Internal Forum in regard to annulments.

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003,

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.

Canonically speaking, the couple continuing marital relations may NOT partake of the Sacraments until they recieve an annulment and have their marriage regularized by the Church. So, “with marital relations” means NO Sacraments until the annulment is complete and regularization of the marriage occurs.

There’s another solution (not to the marriage, but pertaining to access to the Sacraments). This solution is not within the jurisdiction solely reserved to the external forum (like the question of valid marriages), but is within the jurisdicton of the internal forum. That solution is refraining from marital relations, receipt of sacramental absolution, and avoidance of public scandal. That solution would give the couple licit access to the Sacraments while they await the annulment. If the annulment is not granted, their first obligation is to separate. But for serious reasons, they may remain living as brother and sister and licitly partake of the Sacraments.

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.

Not necessarily. For the couple who remain continent and receives sacramental absolution, public scandal can be avoided by licitly partaking of the Sacraments where the marital irregularity is unknown. Apart from the obligation to separate, for serious reasons, such a solution is the only one approved by the teachings of the magisterium.

In the first millenium of Catholicism, canonical precedent in the Church is that of invalid marriages due to antecedent impotence. Canon law did not always require the couple to separate (one solution), but allowed the couple to live as brother and sister (another solution). Access to the Sacraments required one or the other, otherwise partaking of the Sacraments was contrary to canon law.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Canonically speaking, the couple continuing marital relations may NOT partake of the Sacraments until they recieve an annulment and have their marriage regularized by the Church.

Canon law does not distinguish between “having marital relations” or “not having marital relations”. (If you think otherwise, please cite the particular canon.) Canonically speaking, a couple in an irregular marriage situation may NOT partake of the Sacraments period.

An exception to this exists in the internal forum, which lies outside of canon law. The basic idea is that although the couple appears to be engaging in ongoing sin, because of additional information not publically known, the couple is actually not engaging in sin at all. Thus, the couple shares this additional information with a priest, who will allow the couple access to Holy Communion provided scandal is avoided.

You seem to be treating “living as brother and sister” as a basic or fundamental condition of the internal forum, but it is not. It is a derived condition, from the fundamental requirement that the couple not be engaging in sin, i.e., living by Christian moral principles. The 1975 CDF letter explains the basic requirement. Later magisterial statements apply that basic requirement to particular situations, e.g., Catholics who remarry outside the Church, to derive the “living as brother and sister” condition.

itsjustdave1988:

In the first millenium of Catholicism, canonical precedent in the Church is that of invalid marriages due to antecedent impotence. Canon law did not always require the couple to separate (one solution), but allowed the couple to live as brother and sister (another solution). Access to the Sacraments required one or the other, otherwise partaking of the Sacraments was contrary to canon law.

I don’t have any idea what impotence has to do with our discussion. For that matter, I don’t see how someone who is impotent can live as anything else except brother and sister.

I’m not sure I see much point in discussing this further; I doubt either of us will be convinced by the other. I guess we will both have to wait for the magisterium to clarify this further.

 

[fix]

tuopaolo:

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.

Yes, in some way it may be possible one has an involuntarily poorly formed conscience, but more often I would think one is confusing their feelings with conscience.

The most common example is when one claims to have prayed about the Church’s teaching on ABC and them claims their conscience tells them to reject it. I think one would be hard pressed to say they have a certain conscience when the CCC says we have a serious obligation to form our consciences correctly and a correct conscience accepts the moral law, not reject it.

As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright…

If a person “feels” like killing himself, or “thinks” that he should do so, in the certainty of my correctly formed and informed conscience, I have the obligation to prevent him from doing so.

If a person dos not “like” or “disagrees” with the Church’s teaching, he has the obligation to seek counsel ad prayerfully discover why he is at odds with the truth.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=325763&Forums=5&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=erroneous+conscience&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&record_bookmark=3

 

[fix]

tuopaolo:

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

Yes, sorry I was confused by some posts.

 

[KATCU2]

I have been a Christian since age 10. I was not Baptised until I was I was 26. I was married at 19 and my husband was unfaithful many times but we always reconciled and tried to continue our marriage. He was not baptised until he was 27. He was 20 when we married. We had four children. After 32 years of marriage, he was again unfaithful and did not want to continue being married. I was never unfaithful. He was also abusive and I was afraid to leave him but finally with much planning I did.

