Why does the Catholic Church accept in its midst a couple who are married civilly but who have been denied a Church marriage because they have lost their third instance hearing before the Rota, while the spouse who has defended the marriage successfully and remains faithful to their vows is an outcast?

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003

Answers

what are you talking about, clarify

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 29, 2003.

There is no reason that the spouse should feel outcast. As far as the couple is concerned, after the second instance hearing ruled in favor of nullity, they would be allowed to (re)-marry without having to wait for the outcome of the third instance hearing.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

Mark,

Technically you are correct -for a point in time...

Now please finish your answer...

Once Rome declares the second instance tribunal's erroneous nullity declaration to be null and the 'couple' who married invalidly realize there is no marriage what then?

What should the 'couple' do -what should the Church/Parish do?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 29, 2003.

P.S. Mark

You keep referring people to this site for support and information: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CatholicsRemarry

WHY?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 29, 2003.

Daniel, Good question. Realistically speaking, it shouldn't be too hard for the remarried couple to find a priest who would offer them the internal forum route back to the sacraments. This might even be one of the few situations that this would actually be justified.

As for recommending the Yahoo group, it has a good amount of accurate information on the annulment process, as well as a lot of support for petitioners going through the process.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

To clarify:

The civilly married wife sought the annulment before she was civilly married. The the female had divorced her husband and was told that she would get annulment by a couple of priests, actually she was told this BEFORE she was divorced. So she got her divorce and filed the annulment petition. The first instance decision was in favor of nullity. The divorced male could not believe the things that were stated and decided to appeal to the Rota rather than accept the automatic second instance court. The Rotal panel, in short order, refused to accept the first instance decree and listed, sadly in latin only, numerous faults committed by the first panel. Years later the Rotal panel issued its second instance decision in favor of the sacrament (first marriage). Most recently the third instance decision has been pronounced but not published in its final written sentence. Only a short statement of their position in favor of the sacrament has been released. To be clear, the pregnant female married her new male when her pregnancy could no longer be hidden and did so within a few days of getting news from the judicial vicar (who chaired the trio of judges who later granted the annulment) that he had taken back custody of the case. It was an illegal transfer from another diocese which had jurisdiction over the case, which originally had been moved from the original jurisdiction following an appeal to the Rota to intervene (which they did requiring that the case be taken from the vicar who eventaully ruled in favor of the nullity). Why, knowing these facts, do the bishops and the priests in every area this "couple" have lived treat them as a marrried couple fully involved in the Church as husband and wife?

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Karl, Thanks for the clarification as to the nullity hearings. It sounds like you managed to keep them on the right track. As for how the couple are being treated now, do you have any specific instances of inappropriate behavior?

John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio states the following as to how the church should treat the couple: Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

The exhortation goes on to say that the couple should not be allowed to recieve Holy Communion or Penance.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), April 30, 2003.

What is forgotten in my estimation, or what you may or may not think as "inappropriate" is justice. Does the Church presume that all divorces are justified? Does the acceptance as a couple, in an openly scandalous relationship, do justice to the sacrament? To the other spouse? To the five children of the sacrament? To the society? Or does this acceptance of this "imposed reality" not encourage more of such behavior since there are no real consequences to the divorce. If the "married" spouse has unjustly divorced the true spouse it seems to me a clearly unjustified and wrong behavior to accept the couple who are really frauds. To me, countenance of such behavior does grave damage on many levels. I think particularly considering how the ends of marriage have developed, since Vatican II, to include on an equal basis both the openness/rearing of children AND the good of the "sacramental spouses" it is very harmful to in any way encourage the acceptance of the "civilly" married spouses. I wonder if theologians have had the time or impetus to consider the change in ends of marriage(if I am using the term correctly) and its ramifications? Any theologians out there?

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Love the sinner, condemn the sin Karl.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

People who are in the situation that you described are not allowed to receive the Eucharist, is that not a consequence of their situation?

