Internal Forum in regard to annulments.

[fix]

pnewton:

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.

Yes, I was thinking of this:

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. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.

I should have said this type of situation can be resolved in the confessional?

 

[tuopaolo]

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.

An internal forum would be used if the person knows with moral certainty that the prior marriage was invalid but is unable to prove it or provide evidence for it to the satisfication of the tribunal. For example, if in the prior wedding the person simply went through the motions and didn’t express any consent perhaps because she thought it would be a cool thing to fool everybody or something (bear with the example) then her lack of consent would not be evidenced by anything external even though she would know herself that she didn’t give any consent. Another example would be if in the prior wedding, the person expressed only conditional consent (where the consent is made conditional on some past or future event) and the condition in that consent didn’t obtain (didn’t exist or come to pass). Well if she didn’t make the nature of this conditional consent known to anyone and just kept it to herself, then she would not be able to provide any evidence for it. These are unlikely examples, but things like this may happen in very rare cases.

 

[fix]

tuopaolo:

An internal forum would be used if the person knows with moral certainty that the prior marriage was invalid but is unable to prove it or provide evidence for it to the satisfication of the tribunal. For example, if in the prior wedding the person simply went through the motions and didn’t express any consent perhaps because she thought it would be a cool thing to fool everybody or something (bear with the example) then her lack of consent would not be evidenced by anything external even though she would know herself that she didn’t give any consent. Another example would be if in the prior wedding, the person expressed only conditional consent (where the consent is made conditional on some past or future event) and the condition in that consent didn’t obtain (didn’t exist or come to pass). Well if she didn’t make the nature of this conditional consent known to anyone and just kept it to herself, then she would not be able to provide any evidence for it. These are unlikely examples, but things like this may happen in very rare cases.

After reading the Vatican document I posted I can’t see how it would ever be licit. Rome has said the only way is to abstain and not cuase scandal. Any other situation must be decided by the tribunal. Can you point to a document that supports what you said?

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.

 

[tuopaolo]

fix:

After reading the Vatican document I posted I can’t see how it would ever be licit. Rome has said the only way is to abstain and not cuase scandal.

You didn’t post any Vatican document that mentioned the internal forum. The one document you posted which mentioned the internal forum was from a Pennylvania Bishop, not from the Vatican.

Abstaining is not use of the internal forum. If one lives as brother and sister, one doesn’t need to make use of any forum, internal or external. One would simply be in the same situation as someone who happens to live with a member of the opposite sex but is not engaging in any illicit sexual activity with them.

Any other situation must be decided by the tribunal. Can you point to a document that supports what you said?

I’ll try to find one.

 

[tuopaolo]

“Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. 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.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06153b.htm

This is a pre-Vatican II encyclopedia (published around 1909 apparently).

 

[Catholic2003]

I think Cardinal Ratzinger makes a lot of sense. I can see why he is Pope and the Pennsylvania bishops aren’t.

Even if a previous marriage is invalid via the internal forum, a second marriage outside the Church is just as invalid by that fact alone.

I’m not sure that rules out 100% of cases (e.g., second marriage valid by extraordinary canonical form), but at least 99.9999% of them.

 

[tuopaolo]

Catholic2003:

I think Cardinal Ratzinger makes a lot of sense. I can see why he is Pope and the Pennsylvania bishops aren’t.

Even if a previous marriage is invalid via the internal forum, a second marriage outside the Church is just as invalid by that fact alone.

I’m not sure that rules out 100% of cases (e.g., second marriage valid by extraordinary canonical form), but at least 99.9999% of them.

I’d say more like 99.381%

 

[fix]

“Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. 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.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06153b.htm

This is a pre-Vatican II encyclopedia (published around 1909 apparently).

How is this reconciled?:

**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.

**

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

I think Cardinal Ratzinger makes a lot of sense. I can see why he is Pope and the Pennsylvania bishops aren’t.

Even if a previous marriage is invalid via the internal forum, a second marriage outside the Church is just as invalid by that fact alone.

I’m not sure that rules out 100% of cases (e.g., second marriage valid by extraordinary canonical form), but at least 99.9999% of them.

Are you not arguing against your previous position? I thought your point was that the internal forum allowed one to validly remarry without a decree of nullity in certain cases.

 

[fix]

How about this:

Internal Forum Annulment
Question from on 12-03-2004: Good Morning!What is an Internal Forum Annulment and why and when would it ever be utilized?

