FORO. – The Latin term forum or forus originally indicated the place or external space of the house, or even the vestibule surrounding tombs. Later it designated the place where the market was held, which could also be a private place in the fields or along the roads; hence the centers of cities, or those situated along the great roads of communication, where the inhabitants gathered for both private and public affairs (that is, to hold markets, conduct assemblies or elections, receive communication of the laws, celebrate ceremonies, and request and obtain the administration of justice), came to be called f. This latter meaning subsequently became predominant, and f. came simply to designate the place where judicial disputes are settled—that is, the place where jurisdiction is exercised—or even the sphere of that jurisdiction; hence it also came to mean the competent tribunal, and finally jurisdiction itself (cf. Paulus Diaconus [ed. C. O. Müller, Leipzig 1839], p. 84, 9). To preserve for the word f. a proper meaning distinct from jurisdiction, it is appropriate to say that the f. is the sphere or domain within which jurisdiction is contained and exercised, or the place, seat, or competent authority for settling a particular kind of dispute or regulating a particular kind of affair. In this way the f. is also distinguished from competence: the former is, as has been said, the place—not only materially but also formally understood—of jurisdiction; competence, on the other hand, is the portion of jurisdiction assigned to a particular organ or person.
Both the Church and the State are invested with the power of jurisdiction or government; this power, however, is contained within a determinate sphere, which is called the f.; hence there is an ecclesiastical and a civil f.
The ecclesiastical f. alone has authority to judge: 1) cases concerning spiritual things or things attached to the spiritual; 2) violations of ecclesiastical laws and the determination of the sinful character of an act, in relation to the establishment of guilt and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties; 3) all contentious or criminal cases concerning persons who enjoy the privilege of the f. according to canon law (can. 1553 § 1). In cases called cases of mixed f., that is, cases falling within the common competence of the Church and the State, the principle of prior cognizance applies: judgment is given by whichever authority, ecclesiastical or civil, was first seized of the case (can. 1553 § 2).
In Italy, through the Lateran Pacts, full juridical effect, including all civil effects, has been recognized for judgments and measures issued by ecclesiastical authorities and officially communicated to the civil authorities, concerning ecclesiastical or religious persons and relating to spiritual or disciplinary matters (Treaty, art. 23; Concordat, arts. 5 and 20). It is further recognized that cases concerning the nullity of marriage and dispensation from a ratified and non-consummated marriage are reserved to the competence of ecclesiastical tribunals and dicasteries. As regards cases of personal separation, the Holy See permits them to be judged by the civil tribunals (Concordat, art. 34; law of 27 May 1949, no. 847).
Whereas in civil law f. commonly means the tribunal or the judicial function, in canon law the word f. retains instead its broader meaning, as defined above. Thus, according to the diversity of the ends it pursues, the sphere in which it operates, and the manner in which it is exercised, there is a jurisdiction of the external f. and a jurisdiction of the internal f. (the external f. is also called forum fori, because in it actions are considered under their public or social aspect; the internal f., or f. of conscience, is also called forum poli because it concerns the eternal salvation of individual faithful, and eternal salvation is, as it were, the pole of souls). The jurisdiction of the external f. is directly directed toward promoting and defending the public good, that is, the good of the community of the faithful, and toward regulating their social activity; the jurisdiction of the internal f., on the other hand, is directly directed toward spiritual good, that of individuals, and therefore concerns their private actions insofar as they relate to their conscience and eternal life.
This distinction does not exist in civil law, because the civil authority always exercises its power for the good of society, and only indirectly for private good. In the Church, however, this twofold power is a consequence arising from her very nature. She is, in fact, a spiritual and supernatural society, constituted for the salvation of human beings; and, in order to attain salvation, human beings need not only an authority that directs them all together and socially, but also direction of individuals according to the particular conditions and circumstances of each. Civil society finds the family already constituted by nature, and the family provides directly, in the natural order, for the good of individuals; the Church, on the other hand, as a supernatural society, finds no society or organ constituted in this order to care for individuals; consequently, care for them directly also belongs to her.
The jurisdiction of the external f. is exercised publicly and has juridical effects, whereas the jurisdiction of the internal f. is exercised privately and, in itself, has no public effect.
