Why I support the Internal Forum Solution

[pnewton]

Can. 1097 §1 Error about a person renders a marriage invalid.

This is not just any error, but an error that is directly and principly intended. A fraud.

Can. 1097 ß1 Error about a person renders a marriage invalid.

ß2 Error about a** quality** of the person, even though it be the reason for the contract, does not render a marriage invalid unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

 

[Drlit]

This is not just any error, but an error that is directly and principly intended. A fraud.

Well done! You definitely made your point, intelligently and without malice. THANK YOU!

But I have noticed this thread digressing. I’ve allowed myself to be put in the potion of defending an annulment that I used and example of something. The guy got his annulment. Not on his first application in the diocese he was married in, but in his second application in the diocese he subsequently moved to.

The reasons, to the best of my knowledge was that tribunal 1 did not think the in-laws lack of of affection and her later adoption of those same characteristics (which effectively prevented children by preventing intimacy) was not grounds.

Tribunal 2 thought it was.

The reason I offered that example was not to knock the church or ridicule the annulment process. I was trying to answer the criticism that IFS is too unstructured and easy to abuse. I offered this guy and as example and mentioned “Shattered Faith” only to show that the annulment process WHILE IT IS THE FIRST RESOURCE FOR RECONCILIATION is not perfect either.

I never set out to criticize the Church or its tribunal. I just have done a good deal of reading on the subject of IFS and came to the educated opinion that, when the following is true, it can and should be used for cases where it applies:

1. The priest makes A PASTORAL JUDGEMENT (not with juridical certitude) that a previous marriage has grounds for anullment. He cannot grant and anullment.
2. The priest makes A PASTORAL JUDGEMENT (not with juridical certitude) that approaching the tribunal would be difficult or impossible. Some here have argued that there is no reason an application would be impossible or too difficult. I don’t agree, there are lots of reasons why a person might not be ABLE to.
3. The priest makes A PASTORAL JUDGEMENT that the current “irregular marriage” is a strong, holy and God-centered one.

He cannot grant annulment, he cannot remarry the couple, he cannot bless the marriage or in anyway give it the simulation of validity. He cannot record the marriage in the Church or diocese records.

But he has guided them in an examination of conscience, he knows they believe in their hearts that the previous marriage was invalid and he has made a PASTORAL JUDGEMENT that this is so, though not with the juridical certitude that a tribunal does.

ALL he can do is say, “I understand. As to your full membership in the Church, that is between you and God now.”

Some people think the IFS can be handled in the privacy of their own minds. I don’t. It requires process, guidance and pastoral judgement,

There are sources which describe the process as requiring the couple to attend mass and receive the sacraments in a Church where they are not known. I think that’s up to the priest.

So the couple returns to Mass. They receive the sacraments of Holy Eucharist and Reconciliation.

Maybe they will have problems serving as Godparents and Confirmation sponsors – roles in which documents are required. Maybe they will not be welcome to act as Eucharist Ministers. I think it would be out of line for them even to apply.

To me it comes down only to SIN. Some here have said that anytime a person divorces and remarries they are committing adultery. I don’t think it is my place to judge, but I DO think a priest can determine if such is the case and invite the couple to receive. It’s what they do in Confession. It is part of their pastoral role.

I just want to come back to the original discussion.

 

[usagi1962]

I’m getting confused.

I hear people in this thread saying that IFS isn’t valid - it can’t be used to bring someone into the Church, or grant them a real marriage, that’s it only a cheat solution for couples living in sin anyway. If that’s true, why would a priest ever suggest it to anyone? I can’t imagine any priest ENCOURAGING people to sin!!

Secondly, some people are comparing IFS to confession. So if that is true (I don’t know, I’m just thinking aloud here), then isn’t saying that IFS is never valid because it allows a single priest to make a judgement about sin or guilt or repentance or whatever, aren’t you guys saying confession as we know it is invalid too?
Does that mean if someone commits a grave sin they should have to petition a tribunal or whatever for absolution? Do you support that position?

