Internal Forum in regard to annulments.

[fix]

tuopaolo:

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.

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

 

[fix]

Some suggest that a civilly remarried Catholic can decide for himself or herself whether a previous relationship was a valid marriage. But other people are involved, and no interested party is a good judge of his or her own case. Moreover, a sound judgment requires expertise and training even beyond the usual seminary courses in Church law, so that individuals who attempted to 'judge their own cases very often would be mistaken. Therefore, the Church’s law rightly forbids individuals from trying to decide their own cases, even with a priest’s advice and help.[7]

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DIVORCE.HTM

Can someone show me when the internal forum may be used to determine if a marriage was valid or not?

 

[fix]

tuopaolo:

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

Please see post #23 and show me how they are reconciled?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Originally Posted by 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.

It think they can be reconciled. See here…

**Internal forum solution instead of an annulment? **View

 

[fix]

itsjustdave1988:
It think they can be reconciled. See here…

**Internal forum solution instead of an annulment? **View

So, in another post I said the only way a so-called internal forum solution would be licit would be to live as brother and sister and not cause scandal. Is this correct?

 

[fix]

NTERNAL FORUM OR CONSCIENCE SOLUTION 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.***

2.  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.

3.  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.

http://www.dioceseofgfb.org/marriage_policy.htm

Does this not contradict the teaching of Rome?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fix:

So, in another post I said the only way a so-called internal forum solution would be licit would be to live as brother and sister and not cause scandal. Is this correct?

Correct. That is the clear teaching of the magisterium.

From an EWTN apologist…
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=359077&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=internal+forum&pgnu=1&groupnum=0

A number of priests, in error, attempt to “solve” problems stemming from irregular marriages by providing an “internal forum solution.” In essence the priest, sometimes in the confessional, gives “permission” for a Catholic in an invalid marriage to remain in that relationship, continue conjugal relations, and share in the sacramental life of the Church. The Church has repeatedly stated that such “solutions” are not permitted …

There are provisions, however, for such irregular marriages to be addressed in the internal forum, i.e. not externally or publicly. Such instances tend to be exceptional. When a couple must remain together in an irregular relationship, often for the sake of children, it may be possible for the Catholic(s) to share in the sacraments. This entails the cessation of conjugal relations - living as brother and sister - and the absence of scandal. Usually this involves the Catholic receiving the sacraments at a church where the people are not aware of the irregularity of the union and would not be scandalized. Such situations are best discussed with a wise priest who can provide the guidance and counsel which will undoubtedly be necessary as a couple embarks upon this route.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

I’m referring to the teaching of CCC 1800, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

A properly formed conscience can’t contradict Church teaching.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**…**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.

http://www.dioceseofgfb.org/marriage_policy.htm

Does this not contradict the teaching of Rome?

I dont’ think it is contrary to magisterial teaching, strictly speaking, but I do believe it to be poorly worded enough to be interpreted contrary to Catholic teaching. There are conditions, which they dont’ seem to want to describe.

The “internal forum solution” is not pertaining to the marriage, but to access to the Sacraments.

In conscience, you may believe your prior marriage was invalid. You just couldn’t prove it to the external forum. The tribunal is not infallible. Depeding upon serious reasons, you may remain in an irregular marriage if you 1) abstain from conjugal relations, 2) receive sacramental absolution, and 3) receive the Sacraments is such a way that avoids publis scandal. THIS is the only internal forum solution that the pope allows. The internal forum of the priest may not contradict canon law or magisterial teachings. Thus, any other internal solution is invalid.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Correct. That is the clear teaching of the magisterium.

No, living as brother and sister is unrelated to use of the internal forum.

Are you saying that only those couples who are morally certain that their first marriage is invalid, even though they cannot prove this in the external forum, can choose to return to communion by living as brother and sister?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Paul II:

… there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

---

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons THEY CAN, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope. (Familiaris Consortio, 84)

As I interpret this, a re-married Catholic is encouraged to return to the faith even if only subjectively certain in conscious that their first marriage was invalid. They can even partake of the Sacraments BUT ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Which is to say, alternatively, THEY CANNOT partake of the Sacraments UNLESS these conditions are met.

John Paul continues…

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. 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 the 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.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted 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, such as for example 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.” (ibid.)

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

A properly formed conscience can’t contradict Church teaching.

This is true, but CCC 1800 doesn’t include the qualification that it only applies to properly formed consciences.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

This is true, but CCC 1800 doesn’t include the qualification that it only applies to properly formed consciences.

