News Flash -There is NO "Internal Forum Solution" that enables adultery to transform into validity...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I have looked into this "Internal Forum Solution" thing and came to one conclusion -- Quite simply -there is NO 'Internal Forum Solution" that enables continued sin to be acceptable... Anyone who thinks there is this 'solution' (no matter how creative or secretive) that can circumvent God & Church is LOST and needs to get back on the path...

An excerpt from "CREATIVE" AVENUES TO REMARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE by Msgr. Clarence J. Hettinger who eloquently puts to words that which is truth:

"Compared with age-old Orthodox economy, the appeal to the internal forums solution comes very late in the history of the Church. The , published in 1967, does not carry an article on the internal forum and the index refers to it only twice- once in the article on excommunication,[21] and again in the article on jurisdiction. Marriage cases are mentioned only in the latter article, which states significantly that the competent forum for "the adjudication of marriage cases" is the external forum[22]

Internal forum is limited

Although coming late as a widespread "creative" avenue to remarriage after divorce, the internal forum solution was not long in asserting itself. The encyclopedia's Volume 16, 1967-1974, presented the "new theology" and the "Vatican II canon law" on marriage. The cited sources of the article (the earliest one from 1965) indicate that the seeds of dissent from the doctrine of indissolubility had already taken root and were growing thirty years ago. The concluding sentence of the article says it all: "And if the covenant demands are applied, a way will be found to free many 'badly' married couples and those already remarried to enter for the first time a graced covenant, a marriage 'in the Lord.'"[23]

The same volume also has an article on the "Internal Forum (Marriage Cases)." It is unquestionably true that the title of a work should not influence one's understanding of it. However, in view of what the competent forum for marriage cases is, the title of the article embodies an oxymoron. The article mentions "the province of personal conscience," conflicts between the external and the internal forums, "fraud going to the heart of the contract" (not a ground of nullity at that time), and the natural right to marry. Then it concludes by repeating the oxymoron of the title: "In these cases he exercises his priestly ministry not in the external forum but in the internal forum which is the tribunal of mercy."[24]

The sacramental internal forum is indeed the tribunal of mercy but neither it nor the nonsacramental internal forum furnishes a way to free people with a previous unsuccessful but valid marriage to enter another valid marriage or to permit people living in an invalid marriage to receive the sacraments. The term forum itself indicates the exercise of jurisdiction. Now the source of jurisdiction is not anyone's conscience but the diocesan bishop. Therefore, whatever powers a priest might possess in the internal forum, apart from one exception to be mentioned shortly, being delegated powers, are limited to the express, legitimate will of the bishop which may not contradict the express mind of the supreme magisterium.

The duty to live in abstinence

Canon 130 briefly describes the internal forum: its lawful exercise is limited to cases determined by law[25] and so-called internal forum solutions are not on the list. The Code of Canon Law permits exactly two rather infrequent applications to matrimonial law, only the first of which is available to priests. Canon 1079, #3, gives to confessors the power to dispense, in either the sacramental or nonsacramental internal forum, from impediments. Canon 1130 empowers the local ordinary to permit a marriage; canon 1132, however, establishes that the ordinary's obligation of the secret ceases if a danger should arise of serious scandal or harm to the sanctity of marriage. In other words, private rights acquired by the individual faithful in the internal forum cannot be allowed to damage the public good of the rest of the faithful. Of course, in the case of real, danger of death,[26] provided the firm resolve, expressed or implicit, not to continue to commit adultery has been elicited, any confessor will use the internal sacramental forum.

Modern authentic doctrine on the use of the internal forum starts with Cardinal Seper's letter to the bishops of April 11, 1973, in which he authorized, "in addition to other correct means, the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum."[27] The bishops of the United States could not agree on the meaning of the last item. So the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explained to them on March 21, 1975, that readmission to the sacraments is permissible if "they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal,"[28]

Apparently it was not universally understood that the demands of Christian moral principles include complete continence. Clergymen and their pastoral assistants and others continued to create "good faith" in their clients and to implement the "good conscience clause" in order to permit the reception of the sacraments by people who were initiating or continuing to live in adulterous unions.

Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic exhortation of November 22, 1981, on the family, set forth in unequivocal terms the meaning of the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum: the acceptance, for serious reasons, of "the duty to live in complete abstinence."[29] Before doing this he stated the limits within which the Church can "make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation" but for remarried divorcees these means necessarily stop short of readmission to the sacraments. The Holy Father expressed his confidence that couples using these means "will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation provided they have persevered in prayer, penance, and charity."[30] Nevertheless, the practice of the internal forum continued and only God knows how many couples were told the opposite of these saving words.

The Church's doctrine on internal forum solutions in has been updated in the . The treatment is somewhat condensed and the tone is definitely less "pastoral." The sterner tone is seen in the addition of some items to the treatment in and in the omission of other items.

has sterner tone

For example, made an abstract statement about the biblical foundation of its teaching: "The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based on Sacred Scripture." The Catechism quoted the Scripture: "Whoever repudiates his wife and marries another commits adultery in regard to the first; and if a woman repudiates her husband and marries another she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12)." To the denial of access to Eucharistic Communion because of remarriage after divorce the Catechism adds "no matter how long this situation persists. For the same reason they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities."[31]

In another addition the Catechism makes clear that no counselor-clergy, religious, or lay-can have any excuse whatsoever for trying to create "good faith" or a "good conscience"[32] in their clients or for neglecting to correct their clients' erroneous conscience. Catholics have the duty of obedience to the Holy Father and the duty of charity to their clients to inform them of "a sure norm":[33] "The fact of contracting a new union, if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried divorcee finds himself in the situation of public and permanent adultery."[34] And persons suffering from an unwanted divorce need to hear that they are not excluded from the sacraments: "It can be that one of the partners is the innocent victim of a divorce pronounced by the civil law; in that case he does not contravene the moral precept.""

It is obvious truth...

Does anyone disagree...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 17, 2003

Answers

Daniel, I'm curious, what made you start this new thread? God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 17, 2003.

John,

-at least three reasons...

(1) Consolidate & 'break' this sub-topic out from previous discussions & topics that I have been involved in here -so that IT would/could be addressed singularly...

(2) Offer my understanding of this topic up for question, consideration and critique to see if I am missing something...

(3) Initiate discussion regarding the Church's position & truth to dispel the mystique and misunderstanding associated with the 'internal forum solution' --as I have seen it repeatedly misapplied or inappropriately suggested as 'solution'...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.


I will express my views. I will not debate.

I have been researching the subject of late, due to a personal situation.

The internal forum is the private pastoral care employed by a priest on any number of issues. Issues handled within a confessional, for example.

There is apparently debate by canon lawyers on this issue. Priests use it to address issues,including marriage. Marriage is, of course, a hot topic.

Petitions for writs of nullity are heard by Church tribunals. Sometimes, tribunals are unable to hear a case and conclude with a decisive ruling. ie. witnesses do not respond, are unable to be contacted, and people for the most part keep their private matters private. So, sometimes tribunals don't receive enough or adaquate unbiased information. It must be very hard to sit on a tribunal.

It is my understanding that a priest in his pastoral capacity may privately, key word privately, recognize a civil marriage,even if that civil marriage has impediments. He can not publicly bless a marriage with impediments.

There is a huge debate on whether a marriage with impediments would fall into the realm of pastoral decision making.

Many priests will not address marriages in the internal forum. Many will. Every priest that I know will, if asked about a marriage, counsel a person on how to submit a petition to the appropriate tribunal. How they handle a matter under the Sacrament of RECONCILIATION is between them and God.

My career is in criminal and administative law.

My opinion is this: Canon law should be used to further the good news of the Messiah's message. To me there is nothing worse than sour faced piety. If there is a doubt, and a priest errs, let it be on the side of compassion for his flock.

I think that is what the message of Jesus was. After all, didn't he break a rule by healing on the sabbath.

Priests should be good samatitans and not step across the road.

God Bless all.

Lord, wash away our inequity and cleanse us from our sins.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.


Daniel, I should add, or clarify:

When I said, "sour faced piety", I meant on the part of priests, not you by any means. God Bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.


John,

Thank you for your input on this topic.

I understand you do not wish to debate the issue so my statements may go unquestioned from you; however, I post it that others may respond and or consider -I like to keep things simple...

"It is my understanding that a priest in his pastoral capacity may privately, key word privately, recognize a civil marriage,even if that civil marriage has impediments. He can not publicly bless a marriage with impediments."