I am new to the Church. There is a lot I don’t know yet. But I want to understand and I want to do what is right. So everyone, can you help me understand this better please?

And to the person who said marriage is only valid after you “do the deed” I have to ask: Is that what you think marriage is about? Is that what the Church thinks marriage is about? That it is just about doing the deed and making baibes? That’s sad and shallow.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

And to the person who said marriage is only valid after you “do the deed” I have to ask: Is that what you think marriage is about? Is that what the Church thinks marriage is about? That it is just about doing the deed and making baibes? That’s sad and shallow.

Since you are new you might want to read a little more about Catholic teaching on marriage. There is nothing sad or shallow about that teaching. The technical term is “consummated” and it refers to the fact that the covenant between the husband and wife is sealed by the mutual physical giving of their bodies to each other. Yes, that’s what I think marriage is about. And that’s why fornication and adultery are such an abomination in the eyes of God. The participants are taking something sacred and profaning it.

Marital intercourse is so important that it belongs in marriage. And each time a husband and wife have marital relations they are renewing that marriage covenant. It is an occasion of God’s grace and a source of mutual sanctification of the spouses. Nothing sad or shallow in that.

And yes, marriage is all about renewing that covenant and procreating in an act of cooperation with the Divine will. That is why artificial birth control is forbidden. Because it removes God’s will from the marital embrace and shuts Him out of that covenant of creation.

And the Catholic Church regards the lack of openness to having children as so severe that it invalidates the covenant between the spouses. There is no full consent in the marriage, no complete self giving of one spouse to the other.

 

[pnewton]

I’m getting confused.

I hear people in this thread saying that IFS isn’t valid -

I do not know if the internal forum is valid in the sense of annulling marriage. That would have to be a canon law question. However, if not, it should be. It is not that I think things should be all wishy-washy. I just recognize that there are so many situations that they can simply not all be addressed by any set of rules or regulations.

 

[Drlit]

Liberanosamalo:

You and I may not agree on the finer points of IFS, but I just have to say that your last post was a beautiful and WONDERFULLY well-written one.

You’ve described a sacramental marriage to a “T”

Well DONE! Thank you for a adding something of beauty to my day!

DrLit

 

[Drlit]

I do not know if the internal forum is valid in the sense of annulling marriage. That would have to be a canon law question. However, if not, it should be. It is not that I think things should be all wishy-washy. I just recognize that there are so many situations that they can simply not all be addressed by any set of rules or regulations.

Minor readjustment:

IFS is NOT equal to annulment. It only guides the couple to an examination of conscience and a return to Christ’s Life-giving banquet.

The rest of your post is right on target. It IS specifically for cases that cannot be brought to the tribunal, but which MUST have (in the priest’s pastoral judgement) a reason to be declared invalid.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If the intent of the minister of reconciliation is contrary to the intent of the Church, then the sacrament he offers would be invalid, wouldn’t it?

In other words, any “internal forum solution” cannot be contrary to Catholic dogma, doctrine, or discipline, which are binding upon all Catholics (which includes external forum decisions).

A priest could not offer an internal forum absolution which contradicts the powers given to him by the bishop nor contradict the doctrine or disciplines of the Roman Pontiff.

So, there is an internal forum solution, but it includes the following conditions:

1. You are first obliged to repent of your past sin.
2. Next, you are obliged to separate. But for serious reasons, you can remain together if you live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples (i.e. no sex).
3. You are obliged to receive sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Penance.
4. You are obliged to receive Holy Communion so as to avoid giving scandal (eg. where your irregular marriage is unknown)

If a priest were to propose an “internal forum solution” contrary to these ecclesial norms, then I’d say the sacramental absolution given is nugatory, as it would be defective in the minister’s intent, which is a necessary element of sacramental validity. The minister must intend to do what the Church herself intends or the sacrament is invalid.

See more here for magisterial support for the above:** Internal forum solution instead of an annulment?