If churches were full of people who had not committed any sin, then they would be barren places. Who are we to decide that one sinner is worse than another? I certainly am in no position to do so.

It's obvious to me from the scenario you described that the couple in question want to be reconciled with God and His Church. If that were not the case then they wouldn't have gone through the annulment procedure in the first place. A civil divorce would have sufficed if it were otherwise. I would think it implies that they have a wish to participate in the Eucharist. I hope they, and their children, are embraced within the Church and participate as fully as possible given their circumstances.

I shall pray for them both, as well as praying for the other party that he/she may accept the situation and feel welcome in the Church also.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 30, 2003.

Sara,

-humanist moral relativism?

ALL sin is bad.

-an 'other' should not have to accept sin...

Those that are sinning should stop sinning -period. The Church or any other should not accept the sin or the continuing sinner.

Forgiveness/acceptance/salvation is for those who stop sinning and repent -adultury is a sin -remaining in an adulturous relationship is remaining in sin -period.

Rome has so much as communicated this fact of adultury to the 'happy' couple -IF they choose to continue IT is thier choice that the 'other' does not have to accept, that the Church has 'pointed out' and that a Parish and or Priest should not condone...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 30, 2003.

Daniel

Since you obviously know more than the Pope I won't bother arguing with you.

Perhaps you also know more than God since you've decided who will be saved and who won't be saved. That's not Catholic Daniel. God is our final judge, let's wait and see how He judges each of us.

Jesus, Saviour, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 30, 2003.

Sara,

-just call it faith...

There is truth & there is untruth -thats it...

compassionately inspirely unacceptance of truth is untruth -period. Doing IT in opposition to the Word that the Church/Pope have reitterrated clearly and repeatedly is at best delusion and 'feel good' medication dispensed in ignorance either openly and 'officially' via 'fair' tribunal or secretly and unofficialy via internal forum...

'INTERNAL FORUM' hmmm... what's that all about?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 01, 2003.

Egad! What an obsession! What narcissism! Truly sad.

[The Vatican has rejected so-called "internal forum solutions" as a means by which people in irregular unions can partake of Sacraments.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

>> [The Vatican has rejected so-called "internal forum solutions" as a means by which people in irregular unions can partake of Sacraments.]

Do you have a reference for this? I've been unable to find any authoritative discussion of the internal forum solution. The canon lawyers on the Yahoo group Catholi csRemarry have stated that it is very frequently applied wrongly, but that it does have some valid applications after all external forum (i.e. marriage tribunal) solutions have been exhausted.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Dear Mark,

What you should be looking for in every annulment investigation is only the truth. Sometimes because of human sinfulness that truth is very difficult to discern. Different people see the exact same thing from different perspectives. The "sifting" for the truth is the entire point of an annulment petition. The decision reached is required to be at the level of "moral certainty".

This "moral certainty" is required since the Church "presumes" the validity of the sacrament until it is proven "with moral certainty" otherwise. As simple as this may seem that is not the reality in canonical procedures. It has been shown time and time again that different judges view the same set of facts differently. In my own experience that very situation occurred and if you were able to read the decisions rendered by the different sets of judges you would find it impossible to imagine they were describing the same set of circumstances. To me this is very disconcerting and I have presented these very different interpretations to a variety of clerics, at all levels in the Church, and there is NO ANSWER that makes sense. Most refuse to answer because they know the quagmire they are in.

The most preposterous answer I have received was from a canonist who teaches their craft, God help us, to others. That person stated that it was not a problem that different people could come to different conclusions about the same set of circumstances. That was just the way it was. Take it or leave it.

There was no need for a reply to this arrogance.

If marriage can be decided to exist or not based on a take it or leave it scale with no strict standards of evaluation or apparent consistancy, than what you have is NO STANDARD. That is what reigns in the diocesan tribunal system and has for most of the last quarter century, generally speaking.

