Why I support the Internal Forum Solution

[Corki]

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.

Stay away from the ARCC site. It is not an authentic representation of Church teaching.
In fact the same article you linked admits that the position of the ARCC board (who wrote the statement) is different than official Church policy. ARCC wants policy to change but wishing does not make it so.

That doesn’t mean that the Internal Forum is not authentic but only that you need to look to the real teachers of the Church (the Bishops) and not dissident organizations if you want to get real information.

Post #2 in this thread links to a statement by the Pennsylvania Bishops which is a good description of the Internal forum - what it is and what it is not.

This is an article from the diocese of Lexington. The interpretation is a bit different than that of the PA bishops. tribunal.cdlex.org/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=93578&From=Home

There is an old(er) thread on this same topic that has some quotes from the tribunal office of the diocese of Bilings. The link to the original article seems to be dead but there are many sections quoted in the CAF thread here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52913

While the applications are slightly different in each diocese, the core reality is the same. The Internal Forum is a non legal (not illegal) process that can be used when the Tribunal won’t or can’t work. It is applied to situations where the couple and the priests believe the original marriage was not valid. If the reason the original marriage ended was other than one that would indicate invalidity, the Internal Forum won’t work either. At least one of the dioceses requires, in fact, that the Tribunal process be pursued first before the IF can even be considered.

The “classic” example of a valid use of the IF is an older couple where all the witnesses of the previous marriage are dead. The lack of documentation is what makes the IF an option, not a difference in grounds. The priest and the individuals involved must be convinced that, if documentation or witnesses WERE available, the original marriage would be found to be invalid by the tribunal. So if adultury is not sufficient grounds for a tribunal decree of nullity, it isn’t sufficient grounds for the IF either.

I am very sorry to hear about the end of your marriage and commend your efforts to defend it. I am sure that your parish annulment advocate and the diocisan tribunal office will give you a lot of help.

 

[Fran65]

IIt seems to me to be a warm reception for a heartsick Catholic who needs the loving acceptance of the Church after a sad and hurtful marriage and happily finding a gift of God in a new and spiritually strong relationship.

This is an excellent solution for an individual in the following case - which is a real one and I have permission to share it:

Married at 21 to a much older and abusive man whilst under pressure from mother to marry this person.

The person had been made to have an abortion by her fiance prior to the marriage and went forward with the marriage to try and put the abortion ‘right’ by having another child with the man. He did not want children, but she deliberately got pregnant. He beat her when she told her of the pregnancy and this occurred several times during the pregnancy.

The person was being treated for depression, self harm and had an eating disorder at the time of the marriage.

The ‘husband’ was physically and emotionally abusive throughout the relationship and refused to live with his wife. He slept with her, but maintained another home at which he lived.

The wife sought civil divorce after multiple assaults and having been told by her priest that there was no solution other than enduring the marriage.

The now civilly divorced wife has significant physical and emotional health problems such that seeking an annulment will lead to serious health/emotional breakdown. She has remarried in an Anglican church - having left the Catholic Church during her divorce.

She has returned to the Catholic Church and lived in obedience until a discussion with a priest revealed the existence of the internal forum solution.

It is very easy for others to judge, but none of us know the crosses that are born. In my life and in my work as a psychologist I have been humbled by what people endure.

 

[pnewton]

The person had been made to have an abortion by her fiance prior to the marriage and went forward with the marriage to try and put the abortion ‘right’ by having another child with the man. He did not want children, but she deliberately got pregnant. He beat her when she told her of the pregnancy and this occurred several times during the pregnancy…

What I do not understand is why this person need to go outside of canon law. Unwillingness to be open to children invalidates a Sacramental Marriage. As far as evidence, an abortion is absolute proof. I can not imagine this would be annulled.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Agree with the PP. Plus the abusiveness and forced marriage… lack of full consent of the will, lack of judgment… there is so much here. And sadly, the excuse given for not pursuing an annulment is that it would be too much psychologically for the woman.

No. Backwards.

The woman is hurting and unable to heal because she was forced to put up with abuse and never got justice for what she endured. Take it from someone who went through the annulment process… dealing with those issues will heal, not covering them up. That only leaves them to fester and blow up worse later. The very thing she’s avoiding is what could set her free.