Are you claiming it would be licit to obey a conscience that is certain, but contradicts Church teaching?

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Where can I view this?

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

You posted them. From the Pennsylvania bishops:

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.

From Ratzinger’s/Benedict’s letter:

The discipline of the Church, while it confirms the exclusive competence of ecclesiastical tribunals with respect to the examination of the validity of the marriage of Catholics, also offers new ways to demonstrate the nullity of a previous marriage, in order to exclude as far as possible every divergence between the truth verifiable in the judicial process and the objective truth known by a correct conscience.

fix:

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

If there is a third choice, please let me know. Given your choice above, the next question is why have the changes in canon law made the internal forum obsolete? The choices are: (1) The 1983 canon law and the tribunals are now perfect, and can demonstrate the nullity of all marriages which are actually invalid; or (2) The 1983 canon law and the tribunals are 99.99% perfect, and this is good enough to deny divine justice to the remaining 0.01% of the people.

Here is what the Pennsylvania bishops wrote:

The canonical judicial procedures established by the Code of Canon Law to examine claims that a previous marriage was invalid are, in our view, comprehensive and responsive enough to declare invalid all marriages which truly are.

They seem to be advocating the 100% perfect theory.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Are you claiming it would be licit to obey a conscience that is certain, but contradicts Church teaching?

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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003:

No, living as brother and sister is unrelated to use of the internal forum.

I disagree with you.

Under the papacy of Pope Paul VI, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document of April 11, 1973, which addressed the Diocesan Bishops and censured the admittance of invalidly married persons to the sacraments, stated in the final paragraph:
“With regard to admission to the sacraments, the local ordinaries will also please, on the one hand, stress the observance of the current discipline of the church while, on the other hand, take care that pastors of souls follow up with particular solicitude those who are living in an irregular union and, in addition to other correct means, use the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum.”“Judicial jurisdiction is expressed by the word *Forum… The internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental or penitential, which is exercised in the tribunal of penance or at least is connected with it, and the extra penitential forum… Thus the absolution of sins belongs to the internal forum” *(Catholic Encyclopedia - Ecclesiastical Forum).

The lawful pastors of the Church have judicial jurisdiction of the external and internal forum. The internal forum is exercised by either the tribunal of penance, or excercised via extra-penitential pastoral communications with the lawful pastor. We are bound to obey the pastor as the legitamite judicial authority in the internal forum, so long as his direction is within the scope of his authority (i.e., not contrary to HIS lawful pastor).

Not any “internal forum solution” will due. It is to be the “approved practice of the Church.” So, what is the approved “internal forum” practice?

On March 21, 1975, the same Sacred Congregation explained the phrase “the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum” in the following way:
"The couples may be allowed to receive the sacraments on** two conditions**, that they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal."Now, if you have not been granted an annulment, then you are still married to another. To live in accord with Christian moral principles has a very specific meaning, and it doesn’t include having sexual relations with someone who is not your lawful spouse. A civil divorce has no authority in ecclesiastical law. You are still married to the other spouse unless the ecclesiastical authorities, in the external forum, judge that your prior marriage was null (never sacramentally valid to begin with).

Are you saying that only those couples who are morally certain that their first marriage is invalid, even though they cannot prove this in the external forum, can choose to return to communion by living as brother and sister?

No. Even if they re-married (illicitly, I might add), but later come to realize that their first marriage was still valid, they are obliged to separate and return to their first spouse. For serious reasons, return to the first spouse may not be obligated (e.g., abuse, unfaithfulness).

Or, they can, for “serious reasons” (eg. upbringing of children), remain in the irregular marriage so long as they meet the conditions of the Church-APPROVED internal forum, that is 1) abstain from conjugal relations, 2) receive sacramental absolution and 3) avoid public scandal.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…why have the changes in canon law made the internal forum obsolete?

I has not. Your understanding of “internal forum” is incorrect. Internal forum means the juridical jurisdiction that the pastor have, both in the Sacrament of Penance, or extra-sacramental jurisdiction as the pastor of souls.

The internal forum is not obsolete. You are still bound to obey your pastor’s penitential or extra-penitential direction, so long as his direction is within his scope of authority (in accord with HIS pastor’s directions)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…why have the changes in canon law made the internal forum obsolete?

It has not. Your understanding of “internal forum” is incorrect. Internal forum means the judicial jurisdiction that the pastor has, both in the Sacrament of Penance, or the extra-sacramental jurisdiction as the pastor of souls.