I am now happily married to a Christian man. My ex is also remarried.

Recently my husband and I have decided, with much study, that we wanted to join the Catholic church and receive communion. I was told by a deacon that I would have to have my first marriage annulled.

Why do I, a non-Catholic, have to annull a previous marriage. In the church I was in, adultery was grounds for divorce.

Please answer.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

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.

Sorry, I must have missed this among all the other discussion.

Anyway, canon law is quite clear that it is the actually validity or invalidity of a first marriage (and not the presence or absence of a decree of nullity) that affects the validity of a subsequent marriage. I don’t think this point was ever at issue.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Sorry, I must have missed this among all the other discussion.

Anyway, canon law is quite clear that it is the actually validity or invalidity of a first marriage (and not the presence or absence of a decree of nullity) that affects the validity of a subsequent marriage. I don’t think this point was ever at issue.

Perhaps you can explain by giving an example. How can the “first” marriage be determined to be invalid if the Church has not examined it and found that it was never valid?

Your point seems to be that the validity or invalidity of the first marriage is what determines the validity or invalidity of the “second” marriage. I agree, but that first marriage has to be examined by the Church, not private conscience, in any event.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Anyway, canon law is quite clear that it is the actually validity or invalidity of a first marriage (and not the presence or absence of a decree of nullity) that affects the validity of a subsequent marriage. I don’t think this point was ever at issue.

But access to the Sacraments is not just dependent upon *validity *but is dependent upon licitness. For example, a Catholic who has never been married decides to elope and marry in front of a justice of the peace. Can he partake of the Sacraments? His public marriage is presumed to be valid by canon law, yet he cannot partake of the Sacraments until he has his marriage convalidated. He may be subjectively certian of the validity of his marriage, yet his subjective certainty does not suffice according to canon law.

A Catholic who marries, divorces, and marries again without an annulment has an illicit marriage. Thus, they must abstain from the Sacraments UNTIl the marriage is convalidated. Again, subjective certainty of conscious with regard to the validity of the marriage in insufficient, as the marriage needs to be both valid and licit in the eyes of the Church before access to the Sacraments can be licitly given.

I’ve reworded my blog article to clarify this …

Internal forum solution instead of an annulment?

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 presumed to be still married to another. Canon 1085 §2 states: "Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly." Even if one is subjectively certain of the invalidity of their prior marriage, they may not licitly re-marry without an annulment. A Catholic who married illicitly may not receive of the Sacraments. For example, Catholics in merely civil marriages, have married illicitly according to canon law. Even if this is their first marriage, if it is merely civil, they cannot be licitly admitted to the Sacraments until they “regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle” (see Familiaris Consortio , par. 82). So, to live in accord with Christian moral principles has a very specific meaning, which includes submitting to Catholic canon law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

KATCU2,

I recommend you Ask an Apologist and speak to your diocesan Tribunal about your specific situation.

My rather non-expert answer would be …

For Catholics and non-Catholics, for any public bond of marriage, the Church understands this to be true:

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven

This article by Colin B. Donovan of EWTN may be informative. Unlike me, he has a Licentiate in Sacred Theology.

Annulments/Decree of Nullity
ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Perhaps you can explain by giving an example. How can the “first” marriage be determined to be invalid if the Church has not examined it and found that it was never valid?

The only way the first marriage can be determined to be invalid in the external forum is through the Church tribunals.

fix:

Your point seems to be that the validity or invalidity of the first marriage is what determines the validity or invalidity of the “second” marriage. I agree, but that first marriage has to be examined by the Church, not private conscience, in any event.

That was my only point. I was just addressing your comment, “I thought your point was that the internal forum allowed one to validly remarry without a decree of nullity in certain cases.” Canon law is what allows a second marriage to be valid without having a decree of nullity for the first marriage.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

A Catholic who marries, divorces, and marries again without an annulment has an illicit marriage.

Most of the time, the second marriage will be outside the Church, and will thus be invalid as well as illicit.

