Companion library · Primary source
The procedural canons of the 1983 Code of Canon Law governing every marriage nullity case in the Latin Church — as amended by Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (Pope Francis, 15 August 2015). Verbatim Vatican English, walked canon by canon with Companion commentary for the man at the tribunal.
What this document is. The post-Mitis-Iudex text of the canons in the 1983 Code (Book VII, Part III, Title I, Chapter I) that govern the ordinary process for the declaration of marriage nullity, the briefer process before the diocesan bishop, the documentary process, and the dissolution of non-consummated marriage. These are the rules every Latin-rite tribunal applies to your case.
Why a petitioner reads it. Two reasons. First, knowing the canon that governs your present phase — what the tribunal is required to do, by when, and on what basis — converts a process that feels arbitrary into one that has a visible shape. Second, if your advocate or judicial vicar later references a canon by number, you will not be reading the Code for the first time in the moment that matters most.
What this document is not. It is not legal advice; it is not a substitute for an advocate (can. 1481); it is not the only relevant body of law (the Instruction Dignitas Connubii of 2005 governs the day-to-day practice). The Companion's role is to put the canons in your hands so you can recognize them when they appear in your case.
Section I
Canon 1671 Mitis Iudex (2015)
§1. Marriage cases of the baptized by proper right pertain to the ecclesiastical judge.
§2. Cases concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate, unless particular law establishes that the same cases, if examined incidentally and accessorily, can be examined and decided by the ecclesiastical judge.
Canon 1672 Mitis Iudex (2015)
In cases concerning the nullity of marriage which are not reserved to the Apostolic See, the following are competent: 1° the tribunal of the place where the marriage was celebrated; 2° the tribunal of the place where either or both parties have a domicile or a quasi-domicile; 3° the tribunal of the place where in fact most of the proofs must be collected.
What changed in 2015. Before Mitis Iudex, the petitioner generally had to go to the tribunal of the place of marriage or of the respondent's domicile, and the respondent had a kind of forum-shopping veto. After 2015, four equally-competent fora are named and the petitioner chooses among them — this was Pope Francis's deliberate widening of access, especially for the petitioner whose former spouse refuses to participate or whose marriage was celebrated abroad.
What it means for you. Three practical options in most cases: the diocese where the wedding happened, your diocese, or your former spouse's diocese. The fourth (where the proofs are) is more rarely invoked. If you have flexibility, the petitioner-friendly choice is usually your own diocese — the proofs (your testimony, your witnesses) are largely there, and the tribunal's intake calendar is easier to navigate when you live in the territory.
Section II
Canon 1673 Mitis Iudex (2015)
§1. In each diocese the judge of first instance for cases of nullity of marriage for which the law does not expressly make an exception is the diocesan bishop, who can exercise judicial power personally or through others, in accord with the law.
§2. The bishop is to establish for his diocese the diocesan tribunal for cases of nullity of marriage, without prejudice to the faculty of the same bishop to gain access to another nearby diocesan or interdiocesan tribunal.
§3. Cases of the nullity of marriage are reserved to a college of three judges. Such a college must be presided over by a cleric judge; the other judges may also be lay persons.
§4. The bishop moderator, if a collegial tribunal cannot be constituted in the diocese or in a nearby tribunal chosen in accord with the norm of §2, is to commit cases to a sole clerical judge who, where possible, is to employ two assessors of upright life, experts in juridical or human sciences, approved by the bishop for this task; to this same sole judge, unless something else is established, those things pertain which are attributed to the college, the praeses, or the ponens.
The headline. The diocesan bishop is the judge in every nullity case in his diocese. He delegates — that is what tribunals are. The norm is a panel of three judges; a single clerical judge with two lay assessors is the exception, permitted when a college cannot be constituted. The 2015 reform widened the lay-judge faculty to lay persons (not only laymen, but also women) and confirmed the single-judge faculty as a real, not a theoretical, option.
