Internal forum

[pianoplayingmom]

Can someone please explain to me what “internal forum” means? Someone I know cites this so that he, a married man (in the eyes of the Church…his annulment did not go through) can date a married woman (also still married in the eyes of the Church). From what he said, it looks to me as though this internal forum thing is about disobedience. It seems that if one doesn’t agree with a certain teaching of the Church and wants to act contrary to that teaching, all one has to do is cry, “internal forum” and all will be well with his/her conscience. From what this guy said, he’s on the road to holiness and he’s taking his girlfriend with him. I told him he was playing with fire and they could be risking their souls. He said I was too rule-bound and he couldn’t see Christ in what I’m saying. All I was trying to do was tell him what the Church teaches. He refused to listen. Rather, he painted a flowery picture of how much they love one another and how they are reaching out to the broader community with their love.

 

[water]

I don’t really know what the term means. However, in general, one should read the lives of many saints and will be amazed how their obedience to the Church/superior pleases God more than other things.

a quote in St. Faustina’s diary:

1. To facilitate obedience, Saint Ignatius suggests, moreover, three means: always to see God in our superior, whoever he might be; to justify in itself the order or advice of the superior; to accept each order as an order from God, without examining it or reflecting on it. General means: humility. Noting is difficult for the humble.

After all, Jesus has set a great example of being obedient for all of us.

Pray for him and many others for increasing the virtual of obedience.

 

[Joysong]

This is an example of clergy having inside access to information that is not commonly known or understood by the laity, simply by doing a google search of documents.

I had a good friend in the 1970’s who was in a second marriage after having been many years away from the Church. She had a conversion experience and wanted to baptize her children and have the marriage blessed, but at this time, a lack of witnesses and other circumstances made it impossible to begin the process for an annulment.

Since I had advised her to go through the Church for instruction about this, she shared with me the copies of the documents called “internal forum” that she was given by the priest to study and pray over, earnestly. The final determination AFTER this, was made from the sole inviolable sanctuary of her conscience.

Though there was no external forum that could pronounce with certain evidence that a marriage was null and void, the internal forum of her conscience between her and God was matter that even the priest could not discount as wrong. We are solely responsible before God to examine our hearts carefully, and assume the consequenses of it being morally right or wrong.

That becomes rather scary, unless God has unequivocally placed that certainty within one’s spirit - that the first marriage was null. That being the case, the priest advised my friend to go to confession and receive the sacraments, but to be mindful that if anyone in the parish knew her and would be scandalized, it would be best to receive in a church where she was not known. She became a model catholic and was a CCD teacher in that parish for a long while.

I’m not aware whether or not the internal forum guidelines are still in place, but anyone who attempts this on their own without pastoral guidance, and lightly passes off their situation with the glib “internal forum” justification, would be walking on thin ice.

OTOH, those who have taken the steps my friend did, ought not to be judged by anyone else who does not know the details.

 

[pianoplayingmom]

I didn’t know that it is considered rude not to come back to a thread I started. (I found this out through another thread I was just reading.) I apologize for this faux pas on my part. After reading the subsequent posts, I didn’t think any further answer from me was needed which is why I didn’t respond. Thank you, Joysong and water, for your posts. I appreciate your insight.

 

[leonie]

I didn’t know that it is considered rude not to come back to a thread I started. (I found this out through another thread I was just reading.) I apologize for this faux pas on my part. After reading the subsequent posts, I didn’t think any further answer from me was needed which is why I didn’t respond. Thank you, Joysong and water, for your posts. I appreciate your insight.

Whoa, This is new to me, would you consider asking this in the Apologist’s forum.

 

[Drlit]

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this and I think I have a handle on it. In short, there is a lot of controversy about it.

A quick summary:

A couple that is married, when one or both has divorced from a Catholic marriage, seeks the guidance of a priest. The “internal forum” or “good conscience” solution would deem that the priest should use the Petitioners Preliminary Form (which is used when one begins the annulment process). The “internal forum” usually refers to discussions within the sacrament of confession, but this would require more time and deeper investigation than the few minutes of confession would provide.

The priest would take the couple through the items on that form, stuff about the previous marriage mostly, some of it quite probing. After the process is completed, after possible several sessions, the priest destroys the form.

What the couple hopes to gain is a deep examination of the conscience. The priest will not validate or invalidate the previous marriage, will not make a judgement about the couple’s current marriage, will not bless the marriage or remarry them. All he will do is agree that there are grounds to believe that the previous marriage is null, and at that point it is between the individual and God. He would ask that the couple not receive in a church where their “irregular marriage” is known and would cause “scandal” which I take it to mean: upset members of the parish or the priest or put a lay minister in an awkward position, and other things of that nature.