In my opinion, there are two things in this statement that get to the root of what I consider the 'problem':

(1) A marriage that can not be recognized publicly but can only be recognized privately is not truly recognized and not a valid marriage -it is a lie... Yes, there are exceptions, rare exceptions -e.g. under grave circumstances such as death the internal forum may be the only way to recognize a marriage that is valid (no true impediments) etc... These exceptions are rare...

(2) If the impediment(s) relate to an existing valid marriage -to quote from above: "The sacramental internal forum is indeed the tribunal of mercy but neither it nor the nonsacramental internal forum furnishes a way to free people with a previous unsuccessful but valid marriage to enter another valid marriage or to permit people living in an invalid marriage to receive the sacraments." Further: " the Catechism makes clear that no counselor-clergy, religious, or lay-can have any excuse whatsoever for trying to create "good faith" or a "good conscience" in their clients or for neglecting to correct their clients' erroneous conscience. Catholics have the duty of obedience to the Holy Father and the duty of charity to their clients to inform them of "a sure norm" -- The "sure norm" being all entailed in the Marriage Sacrament...

Obedience to the Holy Father should occur both publicly AND privately...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.



Marriage is a public Sacrament.

To use an "internal forum", even if it were to be approved officially, to condone or forgive what has not been dealt with justly and in public, is intellectually dishonest. A meaningless exercize. It would be like lying to a tribunal, getting your fake annulment and getting remarried. Only a dupe would think under such circumstances the remmariage would be valid. It would be typical of the God-unto- themselves liberals who dominate the clergy.

Such behavior is sacrilege and blasphemous and when brought to light should result in severe penalties for all those involved--especially the clerics who should be barred permanently from the exercize of their priestly faculties!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, John P.

You wrote: "I have been researching the subject of late ..."

I have no doubt that you have made a good-faith effort, but I can tell from what you have stated that you have not yet come across the proper materials that would provide you with authoritative, final guidance. (More about that later.)

You continued: "The internal forum is the private pastoral care employed by a priest on any number of issues. Issues handled within a confessional, for example."

That's pretty close to what I have read in the past. The term, "external forum," can be applied to the arena of the ecclesiastical courts that apply Church law. The term, "internal forum" (according to an online lexicon) is "the arena of conscience, such as revealed to a confessor in the Sacrament of Penance, to a spiritual director or any other situation where there is an expectation of complete confidence from the clergy."

You continued: "There is apparently debate by canon lawyers on this issue. Priests use it to address issues, including marriage."

I would say that there was some debate in the past, but that there ought not to be any more, because the pope has now spoken so clearly on this that no faithful Catholic can have any doubt about it any more.

You wrote: "Petitions for writs of nullity are heard by Church tribunals. Sometimes, tribunals are unable to hear a case and conclude with a decisive ruling. i.e., witnesses do not respond, are unable to be contacted, and people for the most part keep their private matters private. So, sometimes tribunals don't receive enough or adaquate unbiased information. It must be very hard to sit on a tribunal."

You are partially correct. The tribunal can proceed even without witnesses, even without any cooperation from the other "spouse."
Similar concerns have been expressed (online) by a priest as follows:
"Occasionally petitioners are afraid of dredging up the history of their failed marriage. Some fear that their former spouse might do them harm. Whatever the reason they cannot bring themselves to proceed with a formal case. Then there are those cases where, because of some [alleged] error in judgment made by a priest or a tribunal official, justice was [perhaps] not rendered."

You continued: "It is my understanding that a priest in his pastoral capacity may privately, key word privately, recognize a civil marriage, even if that civil marriage has impediments. He can not publicly bless a marriage with impediments. There is a huge debate on whether a marriage with impediments would fall into the realm of pastoral decision making."

Your words are echoed (online) by such thoughts as the following:
----- "Where there is insufficient evidence available to declare a marriage null and void ..., one could resort to the Internal Forum where a pastoral judgment may, under certain conditions allow a divorced and remarried person to receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Communion with no canonical decision being made about the validity or invalidity of a previous marriage."
----- "Many Catholics have divorced and later remarried before a Justice of the Peace without having consulted anyone, and without having obtained a Church annulment. This is a violation of Canon law, and they are presumed to be living in sin. Suppose however that the legal presumption of the validity of the first was incorrect. Suppose there was a defective intention which could not be proved. Rare though it may be, such a thing can happen. Following one's conscience [the 'internal forum'] may be justified in some circumstances."

I am writing this reply to you, John P, because there is not (or ought not to be) "a huge debate" about such matters. The question should have never arisen (because there is no history of such use of "internal forum"). By a decision of the pope, the debate was ended in the mid-1990s. The only thing left is for the Catholic faithful (especially parish priests) to be made aware of the facts and then to be obedient to the pope.

In 1995, the pope addressed the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. The Rota acts, among other things, as the highest appeals court in marriage/nullity cases. Here are some excerpts from the pope's directives:

"4. ... it is helpful ... to call the attention of ecclesiastical tribunals to the unacceptable consequences resulting from erroneous doctrinal approaches, which have negative repercussions on the administration of justice and, in a particular and even more serious way, on the handling of cases of marital nullity. ...

"8. ... 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. While maintaining the distinction between the magisterial and jurisdictional functions, certainly in ecclesial society the judicial power also emanates from the more general 'potestas regiminis,' which in fact belongs to the Church by divine institution (c. 129, §1), and is divided into three, namely, the 'legislative, executive and judicial' (c. 135, §1). 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. 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' (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,'[in the internal forum] 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' (c. 87, §1)."

[The full text is at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1995/february /documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19950210_roman-rota_en.html ]

These truths were reflected in the mid-1990s' document, "In Truth and Love: a Letter from the Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania to Their Priests on the Pastoral Care of Divorced and Remarried Catholics"

In section III ("UNACCEPTABLE INITIATIVES"), the bishops wrote:
"[Persons] who ... 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. 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."

I urge you, John P., to go to the Pennsylvania bishops' letter and read Sections V (INTERNAL FORUM SOLUTION: UNACCEPTABLE FOR DIVORCED AND REMARRIED) and VI (UNACCEPTABLE EXTENSION OF THE "INTERNAL FORUM SOLUTION"). I would have copied them here, but I didn't want my post to be overly long. Here is a link to the document.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.


Dear Daniel and John,

Well done and said. And can you believe I typed the names Daniel and John on the same line...and no blood was shed! Whew!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.


-yes.

In Christ we have a common bond!

God Bless.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.


Msgr. Clarence J. Hettinger's article contains one statement that I fully endorse: There are many explanations of [Eastern Orthodox] econmy in Western literature; few of them are faithful to the Eastern original."[17]

I have a question about another of his assertions. In his statement: Of course, in the case of real, /imminent/ danger of death,[26] provided the firm resolve, expressed or implicit, not to continue to commit adultery has been elicited, any confessor will use the internal sacramental forum. Is there any actual justification in canon law for the section in bold, or is this just something Msgr. Hettinger added on his own? Canon 1079.3 simply states: In danger of death, the confessor has the power to dispense from occult impediments for the internal forum, whether within the act of sacramental confession or outside it.

As for the letter from the Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania, they seem to be making a logical fallacy in going from "practically nonexistant" to "comprehensive and responsive enough to declare invalid all marriages which truly are". I'm sorry, "practically nonexistant" and "nonexistant" are two different concepts, and you can't just delete a word from a statement from the Dean of the Rota just because you like your version better.

Also, the following statement seems to be the exact opposite of what the Canon Law they quote states: This is especially true since Canon 1536 paragraph 2, combined with Canon 1679, allows tribunals to grant a declaration of nullity, in the absence of other "objective" proofs of a previous marriage's invalidity, on the basis of personal depositions of the parties themselves. My reading of the canons, admittedly as an untrained layperson, is that the judges must obtain additional evidence in this circumstance, and if that is impossible, then no verdict one way or the other can be reached.

In general, my feeling is that there is something called "internal forum" in Canon Law, and that it is not an option to pretend that it doesn't exists just because you wish the Church would mete out harsher punishments to ex-spouses who have wronged you. It is also my feeling that 99.99% (if not more) of the uses of internal forum in the U.S. are completely invalid in practice, but that fact also doesn't give you the option to deny justice to the other 0.01% (or less) uses.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2003.



Mark,

Your position on this issue is self evident -IT is also not what God or the Church clearly teach... The 'gray area' you are delusionally existing in does not exist in all but your mind and the minds of those perpetuating it... There is black or white, truth or lie -- come back into the light...

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.


Daniel,

You start a thread about an article that seems to add extra conditions to Canon Law on top of what the Pope thought sufficient, and then you ask, "Does anyone disagree?" Well, I disagree. I don't think that either you or Msgr. Hettinger has the right to modify the rules of the Church to suit your beliefs.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2003.


