Why I support the Internal Forum Solution

[pnewton]

I chose not to follow the internal forum solution years ago. I think I could have done so legitimately. I was not living in a state of mortal sin, according to Catholic teaching, even though I was in a second marriage. Why? Mortal sin requires full knowledge and consent. My Church, like most all non-Catholic churches, believed that divorce for the sake of adultery allowed for the possibility of remarriage. The idea that re-marrying was a sin was a non-issue. It was only later when I joined the Catholic Church that I became aware of the Church’s teachings. Furthermore, once I found out what the Church taught, I knew that my first marriage was non-Sacramental. I know that a tribunal makes this ruling, but the facts were a slam dunk.

I followed the traditional path and delayed entering the Church for a time, while awaiting for the Church’s bureaucarcy to officially declare what I knew. The fact is that there are many situations which are not addressed well in Canon Law, at least consistent with Catholic theology. There needs to be a way for the priest on the scene to address things pastorally.

 

[Drlit]

I chose not to follow the internal forum solution years ago. I think I could have done so legitimately. I knew that my first marriage was non-Sacramental. I know that a tribunal makes this ruling, but the facts were a slam dunk.

I followed the traditional path and delayed entering the Church for a time, while awaiting for the Church’s bureaucarcy to officially declare what I knew. The fact is that there are many situations which are not addressed well in Canon Law, at least consistent with Catholic theology. There needs to be a way for the priest on the scene to address things pastorally.

Interesting story, and it supports my contention:

The annulment process is the first oasis of reconciliation. When that is not possible, another oasis MUST be available.

And if a priest can offer reconciliation through the internal forum for rapists, murderers and child molesters then they should be able to do the same for God-loving Catholics who desire only to be welcomed back to The Table.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

1. No witnesses are available to substantiate the alleged ground;
2. Knowledgeable witnesses will not cooperate;
3. Necessary documents are not obtainable.
4. Emotionally unable to relive the horrors of the previous marriage.
5. Impediment that cannot be concretely documented.
6. Hostile former spouse.
7. Psychological inability to openly discuss private matters with a trio of total strangers.

See, now you’re scaring others away from applying and making them think the external forum is impossible!

Consider an example: Couple marries. It is never consummated. Only the two people know on their wedding night it wasn’t consummated. One person leaves.

So you have a situation where there is no corroborative evidence. You’re portraying a situation to others that a tribunal would not accept sworn personal testimony in the annulment petition as the truth of the matter.

I personally filled out 123 pages of answers in my petition. The hostile ex didn’t help. Didn’t cooperate. Sometimes that helps prove your point. (Which also goes with point 3. If it was that horrible that one can’t even write about it, one is not in the shape to enter a new marriage and deal with things. In fact, I would suggest to everyone here who is not Drlit arguing that the tribunal way is too cumbersome that the very act of putting all the facts of a horror-filled marriage out for a tribunal’s judgement is VERY helpful and very healing. That was the only court that cared to hear the truth of my so-called marriage.)

Tribunals know that there are circumstances that can’t be documented, but that doesn’t make them non-existent. (Like impotence, for instance.)

And no, one does not necessarily have to discuss one’s most intimate life events with a “trio of strangers.” In my diocese all evidence is written down and submitted to the petitioner’s advocate and that person handles it. I didn’t have to talk to anyone but a very kind deacon. Who along with my parish priests was the only one to treat me with any dignity or respect in the whole ordeal.

Drlit, you are perhaps unwittingly scaring people off from approaching the external forum.

And please don’t use Shattered Faith as an example of how horribly corrupt the Church is. Some wags have opined that just being a Kennedy male is probably an impediment to a valid marriage in that family. When alcoholism or a family pattern of serial infidelity and other things we don’t know or understand about the case are involved, we are in no shape to judge whether that marriage was valid. And the rich and powerful are just as deserving of an objective tribunal hearing as the poor and humble.

 

[Drlit]

See, now you’re scaring others away from applying and making them think the external forum is impossible!

Scaring? Did I not say (above) that the tribunal is the first OASIS?

Consider this (real) example. Man 21, observes his future in-laws are unaffectionate and communicate little except to bicker at each other. His future bride seems not to be like that so he dismisses it. Years later he finds he is married to a woman who is cold and unaffectionate and wants only to bicker. But everyone who knows them thinks they are the perfect couple because she cares more about appearances than her husband’s happiness.

Do you think a tribunal could turn the man’s application down? Even though his wife was obviously pre-determined to live in the kind of marriage her parents had?

