Internal Forum in regard to annulments.

[corsanctum]

Hello, I am brand new to this forum and I am not even sure I am in the correct place for this question. I was hoping some one; preferably a priest could answer a question of when or if Internal Forum is ever allowed. I have been told it can take the place of an annulment and allow a divorced Catholic to be married in the Catholic Church and still receive all of the sacraments. Thank you for any help you can give me in this matter. God Bless

 

[netmilsmom]

Hello, I am brand new to this forum and I am not even sure I am in the correct place for this question. I was hoping some one; preferably a priest could answer a question of when or if Internal Forum is ever allowed. I have been told it can take the place of an annulment and allow a divorced Catholic to be married in the Catholic Church and still receive all of the sacraments. Thank you for any help you can give me in this matter. God Bless

From here…
ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

It says this…

“Internal Forum. Sometimes it is suggested to individuals or couples that they can resolve marital issues concerning a first marriage in the “internal forum.” This means essentially in the confessional or in the privacy of their conscience. Someone who is divorced and remarried will be told that they do not have to seek a Decree of Nullity to validate the present marriage, rather being convinced in their own conscience that their first marriage was invalid they can return to the sacraments. This is not, however, the case. Marriage is not a private affair but a social institution, one safeguarded by the Church according to the will of Christ. The Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church’s canonical processes (a marriage tribunal).”

 

[Catholic2003]

We had a discussion on this a while back in the thread Internal Forum-usually promoted by dissenters, but didn’t come to any conclusion.

Here is what the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings says about Internal Forum (emphasis added):

The Internal Forum or Conscience solution is a pastoral response to a situation in which a judicial decision cannot be reached in regards to a person’s previous marriage. It is not “granted” by the priest, but is a decision made, with the help of a confessor, by the person in a presently “irregular” marriage because of his/her need for the grace of the sacraments. The internal forum solution is to be used only after the external forum (Marriage Tribunal) has been tried, and for some reason it is impossible to reach a decision.

Because an internal forum solution is a matter of conscience, certain points must be kept in mind:

1. It is not a private determination that the first marriage was null. A marriage is presumed to be valid until it is proven otherwise in the external forum. The internal forum solution is a determination by the party that in conscience he or she can receive the sacraments in spite of being in an externally irregular marriage.

1. Because it is an internal forum matter, there can be no celebration of a rite in the external forum. An internal forum solution does not make it possible to “bless” (even if this blessing is not a convalidation) the person’s present marriage.

1. Internal forum solutions are not to be recorded in the marriage register. Marriage records are public documents in which celebrations in the external forum are recorded. Since the internal forum solution is tantamount to confessional matter, there can be no public record.

 

[fix]

I would like to see this answered by a staff apologist.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

While I am not a “staff apologist” I am one of the specialists in annulments in my parish. The first post with regard to the status of the internal form and its use with annulments is correct: it does not apply. Rome has consitently made this patently clear even though some Americans have gone ahead and used it anyway.

Normally, the “internal forum” is to be used only for internal, that is, private matters. Marriage is not private and, therefore, does not fall under the purview of the internal forum.

Deacon Ed

 

[fix]

Deacon Ed:

While I am not a “staff apologist” I am one of the specialists in annulments in my parish. The first post with regard to the status of the internal form and its use with annulments is correct: it does not apply. Rome has consitently made this patently clear even though some Americans have gone ahead and used it anyway.

Normally, the “internal forum” is to be used only for internal, that is, private matters. Marriage is not private and, therefore, does not fall under the purview of the internal forum.

Deacon Ed

That is what i have always read. Now, what are we to make of the diocesian statement?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hello, I am brand new to this forum and I am not even sure I am in the correct place for this question. I was hoping some one; preferably a priest could answer a question of when or if Internal Forum is ever allowed. I have been told it can take the place of an annulment and allow a divorced Catholic to be married in the Catholic Church and still receive all of the sacraments. Thank you for any help you can give me in this matter. God Bless

I am not a priest, let me start with that. I understand the Cardinal Ratzinger had instructed several years ago that the Internal Forum was being abused and that recourse to it should be very limited to those cases where all other processes have been exhausted with no definitive conclusion. It is not a substitute for the External Forum, such as the Annulment process, and must be used very carefully so as not to cause confusion or scandal among the faithful.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is a link to a longer writeup of the Internal Forum by Fr. Tom Richstatter. It is very similar to the diocesan policy I quoted above.