**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…It IS specifically for cases that cannot be brought to the tribunal, but which MUST have (in the priest’s pastoral judgement) a reason to be declared invalid.

This is incorrect. The internal forum does not even attempt to declare invalid the fact of a prior marriage. It only attempts to allow access to the sacraments for those who for “serious reasons” cannot fulfill their first obligation to separate and instead continue to live in an irregular marriage condition (such as divorce and civil remarriage).

In other words, divorced/remarried couples cannot approach the internal forum for an declaration of nullity. Instead, they may approach the priest for sacramental absolution which allows them to receive Holy Eucharist given the above conditions are met (repentence, intention to live in complete continence, sacramental absolution, receive Eucharist so as to avoid scandal).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’m getting confused.

I hear people in this thread saying that IFS isn’t valid - it can’t be used to bring someone into the Church, or grant them a real marriage, that’s it only a cheat solution for couples living in sin anyway. If that’s true, why would a priest ever suggest it to anyone?

There are valid internal forum solutions, and there are invalid ones. The problem is, some priests are giving out invalid ones.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. The Roman Pontiff has taught on this. Those who dissent with the pope insist their own “solutions” are valid. I’d stick with magisterial teachings on the matter, and avoid that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

For example, 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."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."John Paul II similarly refers to these principles, stating that such couples must “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, which is “binding everywhere and by all” (Can. 12 §1).

So, what does that mean more specifically?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger stated, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, 14 Sep 1994:“The faithful who persist in such a situation [divorced and remarried, without annulment] may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining **sacramental absolution **[internal forum], which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.”
This is in accord with, and in fact quotes from Pope John Paul II’s 1982 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, which states:"**Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist **[internal forum solution], 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." I don’t know how much more clear the Vicar of Christ can be on the matter. An internal forum solution would be invalid if it was incongruent with this doctrine, proposing instead that one can still have sex with a women whom they have not married in accordance with Catholic law.

 

[ajcoley1]

Which of the four reasons for an annulment do you think it provided a red-flag for?

permanence
fidelity
openess to life
sound mind

Unsound mind. Emotional harm/spiritual harm IS grounds. I am going throughit after leaving an abusive man.

 

[Drlit]

This is incorrect. The internal forum does not even attempt to declare invalid the fact of a prior marriage. It only attempts to allow access to the sacraments for those who for “serious reasons” cannot fulfill their first obligation to separate and instead continue to live in an irregular marriage condition (such as divorce and civil remarriage).

In other words, divorced/remarried couples cannot approach the internal forum for an declaration of nullity. Instead, they may approach the priest for sacramental absolution which allows them to receive Holy Eucharist given the above conditions are met (repentence, intention to live in complete continence, sacramental absolution, receive Eucharist so as to avoid scandal).

Okay, but original my statement was not incorrect. I have consistently said only that the priest makes a pastoral judgement that a previous marriage WOULD be declared null, and that in his judgement there are clear and justifiable reasons why the tribunal cannot be approached.

The tribunal does not make a marriage null. It is a finding of a condition that exists even before the tribunal is approached. The priest in an IFS does not make a marriage null, he only judges that it WOULD be found so, if the tribunal COULD be approached.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Okay, but original my statement was not incorrect. I have consistently said only that the priest makes a pastoral judgement that a previous marriage WOULD be declared null, and that in his judgement there are clear and justifiable reasons why the tribunal cannot be approached.

The pastor simply has no authority over matters of marriage validity, which is solely governed by the “external forum.”

No priest, not even a bishop, has authority to dispense from procedural law. So, whether there are justifiable reasons or not, canon law is clear: "even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty." (CIC, c. 1085.2).