So, Mark. You are seeking the truth, at least you are supposed to be. But many priests, individually and with agreement, as best I have heard, among those of a like mind, have taken it upon themselves to be the advocate, judge and jury in marriage situations where they have decided that a marriage is "really null but that fact could not be proven in court" so it is OK to say you are sorry in confession and to return to full communion in spite of CANONICAL JUDGEMENTS otherwise.

What that is called is clerical anarchy and is a BIG problem when it occurs. These renegades are running an underground Church where they are the Magisterium. It is a very dangerous and harmful situation. The answer is only found in the truth not in looking for "your" answer until you find the "right priest" to tell you, you are "right".

John, is this narcissistic? Obsessive? It does not seem so to me unless I misunderstood your comments. It is just true.

Thank you.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 03, 2003.

Mark,

Regarding this 'internal forum solution'...

From "Familiaris Consortio":

-a copy can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

Quote: "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 convenant 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."[180] 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."

Hmmm... The Pope is quite clear here regarding the 'solution' that the 'pastoral' proponents have coined "internal forum"...

Internal forum in my understanding is all about the consultations that the faithful submit to the judgment and authority of the Church on matters of conscience -otherwise known as reconciliation/confession. The sacrament of Reconciliation confers not only God's pardon for sins committed, but also special graces to overcome temptations and avoid new falls. IT does not and should not give a green light to continue in sin with a 'secret' wink, handshake and blessing from the 'pastoral' man that wishes to do the Church a favor and grant the person involved a 'pastoral healing'. The internal forum solution applied in this perverted manner is applied by those that also pervert the meaning and intent of the Church regarding being pastoral...

From "IN TRUTH AND LOVE" a Bishop reitterates what is self-evident and earlier reaffired by the Pope:

-a copy can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/DIVCATH.HTM

"Others who know that divorced Catholics remain members of the church and understand that those who have entered into irregular marriages cannot be admitted to holy communion react to this moral reality in different ways. Those who understand the teaching of the church on the indissolubility of marriage and on sexual morality regard this practice as fitting since the couple have placed themselves in an objectively adulterous situation that stands in direct violation of the teaching of Christ and his church.[8] Others look upon this practice as the mere imposition of church regulations or rules which they view as outdated in a society where so many marriages end in divorce. Some have proposed an approach that would allow divorced and remarried persons who, for any number of reasons, have not received a declaration of nullity of their first marriage (s) to receive holy communion on the basis of their sincere judgment of conscience that their first marriage was invalid. This so- called "internal forum solution" has also been invoked to justify reception of holy communion by persons in other objectively immoral situations.

We believe that those who promote unacceptable pastoral initiatives among divorced Catholics are in fact harming the spiritual welfare of those very persons they intend to help, and as shepherds of the flock we are concerned that the faithful not be misled in this regard.

In light of the serious confusion that sometimes occurs in this matter, we need to enunciate once again that divorced Catholics in irregular unions are not permitted to receive the eucharist. The Catechism of the Catholic Church helps us to understand the theological and pastoral reasons for this necessary restriction."

It seems all so very very very clear...

-the pastoral yahoo group and thier brothers seem a bit confused - what say you? Do they require further study?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 03, 2003.

Daniel,

Your first quote, from FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, doesn't seem to address the internal forum issue at all. In fact, it doesn't even touch much on the external forum. (I'm not saying I disagree with the quote, because I do agree with it. I just don't see what it has to do with internal forum, or even marriage tribunals.)

>> The Pope is quite clear here regarding the 'solution' that the 'pastoral' proponents have coined "internal forum"

The Pope, in promulgating the Code of Canon Law, coined the term "internal forum". Canons 130, 142, and 144 discuss the internal forum generally. Canon 1082, in the section of Canon Law 1055-1165 that governs the sacrament of marriage, states that "Unless a rescript of the Penitentiary provides otherwise, a dispensation from an occult impediment granted in the internal nonsacramental forum, is to be recorded in the book to be kept in the secret archive of the curia. No other dispensation for the external forum is necessary if at a later stage the occult impediment becomes public." Internal forum is also mentioned in Canons 596, 1079, and 1357.