The exception that I’m talking about (where abstaining from relations is not required) will require the joint occurrence of two or more very low probability events, and will almost never occur in practice. My hypothetical is one such scenario, where the second marriage outside the Church is valid because the person had not yet been baptized as a Catholic. Note that the second marriage is also licit in this case, because canon 1085 §2 only applies to Catholics.

 

[tuopaolo]

itsjustdave1988:

For example, a Catholic who has never been married decides to elope and marry in front of a justice of the peace. Can he partake of the Sacraments? His public marriage is presumed to be valid by canon law, yet he cannot partake of the Sacraments until he has his marriage convalidated.

Actually his “marriage” would not be presumed to be valid in that particular case. A declaration of nullity would not be given for such a case as it would not even be a putative marriage from the outset since there is not even an appearance of canonical form. If such a person wanted to “re”-marry then he would not need a declaration of nullity (it’s similar canonically in this respect, though not theologically, to a situation where someone “marries” a member of the same sex – no declaration of nullity is needed)

Convalidation btw is not the making of a marriage licit, but the making of a marriage valid (i.e. real, actual, to be existing)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

My hypothetical is one such scenario, where the second marriage outside the Church is valid because the person had not yet been baptized as a Catholic.

Perhaps you can walk us through the scenario. Two non-baptized enter a bond of marriage for a second time? As I understand it, canon 1060 applies to any public vow of marriage, whether baptized or not. External forum adjudication is required prior to Baptism in this case. Thus, presuming their first civil wedding has the favor of law, the validity of such a marriage is upheld until the contary is proven.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Perhaps you can walk us through the scenario.

I did so in my post #57. Is there some part of the scenario that needs more explanation?

itsjustdave1988:

Two non-baptized enter a bond of marriage for a second time? As I understand it, canon 1060 applies to any public vow of marriage, whether baptized or not.

Correct. But canon 1060 relates to how the marriage is viewed in the external forum, not to whether the marriage is actually valid or not.

itsjustdave1988:

External forum adjudication is required prior to Baptism in this case.

Not in danger of death, as I’ve posited in my scenario.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ah, case of death, I forgot that part.

Canon 1060 relates to how the marriage is viewed in the external forum, not to whether the marriage is actually valid or not.

Yes. There exists a possibility that an objectively invalid marriage may be adjudicated as valid by the external forum of the Church, or an obejctively valid marriage may be adjudicated as invalid by the external forum of the Church. But, according to John Paul II and Benedict XVI (as prefect of the CDF), there’s no canonical provision where marriage is adjudicated in the internal forum. The access to the Sacraments does fall into the jurisdiction of the internal forum. Not the marriage. That’s an important distinction.

Thus in your scenario, we have a nonCatholic in a civil marriage, who by necessity, received dispensation from canon law. He, due to necessity (immediate peril), was baptized, but his marriage was still not regularized. So, he’s a Catholic in a merely civil marriage. He received dispensation for baptism due to necessity, and could have access to the Holy Eucharist so long as the immediate peril (the condition of the dispensation) exists. When that necessity no longer exists, then the condition of dispensation is no longe present. He’s back to following canon law just like the rest of us Catholics.

Thus John Paul II stated in Familiaris Consorito, “IV - PASTORAL CARE OF THE FAMILY IN DIFFICULT CASES, *c) Catholics in Civil Marriages” *(par. 82).

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.

And from the same document, under "e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried ":

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.
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.”(180)

regularize their marriage. Necessity brings dispensation. But necessity presumes immediate peril. Once the immediate peril has ceased, so does the dispensation which necessity brought.

I’ll give you a parallel case, a Protestant in danger of death, requests and received the Holy Eucharist in accord with canon 844, §4. Afterwards, he recovers. Does that mean he is forever dispensed so as to receive the Holy Eucharist despite being Protestant? I don’t think so. His “grave reasons” are over with and thus, so is his dispensation from canon law. For him to continue to have access to the Eucharist, he’s gonna have to become a Catholic.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Ah, case of death, I forgot that part.

You can also get some theoretical but unlikely-in-practice scenarios between Catholics by making use of the extraordinary canonical form for marriage (canon 1116).

itsjustdave1988:

Yes. There exists a possibility that an objectively invalid marriage may be adjudicated as valid by the external forum of the Church, or an obejctively valid marriage may be adjudicated as invalid by the external forum of the Church.

