What happens if a priest attempts to solemnize a marriage without an annulment?

[fredystairs]

@Gorgias

Thank you for your time and explanation. Some stuff here that I hadn’t considered before.

Pax

 

[Usige]

The use of rescripts varies by diocese. There likely are some (if not the majority ?) that do not use rescripts under any circumstances.

In my diocese they are essentially required for every marriage because of particular law. We have a number of steps during marriage prep that may only be dispensed by the bishop or vicar general, but despite that we had a number of clergy that were failing to complete all steps or returning marriage paperwork in a timely fashion. Because of that, particular law was changed to require a rescript to proceed with marriage. If a marriage is performed without the rescript it is valid, but illicit according to particular law. In that way it has less of an impact on the couple, but allows for disciplinary actions against clerics who disregard the law.

Gorgias gives a number of useful examples. One other place I have seen a vetitum is with someone who had been convicted of molestation of a babysitter during his first marriage. After serving jail time, he sought to marry a woman with teenage daughters and the vetitum attached to the declaration of nullity clearly stated that he was not free to marry into a family where there were female children in the house. A priest wanted to be pastoral and married the couple anyway. The man was convicted of molestation of his step daughters within the next year or two.

 

[fredystairs]

Thank you @Usige.

I appreciate the information. And I appreciate you and @Gorgias patience. Learning new stuff all the time.

Pax

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

internal forum

I still have no idea what this is.

It means following your “conscience” and/or best judgment, where you find the Church’s teaching, or opinion on the validity of a marriage and freedom or non-freedom to marry, to be lacking where your situation is concerned. It is an illicit solution. More homely put, it boils down to “I don’t care what the rules are, I don’t think I did anything wrong, I don’t think the rules apply to me, I’m going to go ahead and receive communion and the other sacraments”.

HomeschoolDad:

Or he might say “annulment or no annulment, that prior marriage wasn’t valid, I don’t care what anyone says, I’m going to go ahead and administer the sacrament, even though it will have no ‘official’ status”.

He might say that, but he could find himself in a whole lot of hot water with his bishop, if he does so.

One would certainly think so, and one would certainly hope so.

 

[Gorgias]

It means following your “conscience” and/or best judgment, where you find the Church’s teaching, or opinion on the validity of a marriage and freedom or non-freedom to marry, to be lacking where your situation is concerned. It is an illicit solution.

Hang on a second: I think you’re conflating the “internal forum” with a particular situation that’s often described in the context of an invalidly married couple (who are not engaging in sexual intercourse), in such a way as to provide an opportunity to allow them to participate in the sacraments. That particular approach is commonly referred to as the “internal forum solution”.

The two are not the same, nor should they be treated as such. Moreover, the characterization of the ‘internal forum solution’ as “the rules don’t apply to me” is not only inaccurate, but rather uncharitable.

Just my two cents.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It means following your “conscience” and/or best judgment, where you find the Church’s teaching, or opinion on the validity of a marriage and freedom or non-freedom to marry, to be lacking where your situation is concerned. It is an illicit solution.

Hang on a second: I think you’re conflating the “internal forum” with a particular situation that’s often described in the context of an invalidly married couple (who are not engaging in sexual intercourse), in such a way as to provide an opportunity to allow them to participate in the sacraments. That particular approach is commonly referred to as the “internal forum solution”.

The two are not the same , nor should they be treated as such. Moreover, the characterization of the ‘internal forum solution’ as “the rules don’t apply to me” is not only inaccurate, but rather uncharitable.

I do not think of Josephite marriages as being “internal forum”, and I have never heard it described that way before. Rather, I have always understood “internal forum”, as applied to illicit marriage, as being a “good conscience” [sic] scenario, either “I can’t get an annulment but I think it is OK for me to marry illicitly (because XYZ)” or, as I said, “I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong, regardless of what the ‘rules’ say”. Neither of those things are uncharitable, just descriptive of a broken moral compass.

To point out the sinfulness of such thinking is not only not uncharitable, but, as I see it, a great act of charity, to prick the consciences of people who might be contemplating such a course of action, and to get them not to take that route. Twenty million years from now, they will thank the person who steered them away from doing something like that.

 

[Gorgias]

I do not think of Josephite marriages as being “internal forum”, and I have never heard it described that way before.

I’m not talking about a Josephite marriage, per se.

I’m talking about a marriage which is objectively invalid, and which was – at one point – also characterized by marital relations, although not currently able to be described as such.

Rather, I have always understood “internal forum”, as applied to illicit marriage, as being a “good conscience” [sic] scenario, either “I can’t get an annulment but I think it is OK for me to marry illicitly (because XYZ)”

That’s inaccurate.

or, as I said, “I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong, regardless of what the ‘rules’ say”.

That, too, is inaccurate.

To point out the sinfulness of such thinking is not only not uncharitable, but, as I see it, a great act of charity, to prick the consciences of people who might be contemplating such a course of action, and to get them not to take that route.

That is not the context of the so-called “internal forum solution”. Someone has you tilting at windmills.