Mark,

Where is anyone modifying rules or imposing punishment -good try...

The rules are simply stated and reitterated -the rules -the real rules -not the rules in your mind BUT the rules of the Church...

Open your eyes, that you might see beyond your hijacked pastoral compassion -read again -the 'rules' -then obey the rules in action and in counsel...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 18, 2003.


Daniel,

>> Where is anyone modifying rules

That would be the part of the quote from Msgr. Hettinger's article that I put in bold italic text.

>> The rules are simply stated and reitterated -the rules -the real rules -not the rules in your mind BUT the rules of the Church...

The 1983 Code of Canon Law are the real rules of the Church. You'll notice that I quoted them right after my quote from Msgr. Hettinger's article to highlight his "improvement" on what the Pope promulgated.

>> Open your eyes, that you might see beyond your hijacked pastoral compassion

Surprisingly enough, I'm just a new Catholic trying to determine what the actual rules of the Church are as regards the internal forum. And I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed that instead of a clear statement as to what those rules are, all that I see (from both sides of the issue) is posturing to make one extreme view or the other seem more plausible.

Now, this is just my idea, but I would think the best way to stop all the actual abuses of the internal forum would be to issue a clear statement of when the use of the internal forum is legitimate, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't exist at all.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2003.


Mark, Whether or not someone may be pretending that the internal forum does not exist is not relavant to this debate that should really be no debate and is only debate because you are not hearing the answer you want to hear. The internal forum does exist; however, it is not the pastoral feel good forum you would desire -- Laid out simply:

1) A marriage can only be lawfully investigated and if found lacking declared invalid by a tribunal.

2) A person already married can NOT marry another -doing so is adultery.

3) Therefore, a priest EVEN using the creative internal forum 'solution' whose banner you tout so boldly CAN NOT do what you wish he could do -EVEN secretly...

A priest can not sanctify adultery, a priest can not invalidate a marriage -IT JUST CAN NOT HAPPEN in all but the minds of those delusionally participating in this type of feel good exercise -keep wishing, keep touting -God & Church are clear on this...

Again, the gray area you wish to debate in is of your own creation...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 19, 2003.



In his traditional meeting at the beginning of the year with the judges and lawyers of the Roman Rota, the Holy Father explained that their mission is decisive, because "without the processes and sentences of the ecclesiastical tribunals, the question of the existence or nonexistence of an indissoluble marriage of faithful would only be relegated to their own consciences."

This question of conscience otherwise would be very complicated, especially if one keeps in mind "the obvious risk of subjectivism, especially when there is a profound crisis of the institution of marriage in civil society," the Pope stressed.

Therefore, "every just sentence of validity or nullity of marriage is a contribution to the culture of indissolubility both in the Church as well as in the world," the Bishop of Rome clarified.

"Not only does it give certainty to the individuals involved, but also to all marriages and families," he added.

Therefore, John Paul II warned, "an unjust declaration of nullity, opposed to the truth of the normative principles or of the facts, is particularly serious, because given its official relation with the Church, it favors the spread of attitudes in which the indissolubility is affirmed in word, but obscured in life."

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.


[topping for later review]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.

I am a relatively new Catholic also, a convert about two years ago. Since that time, I had to have my previous marriage (pre-Catholic) annulled by a tribunal. I had to have witnesses, and drag the whole thing out into the open...including with my ex. This process took about a year and a half. I was happy to go through this process as I wanted to follow the teachings of the Church.

It took two years of being a Catholic convert, before I was finally able to be admitted into the Church, this past Easter Vigil. I was baptised, confirmed and was able to finally participate in the Euchrist...in a State of Grace. A true blessing.

However, after my first marriage (but before my conversion) I had remarried. My husband and I want to have our marriage validated, now that I am a true Catholic. (He was a "cradle Catholic" but had been away from the Church until recently.)

At my first confession, before my baptism, etc. Our good and faithful priest told us the truth..."you can't have marital relations in an unvalidated marriage, and then take communion, because you would not be in a state of grace." He seemed sorry to have to tell us this, but was adement on giving us the truth, as the Church teaches. We were very grateful for this, because we wanted to know the Truth...not the politically correct horse-hockey that everyone is so fond of dishing out.

My husband and I decided to remain chaste...yes, that's right...until our marriage can be validated. This means, that since my baptism at Easter Vigil, my husband and I have lived in a state of grace...if ya know what I mean.

This has been somewhat difficult, but it has deepened our relationship with each other, and with Christ...an added benefit that we were not expecting.

I thank God for our priest who had the guts and moral fortitude to "tell it like it is!" I only wish everyone did that.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 19, 2003.


Hello Victoria,

I also joined the Church this Easter Vigil. Happy Easter!

Our priest did not mention the "living as brother and sister" option to us, so I would not have been allowed to join the Church if our annulments hadn't gone through. For us, the actual annulment process went through rather quickly after we managed to gather the necessary paperwork. I'm afraid I wasn't as happy to go through the process as you were, because of my concern that my ex's family would use the fact that I was obtaining an annulment to further alienate my daughter from me. But I followed the Church's teachings despite my misgivings.

I wish you good luck in your living in grace!

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2003.


Daniel found an excellent writeup on the internal forum solution. It is by far the clearest writing that I have ever seen on the subject.

From what I know about the internal forum, I think the writeup is an accurate description of the internal forum, with the following clarifications:

(*) Internal forum does not apply to those who choose not to use the external forum (i.e., marriage tribunal) first, for whatever reason, including things like "vindictive spouses", etc.

(*) Internal forum does not apply to those who do not fully exhaust the facilities of the external forum, e.g., by appealing and by petitioning the case in all possible venues.

(*) Internal forum does not apply to those who have received a "negative" decision from the tribunal, i.e., that the marriage is valid.

(*) It's sad if this clarification is truly needed, but the internal forum does not apply to those who could be married in the Church, but choose not to, e.g., living in sin, or civilly married only.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.


"Daniel, I've already posted in the other thread, on internal forum, so that is probably the best place to discuss this, but do you have any specific complaints, other than the fact that the writeup acknowledges that the internal forum solution does in fact exist?"

Mark,

-murder exists -as does abortion... of what relevance is something man does in and of itself unless compared with ultimate truth, God & Church. Your internal forum 'solution' misses the mark by much...

There is no debate -you are completely wrong -no ifs ands or buts - there is no gray area...

You have seen all the specifics already -you know the truth yet continue to espouse the lies... If other liars agree with each other - so what?

The complaints are yours -I simply OBEY God and Church and would suggest you do the same... -- sin is sin... even if hidden, even if secret, even if not made into public scandal... the answer is not to 'secretly' lead others into accepting sin so that there is no scandal and a secret consensus in sin (conspiracy)... Sin can not be OK'ed

-try this exercise in a moment when you are free from the pastoral yoke that seems to limit blood flow to the brain... -- Simply swap the word abortion or murder with adultery or invalid marriage and reread your pastoral prescription -is it a prescription that leads to eternal life?

"Sin can not be OK'ed" even if posted on a website...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 21, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, Mark. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread and responding to you.
I respectfully disagree with your position on the so-called "internal forum solution" or IFS. I recommend that you scroll back up and re-read the portions I quoted from the pope's statement to the Rota. I believe that an honest person who reads the pope's words will see that he is completely rejecting every use of the IFS for the purpose of allowing cohabiting people to receive the sacraments.

Each of us can find articles on the Internet, in magazines, etc., that support the IFS -- such as the one you linked. I'm sure, though, that there is no chance whatsoever that the pope would do anything with such articles other than to "deep-six" them. I found the page you linked almost horrible to read, as though it were something that crawled out of hell. Even simple human logic tells us that, since the IFS does not (because it cannot) declare the invalidity of one union nor the validity of another, the cohabitating couple are objectively in adultery -- so they are unable to be absolved and must avoid receiving Communion sacrilegiously. Their own private consciences are irrelevant, because those cannot override the pope's power to bind and loose.

Mark, you wrote: "As for the letter from the Catholic Bishops of Pennsylvania, they seem to be making a logical fallacy in going from 'practically nonexistant' to 'comprehensive and responsive enough to declare invalid all marriages which truly are.' I'm sorry, [but] 'practically nonexistant' and 'nonexistant' are two different concepts, and you can't just delete a word from a statement from the Dean of the Rota just because you like your version better."