They did. For lack of corroborative evidence.

By the way when MY first marriage ended, I applied for and received an annulment. I’m NOT anti-annulment.

If it was that horrible that one can’t even write about it, one is not in the shape to enter a new marriage and deal with things.

So you’re a psychologist then?

In fact, I would suggest to everyone here who is not Drlit arguing that the tribunal way is too cumbersome that the very act of putting all the facts of a horror-filled marriage out for a tribunal’s judgement is VERY helpful and very healing.

First off, I never said anything resembling “the tribunal way is too cumbersome.”

Anyway, this was healing for you, but that does mean it would be for everyone. I have exchanged emails from reader’s of Catholic Forum, MANY who told me that exact thing. Too horrible to relive, too personal to divulge to strangers.

Tribunals know that there are circumstances that can’t be documented, but that doesn’t make them non-existent. (Like impotence, for instance.)

Minor point: Impotence would not be grounds for annulment. unless it was true before the wedding and never divulged. It falls under the “sickness or health” clause.

And no, one does not necessarily have to discuss one’s most intimate life events with a “trio of strangers.” In my diocese all evidence is written down and submitted to the petitioner’s advocate and that person handles it. I didn’t have to talk to anyone but a very kind deacon. Who along with my parish priests was the only one to treat me with any dignity or respect in the whole ordeal.

Writing it down and allowing a “trio of strangers” to read it (why the quotation marks? It IS a trio of strangers) is what I was referring to.

Drlit, you are perhaps unwittingly scaring people off from approaching the external forum.

Again, I refer to it above as the FIRST OASIS.

And please don’t use Shattered Faith as an example of how horribly corrupt the Church is.

If you’re going to debate, fine, but at least QUOTE ME CORRECTLY. I made no comment that even remotely resembles “how horribly corrupt the Church is” I offered the book title as an example of how even the tribunal can be abused. In that case, by money and influence.

And the rich and powerful are just as deserving of an objective tribunal hearing as the poor and humble.

I don’t disagree.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Consider this (real) example. Man 21, observes his future in-laws are unaffectionate and communicate little except to bicker at each other. His future bride seems not to be like that so he dismisses it. Years later he finds he is married to a woman who is cold and unaffectionate and wants only to bicker. But everyone who knows them thinks they are the perfect couple because she cares more about appearances than her husband’s happiness.

If this is something you think is grounds for internal forum, you are leading all the other readers astray. I’ll ignore your comments about whether I’m a psychologist or not. But if someone is so shell-shocked from a previous marriage they cannot even discuss it to get an annulment and proceed onward with life, they probably need to deal with that before trying to rush into another marriage (and I know many people who don’t deal with the issues end up marrying the exact same kind of person and wondering why the second marriage imploded too. The unexamined life truly isn’t worth living.)

Unaffectionate and non-communicative are reasons for an annulment in your book? Your person in your example is upset because he was turned down for that? What a trivialization of the sacrament of matrimony…

An annulment is a determination that the people or one of the people who entered a marriage were so deceptive, incapable of commitment, not intending to have children or honor the responsibilities of marriage at the outset, not intending fidelity or permanence, or as my earlier example, impotent and the marriage was never consummated… that decree of nullity is given more than people know. And yes, it has to predate the wedding, even if by one day. A non-consummated marriage is not a marriage at all. But I digress.

All those other things and more are enough to invalidate the seeming consent given on the altar. A cold or austere or unaffectionate personality doesn’t necessarily negate a marriage where everything else is in order. No one said a marriage had to be blissful all the time for it to be valid.

If that’s the grounds the guy introduced his petition on, then he was misled. And it takes two to bicker. So what flaws did HE bring into the marriage? You can’t get an annulment based on if a bride hid an argumentative personality. But if she hid the fact she was previously married, or believed in aborting any child conceived or that she had a boyfriend on the side she insisted on seeing before during and after the wedding, then we’re talking annulments… That is different than if a spouse hid a personality where he or she ended up battering the other spouse and/or children and endangering their lives. THAT situation goes more to psychological incapacity.

It’s not our business, and using someone else’s marriage on this forum to justify a practice most bishops say is rife with abuse and is frowned upon is unfair to the church.

And your argument about the trio of witnesses doesn’t hold water. In order to get an annulment and remarried, one must divorce, and that requires all kinds of strangers to be informed of what happened. So why stop there? I had to tell quite a few lawyers some horrid stories. Most of them barely cared. The tribunal actually cared.