** John Paul II**, referring to the private judgment of pastors and individual on such matters, stated:

…whenever doubts arise as to the conformity of an act—for example, in the specific case of a marriage—with the objective norm, and consequently, the lawfulness or even the validity itself of such an act is called into question, reference must be made to the judgment correctly emanating from legitimate authority (cf. CIC, c. 135, §3), and not to an alleged private judgment, and still less to the individual’s arbitrary conviction. This principle, also formally safeguarded by canon law, establishes: “Even though the previous marriage is invalid or for any reason dissolved, it is not thereby lawful to contract another marriage before the nullity or the dissolution of the previous one has been established lawfully and with certainty” (CIC, c. 1085, §2).

Whoever would presume to transgress the legislative provisions concerning the declaration of marital nullity would thus put himself outside, and indeed in a position antithetical to the Church’s authentic magisterium and to canonical legislation itself—a unifying and in some ways irreplaceable element for the unity of the Church. ***This principle applies to whatever involves not only substantive law, but ***also procedural legislation. This fact must be kept in mind in concrete cases and care should be taken to avoid answers and solutions “in foro interno,” as it were, to situations that are perhaps difficult but which can be dealt with and resolved only by respecting the canonical norms in force. This must be kept in mind particularly by pastors who may be tempted to distance themselves in substance from the established and approved procedures of the Code. Everyone should be reminded of the principle that, although the diocesan bishop has been granted the faculty to dispense, under specific conditions, from disciplinary laws, he is not permitted however to dispense “from procedural laws” (CIC, c. 87, §1).

[John Paul II, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19950210_roman-rota_en.html”]Address to Tribunal of the Roman Rota, 10 February 1995

]

 

[normcaro]

After 8 years of marriage, my wife committed an adultery, got pregnant and told me our marriage is over and there is NO chance of reconciliation. I did not give up easily. I fought for a year to convince her for recon but to no avail so I am filing for a divorce then annulment. I did my research about annulment and discovered adultery cannot be used as a reason to annul my first marriage. I was sadden about this because I want to remarry again in the House of God. Then I stumbled on this sife arcc-catholic-rights.net/internal_forum.htm and this Catholic forum. I read many of the discussion about IFS and I fully support it despite some people disagree about it.

Why I support it?

1. Adultery cannot be used for a successful annulment
2. Process is not long compare to up to 18 months for annulment. Imagine waiting that long and at the end, it is rejected.
3. The hassle of facing the tribunal and its intrusive investigation.

I think a lot of Catholics who left the church because they were turned away due to remarriage did not know about this IFS.

 

[Drlit]

My heart goes out to you. Find a kind and loving priest who will understand your situation. If he seems unfamiliar with the internal forum, find another. It’s not about shopping for a radical priest, but the ARCC article clearly outlines your rights as a Catholic under canon law. Still there are priests who are not comfortable with it and it IS controversial after all.

The important point is that your conscious is clear on this. You are left without recourse by a wife who did not see the sacrament of your marriage. Canon law tells us that there is no authority above the well-formed conscience. Not even the church. So find a priest BEFORE you find yourself in a serious relationship. He will know you are not looking for a quick fix just so you can quickly marry, and may recommend annulment anyway – since your wife clearly does not embrace the sacrament and likely never did in the first place,

Go with God.

 

[Nec5]

I stopped reading the text on that website when the author(s) began to twist scripture to cast confusion over Jesus’ view of marriage and consequently preceded to argue that Christ was all about freedom. Tortured reasoning at best. There should be a law about mandatory marriage counseling where the counselor’s job is to scare the living **** out of couples to make sure they know full well what they are getting into and the lifetime consequences involved.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

How would you all like a legal system in which someone could decide with their boss or something who was guilty and without a trial or evidence come to their own legal conclusions and act on it?

If everyone started declaring their marriages null and void whenever they decided their consciences were clear, in effect, that would be the death knell for any kind of permanence of the sacrament. Everyone would figure “It wasn’t valid. I’m free to leave.” And they’d go into it knowing it was easy to get out of. Just decide for yourself it was invalid.

If your wife committed adultery and had another man’s baby in the marriage… well, if she wouldn’t have YOUR baby, that’s a good starting point to go to a tribunal and discuss why 8 years of marriage only produced some other man’s baby. You start digging into the facts, you often discover marriages that collapse were fundamentally unsound in the first place. They don’t go the distance.