The words quoted from "Monsignor Mario F. Pompedda, now Dean of the Rota," were these: "... it would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent."
I believe that you have misunderstood Msgr. Pompedda's use of the word "practically." It is not to be taken, as we so often mean it in colloquial English, as a synonym for "nearly, almost." Rather, it is to be taken [as the Pennsylvania bishops knew] in the more formal meaning of "practically speaking -- i.e., in real-life practice." Thus, we can paraphrase the Monsignor as having meant, "... such would be so rare that, in real-life practice, they should be considered nonexistent."

Mark, I am disturbed by your approach to this whole matter. Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears that you may have been influenced by an admiration for the schismatic Eastern Orthodox churches' improper practice of divorce-and-remarriage without an intervening declaration of nullity. It even appears that you are searching for "loopholes" in the Catholic law, whereby people publicly "living in sin" could receive the sacraments. When I first realized this about your approach, I immediately remembered the case of the famous comedian, W. C. Fields -- so notorious for his vices. I'll let the TCM site tell the story:
"A few days before Fields passed away, close friend Thomas Mitchell visited [him], finding the dying, self-avowed agnostic thumbing through a Bible. Mitchell asked what he, of all people, was doing looking at the Bible. Fields replied, 'Looking for loopholes.'"
So, Mark, I urge you not to look for loopholes, but just to accept the pope's clear teachings and rulings on improperly cohabiting couples, despite how tough they may seem.


Victoria, thanks again for your "lived witness" to the truth and the moral law. You have shown Mark what every couple in that situation must do -- either abstain from marital union or from the sacraments.

God bless you.
John
PS: Mark, I just looked at your last post. After recommending the linked article, you stated, "I think the writeup is an accurate description of the internal forum [solution, or IFS], with the following clarifications ...". But then your "clarifications" (i.e., "[this]... does not apply ..." and "[this] ... does not apply ...") seemed to rule out every situation in which people now try to use the "IFS." What situation(s) have I overlooked?

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.


John,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with you on this matter.

First of all, I want to assure you that I understand completely the difference between what the Church law is and what I think the Church law should be, and I do not let the latter cloud my view of the former. This is because I believe that Holy Spirit can guide the Church to change for the better, just as it did in Vatican II. If someone was the kind of Catholic who believed that the Church could not change, or that it is wrong to want the Church to change, then I could see how that might tend to make that person want to blur those two concepts, even subconsciously. But I'm not that kind of Catholic, so that is not a problem I am having. I have no trouble being an agent for change.

Second of all, I understand that you and I disagree very strongly about what the Church law as regards marriage and divorce should be, but that is another topic altogether. In that regard, I am influenced by the Eastern Orthodox concept of "ekonomia", the idea that "after ... a sinful rejection or human mistake, repentence always allows a new beginning" (John Meyendorff, in _Byzantine Theology_). It is yet a third topic as to whether the Eastern Orthodox church is improper in its treatment of marriage and divorce. In this regard, it is important to notice that the Eastern Orthodox practices date back to the canons of St. Basil the Great (329-379).

As regards the immediate issue of what the Church law is, I will have to post later, as it is time for dinner. But let me just say now that it is my understanding that a marriage tribunal can return three responses: (1) the marriage is valid; (2) the marriage is invalid; or (3) there is not enough evidence to determine whether the marriage is valid or not. It is my claim that the internal forum solution relates to the third case only.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.


Therin lies your problem.

The law, truth, justice and common sense favor the existing marriage and iits presumption of validity.

By the way, there are only two outcomes of tribunal decisions, validity or nullity, there is no "not enough information".

Your solution breaks down to "following personal conscience" in preference to the favor of presumption of validity, which preserves the integrity of marriage. Any priest who does it on his own is in error, regardless of his "personal justification" and he does grave damage to all marriages and undermines the authority of the Church, completely unjustly and selfishly.

A priest who does this should be removed from practicing his priestly duties, permanently.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.


John,

Here are my responses directly related to the issue what the Church law actually is concerning the internal forum solution.

First, you wrote for me to "accept the pope's clear teachings and rulings on improperly cohabiting couples." I have to ask: Do you believe that there is some doctrine that says that all Church teachings are or must be "clear"? Objectively speaking, the Church's teachings on internal forum solution are not at all clear. This is the reason for wide range of opinions concerning what they are (not what they should be, but what they are), even among canon lawyers who have done years of graduate study in canon law and have spent even more years practicing it.

>> I believe that you have misunderstood Msgr. Pompedda's use of the word "practically." It is not to be taken, as we so often mean it in colloquial English, as a synonym for "nearly, almost.

So your viewpoint is that the Church's teachings are clear, except that we have to twist the meanings of individual words from their common usage into to obtain this clear teaching? :-) My paraphrase of Msgr. Pompedda's statement is: "There are criteria for the legitimate use of the internal forum solution, but although it is theoretically possible for those criteria to be satisfied, it would be extremely rare for those criteria to be satisfied in an actual situation." All I'm trying to do is find out what those criteria are.

>> I believe that an honest person who reads the pope's words will see that he is completely rejecting every use of the IFS for the purpose of allowing cohabiting people to receive the sacraments.

I trust you meant no offense, because I am honestly seeking to find out what the Church's teachings are. After all, how can I agitate to change them until I know what they currently are? The only statement from the Pope's address to the Rota that mentioned the internal forum is: "care should be taken to avoid answers and solutions 'in foro interno,' [in the internal forum] 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." I believe that my proposed criteria for the internal forum solution are in complete agreement with this, as I postulated that IFS is allowed only when the external forum has been unable to reach a decision. (Despite Karl's assertion to the contrary, the canon lawyers and tribunal judges on the Yahoo group CatholicsRemarry talk about the three possible outcomes.) In this case, if it is not possible to obtain additional evidence, then I think that IFS may be used.

>> Victoria, thanks again for your "lived witness" to the truth and the moral law. You have shown Mark what every couple in that situation must do -- either abstain from marital union or from the sacraments.

During my search for additional information on IFS, I found some indications that the "living as brother and sister" option is only legitimately available to those couples who have minor children together; otherwise they must get a civil divorce in order to be readmitted to the sacraments.

As you say, you can find anything on the web if you look hard enough. Notheless, here are some items that may be of interest:

Catholic Digest: The internal forum is not some back-room escape for privileged Catholics; it is the right of every Catholic. The official Church position is cited in a directive from the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, issued on April 11, 1973: “In regard to admission of sacraments, local bishops are asked on the one hand to stress observance of current discipline, and on the other hand to take care that pastors of souls exercise special care to seek out those who are living in an irregular union by applying to the solution of such cases, in addition to other rightful means, the Church’s approved practice in the Internal Forum.” All I want to know is what the Church's approved practice is. Your claim that it is to "[completely reject] every use of the IFS for the purpose of allowing cohabiting people to receive the sacraments" cannot be reconciled with this statement from the CDF.

Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ecclesiastical Forum: Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. 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. This would seem to contradict your use of "simple human logic".

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.


To Mark:

Could you please post the URL for the place on the web that you found the information regarding the "living as brother and sister/minor children/civil divorce thing"? I want to print it out and show it to my priest.

Thanks so much, Victoria

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 22, 2003.


Victoria,

I recall coming across two or three such statements, all worded a little differently. None of them were particularly "official". This is the only one I seem to have bookmarked; I hope that this is close enough for what you are looking for (it has "separate" instead of "divorce"):

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_of_divorced_and_remarr.ht m

One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as "brother and sister" (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal can not be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 22, 2003.


I'm going to break my self-imposed rule on not debating on this issue.

Karl writes "By the way, there are only two outcomes of tribunal decisions, validity or nullity, there is no "not enough information".

A tribunal may reject the hearing of a case, if there is not enough information presented. This is usually at the first step in review. It is similar to an appeals court who rejects the hearing of a case. A tribunal never issues a summary judgement.

One issue that needs to be very clearly pointed out: the tribunal review is never an adversarial cause between the spouses. It is a review of the union of the spouses, in covenant, in a properly formed sacramental bond, in accordance with canon law. Any number of irregularities in any step may cause the marriage to be invalid.

What is missing in today's marriages, many times, is the solid, mature, emotional, spiritual, sacramental bond that is needed for a proper marriage. We all are victims of the times in which we live. Many of us did not have good examples to follow. Many times, people are ignorant (not stupid, just unknowing) of what a real marriage should be. Whether we like it or not, all of us are products of our surroundings. I was very enlightened recently when I heard this statement from a lady whose marriage was arranged by her and her husband's family, as was her culture's custom, "Love is not a feeling, it is a choice".

Our culture in the U.S., unfortunately, has grown accustomed to the "feeling of love",which, in reality, is infatuation: a word that is used very little nowdays.