Your second quote, from the Bishop, would seem to be addressing the rampant illegitimate use of the internal forum. I don't take the Bishop's statement as contradicting the legitimate use of the internal forum as contained in Canon Law.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.

>>>"Your first quote, from FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, doesn't seem to address the internal forum issue at all. In fact, it doesn't even touch much on the external forum. (I'm not saying I disagree with the quote, because I do agree with it. I just don't see what it has to do with internal forum, or even marriage tribunals.)"

Mark,

You are correct -I do not specifically address it and it is not specifically addressed by name -because nowhere is the 'action' specifically addressed as 'internal forum'... -only the 'pastoral healers' call it the internal forum solution...

>>>"The Pope, in promulgating the Code of Canon Law, coined the term "internal forum". " I do not disagree with you here -closely read what I wrote: "The Pope is quite clear here regarding the 'solution' that the 'pastoral' proponents have coined "internal forum" -- In my statement I write not of the term but of the 'pastoral healing' action that is 'cloaked' as the term... -the 'pastoral healing' actions that condone and promote sin and that the Pope stated are not to be done... As far as pertaining to this specific subject, what they do in this 'internal forum' is what the Pope states should not be done and this 'internal forum' shorcut sometimes circumvents the possibility of a truthful diligent Tribunal which although rare in the US (my opinion), does have a better chance of truth than a 'closed door' one-sided 'pastoral solution'...

Anyway, you will not find the Pope declaring the internal forum and its purpose invalid -it is not invalid although the term is used invalidly... Just as the Pope would never suggest to stop being Pastoral...

My point is that the pastoral 'actions' I pointed out that are happening are not what Christ taught, the Church teaches and, the Pope reaffirms -they are not pastoral... in essence, the actions are like a shephard allowing and even leading one of his sheep outside of the protection of the Church where the wolf/temptation/sin is in wait...

-these actions are wrong and against the Church... Whether they be called pastoral, whether they happen via Tribunal or whether they happen in the so called 'internal forum solution'...

--I will have to look into the internal nonsacramental forum and just what it accomplishes -although, I am sure it is not an avenue to disregard the what is stated above and sin...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 04, 2003.

Daniel,

We may be in agreement. I don't think automatic excommunication was very pastoral, but I think the current treatment advocated by the Pope (e.g., exclusion from Holy Communion) is. Any attempt to go beyond this without following all the rules is against Church teaching and wrong. And unfortunately, this is happening quite a bit in the U.S. right now.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 04, 2003.

Mark,

Yes -there is much agreement. The agreement we have is with ultimate truth & Rome -the disagreement I have is with neither...

"--I will have to look into the internal nonsacramental forum and just what it accomplishes -although, I am sure it is not an avenue to disregard the what is stated above and sin..."

now....

I am still 'looking' into 'internal nonsacramental forum' and 'internal forum' solutions. Here is some research thus far:

I will try to separate the chaff from the wheat regarding the 'internal nonsacramental forum' and or 'internal forum' in regards to the specific issues/questions on this thread. WHAT is the internal forum & what is the purpose/use of such is the obvious question -- Additionally, how does the internal forum apply creative solutions to issues/questions specifically implied that it supposedly addresses: (1) Can a marriage be declared invalid by 'internal forum'? - (2) Can an invalid marriage be declared valid by 'internal forum'?

Firstly, a little detour couched in a posit -- why is this internal forum 'solution' even being discussed in regards to the validity of marriage?

Honestly answer HOW you 'found out' about IT.

THEN read this on the 'good news' that is 'pastorally' promulgated...

Sound familiar???