Try it the open and aboveboard way. Why are you afraid to bring it before the tribunal to have it examined in the clear light of day by strangers? Is there something YOU don’t want to have to admit to a tribunal? Why are you so sure doing it the right way respecting the juridical norms of the Catholic Church won’t reveal the truth?

Adultery is NOT the reason annulments are given, any more than people die of fevers. Just as a fever is a sign of a deeper illness or infection, adultery is a sign of an attitude, an incapacity to commit to a marriage that is forever, faithful and fruitful.

If your wife went into the marriage lacking the desire, intent or ability to be faithful, to be married till death do you part, or consenting to be open to children, THAT is the starting point for the tribunal. Your attempts to do whatever you needed to keep it going even in the face of her adultery show YOU meant your vows.

The very process of the annulment petitioning will give you a lot of insights that may prevent you from winding up with the exact same kind of person the second time around. Do yourself a favor and don’t take shortcuts. There are no shortcuts in life.

 

[Drlit]

If everyone started declaring their marriages null and void whenever they decided their consciences were clear, Everyone would figure “It wasn’t valid. I’m free to leave.” And they’d go into it knowing it was easy to get out of. Just decide for yourself it was invalid.

You’d be right if people just decided that on their own. But that is not what IFS is. You’d also be right if the priest declared the previous marriage null. He doesn’t. Incidentally though you use the term “well-formed conscience” tongue in cheek, it is the very words used in canon law. YOU don’t just say “Well, heck, I have a well-formed conscience, so why not?” It has to be established by IFS – which is the same forum used in CONFESSION and RECONCILIATION.

Try it the open and aboveboard way. Why are you so sure doing it the right way respecting the juridical norms of the Catholic Church won’t reveal the truth?

I agree. IFS is not to be used as short-cut or "annulment lite’ It’s a solution for catholics who have none. It is not for any of us to say whether that person’s reasoning is correct or not – it is between the person and God. It can’t be don’t flippantly or with reckless disregard. I understand the thinking of those of you who worry about that.

The very process of the annulment petitioning will give you a lot of insights that may prevent you from winding up with the exact same kind of person the second time around. Do yourself a favor and don’t take shortcuts. There are no shortcuts in life.

Well said. Your points are eloquently well stated.

 

[pnewton]

How would you all like a legal system in which someone could decide with their boss or something who was guilty and without a trial or evidence come to their own legal conclusions and act on it?

We do have such a legal system. A judge can unilateral dismiss any case out of hand. A person or his lawyer can work out a plea or dismissal with one ADA. Very few cases are ever decided upon evidence in a court of law, but usually worked out with one person in authority, almost exactly like a man and his priest, and for the same reason.

 

[Seatuck]

After 8 years of marriage, my wife committed an adultery, got pregnant and told me our marriage is over and there is NO chance of reconciliation. I did not give up easily. I fought for a year to convince her for recon but to no avail so I am filing for a divorce then annulment. I did my research about annulment and discovered adultery cannot be used as a reason to annul my first marriage. I was sadden about this because I want to remarry again in the House of God. Then I stumbled on this sife arcc-catholic-rights.net/internal_forum.htm and this Catholic forum. I read many of the discussion about IFS and I fully support it despite some people disagree about it.

Why I support it?

1. Adultery cannot be used for a successful annulment
2. Process is not long compare to up to 18 months for annulment. Imagine waiting that long and at the end, it is rejected.
3. The hassle of facing the tribunal and its intrusive investigation.

I think a lot of Catholics who left the church because they were turned away due to remarriage did not know about this IFS.

Do you understand about the internal forum. Read the above posts. This will not be a normal marriage that you would attempt as there can not be any marital intercourse.

It has been suggested that you read some books about annulment. The Michael Foster one is good. While Adultery is not a reason for annulment it might be a symptom of a reason for an invalid marriage. Get reading.