The marriage covenant should be taken much more seriously, granted. But, the intent of a person to reconcile with God and the Church, should be taken very, very seriously also.

Given the correct intent of the person,why shouldn't they be welcomed into the Church?

I believe strongly that the parish priest is the shepard of his flock. The more compassion, understanding, and unconditional love, he can show, the stronger the Church.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 22, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Mark. I just finished getting caught up on messages posted since my last.

You'll recall that your reply came in two pieces.
I must say that the first piece initially drew a rather emotional reaction from me, for two reasons:
(1) You said that you "have no trouble being an agent for change", and ...
(2) You said that you are "influenced by the Eastern Orthodox concept of 'ekonomia', the idea that 'after ... a sinful rejection or human mistake, repentence always allows a new beginning'".

My first reaction was an exasperated ... "What they hey? This guy just became a Catholic, and he already thinks he knows better than the Church? With a few weeks under his belt, he wants to "change" the Church that has 2,000 years' experience? If he likes Eastern Orthodox things better, why didn't he join one of those schismatic churches instead?"

Mark, I really am not going to take back those initial reactions, because (without the emotion attached to them) they are valid.

At this point in your spiritual life, you really have no business trying to "change" the Church. Your place is to let God and his Church "change" you. Later on, when you cease to be a "baby Catholic" and reach some greater maturity, then maybe you can seek to "change" what you perceive to need amending. However, that maturity and an increase in wisdom will probably lead you no longer to want to change things, for you will have developed a greater appreciation for the present state of affairs. By then, you will realize that, along with the spiritual insights our separated Eastern brethren have, they also are burdened by some serious errors, including the idea that "ekonomia" can be applied to divorce/remarriage situations.

As I said, my initial reaction was emotional, but I decided not to come down on you like a ton of bricks, because I could see that you have been laboring under some misconceptions. You are mistakenly thinking that something that is unchangeable moral doctrine is merely "Church law" (which is changeable). I saw this you the following words of yours:

"... I understand completely the difference between what the Church law is and what I think the Church law should be ...
"... I understand that you and I disagree very strongly about what the Church law as regards marriage and divorce should be ..."

No, Mark. This has never been a disagreement about "Church law" (i.e., the disciplines in Canon Law and elsewhere, which are subject to change). Here we are talking about the fact that a person cannot remain in an ongoing arrangement of adultery (mortal sin) and still receive the sacraments. That is not the result of an ecclesial discipline, but is something forbidden by God himself -- as we can see in his revelation of the gospels and St. Paul to the Corinthians. This fact is made clear by Pope John Paul II, being restated by the bishops of Pennsylvania (and probably many other bishops around the world, whose words I do not have time to seek).

You wrote: "I believe that Holy Spirit can guide the Church to change for the better, just as it did in Vatican II. If someone was the kind of Catholic who believed that the Church could not change, or that it is wrong to want the Church to change, then I could see how that might tend to make that person want to blur those two concepts, even subconsciously. But I'm not that kind of Catholic, so that is not a problem I am having. I have no trouble being an agent for change."

When speaking of the Church "chang[ing] ... in Vatican II," it is always necessary to say that the Church's doctrine did not "change." The Council's documents reflect a gradual development of doctrine that had been occurring over a long period of time. But nothing that had previously been taught on faith or morality was suddenly contradicted by the Church. On the other hand, in the conciliar and post-conciliar documents, including Canon Law, there has been considerable change in disciplinary rules. But that is irrelevant to the subject we are discussing here, because disciplines cannot trump divine revelation. The Church has no authority to authorize the desecration of Christ's Body and Blood by people who have decided to continue committing objectively mortal sin.

You continued: "It is yet a third topic as to whether the Eastern Orthodox church is improper in its treatment of marriage and divorce. In this regard, it is important to notice that the Eastern Orthodox practices date back to the canons of St. Basil the Great (329-379)."

As "Great" as St. Basil was, his opinions would not override papal teachings. Moreover, according to my reading of the linked site, the Basilian canons do not make it explicitly clear that the saint approved of the divorce-with-remarriage-with-sacraments now tolerated by Eastern Orthodoxy. On the contrary, the most explicit statement, for our purposes, is this:
"Canon LXXVII. He that divorces his wife, and marries another, is an adulterer; and according to the canons of the Fathers, he shall be a mourner one year, a hearer two years, a prostrator three years, a co-stander one year, if they repent with tears."
At the linked site, the canons listed are said to have been "approved by name in Canon II of the Synod of Trullo." But that Eastern-only synod (of 692) -- which I think was very insulting to the pope -- is not recognized by Church as having any authority.

Mark, you wrote: "... it is my understanding that a marriage tribunal can return three responses: (1) the marriage is valid; (2) the marriage is invalid; or (3) there is not enough evidence to determine whether the marriage is valid or not. It is my claim that the internal forum solution relates to the third case only."

Well, this helps to explain the problem. Your "understanding" is not correct. A tribunal cannot leave a petitioner and respondent in "limbo," wondering if their union is valid or not. There can be only a declaration of nullity or validity -- and the tribunal begins with the presumption of validity. The document from the Pennsylvania bishops states that the Church rejects the idea, proferred by some, that sometimes "there is not enough evidence to determine whether the marriage is valid or not." That is precisely why there is never a need to resort to an IFS.

Mark, from your second message ... "... you [John] wrote for me to 'accept the pope's clear teachings and rulings on improperly cohabiting couples.' I have to ask: Do you believe that there is some doctrine that says that all Church teachings are or must be 'clear'?"

Whether or not all Church teachings are clear to all people is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is that the pope's "teachings and rulings," quoted by me, are "clear." Moreover, the constant, two-millenia-old, magisterial tradition of Catholicism is reflected in the Pennsylvania bishops' document, which too is crystal "clear." What we find, though, is that people who want to disagree with a clear Church teaching find ways to pretend that it is not clear. They search for loopholes and ways to "nuance" words in their favor (actually disfavor). Please do not, Mark, join in with this crowd of dissenters. Don't get your life as a Catholic off to a bad start.

Next, Mark, you mocked my explanation of Msgr. Pompedda's comment, saying: "So your viewpoint is that the Church's teachings are clear, except that we have to twist the meanings of individual words from their common usage to obtain this clear teaching?"
Then you gave your own paraphrase of his statement: "'There are criteria for the legitimate use of the internal forum solution, but although it is theoretically possible for those criteria to be satisfied, it would be extremely rare for those criteria to be satisfied in an actual situation.' All I'm trying to do is find out what those criteria are."

You are unjustifiably putting words into his mouth -- words that he did not speak. Let us look again at -- not what Msgr. P said -- but a translation of what he said: "... it would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent."

Thus, he does not say that there are cases for an ISF, but that someone may be able to hypothesize about cases. This man, with his vast experience does not even know of any such cases -- yet you are sure they exist! He cannot even give an example of such a case, because he knows of none. This means that the situations that others would put forward as being legitimate are actually not. The Monsignor knows of them, but he does not mention them. Thus, they cannot be among the "rare" cases about which someone could "purely academic[ally] ... hypothesize."

You then wrote: "Despite [the] assertion to the contrary, the canon lawyers and tribunal judges on the Yahoo group CatholicsRemarry talk about the three possible outcomes. ... In this case, if it is not possible to obtain additional evidence, then I think that IFS may be used."

I'm sorry, but I have to repeat that those canonists are wrong. The Pennsylvania bishops' document makes this clear, referring to certain canons. If you have trouble accepting what they have written, then I recommend that you attempt to discuss this with the most important and brilliant of these bishops, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia, who is both a civil and canon lawyer. Here is his e-mail address: archbish@adphila.org

Mark, you quoted a passage from "Catholic Digest." Actually, that magazine (like "Reader's Digest") quotes excerpts from books and other magazines. In this case, the quotation is from a pro-ISF book published by Paulist Press. Did you notice, on another thread, that I recently explained that this publishing house cannot be trusted as a source of orthodoxy? The same is true of "Catholic Digest," which sometimes reprints things from questionable sources. That is why I cut off my subscription to it, years ago.

The article you quoted relies on a CDF statement made in 1973, which says, "In regard to admission of sacraments, ... pastors of souls [can act] ... by applying to the solution of such cases ... the Church's approved practice in the Internal Forum."
In response to this, you stated: "All I want to know is what the Church's approved practice is."

But you do know it, perhaps without realizing it. It is to separate or to live as "brother and sister." The author of the Paulist Press book, however, wrongly assumes (or pretends) that the Church has OK'd an ISF that would allow adultery to continue along with reception of the sacraments.