Since the jurisdiction of the external f. concerns the external relations of subjects with society and has the common good as its purpose, it may be called, and truly is, also within the Church, a properly human power; the power of the internal f., on the other hand, which concerns the relations of souls with God and has as its purpose the salvation and sanctification of souls, a divine work, is an essentially divine power. It follows that the former is a power proper to the Church, and she is its principal agent; the latter, however, is exercised by the Church as God’s vicariate: the principal agent in its exercise is indeed God himself, in whose place the Church, or her ministers, act, and only when it concerns positive ecclesiastical law is the power of the internal f. also proper to the Church. Both are of divine institution. The power of jurisdiction in the external f. does not formally concern divine law as such, but everything directed toward the social end of the Church; nevertheless, since, for this end, it may be useful to command or prohibit even what is already imposed or forbidden by divine law, something that was previously obligatory only before God may also be made obligatory in the external f. and before ecclesiastical society. It follows that the jurisdiction of the external f. is principally directed ad ligandum, whether by extending to the ecclesiastical f. precepts or prohibitions that previously belonged only to the divine f., or by promulgating laws or issuing commands by virtue of the power entrusted to ecclesiastical authority. Since, however, ecclesiastical laws also bind in conscience, what binds in the f. of the Church also binds before God. The power of the internal f., on the other hand, formally concerns divine law, meaning by this not only norms established directly by God, but also the obligations that positive human laws produce in conscience. The power of the internal f. is therefore principally ordered ad solvendum—not divine law, but the obligation that, through human action, has been contracted before God: through sin, an oath, a vow, etc., or the obligation that has arisen before God from ecclesiastical law (cf. L. Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 3rd ed., I, Rome 1809, pp. 456–66). The very precepts that can be imposed in the internal f., such as sacramental Penance, the work into which a vow is commuted, etc., are directed toward dissolving the bond contracted in the divine f.
The jurisdiction of the external f. differs, as has been said, from that of the internal f. as public good differs from private good. Nevertheless, given that the public goo-
public authority could not be conceived without the good of individuals, and the good of individuals cannot dispense with the common good, it is not always easy to distinguish what pertains to one or the other. The difficulty is even greater in the Church, where it happens that the good of a single soul concerns the whole society. It may nevertheless be said that the following belong to the internal forum: a) all actions insofar as they are considered under the aspect of sin, hence also crimes, not insofar as they disturb society, but insofar as they disturb the conscience; b) all occult actions, so long as they remain occult (when they become public they pass to the external forum if by their nature they belong to it); c) faculties directly directed to the good of individual souls: thus, the faculty to preach is directly intended to persuade each individual of Catholic truth; the faculty to absolve is directed toward the forgiveness of individuals’ faults. The following belong to the external forum: a) legislative, judicial, and executive power; b) the power to grant the faculty to preach and to absolve, etc., because it is directly a matter of public utility that ministers be designated to preach, absolve, etc. Just as the object is different, so in one forum and the other the manner of proceeding is different: in the internal forum proceedings are secret and coram Deo, in the external forum public and coram Ecclesia. Given the distinction between public and private utility and between one forum and the other, there may be persons invested with power in the internal forum without jurisdiction in the external forum, such as, for example, parish priests; and conversely there may be persons invested with jurisdiction in the external forum without power in the internal forum. Nevertheless, according to can. 202 § 3, unless the contrary is established, jurisdiction is understood to have been granted for both forums. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in fact, by its nature permeates both forums, but the will of the grantor or the very nature of the grant may restrict its scope to one alone: thus, for example, the power to absolve may be limited to the internal forum; the power to judge limits jurisdiction to the external forum. An act performed by virtue of the power of jurisdiction (whether ordinary or delegated is immaterial) in the external forum has full effect also in the internal forum (can. 202 § 1); conversely, an act of jurisdiction granted solely for the internal forum has effect only in the latter. Therefore, if a matter defined solely in the internal forum passes to the external forum, an act of jurisdiction is required to define it also in that forum, unless the law itself provides otherwise (cf., e.g., can. 1047).
Although the external and internal forums are generally in agreement, cases of conflict may nevertheless arise when the possibility of proof in the external forum is lacking (e.g., a marriage may be null on account of lack of consent, but proof of such lack may be lacking; cf. also can. 2251). In the event of conflict, the external forum prevails, provided that its observance is possible without guilt before God; otherwise, the internal forum prevails, because divine law takes precedence over human law.
The external forum may be distinguished as judicial or extrajudicial, according as jurisdiction is or is not exercised in the form of a trial. The judicial forum may in turn be divided into contentious and criminal: the contentious forum concerns the determination of disputed rights or the declaration of juridical facts concerning physical or moral persons, whereas the criminal forum has as its object crimes in relation to punishment (can. 1552 § 2). The procedural norms are for the most part common to both proceedings, and ecclesiastical judicial bodies have civil and criminal jurisdiction.
The power of the internal forum is in turn divided into sacramental (formerly also called penitential) and extra-sacramental: the former can be exercised only in the sacrament of Penance or on the occasion of II. This is the case, by divine law, with the remission of sins, and, by ecclesiastical law, in cases in which the power to dispense or to absolve from a penalty is delegated to confessors during the act of confession (cf. cann. 1044, 2250 § 3, 2254, 2290); the latter extends to all acts which, while remaining within the sphere of the internal forum, can be performed outside the sacrament of Confession: such as dispensations from vows, irregularities, and occult censures, etc.