Your posts give the reader a very negative view of the tribunal process and you undercut the church’s view that having an open annulment process is a matter of justice to ALL parties involved, the adults, and the children. And the new spouse who marries someone who got a secretive confessional annulment with no paperwork and no proof. What of them if that marriage falls apart? How do they prove they were or were not involved in a marriage that was valid or not when there was no church judgement on the preceding marriage? What of the children who see a parent absolved of the first marriage but come away with the idea that whatever happened was too horrible even to go to the church officials with?

It’s a lose/lose all around that way.

 

[dulcissima]

I see this as being similar to confession vs. just confessing your sins to God. I am in the annulment process right now, and even though in my heart I know with certainty that my former marriage was never valid, I still want the confidence of having the Church delcare that. I respect the authority that was given to the Church by Christ, and I trust that authority. My sanctity is not something I want to gamble away, and I don’t understand why anyone would choose to circumvent the authority of the Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Just so that everyone knows, the tribunal cannot take the unsupported word of one of the parties in an annulment proceeding. From Dignitas Connubii (see here):

Art. 180 – § 1. Confessions and other judicial declarations of the parties can have probative force, to be evaluated by the judge together with the other circumstances of the cause, but the force of full proof cannot be attributed to them, unless there are present other elements of proof that entirely corroborate them (cf. can. 1536, § 2).

 

[Drlit]

And the new spouse who marries someone who got a secretive confessional annulment with no paperwork and no proof. What of them if that marriage falls apart? How do they prove they were or were not involved in a marriage that was valid or not when there was no church judgement on the preceding marriage? What of the children who see a parent absolved of the first marriage but come away with the idea that whatever happened was too horrible even to go to the church officials with?

Your entire lengthy diatribe is completely nullified by your last paragraph which clearly shows that you don’t have even a basic understanding of what The Internal Forum Solution is, when it is used or what its results are intended to be.

I began this thread for the purpose of having intelligent discussion on the topic. Please see the original post and then please do a little research on what the IFS is.

Thank you.

 

[Drlit]

I see this as being similar to confession vs. just confessing your sins to God. I am in the annulment process right now, and even though in my heart I know with certainty that my former marriage was never valid, I still want the confidence of having the Church declare that. I respect the authority that was given to the Church by Christ, and I trust that authority. My sanctity is not something I want to gamble away, and I don’t understand why anyone would choose to circumvent the authority of the Church.

Actually the internal forum IS confession. That’s how it is described in CANON LAW. IFS occurs in the sacrament of reconciliation.

No one is suggesting that ANYONE circumvent the authority of the Church. Once again the TRIBUNAL IS THE FIRST OASIS. The first clarification that needs to be made by the priest in an IFS is that the party is unable to approach the tribunal and the reasons. If that can’t be determined, no IFS can be offered.

To all who are reading:

This thread invited intelligent comment on a controversial topic. Most of it has been. But some is from people who are either confused about IFS or know little about it at all. I would recommend that any who wish to offer INTELLIGENT COMMENT read:

arcc-catholic-rights.net/internal_forum.htm

AND

tomrichstatter.org/g%20marriage/g66goodc.htm#Admission%20to%20the%20Sacraments%20by%20the%20Internal%20Forum%20Solution%20%20or%20the%20Good%20Conscience%20Solution

Then we can DISCUSS intelligently without spiraling into half-baked opinions and uninformed diatribes.

Thank you.

And thank YOU Dulcissima for allowing me to use your post to make this point.

God Bless you, one and all.

 

[kage_ar]

Unaffectionate and non-communicative are reasons for an annulment in your book? Your person in your example is upset because he was turned down for that? What a trivialization of the sacrament of matrimony…

I’ve been watching this with interest, I have a close friend who is working through the trubunal process.

OP lost me with that example.

Liberanosamalo summed up my

If bickering were grounds for nullity, well, there are a boatload of unmarried folks shacking up out there.

 

[manualman]

Drlit,

I don’t think people are trying to nitpick you, but are trying to be cautious. Lets face it, there are a LOT of forces even in the Church today trying to water down the faith until all that is left is “do what feels right.” You may not intend it, but quite a bit of what you say sounds suspiciously like that.

The general populace today does NOT see Catholicism as rigid and unyielding. To the contrary, in my secular workplace I have had at least THREE conversations with people who sneeringly stated that the catholic word for divorce is ‘annulment.’ They perceive no difference and that is the definition of scandal. We’ve totally lost Christ’s teaching that what God has joined no man may separate. We’ve replaced it with “Well if you aren’t happy, then God must not have joined you.”