Mark, you then quoted from the venerable "Catholic Encyclopedia" on "Ecclesiastical Forum":
"Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. 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."

But this quotation does not really help anyone who dissents from the pope and "agitates" [your word] for an ISF. The CE just states that a couple may feel in their conscience that their "marriage" is null and void, but it is nevertheless "binding" because their feeling is not borne out by facts ("judicial proofs"). It is not enough to feel something in one's "conscience," because that conscience may not be properly formed and can too easily be misled by emotions and pressures of various kinds.

Thanks for the debate. I doubt that we can proceed further at this point. I urge you to slow down, as I mentioned at the top of this message, and go into "learning" mode for a good long while. There is just so much to learn, it will make your head spin.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.


John,

I want to thank you again for your response. I can tell you have my best interests at heart, and I appreciate that. You're doing a lot of good work on this forum, in helping me (and many others) learn more about the Catholic faith.

BUT (and you knew there was a "but" coming), I have to state that I disagree with a lot of what you said. Some of it I disagree with quite strongly. I do agree that I don't see much point in discussing the issue much further.

I intend to remain in "learning mode" for a lifetime, and I'm afraid I'm not going to wait to become a fully participating Catholic until I have "learned it all". I feel that I am taking it slow; it's not like I've organized a letter-writing campaign to the Pope to change his mind on the issue of divorce and remarriage, or anything like that. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your advice and the spirit in which it is given.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 23, 2003.


John Placette,

I obviously agree with you in how you feel that divorced and remarried people who seek to reconciled with God and the Church should be treated. However, it is my opinion that any changes in this area should come from Rome, through proper channels. I feel that any priest who tries to deviate from the true teaching(*) of the Church in order implement a better policy through "priestly disobedience" is causing more problems than he is helping.

Footnote: (*) Not that we've come to any agreement on what that true teaching is.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 23, 2003.


Dear John P and Mark,

John G's answer was right on the mark.

There are those from the "touchy feely" school of misinterpretation of Church teaching who err consistantly to the side of "tolerance" and acceptance of things because they make sinners feel good. These folks get particularly testy when you point out their errors because they are "touchy feely" and do not CHOOSE to confront the authentic teaching of the Church. If you disagree with them you are self-righteous....... There are many of them out there.

If they and those whose behavior they would like us all to be FORCED to accept would spend their time seeking the truth rather than seeking souces of truth which already agree with them(duh) they would see that objectivity repects both mercy and justice, not only the sugary form of mercy which false charity oozez with and endlessly leads to error upon error.

Cease looking for ways to excuse sin and those who continue to chose to repeat their bad choices and instead encourage them to take the higher but often more difficult, more hedonistically challenged path which, in the long run leads to a culture of life rather than the easy path which leads to the culture of death via things like unjust divorce, abortion....

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.


Dear Karl,

What you say is very true. And it is just as true that many err on the opposite extreme - emphasizing justice and the letter of the law to the exclusion of mercy and compassion. Jesus never sacrificed either for the sake of the other, for the fullness of truth demands both.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 23, 2003.


Dear Paul,

The fullness of truth demands both, justice and mercy.

I do think that is the struggle we are all engaged in. An excess in either does harm.

Amen.

Thanks, Paul

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 23, 2003.


Compassion should never be dismissed.

90 percent of what I've read about the "true teachings of the church" was written by priests.

The Church is an institution, divinely guided, but led by humans.

At the top of any organization, there are people, who if asked, have to express the hardline. At the "first line supervisory level", if you will, the priests have to deal with the real world. The priests have to mold and shape peoples lives. These are the people they hear confessions from have Sunday dinner with.

True repentance and Love of God has nothing to do with man made rules. I'm not talking about Doctrines of Faith, but disciplines and procedures.

My point is: if the legal, canon law, scholars are in debate over issues, the priests know it. They are more versed in it than we. You don't think there are internal memos to the priests. Guess again.

After all, when a "rookie" priest walks out of the seminary, he has a master's degree, at least.

What disturbs me is the opinions that priests are doing wrong by taking compassionate measures for their people. That is the most absurd idea. Priests know what they are doing.

I just hate the sudduceeical "we must follow the letter of the law", not the spirit of the law, HORSE HOKEY.

Is there any written incident where Jesus condemned someone who came to him in repentance? No.

What also disturbs me is the open acceptance of repented sinners in protestant churches, and condemnation in the Catholic church. We can do better.

In my opinion, the Vatican, in particular, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, looses sight of the beautiful oak tree, while they are pruning the undergrowth.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 25, 2003.


It would seem to me that "open acceptance" without regard for the fullness of truth represents doing the best you can in the limited place you have chosen - the undergrowth - having abandoned the rich fruit of the beautiful tree which still stands firm after 2,000 years of growth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 25, 2003.

I know Karl has in mind for special correction all who fail to condemn his own hobby horse, remarriage after annulment or divorce, under almost all circumstances. Or, any tolerance ((( by the Church?))) for these cases that extends to letting some return to the sacraments.

It is a thorny enough issue without blanket accusations. Nothing about the problem is easy for the Church or for us, the faithful.

My thinking is as follows --No new permission to receive Holy Communion, until the tribunal has given a decree allowing confession-- of a previous marriage outside the faith, --and communion afterwards. I know some Catholics came forward in the last 40 years with claims that a ''marriage had been blessed'' by some priest. I perceived this as self-serving and very dubious. I'd never bothered to research these things, and I'm no theologian.

I do emphatically believe as the gospels teach us; not all parties to these irregular marriages can be considered damned outright. It is an article of faith; we cannot know either the interior disposition of any sinner, nor what might avail them in some mysterious way of God's sanctifying grace; as long as they're baptised and in the Church. Not formal ex- communicants, sinners.

Such as to say; leave them to heaven; God's ways are not always our ways.

Christ said of the woman who washed His holy feet with her tears and dried them with her long hair; ''Because she has loved much, much shall be forgiven her''.

We ought to hope the same extends to any sinner, even a public sinner. To me, that is the only true criterion; how much does a person; a sinner-- LOVE Our Holy Savior? It makes a world of difference between one sinner and the next.

John Gecik & I had a brief discussion lately; during which he argued no sinner was truly capable of a spiritual communion; or something to the effect that such prayer is unable to bring sanctifying grace into the soul.

I sincerely believe only God can say for sure. I would hope the truth is; it depends on how much that sinner LOVES God.

The catechism is not designed to give us long counter-arguments in these matters. Only contemplation can lead souls to entertain such ideas. And, contemplation of God is holy, no matter who is contemplating, a sinner or a saint. IMHO--~

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 25, 2003.


Only God is perfect, we are all imperfect sinners. We strive towards perfection, to the best of our ability, as part of a daily on-going struggle. God knows we're sinners, he understands our human-ness. If our Church openly judged and condemned all sinners, not just the ones who were in irregular marriages, how many of us could sit in the pews? Is this unforgiving, uncompassionate attitude what Jesus taught? Not at all! Neither does the Church. He came for sinners. In order that people come to know God, they must not only be tolerated, but positively encouraged to go to Church. Who are any of us to say that someone isn't good enough to to to Church? How does someone not going to Church bring them any closer to God? Nobody is condoning sin, but we are to love the sinner. To do otherwise is not an option. I'm not saying that people in a state of mortal sin should be allowed reception of the Eucharist, but that they should still be encouraged to join in with the faithful in whatever other way they can.

I am by no manner anywhere near sainthood. I think if truth be told few of us are. When I say: 'Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed', I mean it, I am NOT worthy.

Perhaps before judging others we should say 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

The Lord IS compassion and love: slow to anger and rich in mercy!

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 25, 2003.


The fruit of the Gospel of Tolerance is evidenced in the recent fiasco in New York, attended by many Catholic dignitaries who publically support the Catholic Rudy Giuliani in his 3rd marriage, with his best man being his 17yr old son from marriage #2.

His first marriage was annulled, no doubt Cardinal Egan will see to it that, for the good of the faith, his second will be annulled. Then he can live happily ever after, until the love wears out, with his Judy.

Marriage has become a meaningless institution, no small thanks to the good work of the Catholic Church. I can absolutly understand why so many live together with their lovers, have children and swap partners like buying/selling a house, practice birth control, have abortions etc.. the Church gets what it deserves.

In time the Church will see the hand of God clean it up.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.


We have no Gospel of Tolerance, Karl.

In the U.S. we have private lives; and if it were any of our business how other people skirt the divorce issues, it still wouldn't be the Church's gospel. Why can't you let it go?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.