The internal forum is not obsolete. You are still bound to obey your pastor’s penitential or extra-penitential direction, so long as his direction is within his scope of authority (in accord with HIS pastor’s directions)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholi2003,

Even excommunications are not infallible. Yet, they are lawful. One can be subjectively certain in conscience that they are not guilty of the mortal sin they are charged, even if the external forum judged them to be guilty and excommunicated. This is referred to by the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia as an unjust excommunciation. It lawfully bars the person from the sacraments. See here: newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The person, even if their conscience subjectively tells them they are innocent, and even if they are objectively innocent (known only by God), is STILL OBLIGED, according to Catholic teaching, to OBEY the writ of excommunciation. Even UNJUST excommuncations must be obeyed, according to Catholic moral theology. In unjust excommunciations, the obedience is a meritorious act, not a penitential act. But to DISOBEY the unjust excommunication IS A GRAVE SIN, as it shows malice of the Divine authoriy given to the Catholic Church.

So, and unjust external forum decree is admittedly possible according to Catholic theology, whether it be a tribunal to excommuncate or a tribunal to nullify a marriage. HOWEVER, a faithful, law abiding Catholic CANNOT disobey unjust tribunal decrees without grave sin.

We all must carry the cross that God gives us. To endure an lawful yet unjust judicial decision is one such cross, whether it comes for ecclesiastical or civil authority. To disregard lawful (albeit, mistaken) authority which acted in accord with its God-given authority is an offense against God, the subjective opinion of one’s conscious notwithstanding.

 

[Catholic2003]

“Judicial jurisdiction is expressed by the word *Forum… The internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental or penitential, which is exercised in the tribunal of penance or at least is connected with it, and the extra penitential forum… Thus the absolution of sins belongs to the internal forum” *(Catholic Encyclopedia - Ecclesiastical Forum).

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:

The jurisdiction of the internal forum deals with questions concening the welfare of individual Christians and with their relation to God. Hence it is called the forum of conscience (Forum conscientious). It is also denominated the forum of Heaven (forum poli) because it guides the soul on the path to God. … The internal forum deals therefore directly with the spiritual welfare of the individual faithful. It has refererence to the corporate body only secondarily, in as much as the good of the whole organization is promoted by that of the individual members.

itsjustdave1988:

Now, if you have not been granted an annulment, then you are still married to another.

I disagree with this. An annulment (i.e., a decree of nullity) does not make a prior marriage null. An annulment is merely a declaration, in the external forum, of the nullity of a marriage which was already invalid from its very beginning.

itsjustdave1988:

To live in accord with Christian moral principles has a very specific meaning, and it doesn’t include having sexual relations with someone who is not your lawful spouse. A civil divorce has no authority in ecclesiastical law.

These two statements are true.

itsjustdave1988:

You are still married to the other spouse unless the ecclesiastical authorities, in the external forum, judge that your prior marriage was null (never sacramentally valid to begin with).

You can’t be “still married” to someone that you were never married to in the first place. The correct way to state this is, “You are still presumed to be married to the other spouse unless the ecclesiastical authorities, in the external forum, judge that your prior marriage was null.”

I’m going to go where Msgr. Pompedda feared to tread, and speculate on a situation where the internal forum would apply to a marriage case.

• Unbaptized man A marries Protestant woman B in a civil ceremony. However, the marriage is actually invalid, according to both God and Catholic canon law, because of some impediment or defect of consent. Nonetheless, the marriage is presumed to be valid in the external forum.
• Later on, man A and woman B divorce in the civil courts.
• Man A, still unbaptized, marries unbaptized woman C in a civil ceremony. This marriage is true and valid, according to both God and Catholic canon law, but is presumed to be invalid in the external forum because of the prior putative marriage of man A.
• In danger of death, man A is baptized into the Catholic Church.
• Man A recovers, and wishes to receive Holy Communion.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that he is unable to prove the nullity of his first marriage before a Church tribunal. (I realize that this assumption goes against the Pennsylvania bishops’ claim of 100% perfection for the external forum.) Let’s use the Catholic Encyclopedia’s reason, “for want of judicial proofs” of nullity.

He goes to his priest, seeking to use the Church-approved internal forum as described in the 1973 and 1975 CDF letters. Because of his prior putative marriage, he is in an externally irregular marriage situation, and must avoid scandal by receiving communion in a parish where his situation is not known. But is there a reason for him to eschew marital relations? He is actually married, in God’s eyes, to woman C, so having marital relations with her is not in any way sinful. Since man A is living by Christian moral principles, the priest concurs with his use of the internal forum, without a requirement to live as brother and sister.