This is the second post in a very on-and-mostly-off-again series on the current topic of divorced and remarried Catholics and reception of the Eucharist. You can find the first post here: Pushing Out into Deep Waters

The Offices of the Bishop. The three classic roles of a bishop are teaching, sanctification and governance. As the church considers the idea of communion for the divorced and remarried, there will be a great deal of discussion of this topic which in one way or the other will actively touch upon each one of the three roles. And the discussion will come from folks far more qualified than I to offer an informed opinion. And the discussion will be laced with language particular to the Church: e.g., external forum and internal forum.

The External Forum. Perhaps too simplistically, the external forum, as it pertains to marriage cases, is the diocesan tribunal and its attending annulment process. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) host the “For Your Marriage” website on which you can read information about formal annulments. In short, the Church assumes that all marriage are valid and that when people married they were doing what God intended. The annulment process, done well, is an opportunity to dialogue about that assumption and for the petitioner to offer reasons and evidence what the actual marriage in question was not what God intended. As a priest, my experience with two diocesan tribunals is that they are wonderful models of pastoral sensitivity as they go about their canonical duties.

The tribunal is an extension of the Bishop’s office of governance. While privacy is maintained during the process in that only petitions and respondents (and church tribunal personnel) have access to the information, this is considered the “external forum.”

History and Context. But what about when there is inadequate information for the good exercise of the external forum? That was the case in the 1940s as bishops in the United States were actively searching for sound pastoral praxis as divorce and remarriage became more commonplace. This was particularly acute during years of the “great migration” of the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s when economic depression and war put many people on the road. There was a large migration of folks from Southern states to the industrial complexes of the Midwest and North. One of the effects was to bring traditional Baptist Southerners and un-churched folks into contact with the established and vast Catholic centers to the north. This was especially true in industrial centers such as Detroit.

The Good Faith Solution. When the validity of the prior marriage of prospective converts and candidates, after investigation, remained in doubt, the marriage tribunal issued a written “decree of good faith,” which permitted them to be received into the Church while continuing in their existing marriage if their marriage seemed stable, the couple gave assurances of good faith, and there seemed to be no danger of public scandal. This was an exercise of the “internal forum” from those in governance meeting the “forum of conscience” of the people in the remarriage situation. The “good faith” option eventually was used for Catholics in similar situations. [See R. Cary, “The Good Faith Solution,” The Jurist 29 (1969): 432–33].

The major difference between internal and external forums is the absence of publicity in the internal forum. Whether an act of governance is placed in the external or internal forum, its effect on the forum of conscience is the same. Thus in the 1940s, some bishops chose, in certain instances, to exercise their governance regarding the divorced and remarried as a matter for the internal forum.

The Internal Forum. By the 1960s, the “good faith” solution was increasingly used. Its increased use pointed to a growing appreciation of and need for pastoral consideration of the subjective circumstances of each case. During internal forum discussions, priests, having been delegated a limited governance, used the concept of “intolerable marriages” to guide the faithful in the formation of their consciences.

Intolerable marriages include ‘conflict’ situations wherein the previous marriage is invalid but it is not possible to prove this in the tribunal, i.e., there is a conflict between internal and external forums. Also included are “hardship” situations, wherein the previous marriage was canonically valid, yet there are objective reasons for not demanding that a subsequent civil marriage be broken off and there is a desire to return to sacramental and ecclesial union without abandoning the subsequent marriage. [See James H. Provost, “Intolerable Marriage Situations: A Second Decade,” The Jurist 50 (1990): 578-81]

Seeking Guidance. This lead to an exchange of letters between, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The result indicated that the internal forum practice was well established in the history of the Church. The exchange noted that there were circumstances in which full Eucharistic participation was tolerated for those in irregular marriages. [see Kenneth Himes and James Coriden, “Notes on Moral Theology 1995: Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried,” Theological Studies 57 (1996): 100-102.]

The Synod of Bishops. The 1980 Synod of Bishops endorsed a general norm of Eucharistic exclusion, but they also differentiated irregular marriages into categories similar to “intolerable marriages” and wanted pastoral solutions for these cases, namely a consideration of Penance as a means of restoring full communion in certain cases. Further, the bishops asked for study and consideration of the Eastern Church practice regarding the divorced and remarried.

Two months after the Synod, the relator, Cardinal Ratzinger, primary author of Familiaris Consortio, sent a pastoral letter to his priests in the Archdiocese of Munich-Freising in which he addresses pastoral concern for all those in irregular marriages, and in conflict situations he permitted access to the Eucharist if possible without scandal and without requiring the “brother-sister” solution. [See Provost, 587] These latter two items are noticeably absent in the papal exhortation that followed the work of the Synod.

A Couple of Things. This history is neither complete or without its gaps. But it serves to at least highlight a couple of things: (a) the use of the internal forum is well established within the Church’s history. (b) It was decided that the idea of toleration was operative in some cases. This recognizes that there are situations in which the norms for Eucharistic reception are not black-and-white. But it also points that this was not the matter for an individual’s “forum of conscience” alone. There was a necessary dialogue with the Church. And importantly, (c) Bishops were seeking viable pastoral responses that were faithful, consistent with the practice (praxis) of the Church, and was attentive to great variability in the lives of people.

Next time: Familiaris Consortio (On the role of the Christian Family in the Modern World) a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation written by Pope John Paul II and promulgated on November 22, 1981. It describes the official position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the meaning and role of marriage and the family, and outlines challenges towards realizing that ideal.