When the Church gets out of the encouraging adultery business, I will.

For that matter why does it not stop crying about abortion? At least in that sin the victim goes to heaven after a short period of torture. The rate of catholic abortion, I believe, is no different than that of the general public, so why then does not the Church just forget it? Maybe it can grant annulments to those who have had abortions for lack of sufficient discretion? Then they would not have to go to confession at all. It would only be a venial sin.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.


Karl, I really thought up to now I was talking to a Catholic, and a thinking man.

You are openly blaspheming against the Holy Catholic Church. You can't be in communion with her and still blame her for adulteries. You can't be a Catholic and trivialize abortions, and much less with a judgment of what sins are venial and which are mortal. I call it mortal sin to rise up against the Pope and the Church. You are sinning in this forum, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.


Have you ever noticed in the ten commandments, honoring your parents comes BEFORE the prohibition on murder?

So the honoring of parents would come before abortion, as abortion is murder.

How in the hell does the Catholic Church not see the demons it is inviting into the Church with its wholesale encouraging of divorce and remarriage as it is currently practiced. Who are the parents in these multiply blended families and how blind can the Catholic Church be to what it is encouraging?

Paul VI was right when he said evil had entered the Church. It is alive and thriving in the tribunal system through a Papal blind eye. God help us.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwe@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.


A fancy statement, Karl. Coming from a banal mind.

You see the trees, but not the forest. ''--the Church with its wholesale encouraging of divorce and remarriage,'' --IN YOUR OPINION! Your sick opinion, furnished with sick arguments proceeding from a sick faith!!!

The Catholic Church doesn't encourage divorce and remarriage. It encourages Holy Matrimony and prayer in our families. What Gulag did you escape from?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.


Not opinion, Eugene. Fact.

Banal- lacking freshness, vigor.

My position- the Church needs to reexamine its 800,000+ annulments over the past 20 years in view of statistics which question them. That is freshness and vigor.

The Church position- Do not confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!

Anal- Church's position. Can't get its intellect from where the sun doesn't shine. Not blaspemous, but realistic. Who is it that refuses to revisit the old cases?

You are blind my friend and part of the problem.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.


I wonder when somebody states ''My position'' and it's opposed to the Church of the apostles. You place yourself on a par with the successors of the apostles? I meant banal as in pedestrian, trite; and juxtaposed to your opening rhetoric, ''. . .in the ten commandments, honoring your parents comes BEFORE the prohibition on murder? So the honoring of parents would come before abortion, as abortion is murder;'' You open as if you had the power of God's ten commandments, and go on to a banality. How banal do you sink?

Anal- Church's position. Can't get its intellect from where the sun doesn't shine. Not blaspemous, but realistic.''

Why are you coming on like an exterminating angel; when you use scatological language to refer to the Holy Catholic Church?

In our apostle's Creed, we confess faith in her; I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,'' You find her ''anal''. Enough said. You can't backtrack from that one. REALISTIC? Hmmm; banal and anal; can he really be both?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 27, 2003.


9. While maintaining the distinction between the magisterial and jurisdictional functions, certainly in ecclesial society the judicial power also emanates from the more general “potestas regiminis,” which in fact belongs to the Church by divine institution” (c. 129, §1), and is divided into three, namely, the “legislative, executive and judicial” (c. 135, §1). 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. 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” (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” (c. 87, JPII

-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 02, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Eugene.

Thank you for opposing the improper things that "Karl" suddenly started to say about the Church and her leaders. (As he has proved several times, he can keep a civil tongue for a while, but eventually he loses his cool and lets the pent-up, anti-Catholic poison spill out, which is one of two reasons why I regret to see him posting here.) He wrote all of the following:
--- "no doubt Cardinal Egan will see to it that, for the good of the faith, [Rudy's] second [marriage] will be annulled."
--- "Marriage has become a meaningless institution, no small thanks to the good work of the Catholic Church."
--- "The Church gets what it deserves."
--- "When the Church gets out of the encouraging adultery business ..."
--- "How in the hell does the Catholic Church not see the demons it is inviting into the Church with its wholesale encouraging of divorce and remarriage ...
--- "... how blind can the Catholic Church be to what it is encouraging?"
--- "Paul VI was right when he said evil had entered the Church. It is alive and thriving in the tribunal system through a Papal blind eye."

Gene, I want to post a clarification on your comment about our recent exchange. You wrote:
"John Gecik & I had a brief discussion lately; during which he argued no sinner was truly capable of a spiritual communion; or something to the effect that such prayer is unable to bring sanctifying grace into the soul."

Notice that you referred to "no sinner". That's not really what I said. What I said was that I had heard/read, on multiple occasions, that the Church teaches something akin to the following ...
A person who is an ongoing state of unabsolvable mortal sin (e.g., adultery in an irregular "marriage") -- that is, someone who cannot sacramentally return to a state of sanctifying grace -- is not able to receive increases of sanctifying grace (through repentance, good works, prayer, etc.) nor to receive sacramental graces (e.g., through "spiritual communions," etc.). Such a person can receive only "actual graces" -- gentle divine aids toward repentance and a correction of the bad situation.

I won't go so far as to say that this person should stop praying, should stop doing good works, and should stop desiring to make "spiritual communions" -- because I believe that it is taught that the fruits of all these past actions can later be reaped if the ongoing mortal sin finally stops being committed. So I agree with Sara, who wrote (as the pope has taught):
"... people in a state of mortal sin ... should still be encouraged to join in with the faithful in whatever other way they can" [i.e., "other" than receiving Communion].

My point is that, although such people may help others, they themselves cannot benefit spiritually -- i.e., in an immediate way -- from the seeming good that they do, if they are in mortal sin.
I was recently reminded of something similar. You know that each sacrament, including Marriage, has specific "sacramental graces" attached to it. As I was reminded, the sacramental graces of Marriage are withheld by God even from a previously unmarried person who exchanges vows while in a state of mortal sin (e.g., someone who has committed perjury or gotten an abortion). These withheld graces are later received if the sin is confessed and absolved. I believe that the same thing happens in the case of people who are involved in irregular "marriages" and who choose the path of ongoing adultery. I hope that they will renounce their adultery some day, confess their sins, and then receive all the withheld graces.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 06, 2003.


top....

Truth --never too much...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 02, 2003.


--further illuminating this topic, I will start posting some 'pastoral' links regarding fellow Catholics who seem to 'misunderstand' our Pope's & Church's position on this Internal Forum thing in the hope that what is going on unabated in the 'well to do' pastoral circles here in North America may one day cease being perpetuated...

You too, like me, may contact these well meaning individuals and thier superiors and 'thank' them for pastoral service above and beyond the call...

-----------------------------------

Here is the first link: Roman Catholic Diocese of Great Falls-Billings Montana - 'Marriage' Policy

Interesting that one goal of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Great Falls-Billings Montana is: "1. To enable couples approaching the Catholic Christian community of faith for Christian marriage to realize the sacred nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony..."

One way this goal is apparently accomplished is via "INTERNAL FORUM OR CONSCIENCE SOLUTION " and I quote from thier website:

Q. INTERNAL FORUM OR CONSCIENCE SOLUTION

The Internal Forum or Conscience solution is a pastoral response to a situation in which a judicial decision cannot be reached in regards to a person’s previous marriage. It is not “granted” by the priest, but is a decision made, with the help of a confessor, by the person in a presently “irregular” marriage because of his/her need for the grace of the sacraments. The internal forum solution is to be used only after the external forum (Marriage Tribunal) has been tried, and for some reason it is impossible to reach a decision. Because an internal forum solution is a matter of conscience, certain points must be kept in mind: 1. It is not a private determination that the first marriage was null. A marriage is presumed to be valid until it is proven otherwise in the external forum. The internal forum solution is a determination by the party that in conscience he or she can receive the sacraments in spite of being in an externally irregular marriage.

2. Because it is an internal forum matter, there can be no celebration of a rite in the external forum. An internal forum solution does not make it possible to “bless” (even if this blessing is not a convalidation) the person’s present marriage.

3. Internal forum solutions are not to be recorded in the marriage register. Marriage records are public documents in which celebrations in the external forum are recorded. Since the internal forum solution is tantamount to confessional matter, there can be no public record.

-----------------------------------

The Diocese headed by Most Rev. Anthony M. Milone is truly, and I quote from thier home page, "working together in Eastern Montana to forge new dimensions in our church.

hmmm....

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 02, 2003.


--continuuing the illumination... another group of 'pastoral' links to fellow Catholics who seem to 'misunderstand' our Pope's & Church's position on this Internal Forum thing... My hope; -that what is going on unabated in the 'well to do' pastoral circles here in North America may one day cease being perpetuated...

