishop to review my blog article ( Internal forum solution instead of an annulment? ) to determine if I’ve misrepresented Catholic teaching on the matter. I’ll let you know what he says.

You should have him review this thread as well.

itsjustdave1988:

The best you can do is query your bishop and the Holy See on the matter, if there is a dubium. I am not bound to Penn bishops, but to my own “chain of command,” which is Fr. Brad, Bishop Michael Sheridan, and Pope Benedict XVI. It is their “school of thought” that I follow, according to my ecclesiology.

I’m not a priest, so I won’t be granting anyone access to the sacraments under the internal forum. So this a matter of academic interest only for me.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As far as I know, the magisterium has not subsequently elaborated the requirement of “Chrisian moral pinciples” from the 1975 CDF letter.

I disagree. The Holy See has elaborated on the teaching, here …

Pope John Paul II’s 1982 Apostolic Exhortation *Familiaris Consortio, *vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the 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, 14 Sep 1994 vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Any internal forum solution which contradicts the above texts are contrary to the teachings of the authentic magisterium.