It is not “Annulment-Lite” or a backdoor anullment. The couple would not be re-married in the church, could not have their marriage listed in the church records, would probably have a great deal of trouble being godparents or confirmation sponsors or even lay ministers and other such times when records are checked. All they can do is quietly and joyfully return to the communion rail and perhaps receive annointing when ill.

Cardinal Ratzinger (Aka Pope Benedict) has said that the well formed conscience has priority over church authority.

Cardinal Schoenborn (Austria) has said,"“Everyone who can in good conscience say ‘Amen’ to the Eucharistic Prayer of the Catholic Mass may take Communion in a Catholic church.”

It’s a matter of GOOD CONSCIENCE but cannot be taken lightly or administered flippantly.

It would of course be possible for a couple like that to find a church where they are not known. I could think of 5 within 10-15 miles of where I am sitting. But a couple that would SEEK an ecclesiastic solution, even if it is just “gentle understanding” such as this, is doing far more than a couple that “sneaks off to a new parish” as it were.

Sometimes an annulment is not possible – no cooperation from the former spouse, which causes conflict where none exists, no wish to relive the pain or sadness of the previous marriage which is tantamount to reopening a painful wound, no availability of witnesses, etc.

The trick in this day and age is finding a priest that will do it. A very liberal one would; a very conservative one would not.

So there you go.

 

[reen12]

quote: Joysong

This is an example of clergy having inside access to information that is not commonly known or understood by the laity, simply by doing a google search of documents.

I had a good friend in the 1970’s who was in a second marriage after having been many years away from the Church. She had a conversion experience and wanted to baptize her children and have the marriage blessed, but at this time, a lack of witnesses and other circumstances made it impossible to begin the process for an annulment.

Since I had advised her to go through the Church for instruction about this, she shared with me the copies of the documents called “internal forum” that she was given by the priest to study and pray over, earnestly. The final determination AFTER this, was made from the sole inviolable sanctuary of her conscience.

Though there was no external forum that could pronounce with certain evidence that a marriage was null and void, the internal forum of her conscience between her and God was matter that even the priest could not discount as wrong. We are solely responsible before God to examine our hearts carefully, and assume the consequenses of it being morally right or wrong.

That becomes rather scary, unless God has unequivocally placed that certainty within one’s spirit - that the first marriage was null. That being the case, the priest advised my friend to go to confession and receive the sacraments, but to be mindful that if anyone in the parish knew her and would be scandalized, it would be best to receive in a church where she was not known. She became a model catholic and was a CCD teacher in that parish for a long while.

I’m not aware whether or not the internal forum guidelines are still in place, but anyone who attempts this on their own without pastoral guidance, and lightly passes off their situation with the glib “internal forum” justification, would be walking on thin ice.

OTOH, those who have taken the steps my friend did, ought not to be judged by anyone else who does not know the details.

A beautiful post, Joysong. No one can read another’s soul.

A piece of paper, from a tribunal - annuling a marriage -
is just that. A piece of paper. Only the one seeking an annulment, knows all of the realities that broke their marriage, to begin with.
Only that person can know if theirs is a just action, in the sight of God.

Who dares pass judgement - without being apprised of all of the facts - acts like Job’s “friends.”
“You must have sinned, or this wouldn’t be happening to you.”

God had a few words to say, to these purported “friends.”

Religious authority has both the right - *and the obligation *- to
assess each unique case, and to speak for Mother Church.

All others must avoid passing judgement. For if one *does *judge, and judges incorrectly,
they may hear Christ saying to them, one day:

I told you clearly: “Judge not - lest you be judged.”
“As you meted out to others - so shall I judge you.”

reen12

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Joysong,

          WOW, I never heard of the "internal forum," until this thread.

It seems wonderful, that a person’s conscience, like your friend, was the final deciding factor in the decision.

Jim

 

[Joysong]

Hello Reen12 and JimR,

I quickly googled to find out if this is still in use today, and this document goes back to 1978. While it may still be in use today, I did not do any further research. I just print the link for those who may want to examine the process.

Carole

 

[Corki]

I have been following this and the other related thread with some trepidation. I admit to confusion and aprehension about the IF. But…

Based on these links and quotes, the situation presented in the OP would not qualify for the IF since at least one of the marriages was presented to the tribunal and found to be sacramental. Right?