DUH! did Jesus really waste his precious breath to say that happily married people shouldn’t divorce? That’s basically the position that some people today are trying to reduce the teaching to.

I too would appreciate it if you’d clarify the bickering couple example. That one rubbed me the wrong way too and may have contributed to the suspician some folks are having of your intentions.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Whenever I approach a Church teaching or practice, I like to look at the history of the Church to help me understand it better.

For example, I never understood why it was such a big deal that Vatican II taught that episcopal ordination was at a higher sacramental level than priestly ordination until I found out that St. Thomas Aquinas (or whoever wrote the Supplement to the Summa Theologica) taught that it wasn’t.

In the matter at hand, what I find interesting is that today there is so much resistance to the idea that a marriage can be valid in the eyes of God (the internal forum) while being invalid in the eyes of the Church (the external forum). Yet a hundred years ago, this concept was completely unremarkable. From the old public domain Catholic Encyclopedia (see here):

“Thus, for example, a marriage may be null and void in the forum of conscience, but binding in the external forum for want of judicial proofs to the contrary, and vice versa.”

Because of this history, it is hard for me to see the internal forum as some kind of subversive, dissenting teaching today.

 

[Drlit]

I’ve been watching this with interest, I have a close friend who is working through the trubunal process.

Liberanosamalo summed up my

If bickering were grounds for nullity, well, there are a boatload of unmarried folks shacking up out there.

???

Actually the example I gave, of the man who saw his future in-laws unaffectionate and bickering behavior was interesting for two reasons. (1) His application to the tribunal was denied. Most of us would tell him that her parents behavior toward one another should have been a red-flag, a PRE-WEDDING indicator of his future wife’s perspective of how married people live.

But his tribunal was in a very traditional diocese. They denied the annulment.

He moved to a metropolitan area north of here which is in a different diocese. He reapplied and was given the annulment.

My point is that tribunals ARE THE FIRST SOURCE of reconciliation, but they are not perfect.

I will state again, I was divorced and my first marriage was annulled 28 years ago. I am not anti-tribunal. I do not think the IFS is an easy out or an excuse to circumvent the tribunal.

I just believe that it is a path that many people need and that, thankfully, the Church provides, though the controversy causes me to worry it will be formally abolished through canon law. So far, that is not the case and just as people can obtain an annulment if they find the right tribunal, people can also find priests and diocese that will or will not consider the IFS.

Neither is sufficiently perfect or standardized enough nation-wide or worldwide to minister to all in an equally beneficial way.

 

[pnewton]

???

Actually the example I gave, of the man who saw his future in-laws unaffectionate and bickering behavior was interesting for two reasons. (1) His application to the tribunal was denied. Most of us would tell him that her parents behavior toward one another should have been a red-flag, a PRE-WEDDING indicator of his future wife’s perspective of how married people live.

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

permanence
fidelity
openess to life
sound mind

 

[manualman]

???

Actually the example I gave, of the man who saw his future in-laws unaffectionate and bickering behavior was interesting for two reasons. (1) His application to the tribunal was denied. Most of us would tell him that her parents behavior toward one another should have been a red-flag, a PRE-WEDDING indicator of his future wife’s perspective of how married people live.

But his tribunal was in a very traditional diocese. They denied the annulment.

He moved to a metropolitan area north of here which is in a different diocese. He reapplied and was given the annulment.

So anyone who notices before marriage that his fiance isn’t PERFECT has grounds for anullment?!

Sorry, but you are digging the hole deeper with that one. You make it sound like he moved to a diocese where ‘anullment’ IS merely the catholic word for divorce.

 

[Drlit]

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

permanence
fidelity
openess to life
sound mind

b and c.

 

[Drlit]

So anyone who notices before marriage that his fiance isn’t PERFECT has grounds for anullment?!

Sorry, but you are digging the hole deeper with that one. You make it sound like he moved to a diocese where ‘anullment’ IS merely the catholic word for divorce.

Well, from what I understand the lack of affection was equal to lack of intimacy, hence a desire NOT to have children. Forcing celibacy on one’s spouse is more than just “realizing she’s not perfect.” I understand the tribunal viewed that in that way anyway.

Perhaps I did not clearly explain what I meant by “lack of affection” but don’t chew ME out. I an NOT the one who granted the anullment.