God Bless, Bill

     **Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 12-03-2004:** There is no such thing.Pope Paul VI, when establishing principles for the reform of the Code of Canon Law, wanted to end the distinctions between the internal (secret, unproveable, undocumentable) forum and the external (proveable) forum as much as possible. The current Tribunal system for petitioning for declarations of nullity are all in the external forum and are publically provable. (Not public in the sense of open to the public, just public in the sense that it is documented.)

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=420806&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=365&Author=&Keyword=Internal+Forum+Annulment&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&record_bookmark=1

Which makes me wonder about that Montana diocese that was posted earlier?

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Which makes me wonder about that Montana diocese that was posted earlier?

That just goes back to my reaction to the Pennsylvania bishops. If the Vatican would just write down what the real conditions for the internal forum are, then there wouldn’t be so much confusion and abuse.

A 1973 CDF letter mentions the internal forum as a possibility when nullity cannot be proven with respect to a previous marriage. A request for clarification yielded an incomprehensible 1975 followup letter. (Note that both of these are before the 1983 Code of Canon Law.) I haven’t been able to find the full text of these letters anywhere.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law made it possible for a lot more people to utilize the external forum, making them ineligible for the internal forum. An earlier draft of Dignitas Connubii would have gone even further, but the final version pretty much reiterated the status quo. But the new code and the tirbunal system will never reach 100% perfection; that’s just impossible.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

That just goes back to my reaction to the Pennsylvania bishops. If the Vatican would just write down what the real conditions for the internal forum are, then there wouldn’t be so much confusion and abuse.

A 1973 CDF letter mentions the internal forum as a possibility when nullity cannot be proven with respect to a previous marriage. A request for clarification yielded an incomprehensible 1975 followup letter. (Note that both of these are before the 1983 Code of Canon Law.) I haven’t been able to find the full text of these letters anywhere.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law made it possible for a lot more people to utilize the external forum, making them ineligible for the internal forum. An earlier draft of Dignitas Connubii would have gone even further, but the final version pretty much reiterated the status quo. But the new code and the tirbunal system will never reach 100% perfection; that’s just impossible.

Yes, but is it not true that the Church has said the internal fourm may not be used in these cases? I am trying to find any references that are authentic that say one may use the internal forum. The document from the Vatican seems to say it may never be used and that seems to be in canon law as well. Am I wrong? Where is the proof?

 

[tuopaolo]

As I said, there’s no mention of the internal forum there that I can see.

fix:

How is this reconciled?:

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.

 

[tuopaolo]

fix:

How about this:

Internal Forum Annulment
Question from on 12-03-2004: Good Morning!What is an Internal Forum Annulment and why and when would it ever be utilized?

God Bless, Bill

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 12-03-2004: There is no such thing.Pope Paul VI, when establishing principles for the reform of the Code of Canon Law, wanted to end the distinctions between the internal (secret, unproveable, undocumentable) forum and the external (proveable) forum as much as possible. The current Tribunal system for petitioning for declarations of nullity are all in the external forum and are publically provable. (Not public in the sense of open to the public, just public in the sense that it is documented.)

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=420806&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=365&Author=&Keyword=Internal+Forum+Annulment&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&record_bookmark=1

Which makes me wonder about that Montana diocese that was posted earlier?

fix, “annulment” is actually a misnomer. They are called “declarations of nullity” – and these declarations of nullity would be granted in the external forum because that’s the nature of a declaration of nullity – it’s a public act. The internal forum may recognize that a putative marriage was indeed null, without there being any issuance of a declaration of nullity.

You should keep in mind that recognizing in the internal forum that a putative marriage was null can take place even when there has been no other putative remarriage and even when there is no question of readmittance to Holy Communion. The internal forum stands on its own apart from those issues – i.e. its application is broader and it is not intrinsically related to them.

 

[fix]

tuopaolo:

fix, “annulment” is actually a misnomer. They are called “declarations of nullity” – and these declarations of nullity would be granted in the external forum because that’s the nature of a declaration of nullity – it’s a public act. The internal forum may recognize that a putative marriage was indeed null, without there being any issuance of a declaration of nullity.

You should keep in mind that recognizing in the internal forum that a putative marriage was null can take place even when there has been no other putative remarriage and even when there is no question of readmittance to Holy Communion. The internal forum stands on its own apart from those issues – i.e. its application is broader and it is not intrinsically related to them.

Yes, I am very aware of the decree of nullity. That question was not mine.

You have given no proof that the Church allows for the internal forum for use as you say.