There is something very healing in telling your story to competent authority and being told “It wasn’t your imagination. You were wronged. You are free to go and live a life of your own choosing without the burden of abuse.”

Seeking an annulment and writing her story on paper will have no more harm than the apparent therapy she must be going through.

I’m sad no one has told this woman how seeking an annulment can be the first time in the whole process of marriage and divorce where someone treats her with dignity and begins to help her rebuild herself.

 

[normcaro]

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.

I am still learning about the internal forum in case my annulment will be rejected…

fatherjohncatoir.com/annulments.html

Another good read about internal forum.

 

[Fran65]

Thank you for your replies. You have certainly provided another very valuable perspective which I will pass on.

God Bless

Fran

 

[normcaro]

What I do not understand is why this person need to go outside of canon law. Unwillingness to be open to children invalidates a Sacramental Marriage. As far as evidence, an abortion is absolute proof. I can not imagine this would be annulled.

why abortion is absolute proof but not having an affair and getting pregnant? This what I don’t understand why it is not one of the grounds of annulment.

 

[pnewton]

why abortion is absolute proof but not having an affair and getting pregnant? This what I don’t understand why it is not one of the grounds of annulment.

If the affair is going on at the time of the marriage, that is grounds for annulment, which are:

1. No commitment to fidelity
2. No commitment to permanence
3. No commitment to openess for children
4. Not mentally capable of freely commiting to marriage.

I know this is not how canon law words it. Bear in mind, however, that it is the state of mind at the time of marriage that is in question, not later on.

 

[Seatuck]

I am still learning about the internal forum in case my annulment will be rejected…

fatherjohncatoir.com/annulments.html

Another good read about internal forum.

What makes it a “good” read? Is that man in good standing with the church?

 

[normcaro]

What makes it a “good” read? Is that man in good standing with the church?

Not sure but he is from NY like you, maybe you can find out…

fatherjohncatoir.com/biography.html

 

[normcaro]

Not sure but he is from NY like you, maybe you can find out…

fatherjohncatoir.com/biography.html

Here is another good read by Fr. Catoir

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/Feature1.asp

 

[that_name]

Here is another good read by Fr. Catoir

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep1998/Feature1.asp

American Catholic dot org is KNOWN to be on the heretical side of the Catholic cafeteria.

Stay far away from that web site.

Catholic Culture (known for being faithful to the Church) pulls up no hits on Fr Catoir.

In 2003 he was associated with Priests for Life, another very good group.

priestsforlife.org/newsletters/v13n04julaug03.htm

Another good article:

lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/father-john-catoir-only-half-truth.html

One thing to remember, when the internal forum soution is mentoned around here (by the more common term of “living as brother and sister”) - there are howls that to live without sex a person will die, so, it is not very well accepted.

 

[xpistou]

I am still learning about the internal forum in case my annulment will be rejected…

Here is a crazy idea…if your annulment is rejected then perhaps you entered into a valid marriage. Instead of trying to find a way to get what you want regardless of the truth, how about submitting to the wisdom of the Church and obediently live as a single person?

At what point did it become necessary for the Church to bend to our will instead of us having to bend to the will of the Church?

 

[cameron_lansing]

Here is another good read by Fr. Catoir

I will recommend the Holy See on the topic of the so called “internal forum.” Two excepts only in view of space limitations.

John Paul II, apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, 22 November 1981, n. 84:
"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.’

“Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, circular letter to bishops, On the Reception of the Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful (Epistola ad Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos de receptione communionis eucharisticae a fidelibus qui post divortium novas inierunt nuptias), September 14, 1994, n. 4:

“With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.”

More recently three other rejections of the “solution” have appeared.
John Paul II, Allocution to the Roman Rota, 1995.
XI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, proposition 40, 2005.
Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist as the Source and Summit of the Church’s Life and Mission, 2007.

 

[Fran65]

I do not see any reference to the Internal Forum solution in those quotations. I see statements regarding the Church’s teaching about marriage and divorce - about which there is no dispute on this thread.

In fact, even when the original marriage is annulled, the person remains civilly divorced and there also remains the possibility of scandal. I doubt that many have the fact of their annullment announced to the Catholic community amongst whom they live and practice.