Also, the couple is supposed to only go to Communion where their irregular marriage is not known. This means that they shouldn’t go telling people about their use of the IF at the parish where they are attending and receiving Communion. Right?

This whole situation is very disheartening.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Check EWTN re Internal forum. There are several discussions all supporting the one linked.

Any priest who proposes an “internal forum solution” for a marital situation is acting in opposition to the Church. Matters related to marriage are always of the external forum as they must be subject to proof.

%between%

 

[Joysong]

Any priest who proposes an “internal forum solution” for a marital situation is acting in opposition to the Church. Matters related to marriage are always of the external forum as they must be subject to proof.

I cannot help but feel deep sadness and concern over this, for it seems to be a “letter of the law,” rather than its Spirit. The question arises, were the people the 70’s who were granted internal forum permissions, just a lucky bunch? Do they need to stop going to the sacraments after they were once reconciled, because of this newer legislation? I believe the church will pastorally consider each individual circumstance, rather than give blanket censure.

This scripture particularly applies to my friend’s situation:

Brothers, everyone should continue before God in the state in which he was called. (I Cor. 7:24)

Her past life faded into oblivion when the Lord called her to Himself. I cannot believe God would inspire her to come to Him, but only half way, by not receiving the sacraments which bestow life. Nor do I believe He would tell her to live as brother and sister since her first marriage was not annulled, as a condition of belonging to Him. The bond that exists spiritually in their hearts is deeper than the joining of their bodies. Or even worse, to separate, disrupt the family, remove these children from their father, and return to the first marriage partner (who was already in a second marriage of his own).

When Jesus met the woman at the well, calling her to the divine water that He wished to give her, we do not know whether she afterwards married the man she lived with, or whether the other five had to be set aside. Whatever her present sinful circumstance was, Jesus was calling her.

Can Jesus never forgive the “sin” of my friend’s bad first marriage that was mistakenly contracted during a time when she did not know Him? Would He put conditions on His merciful call for her to come home to Him?

While I uphold the basic teaching as presented by the Church regarding annulments and marriage, I really believe in some cases, there are extenuating circumstances that require the examination of a higher ecclesial authority. I would hope nobody who read that post of Joe Kelley’s is feeling doomed forever, and urge you to seek this help.

 

[Joysong]

Upon further reflection, I do not observe an absolute in Joe’s link:

One of the principles for the reform of the Code of Canon Law set out by Pope Paul VI was to minimize possible conflicts between the internal and external forum. In practice, this has resulted in the restriction of the notion of the internal forum to just a few matters (e.g., confession, spiritual direction). Matters of the internal forum are not provable. [Exactly my point] Matters of the external forum are subject to proof (e.g., through testimony, documents).

Was this actually set in motion and declared definitively? I could not find anything in the Vatican website. Or is it still under consideration to “minimize” conflicts. The link from EWTN did not state a specific document to corroborate his statement.

 

[Corki]

While I uphold the basic teaching as presented by the Church regarding annulments and marriage, I really believe in some cases, there are extenuating circumstances that require the examination of a higher ecclesial authority. I would hope nobody who read that post of Joe Kelley’s is feeling doomed forever, and urge you to seek this help.

But that’s the problem with the internal forum. It isn’t someone honestly, humbly seeking a higher ecclesial authority in extenuating circumstances. It operates outside all ecclesial authority. (I am speaking of the OP, not the friend whose story you told)

What an “Internal Forum Solution” IS
It is a pastoral judgment made by the proper ecclesiastical minister, in the internal forum, that a person involved in a second marriage (while the first spouse is still alive) has, by reason of a properly formed conscience, the right to receive the sacraments, with no canonical decision being rendered by the Tribunal as to the validity or invalidity of the previous marriage or previous marriages.

A** Catholic who has remarried**, who has practiced the Faith insofar as possible, and who has demonstrated the stability of his/her present marriage over a sufficient period of time.

The **remarried party **and the present spouse are **fulfilling the responsibilities of Christian marriage **in the present union, especially fidelity, parenthood, and a genuine sharing of conjugal life and love.

The above are quotes from the link you posted. How does that possible apply to the OPs friend who is dating and not remarried yet? The whole reason the IF is considered pastoral, as far as I can understand, is that it recognizes some value to the current marriage bond (the remarriage) and the damage that would result if that bond was broken - especially if it is likely that the first marriage was faulty in some way.