 

[Drlit]

So anyone who notices before marriage that his fiance isn’t PERFECT has grounds for anullment?!

Sorry, but you are digging the hole deeper with that one. You make it sound like he moved to a diocese where ‘anullment’ IS merely the catholic word for divorce.

I just found this quote from Canon 1084 §1
Vatican also legislates that sexual impotence on the part of a man and wife make a marriage legally invalid. “Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”13

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Drlit, we know nothing of that man and wife. Impotence has to predate the wedding and be irreversible and perpetual. Otherwise, everyone who has a stroke, or is paralyzed in an accident or something would be a candidate for a spouse seeking an annulment and leaving them. THAT is where the for better or worse/sickness and health comes into play.

We don’t know if that woman and man had a fine sex life together until something happened that turned the wife off completely. Maybe he didn’t bathe. Maybe he was cruel. Maybe he had lovers. Maybe she was overworked and had no energy. Maybe she is physically ill. Or maybe there are a hundred things that happen in a marriage over time. Blaming her parents isn’t good enough. Otherwise you imply half the country is not a candidate for a valid marriage because their parents were divorced and they had no good example.

If the marriage was never consummated, it wasn’t a marriage. Period. The marriage doesn’t become final when the vows are said on the altar and the rings are exchanged and the priest declares them husband and wife. The irrevocable consent is given when the couple has marital relations. The vows are just the outward sign of the complete self-giving of the spouses, which for obvious reasons they cannot do there and then. But until the act takes place, there is no marriage.

Impotence is probably not as much of a cause for annulments as before because in this day and age, too many couples are sleeping together before marriage and they know exactly what works and what doesn’t. So there aren’t as many wedding night surprises as there used to be.

Well, from what I understand the lack of affection was equal to lack of intimacy, hence a desire NOT to have children. Forcing celibacy on one’s spouse is more than just “realizing she’s not perfect.” I understand the tribunal viewed that in that way anyway.

No one looks at their parents with such a marriage and says “Gee, I want to live like THAT!” I suspect there is more to this picture than you were told. And I suspect you are hearing only the man’s side. Maybe his wife was a shrew. But that isn’t grounds for an annulment. If she truly desired not to have children, THAT is grounds for an annulment, personality flaws aside. Celibacy is forced upon spouses all the time for health, job and financial reasons (can’t afford new baby at present or something like that…) So that in and of itself is not grounds for an annulment.

Making your case about IFS on this couple is a losing battle. Maybe the guy went to a diocese where the advocate was more competent and could frame the case in a way that was legitimate grounds for an annulment. I was told to write down EVERYTHING. The more info the tribunal had, the better they could judge things. Same diocese, same parish, a friend had a different priest handle hers and he told her to keep everything very simple. She left stuff out. Her case was postponed for further inquiries. Then a new priest let her petition sit on his desk for a year. But she finally got her annulment by taking her packet and giving it to the guy who handled my case and he pushed it through. And he was a canon lawyer who knew what he was doing.

In my case, I had lots of letters from our dating and engagement period which sufficed to prove his mindset when the wedding took place. I suggest in this day and age people may find themselves up a creek because they didn’t save emails and text messages. Those can be very illuminating in 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Drlit]

Drlit, we know nothing of that man and wife. Impotence has to predate the wedding and be irreversible and perpetual. Otherwise, everyone who has a stroke, or is paralyzed in an accident or something would be a candidate for a spouse seeking an annulment and leaving them. THAT is where the for better or worse/sickness and health comes into play.

We don’t know if that woman and man had a fine sex life together until something happened that turned the wife off completely. Maybe he didn’t bathe. Maybe he was cruel. Maybe he had lovers. Maybe she was overworked and had no energy. Maybe she is physically ill. Or maybe there are a hundred things that happen in a marriage over time. Blaming her parents isn’t good enough. Otherwise you imply half the country is not a candidate for a valid marriage because their parents were divorced and they had no good example.

If the marriage was never consummated, it wasn’t a marriage. Period. The marriage doesn’t become final when the vows are said on the altar and the rings are exchanged and the priest declares them husband and wife. The irrevocable consent is given when the couple has marital relations. The vows are just the outward sign of the complete self-giving of the spouses, which for obvious reasons they cannot do there and then. But until the act takes place, there is no marriage.

Impotence is probably not as much of a cause for annulments as before because in this day and age, too many couples are sleeping together before marriage and they know exactly what works and what doesn’t. So there aren’t as many wedding night surprises as there used to be.

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