Again; you too, like me, may contact these well meaning individuals and thier superiors and 'thank' them for pastoral service above and beyond the call...

-----------------------------------

Here is another link: < b>Faith in Action — Catholics Coming Home Ministry

-and I quote: "Confused Catholic? Inactive Catholic?

If you've been away from the Church, or are drifting away from it, if you've been hurt by the Church or are confused or angry because of your "Catholic experience," please consider this invitation to come and talk with us. Contact Carrie Kemp, Catholics Coming Home Ministry"

Carrie Kemp is the co-author (with her current husband) of the book used in this 'pastoral' ministry: "Catholics Can Come Home Again - A Guide for the Journey of Reconciliation With Inactive Catholics

I guess this Ministry will enable Catholics to come 'home' and become 'active' by easing thier confusion? Here are some quotes from Carrie Kemp's paraphrase of her book's contents (find them here: "Why Annulments?" -by: Carrie Kemp) regarding the Faith in Action she no doubt employs at the Basilica of Saint Mary and in her work as a field advocate for the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis marriage tribunal:

"No discussion of annulments is complete without accurate information about the internal forum."

hmmm... ????

--and further we learn:

"Sometimes called “the good-conscience decision,” the internal forum relies on the good conscience of the individual in cooperation with a priest, mentor, or spiritual guide. As with the external forum, it is imperative that the petitioner understand and initiate the process. Deeply rooted in our Church’s tradition and history, it should be administered with charity, gentleness, and deep regard for the seeker’s spiritual journey.

It is with deep, spiritual conviction that one should approach the internal forum. A problem may arise in finding a priest who is willing to participate in the forum with the same degree of commitment. Many priests are hesitant to participate at all; others feel it demands too much of their time. Still others consider it an invalid process or will admit they have been taught very little about it.

The internal forum is not some back-room escape for privileged Catholics; it is the right of every Catholic. The official Church position is cited in a directive from the Vatican’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, issued on April 11, 1973: “In regard to admission of sacraments, local bishops are asked on the one hand to stress observance of current discipline, and on the other hand to take care that pastors of souls exercise special care to seek out those who are living in an irregular union by applying to the solution of such cases, in addition to other rightful means, the Church’s approved practice in the Internal Forum.”

It is important in the internal forum to avoid scandal. Since there is no public declaration regarding the sacramentality of a prior marriage, therefore, a future marriage cannot be celebrated in the Church. The individual is considered a fully participating Catholic in every sense of the word, even if they marry in a civil or Protestant ceremony. In no way is a subsequent marriage to be considered invalid."

"In no way is a subsequent marriage to be considered invalid" ????

"Still others consider it an invalid process..." -others, like our Pope and those in Rome? hmmm... this is quite interesting 'stuff' -apparently Carrie has something to teach us all?

-----------------------------------

In my opinion, the Basilica of Saint Mary is on the cutting edge of pastoral care. Two additional examples of faith in action are the "MOMS" group and the "Relationship Loss Support Group"

Read the following link for information on MOMS groups that suggest these groups are not Catholic and even anti-Catholic in teaching:

"Ministry of Mothers Sharing (MOMS)"

-and I quote: "The Resources for On-Going MOMS Groups lists works by radical feminist writers such as Sister Joan Chittister, OSB (Wisdom Distilled from the Daily), Sister Miriam Therese Winter (The Gospel According to Mary, A New Testament for Women), and Wendy Wright (Sacred Dwelling, Forest of Peace)."

As to relationship loss, quoting from thier web site Faith in Action — Pastoral Care:

"Relationship Loss Support Group

The Downtown Coalition of Churches, of which the Basilica is a member, sponsors a relationship loss support group that meets for a series of sessions several times a year. This support group is for people who are experiencing the loss of a marriage or committed heterosexual or same-sex relationship."

hmmm... A marriage 'relationship' that is lost is a tradgedy for the family and our Church and our Church should support this as a loss; however, in my opinion, our Church should not support the concept that a 'loss' of a "committed heterosexual or same-sex relationship" is a loss!!! -- According to Church teaching it is a gain -a gain in grace AND a step closer to God...

Anyway, there is never enough 'pastoral' care and Catholic Charities is helping to fill in the 'gaps' in this parish too, as quoted from the same web page that contained the invaluable "Relationship Loss Support Group" information:

"Catholic Charities Office for Separated and Divorced

The "The Catholic Charities Office for Separated and Divorced" offers information on support groups, mediation and legal services, programs for parents and children, and other services of interest to separated and divorced people."

Is Catholic Charities (a supposedly Catholic organization) 'assisting' in Divorce -something our Pope strongly suggested Catholic lawyers disengage from?

Faith in Action? hmmm...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 05, 2003.


-+-topping for john...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 05, 2003.


-bump...

-feel free to add info...

D////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 31, 2004.


bump for Mark

Truth contained in the discussion and conclusions is self evident

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 04, 2004.


Just last month I completed a program in the Diocese of Arlington Virginia for separated and divorced Catholics.

Although the Lord's Prayer was recited at the end, the rest of it was a complete relativistic exercize devoted to selfism cloaked in personal rehabilitation. The facilitator sat their and repeatedly morally equated fidelity in divorce (my position) with the confessions of extra-marital relationships by the men their justifying themselves as their wives were not showing them love.

It was very sad indeed. At the same time, I know of programs in protestant churches where the first thing they bring out are the Gospel teachings on marriage.

I wish my church here in America...

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 07, 2004.


The thread above is quite good. Probably because I was not involved in most of it.

Much turns on the use of the term "practically" by the then Dean of the Rota (I borrow the following from JFG above):

The words quoted from "Monsignor Mario F. Pompedda, now Dean of the Rota," were these: "... it would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent."

I believe that you have misunderstood Msgr. Pompedda's use of the word "practically." It is not to be taken, as we so often mean it in colloquial English, as a synonym for "nearly, almost." Rather, it is to be taken [as the Pennsylvania bishops knew] in the more formal meaning of "practically speaking -- i.e., in real-life practice." Thus, we can paraphrase the Monsignor as having meant, "... such would be so rare that, in real-life practice, they should be considered nonexistent."

I, Pat Delaney, think that the Dean's use of the term "practically", however it is interpreted, still arrives at the same conclusion. The Internal Forum Solution that can actually be applied in good conscience after properly accessing the External Forum would be such a rare thing indeed, that in modern times (post 1983), it now serves merely as a temptation toward rationalization of sinful practices.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 08, 2004.


I have to respectfully disagree with the "purely academic" portion of Msgr. Pompedda's comment. I think that having a precise, official list of the conditions under which the internal forum applied would be of great use in convincing those who currently abuse the internal forum that they are acting outside the bounds of what is valid. I'm sure the list would not only contain subjective criteria, but objective criteria as well that would weed out a large number of abuses.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

Mark,

The only way the Internal Forum could be properly accessed as you describe, and as the Monsignor comments, is AFTER the External Forum has been accessed.

In properly accessing the External Forum first, the petitioner would have needed to produce all the evidence for nullity known to the Petitioner that would, in the good conscience of the Petitioner, justify the Internal Forum if then External Forum tribunal then refused to consider the petition or decided for validity.

Chances are that the External Forum would accept the Petition, and then grant nullity, thus rendering the Internal Forum issue moot. However, on the chance that the External Forum tribunal found for validity, but the Petitioner, in good conscience, knew that the External Forum was wrong. Then that Petitioner would still NEED to first take the case to the Rota before accessing the Internal Forum. The Rota would then need to make the same mistake or a similar mistake as the lower tribunal and refuse to grant nullity.

Of course, the Petitioner would then NEED to take the case directly to the Holy Father. If the Holy Father decided for validity, the Internal Forum could probably never be accessed. However, if the Holy Father decided not to review the case personally, and then the Petitioner knew...for sure...why the lower tribunal was wrong in holding for validity, and why the Rota was wrong in holding for validity. Well...in this single hypothetical circumstance, then and only then would the Internal Forum be properly accessed.

It just ain't gonna happen. Its more likely that a monkeys will type Macbeth on a type-writer by accident first.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), March 09, 2004.


It just ain't gonna happen.

I'm not sayin' it is.

I just think that if Msgr. Pompedda or some other curial official were to write down the things you mention as (objectively verifiable) criteria for the proper use of the internal forum, and every bishop had these criteria in their marriage policies, then abuse of the internal forum would greatly decrease by the constant reference to the rigorous official standards. That's all.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.


dust clearing bump

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 06, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