Don’t have time to go into detail tonight. Perhaps we can pick up the discussion tomorrow?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

To point out the sinfulness of such thinking is not only not uncharitable, but, as I see it, a great act of charity, to prick the consciences of people who might be contemplating such a course of action, and to get them not to take that route.

That is not the context of the so-called “internal forum solution”. Someone has you tilting at windmills.

Don’t have time to go into detail tonight. Perhaps we can pick up the discussion tomorrow?

Nobody “has me” doing anything. I think of this stuff all on my own. I observe the Church, and society at large, and comment on things I see as needing to be commented upon. Somebody has to do it.

Yes, please, tomorrow, if you’d be so kind, write up a short definition of what “internal forum” is, as the concept relates to living in marriages that are irregular, illicit, and/or invalid according to the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church. I’m not trying to be sarcastic. I’m utterly sincere. We all must uplift and educate each other. Iron sharpens iron.

HomeschoolDad:

I do not think of Josephite marriages as being “internal forum”, and I have never heard it described that way before.

I’m not talking about a Josephite marriage, per se.

I’m talking about a marriage which is objectively invalid, and which was – at one point – also characterized by marital relations, although not currently able to be described as such.

I would call that a Josephite marriage, or as some would say, “living as brother and sister”. This situation can exist from the outset, or alternatively, a repentant couple, willing to give up illicit sexual relations, can resolve to live celibately from now on, yet remain legally married and under the same roof for some grave reasons, such as the upbringing of children, avoidance of grave financial harm, or preservation of temporal benefits (pension, insurance, social welfare, etc.). I know you know this, I am just clarifying the term and the definition for the benefit of readers who might not understand the concept.

 

[Vico]

…
Yes, please, tomorrow, if you’d be so kind, write up a short definition of what “internal forum” is ,
…

Modern Catholic Dictonary, Forum

The sphere within which the Church exercises her judicial authority. The external forum deals with matters that concern the public welfare of the Church and the people of God; the internal pertains to her jurisdiction in matters of conscience, notably the sacrament of penance, where sins are forgiven or retained and questions of morality are decided as to guilt, restitution, or responsibility.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Forum

The sphere within which the Church exercises her judicial authority. The external forum deals with matters that concern the public welfare of the Church and the people of God; the internal pertains to her jurisdiction in matters of conscience, notably the sacrament of penance, where sins are forgiven or retained and questions of morality are decided as to guilt, restitution, or responsibility.

as the concept relates to living in marriages that are irregular, illicit, and/or invalid according to the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church

 

[Gorgias]

I’m utterly sincere. We all must uplift and educate each other. Iron sharpens iron.

I know. Even without emojis, it seemed clear that it was a sincere statement / request! I’ll get to it tonight!

 

[Vico]

…

Internal forum pertains to judicial authority of the Church in individual sacramental confession as a tribunal of conscience.

Archbishop Jean Jérôme Hamer, Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975 stipulated that for divorced and remarried Catholics the internal forum could allow the reception of the sacraments if “they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles.”

Later there was a restriction stated in Familiaris consortio, Saint Pope John Paul II, 1981, reaffirmed in 2005 Synod and 2007 Sacramentum Caritatis:

“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.”

In 1991, per Cardinal Ratzinger, this use of the internal-forum solution would require a “pledge to abstain from sexual relations.”

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980320_cardeal-baum.html

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Archbishop Jean Jérôme Hamer, Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975 stipulated that for divorced and remarried Catholics the internal forum could allow the reception of the sacraments if “they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles.”

Later there was a restriction stated in Familiaris consortio , Saint Pope John Paul II, 1981, reaffirmed in 2005 Synod and 2007 Sacramentum Caritatis :

“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.”

And if this is all that “internal forum” means when referring to divorced-and-illicitly-remarried couples who do not have annulments — turning their marriage into a Josephite one, when it may not have been prior — then I am entirely good with this and I understand it totally.

It might behoove the couple, if this is possible for them, to move to a new area (even one nearby), and associate themselves with a new parish, where nobody knows them, and nobody knows of the prior marriage(s). This way, you avoid uncomfortable questions about “how did Brenda get remarried if she and Eddie don’t have an annulment?”, assuming people know Eddie, see him remaining single, and wonder why. Small towns can be fever swamps of people watching one another’s business, commenting on it, speculating on it, and doing other intrusive things that indicate they are sorely in need of getting a life.

 

[Vico]

…
And if this is all that “internal forum” means when referring to divorced-and-illicitly-remarried couples who do not have annulments — turning their marriage into a Josephite one, when it may not have been prior — then I am entirely good with this and I understand it totally.
…

The internal forum is not an individual independent decision but that given in individual confession. It is not the only condition, for if one reads more on what was given before by the Church, it is necessary to avoid giving scandal to others that know of it, by receiving Communion, and also that for serious reasons there cannot be separation.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

And if this is all that “internal forum” means when referring to divorced-and-illicitly-remarried couples who do not have annulments — turning their marriage into a Josephite one, when it may not have been prior — then I am entirely good with this and I understand it totally.