The Pennsylvania bishops dispute the second possibility, but I cannot agree with them in that regard.

My question to you is the following: For couples in this second situation, do they sin by having marital relations? In other words, do you feel they must abstain in order to receive communion under the internal forum because (1) they sin by having marital relations, or (2) although they can engage in marital relations non-sinfully, the internal forum still imposes the additional (and in this case burdensome) requirement of living as brother and sister?

itsjustdave1988:

But, according to John Paul II and Benedict XVI (as prefect of the CDF), there’s no canonical provision where marriage is adjudicated in the internal forum. The access to the Sacraments does fall into the jurisdiction of the internal forum. Not the marriage. That’s an important distinction.

The diocesan policy of Great Falls-Billings regarding the internal forum said the same thing:

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.

This seems to be an area that we are in agreement on. The internal forum is a means whereby those who are living in apparent sin can gain access to the sacraments, as long as they avoid scandal by receiving in a parish where their apparent sin is unknown, and after discussion with a priest who will help them in a determination that they are actually not engaging in sin at all, due to additional information not publically known or established. This additional information could be the fact that they are not engaging in sexual relations, or it could be something else altogether.

In any case, access to the sacraments via the internal forum does not change the person’s status in the external forum in any way. It does not adjudicate anything. Nor does it permit access to sacraments which change a person’s status, e.g., a secret marriage ceremony or a secret convalidation.

To be continued in my next post.

 

[Catholic2003]

itsjustdave1988:

Thus in your scenario, we have a nonCatholic in a civil marriage, who by necessity, received dispensation from canon law. He, due to necessity (immediate peril), was baptized, but his marriage was still not regularized.

Correct. Additionally, his marriage is valid under canon law, although that fact cannot be established in the external forum.

itsjustdave1988:

So, he’s a Catholic in a merely civil marriage.

Not really. This term is generally reserved to those Catholics who entered into a civil marriage when they were already Catholic.

itsjustdave1988:

He received dispensation for baptism due to necessity, and could have access to the Holy Eucharist so long as the immediate peril (the condition of the dispensation) exists.

Correct.

itsjustdave1988:

When that necessity no longer exists, then the condition of dispensation is no longe present. He’s back to following canon law just like the rest of us Catholics.

Canon law specifically includes the exception in danger of death, so he was following canon law all along. But I get what you are trying to say, and I agree.

itsjustdave1988:

Thus John Paul II stated in Familiaris Consorito, “IV - PASTORAL CARE OF THE FAMILY IN DIFFICULT CASES, *c) Catholics in Civil Marriages” *(par. 82).

This section refers to Catholics who, though bound to canonical form, nonetheless married outside the Church in an invalid marriage. It does not include my hypothetical, nor any Catholic converts who married prior to their reception into the Catholic Church.

One interesting thing to notice is that there is no “internal forum” solution for case (c) couples, because they have the possibility of regularizing their situation in the external forum. It is a requirement for access to the sacraments under the internal forum that it not be possible to utilize the external forum.

itsjustdave1988:

And from the same document, under "e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried ":

I read this as the application of the general requirements of internal forum to the specific situation of those in truly invalid marriages.

Couples who are in externally irregular but actually valid marriages do not have the option to separate and return to their prior (apparent) spouses. In doing this, they would be committing mortal sin, and being convicted by their consciences, they would be condemning themselves to hell.

itsjustdave1988:

Once the danger of death is over, continued access to the Sacraments is impeded until they regularize their marriage.

This is access in the external forum. We both agree that they can obtain access to the sacraments via the internal forum. The only point we disagree on is what private conditions they must fulfill in order to use the internal forum.

itsjustdave1988:

I’ll give you a parallel case, a Protestant in danger of death, requests and received the Holy Eucharist in accord with canon 844, §4. Afterwards, he recovers. Does that mean he is forever dispensed so as to receive the Holy Eucharist despite being Protestant? I don’t think so. His “grave reasons” are over with and thus, so is his dispensation from canon law. For him to continue to have access to the Eucharist, he’s gonna have to become a Catholic.

Agreed. Again, this is access via the external forum.

 

[IrishAm]

Please note this thread is a decade old – it goes back to 2005.