Also how do you reconcile the requirement that in order to pursue the Internal Forun, the External Forum must be exhausted with

Internal forum: it is a decision reached in private counseling with the parties in the present marriage: For the sake of thoroughness it should not be done during the few minutes available in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. At least several sessions of in-depth counseling and investigation should be involved; it is never to be rushed nor is it to be readily assumed that the parties understand the full implications of a good conscience solution. As an aid in gathering the facts, the priest could use the “Petitioner’s Testimony Form” (as used for formal cases); he could ask the questions on that form of the party, and ask further questions of his own devising if the party’s answers are not clear. After the investigation is complete the priest should destroy the form.

???

 

[Joysong]

It seems that if one doesn’t agree with a certain teaching of the Church and wants to act contrary to that teaching, all one has to do is cry, “internal forum” and all will be well with his/her conscience.

This statement from the OP sums up the dangers in I.F. If the conscience is not formed properly and the guidance is not from God who sees the heart, then that person bears the entire consequence of his action, good or bad.

The true concept of I.F., as I understand it, presupposes pastoral counselling and much agonizing prayer to understand how God would have them proceed, and the willingness to bear those consequences in light of a formed conscience based on present this circumstance. And beyond that which may be provable.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See Colin B. Donovan, STL

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).

 

[Joysong]

Joe Kelley:

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.

Joe, this does not fit the circumstance of someone who cannot prove in the external forum that the marriage had impediments. Maybe the witnesses died, or the necessary proofs are not available for one reason or another, and the tribunal cannot issue a valid decree of nullity. In THOSE circumstances, there just has to be a pastoral solution of some sort.

In your priest’s example, he is speaking about an entirely different matter, that of failing to seek an annulment and relying on one’s judgment. This would be an aberration of conscience, I believe, and in that case I completely agree with the the citation.

The I.F. I am speaking about is that which is applied AFTER one has submitted to the tribunal and been unable to provide the necessary proofs for them to make a decision. Then what?

 

[Joysong]

Joe,

I responded only to your written portion of the link prior to reading the entire document.

The ending of Father’s article is the sentiment I share, and I encourage any who are reading this thread to observe this paragraph:

Questions? Anyone who is uncertain about his or her marital status, wants to return to the sacraments after divorce and re-marriage (not having first obtained an annulment) or desires greater clarity concerning such issues should seek the advice of their diocese’s Tribunal.** The complexity of these issues requires individual attention**, such as cannot be provided by a Forum such as this.

 

[Drlit]

Y’all:

It’s my understanding, and I admit to having limited knowledge, that Internal forum is NOT merely a bypass of annulment. Sometimes a devout Catholic may find that divorce is the only alternative (for whatever reasons). Because of the unavailability of proof (no witnesses, or unwilling witnesses, no way of documenting the marital issues, or of tracing them to a pre-marital causal factor) that Catholic may be unable to approach the Tribunal.

Then one day the devout Catholic finds love, which s/he comes to believe in time is a gift of God, and more sacred than the first marriage ever was.

That devout Catholic is between a boulder and big rock. How can s/he gratefully accept the Gift of God when the Church sees it as obstinate persistent sin? Is the Church so cold and unfeeling that they respond to this with bitter absolutism?

No, the Internal Forum, done in prayerful counseling with a priest (who HAS the right of pastoral judgement in such cases) is a possibility. If the priest is personally convinced of the invalidity of the first marriage, understands sincerely the person’s inability to approach the tribunal, recognizes the person’s devotion to the Catholic Church and sincerely believes in the sancitity of the present marriage, he can and should guide the couple to examine their conscience with regard to their right to receive the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

The Church is NOT cold and Absolute. It CAN consider the issues of a couple like the one described. This of course would separate the devout in such circumstances from the guy who ran off with his secretary during a mid-life crisis. They are not the same and should not be regarded as being the same.

Sad that this loving path to renewal is arbitrarily applied and not available everywhere. I call your attention to the webpage of the Marriage Tribunal of the Diocese of Lexington KY however:

tribunal.cdlex.org/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=93578&From=Home

Just my thoughts.

 

[Joysong]

I would say your understanding is right on the mark! This is what I came to know also in reviewing the manuscript with my friend while she agonized over her situation.

This was a beautiful statement in your excellent link:

They must be willing to live with this lack of external Church approval, which does not, of course, imply disapproval of their return to sacramental life based on a good conscience solution.

It is too simplistic to apply a blanket statement such as “sorry folks, no internal forum solution is possible.”