 

[cameron_lansing]

My concern is that we should look to the teaching of the Magisterium itself for guidance rather than to seek it from other sources.

The internal forum is proposed by some as a means by which Catholics might receive the sacraments and continue in conjugal intimacy after determing by themselves the invalidity of a prior marriage without recourse to a decree of nullity by a tribunal, either because such a decree is not sought or because it cannot be obtained.

The principles cited are applicable to such a situation, and the principle need not mention the specific by name. As a rule of law well known by canonists reads, the general contains the specific. (For example, the fifth commandment of the decalogue, you shall not kill, does not mention abortion by name, but we easily understand its applicability.)

However, your comment helpfully reminds me that I had intended to cite one more paragraph from the circular letter:

“The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, 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’. In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.”

Only in this sense would it be proper to speak of a true “internal forum.”

Perhaps then to cite from the Rotal allocution I mentioned earlier since it expresses mentions the “internal forum.”

I will add it in a second post. But it can be read in entirity at vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19950210_roman-rota_en.html)

 

[cameron_lansing]

Continued . .

"8. This brings us to a direct discussion of the other topic I referred to at the beginning: the relationship between true justice and the individual conscience.

"In the encyclical Veritatis Splendor I wrote: “The way in which one conceives the relationship between freedom and law is thus intimately bound up with one’s understanding of the moral conscience” (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 54).

"If this is true with regard to the so-called “internal forum,” doubtless a correlation also exists between canon law and the subject’s conscience with regard to the “external forum.” Here the relationship is established between the judgment of someone who authentically and legitimately interprets the law, even in an individual, concrete case, and the conscience of someone who has appealed to canonical authority: that is between the ecclesiastical judge and the parties to a case in the canonical process.

"In this regard I wrote in the encyclical letter Dominum et Vivificantem: “Conscience therefore is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-a-vis the objective norm which establishes and conditions the correspondence of its decisions, with the commands and prohibitions which are the basis of human behavior” (John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, 43). And in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor I added: “The authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians … also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to fight the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it” (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 64).

"An action deviating from the objective norm or law is thus morally reprehensible and must be considered as such: while it is true that humans must act in conformity with the judgment of their own conscience, it is equally true that the judgment of conscience cannot claim to establish the law it can only recognize it and make it its own.

"9. . . . Therefore, 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. . . .

"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). "

Certainly, decrees of nullity are not announced. However, objective scandal, which is an inducement to sin,is not considered to arise from an lawful action of legitimate Church authority. It is considered to arise from the reception of those known to be in irregular status while receiving the Eucharist.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Continued . .

"8. This brings us to a direct discussion of the other topic I referred to at the beginning: the relationship between true justice and the individual conscience.

"In the encyclical Veritatis Splendor I wrote: “The way in which one conceives the relationship between freedom and law is thus intimately bound up with one’s understanding of the moral conscience” (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 54).

"If this is true with regard to the so-called “internal forum,” doubtless a correlation also exists between canon law and the subject’s conscience with regard to the “external forum.” Here the relationship is established between the judgment of someone who authentically and legitimately interprets the law, even in an individual, concrete case, and the conscience of someone who has appealed to canonical authority: that is between the ecclesiastical judge and the parties to a case in the canonical process.

"In this regard I wrote in the encyclical letter Dominum et Vivificantem: “Conscience therefore is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of obedience vis-a-vis the objective norm which establishes and conditions the correspondence of its decisions, with the commands and prohibitions which are the basis of human behavior” (John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, 43). And in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor I added: “The authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians … also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to fight the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it” (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 64).

"An action deviating from the objective norm or law is thus morally reprehensible and must be considered as such: while it is true that humans must act in conformity with the judgment of their own conscience, it is equally true that the judgment of conscience cannot claim to establish the law it can only recognize it and make it its own.

"9. . . . Therefore, 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. . . .

"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). "

Certainly, decrees of nullity are not announced. However, scandal, which is an inducement to sin, is not considered to objectively arise from an lawful action of legitimate Church authority. It could arise from the situation of those publicly known to be in irregular marital status while receiving the Eucharist.