(Of course, the writeup has no Magisterial weight.)

 

[fix]

Br. Rich SFO:

I am not a priest, let me start with that. I understand the Cardinal Ratzinger had instructed several years ago that the Internal Forum was being abused and that recourse to it should be very limited to those cases where all other processes have been exhausted with no definitive conclusion. It is not a substitute for the External Forum, such as the Annulment process, and must be used very carefully so as not to cause confusion or scandal among the faithful.

Can you provide a reference?

 

[pnewton]

I approached a priest years ago with this same question. I had read about this recourse in some book and was looking for a shortcut. Fortunately for me I found afaithful priest who set me straight and gave me all the information I needed to contact the tribunal. Speaking the truth is the most pastoral thing that any priest can do.

 

[Karen_Anne]

Normally, the “internal forum” is to be used only for internal, that is, private matters. Marriage is not private and, therefore, does not fall under the purview of the internal forum.

Deacon Ed

I find it interesting that the statement “marriage is not private” was made. This is a bit off the subject, but just how far are we to allow our marriages to not be “private”? I always thought of the inner-workings of my marriage VERY private - between my husband and myself. Let’s face it - there are things in any relationship that just cannot be explained to an “outsider” no matter who that outsider is. So, how can a marriage be described as “not private”?
Any opinions here?

Karen Anne

 

[tuopaolo]

Catholic2003:

Here is a link to a longer writeup of the Internal Forum by Fr. Tom Richstatter. It is very similar to the diocesan policy I quoted above.

(Of course, the writeup has no Magisterial weight.)

I read the writeup, while only skimming the first five paragraphs which are just introductory, and it seems to me to be substantially correct, except that I would question the assumptions it makes about the prevalence of people whose prior marriages can be rightly judged in the internal forum to have been invalid. I think that if the external forum is abused in the United States, given the rate at which declarations of nullity are passed out, it is probably equally true of abuse of the exceptional internal forum.

 

[pnewton]

Catholic2003:

Here is a link to a longer writeup of the Internal Forum by Fr. Tom Richstatter. It is very similar to the diocesan policy I quoted above.

(Of course, the writeup has no Magisterial weight.)

It is of note that in this poilcy it is still the validity of the prior marriage at issue. It is only offered as a solution when evidence is lacking, not when the prior marriage was possibly valid.

 

[Catholic2003]

pnewton:

It is of note that in this poilcy it is still the validity of the prior marriage at issue. It is only offered as a solution when evidence is lacking, not when the prior marriage was possibly valid.

Exactly. The internal forum is not the justification of an adulterous second “marriage” based on a subjective “if it feels good then do it” attitude. It is not placing one’s poorly-formed conscience above the teachings of the Church about sin. The internal forum is for those cases where God knows the first marriage was invalid, but where it is impossible to demonstrate that to a Church tribunal.

I have no doubt that the internal forum is much abused in the U.S. today. But the internal forum is a millenium old infallible teaching of the Church nonetheless.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Here is a link to a longer writeup of the Internal Forum by Fr. Tom Richstatter. It is very similar to the diocesan policy I quoted above.

(Of course, the writeup has no Magisterial weight.)

This is no proof and may very well be very incorrect. He proves nothing and offers no citations. No one has provided proof the internal forum is licit in any way in dealing with these issues.

 

[fix]

“It would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent.”[12] This is especially true since Canon 1536.2, combined with Canon 1679, allows tribunals to grant a declaration of nullity, in the absence of other “objective” proofs of a previous marriage’s invalidity, on the basis of personal depositions of the parties themselves. The canons, however, further require that these personal depositions of the parties be corroborated by character witnesses for the parties, if possible, and by other relevant facts and supporting evidence ().[13] These canons were added to the Code of Canon Law when it was revised in 1983 precisely to address cases in which proofs of invalidity-other than the declaration of the parties-are not available. Their presence in the code refutes one of the principal arguments for the use of the so-called “internal forum solution,” making any use of it unnecessary and unacceptable. Apart from the question of the canonical judicial procedure the “internal forum solution” in which individuals make a personal and subjective judgment about their canonical status is, in fact, a flawed pastoral solution because it cannot bring about the full reconciliation of the couple to the church. The couple’s full participation in the life of the church can be re-established only through an ecclesiastical declaration of nullity or the death of a former spouse and the convalidation of the new union. Through these public acts of the church the couple will not only be admitted to holy communion, but will be entitled to share in the full life of the church available to all the laity. We encourage all Catholics who find themselves in irregular marriage situations, and therefore sadly separated from holy communion, to avail themselves of the tribunal process in their local diocese with the hope of being completely reconciled to the sacramental life of the church…