…

The internal forum is not an individual independent decision but that given in individual confession. It is not the only condition, for if one reads more on what was given before by the Church, it is necessary to avoid giving scandal to others that know of it, by receiving Communion, and also that for serious reasons there cannot be separation.

I have covered all of this in posts upthread. There has to be a serious reason, such as keeping a home together where children are being raised — it’s not their fault that their parents conceived them in an invalid union — or because they would lose much-needed benefits such as pensions, social security, insurance benefits, the list could go on and on. But just staying together because they like one another’s company, not a good enough reason. And I have to think that maintaining lifelong celibacy would be a huge challenge for many, not to be crude, but that spouse you have been accustomed to sharing conjugal life with for years — boom! — no more relations, never again, no matter what, it’s either that, or remove yourselves from this occasion of mortal sin, no matter what kind of sacrifices that requires of you.

And I know what this kind of sacrifice is like, from a slightly different angle — when my wife and I separated and divorced, having to accept total celibacy of an indefinite duration, possibly the rest of my life, was a bitter pill to swallow. Not easy to accept. I eventually did, but it wasn’t something I would have chosen. I am sure many widowed people go through the same thing.

 

[acanonlawyer]

And if this is all that “internal forum” means when referring to divorced-and-illicitly-remarried couples who do not have annulments — turning their marriage into a Josephite one, when it may not have been prior — then I am entirely good with this and I understand it totally.

I think this is what it usually means but it has also been understood (both in the past and, in some instances, to this day) as a way for someone to say that the (invalidly married or at least illicitly married) couple does not have to abstain from marital relations because the prior union should not be considered as binding. This determination would be made “in the internal forum” because something prevents the use of the external forum (i.e., tribunal).

This letter from the CDF speaks of the idea.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...oc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

Are there canonical penalties, or any other kinds of penalties? If so, what are they?

Yes, but there are no “automatic” penalties. So, a priest could do this and nothing would happen necessarily. The bishop could attempt to apply some sort of penalty but it would be contingent upon the priest’s contumacy and would have to come at the end of a legal process. There could also be so-called “disciplinary” measures that are, strictly speaking, not penalties (e.g., removal of faculties, transfer to another office).

I’ve seen this happen (a priest witnessing a marriage when the Parties are not both certainly free to marry) on an occasion or two. I don’t know of any penalties that were applied but I didn’t ask or investigate the matter.

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

And if this is all that “internal forum” means when referring to divorced-and-illicitly-remarried couples who do not have annulments — turning their marriage into a Josephite one, when it may not have been prior — then I am entirely good with this and I understand it totally.

I think this is what it usually means but it has also been understood (both in the past and, in some instances, to this day) as a way for someone to say that the (invalidly married or at least illicitly married) couple does not have to abstain from marital relations because the prior union should not be considered as binding. This determination would be made “in the internal forum” because something prevents the use of the external forum (i.e., tribunal).

This letter from the CDF speaks of the idea.

You touch upon something very key here. I’ll reproduce the relevant paragraph for the benefit of the reader:

3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church’s doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

I can entirely see the reasoning in the part I bolded. Not everyone in the Catholic Church lives in air-conditioned suburbs, has access to computer technology, is able to read and write, and can go through the tribunal process. People get themselves in messes. They might be converts who have a previous marriage that is almost certainly invalid, but they can’t prove it — the documentation just isn’t there, and there’s no way to get it, maybe things happened 40 years ago and there are no witnesses available. And so on. If the Church can find some way to provide “pastoral” solutions to things such as this, I’m all for it. As much of a “hardnose” as I am, I have even wondered if the Church could streamline the annulment process down to a personal interview with the person seeking the annulment, have them to write up an affidavit of what happened and when, swear it out under pain of mortal sin of perjury, and simply let that be the “evidence” of nullity. I could get behind that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

But this business of having been “abandoned completely unjustly”, or “after a long period of reflexion and penance” — I’m as sorry as I can be, but those things don’t dissolve marriages. The former sounds like Protestantism, and the latter sounds like Orthodoxy. If these constitute solemnly defined teaching of the magisterium — and I don’t think they do, they are more “pastoral practice”, so it seems — then we would have a problem.

I’ve seen this happen (a priest witnessing a marriage when the Parties are not both certainly free to marry) on an occasion or two.

I’ve heard of it myself. That’s why I asked.

 

[OddBird]

it boils down to “I don’t care what the rules are, I don’t think I did anything wrong, I don’t think the rules apply to me, I’m going to go ahead and receive communion and the other sacraments”.

I’m in something of a situation calling for careful discernment, and “internal forum” in my case boiled down to talking it through with my confessor and following his direction. It was not intended to grant me my every wish in spite of what the Church says, simply to help me on my way back while not unnecessarily endangering my (invalid due to lack of form and waiting for a radical sanation) marriage, which is shaken enough as it is by my choice to come back to the Church.

I very much did something wrong. I’m not denying it, and I’m trying to straighten it out, but I’m not any longer the only one my choices impact.

I’ll add that as it is now, I cannot and do not receive.