I suggest you read the following passage from this group's "PROPOSED CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"

"As a consequence of the basic human right to marry, all Catholics have the right to choose their state in life; this includes the right for both laity and clergy to marry, remain single or embrace celibacy. As a consequence of the basic human right to marry, with each spouse retaining full and equal rights during marriage, all Catholics have the right to withdraw from a marriage which has irretrievably broken down. a) All such Catholics retain the radical right to remarry; and b) All divorced and remarried Catholics who are in conscience reconciled to the Church retain the right to the same ministries, including all the sacraments, as do other Catholics."

-a copy of this proposed constitution...

hmmm... interesting reading... -suffice it to say this 'stuff' is not in agreement with the Church...

The group is just one responsible for deceptively promulgating thier agenda via academic pontification, misinformation related to, and the active perversion and promotion of the 'internal forum'.

OK, enough of that -now for some truly Catholic references:

Referencing Canon Law, BOOK IV, TITLE VII: MARRIAGE:

CHAPTER III : INDIVIDUAL DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS Can. 1085 §1 A person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage. Can. 1085 §2 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.

CHAPTER II : DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS IN GENERAL

Can. 1073 A diriment impediment renders a person incapable of validly contracting a marriage. Can. 1074 An impediment is said to be public, when it can be proved in the external forum; otherwise, it is occult.

Now some discussion regarding what some term the 'internal forum' solution otherwise called matrimonial dispensation:

Referring to Can. 1085 §2 one can see that the nullity or the dissolution of a marriage has to be established lawfully and with certainty. The question is -what does established lawfully and with certainty mean/imply?

Referring to Can. 1085 §1 & Can. 1073 it is readily apparent that a marriage unless proven invalid/null is a diriment impediment and renders a person incapable of validly contracting another marriage.

This brings us to what some term the 'internal forum' solution or matrimonial dispensation -- referring to what you quoted earlier: Can. 1082 -- "Unless a rescript of the Penitentiary provides otherwise, a dispensation from an occult impediment granted in the internal nonsacramental forum, is to be recorded in the book to be kept in the secret archive of the curia. No other dispensation for the external forum is necessary if at a later stage the occult impediment becomes public."

Now, in the case of someone wishing to contract another marriage - the impediment (an existing valid marriage) must be disproven... - therefore, by it's very nature and as evidenced in Church teaching, an existing valid marriage IS a proven fact, and ALWAYS presumed proven -hence, this specific diriment impediment is always a public impediment -never an occult impediment...

Now to expound on Can. 1085 §2: "...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." The key words in this are "lawfully and with certainty" -lawfully can only mean one thing -as set forth in canon law --NOT as set forth in someone's conscience -- EVEN with the aid of an 'internal forum'...

In a nutshell and not that it matters on the topic of validity -the impediment of which we discuss is NOT occult.

Furthermore, the impediment we discuss is not a nonsacramental matter -IT is a sacramental matter between a man, a wife and God...

More to come in the near future regarding the forum of conscience - individual conscience. The internal forum...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.

Daniel,

I'm glad you are looking into the matter of "internal forum" more deeply. Here are some of my thoughts on what you wrote:

>> Honestly answer HOW you 'found out' about IT.

I found out about the "internal forum" from this thread on the Yahoo group CatholicsRemarry.

>> (1) Can a marriage be declared invalid by 'internal forum'?

I don't think anyone has said that it can. To my mind, the question you should be asking is "Under what circumstances can a couple in an irregular union be legimately admitted to the sacraments under the internal forum?"

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 08, 2003.

Dear Mark,

When they leave that irregular union and if the breakup of their sacramental marriage was their choice they must do all they can do to heal the breakup and repent and go to confession....then they can receive the sacraments. It is that simple. Really.

Common sense coupled with old fashioned catholic justice (resititution) should do the trick. Forget the modernist applications of moral relativism and all these "complicated situations". You blew it, you fix it.

Whomever "you" might be in any particular situation.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.

">> (1) Can a marriage be declared invalid by 'internal forum'?

I don't think anyone has said that it can."

I know it can not! -Now you do....

Now answer your own question: "Under what circumstances can a couple in an irregular union be legimately admitted to the sacraments under the internal forum?"

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.