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DIVCATH.HTM

 

[Catholic2003]

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DIVCATH.HTM

This is just my personal opinion, but these faulty arguments by the Magisterium cause more harm than good.

“It would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent.”

On the contrary, it would be of immense pratical benefit to write down precisely what the conditions are for the legitimate use of the internal forum. For one thing, it would eliminate much of the abuse of the internal forum caused by everyone inventing their own rules.

For a second thing, it would be a source of pastoral comfort to those in difficult marriage situations. Put yourself in the shoes of such a person, deep in the pain and anguish of being bound by an invalid marriage because you cannot prove it to be invalid. Going to the Church, you are told that the bishop didn’t even think it was worth his time to write down what the rules for the internal forum were, because probabilistically speaking, the chances are that it doesn’t apply to your situation. Not that anyone is going to bother to take the time to find out what your situation is before passing such a judgment.

Just how does that convey the love of Christ to those in need?

fix:

This is especially true since Canon 1536.2, combined with Canon 1679, allows tribunals to grant a declaration of nullity, in the absence of other “objective” proofs of a previous marriage’s invalidity, on the basis of personal depositions of the parties themselves. The canons, however, further require that these personal depositions of the parties be corroborated by character witnesses for the parties, if possible, and by other relevant facts and supporting evidence ().[13] These canons were added to the Code of Canon Law when it was revised in 1983 precisely to address cases in which proofs of invalidity-other than the declaration of the parties-are not available.

It is true that the need for the internal forum is much less under the 1983 Code. The 1917 Code placed many additional obstacles in the way of the annulment process. This is one of the reasons that there were many fewer annulments back then.

However, the specific argument is just a catch 22 situation. The person would have to be so psychologically messed up that they weren’t able to enter into a valid marriage, yet so upright and solid that they could substitute character witness in place of witnesses to the actual events.

fix:

Their presence in the code refutes one of the principal arguments for the use of the so-called “internal forum solution,” making any use of it unnecessary and unacceptable.

Let’s see. By “refuting” one argument for the necessity of the internal forum, the bishops can merely dismiss all the others out of hand. I’m sorry, but this kind of hyperbole is out of place in a magisterial document.

The internal forum is not some ecclesiastical rule that the bishops, or even the Pope, can turn on and off at will. It is a millenium old infallible teaching about the primacy of the conscience and the working of the Holy Spirit.

The first sentence in the above response acknowledges that the internal forum applies, at least theoretically if not practially, to marriage cases. The later arguments acknowledge that the internal forum applied, in practice, under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Basically, the Pennsylvania bishops’ argument is that under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the external forum administration of the annulment process is now perfect, so that every single person who was in an invalid marriage can obtain an annulment, so the need for the internal forum goes away.

I’m glad I don’t live in Pennsylvania.

 

[fix]

In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithfus could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect tueir eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

1. Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few Fathers of the Church and in some measure were practiced, nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the Fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the Church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal Magisterium, in fidelity to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the depositum fidei.

With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).

This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion: “They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and his Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage”(7).

The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only "to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.

. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons(10) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching(11). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.

1. The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one’s own convictions(15), to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissable(16). Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
*Prefect
*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

 

[fix]

It seems from reading all this is that the only way for the internal forum to be used in these cases would be if the couple abstained from sex and did not cause a scandal.

 

[pnewton]

fix:

It seems from reading all this is that the only way for the internal forum to be used in these cases would be if the couple abstained from sex and did not cause a scandal.

Those that live as brother and sister (for the sake of children, maybe?) in obedience to Church teaching do not need even an internal forum. They are not in a state of mortal sin, all other things being equal.