From the documents I posted one may not use the internal forum as you say. It does not matter whether one intends to remarry or not or receive communion or not. It is a “public” issue that the Church “rules” on. That is the point.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Yes, but is it not true that the Church has said the internal fourm may not be used in these cases? I am trying to find any references that are authentic that say one may use the internal forum. The document from the Vatican seems to say it may never be used and that seems to be in canon law as well. Am I wrong? Where is the proof?

I’m trying to take all the relevant Church documents and harmonize them to come up with a fuller understanding of what the internal forum is, why it exists, and how it works.

If I may speculate on your hermeneutical approach, you seem to starting with the Church documents that contain opposition to the use of the internal forum as regards marriage cases, and using those documents to claim that any other Church documents are in error. If so, then it is easy to see why we are coming to different conclusions.

Let me try an analogy, even though these never seem to work. Many Catholics use the Church’s teaching about the primacy of conscience to justify all sorts of sinful behavior. If the Pope were to issue an encyclical decrying this practice, then certain sections of this hypothetical encyclical might be taken, in isolation, to say that Catholics should no longer follow their consciences but instead just always obey Church teachings. However, from a broader perspective it would be clear that this cannot be the case, and thus these hypothetical sections must be taken as condemning the abusive recourse to ill-formed consciences without contradicting the infallible Church teaching as regards the primacy of conscience.

So let me ask a question: It seems clear that the internal forum was applicable to marriage cases under the old canon law. (This can be seen by the 1909(?) New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article and the repeated references to the changes brought about by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.) Do you agree? If so, then which of the following happened in 1983:

• The Church’s teaching on the internal forum was “revoked” by the new canon law. Hence, this teaching must have been just a changeable Church discipline, and not an infallible truth relating to divine justice, the working of the Holy Spirit, and the conviction of our conscience.
• The Church’s overall teaching on the internal forum remains unchanged. However, the universal conditions regarding the application internal forum (e.g., the impossibility of reaching the truth via the external forum) simply no longer apply in today’s world because of the changes in the external forum brought about by the 1983 canon law.

P.S. I’m not certain that “primacy of conscience” is the correct term. I’m referring to the teaching of CCC 1800, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

 

[tuopaolo]

fix:

Yes, I am very aware of the decree of nullity. That question was not mine.

You have given no proof that the Church allows for the internal forum for use as you say.

From the documents I posted one may not use the internal forum as you say. It does not matter whether one intends to remarry or not or receive communion or not. It is a “public” issue that the Church “rules” on. That is the point.

I did give “proof” in the form of what I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia published way back in 1909 when extreme liberal post-Vatican II heterodoxy did not abound, leaving no question as to the orthodox of the article.

 

[stbruno]

familyministries.org/time_update.htm

This is a website that will give you more information regarding annulments as well as this website www.inthespiritofcana.org

Internal Forum is not a valid way of dissolving a marriage in the Catholic church.

 

[tuopaolo]

"Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. 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."

newadvent.org/cathen/06153b.htm

This is a pre-Vatican II encyclopedia (published around 1909 apparently).

I want to highlight this post again and this time call attention to the part now bolded “and vice versa.”

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

I’m trying to take all the relevant Church documents and harmonize them to come up with a fuller understanding of what the internal forum is, why it exists, and how it works.

If I may speculate on your hermeneutical approach, you seem to starting with the Church documents that contain opposition to the use of the internal forum as regards marriage cases, and using those documents to claim that any other Church documents are in error. If so, then it is easy to see why we are coming to different conclusions.

I am not saying they were in error, but I have not read the references from earlier? Where are these documents that are of magisterial weight that said the internal forum could be used in some cases?

So let me ask a question: It seems clear that the internal forum was applicable to marriage cases under the old canon law. (This can be seen by the 1909(?)

Where can I view this?

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article and the repeated references to the changes brought about by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.) Do you agree?

I am sorry if I missed the 1983 canon law references, did you post them?

If so, then which of the following happened in 1983:

• The Church’s teaching on the internal forum was “revoked” by the new canon law. Hence, this teaching must have been just a changeable Church discipline, and not an infallible truth relating to divine justice, the working of the Holy Spirit, and the conviction of our conscience.
• The Church’s overall teaching on the internal forum remains unchanged. However, the universal conditions regarding the application internal forum (e.g., the impossibility of reaching the truth via the external forum) simply no longer apply in today’s world because of the changes in the external forum brought about by the 1983 canon law.

If these are the only two choices, I would choose the second.