What it means for you. The judge who will sign your sentence is, by canon, the bishop himself or his named delegate. If you receive a letter signed by the judicial vicar, that is the bishop's properly-constituted delegate — not a substitute. The composition of the tribunal (three-judge college vs. sole judge) does not change the law applied, but it can affect the time-to-sentence: a college must deliberate, a sole judge does not.
Section III
Canon 1675 Mitis Iudex (2015)
Before he accepts a case, the judge must have the certitude that the marriage has irreparably broken down such that conjugal cohabitation cannot be restored.
The gateway. This canon is new with Mitis Iudex. The judge must reach moral certitude, before acceptance, that the marriage is irreparably ended. The Church has not opened a process to test the strength of a difficult-but-living marriage; the process is for the marriage that has, in fact, ended, and where the canonical question is whether a true sacramental bond ever existed.
What it means for you. A civil divorce, or a juridical separation that is functionally final, is normally what the tribunal looks to as evidence of this irreparability. If you are still in the home, still in active reconciliation, still in counseling pointed at restoration — the tribunal will (rightly) ask you to finish that work first.
Canon 1676 Mitis Iudex (2015)
§1. Having received the libellus, the judicial vicar, if he considers that it has some basis, is to admit it and, by decree appended to the libellus itself, is to order that a copy be communicated to the defender of the bond and, unless the libellus has been signed by both parties, to the respondent, granting the latter a period of fifteen days to express a position regarding the petition.
§2. Once the time limit established above has lapsed, after admonishing the other party again, if and to the extent he considers it necessary, to express a position, and after the defender of the bond has been heard, the judicial vicar is to determine the formula of the doubt by his decree and decide whether the case is to be treated by the ordinary process or by the briefer process. This decree is to be communicated to the parties and to the defender of the bond at once.
§3. If the case is to be treated by the ordinary process, the judicial vicar, by the same decree, is to make arrangements for the constitution of a college of judges or of a sole judge with two assessors according to the norm of can. 1673, §4.
§4. If, however, the briefer process is to be used, the judicial vicar is to proceed according to the norm of can. 1685.
§5. The formula of the doubt must determine on what ground or grounds the validity of the marriage is being challenged.
The fork in the road. Within roughly thirty days of the respondent's response (or non-response after the fifteen-day window), the judicial vicar issues a single decree that does three things at once: it fixes the dubium (the precise nullity question to be adjudicated, named by canon), it routes the case to either the ordinary process or the briefer process, and it constitutes the judges. This decree is the procedural spine of everything that follows.
What it means for you. Read the decree of joinder twice. The grounds named in §5 are the only grounds the tribunal will adjudicate. If you believe an additional ground applies — for example, the decree names lack of due discretion (can. 1095, 2°) but you also believe simulation (can. 1101, §2) applies — you can request an amendment, but the natural moment to raise that is now, not at publication of the acts.
Section IV
Canon 1677 Mitis Iudex (2015)
§1. The defender of the bond, the advocates of the parties and, if he is involved in the trial, the promoter of justice have the right: 1° to be present at the examination of the parties, the witnesses, and the experts, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1559; 2° to inspect the judicial acts, even those not yet published, and to review the documents introduced by the parties.
§2. The parties cannot be present at the examinations mentioned in §1, n. 1.
What this canon protects. The defender of the bond — the canonical office whose structural role is to argue, in good faith, for the validity of the marriage (can. 1432) — and the advocates have a right to be present when witnesses are interrogated. The parties themselves do not. This is the canonical equivalent of the rule against witness coordination: the tribunal wants the witness's recollection, not the petitioner's framing of it.
What it means for you. When you submit a witness list, the tribunal will contact each witness independently and interview them out of your presence. Do not call your witnesses ahead of time to coordinate testimony. Do call them to let them know they will be contacted, what the tribunal will ask in general (their honest recollection of you, of your former spouse, of the courtship and the wedding), and that they should tell the truth as they remember it.
Canon 1678 Mitis Iudex (2015)
§1. In cases of the nullity of marriage, the judicial confession and the declarations of the parties, supported possibly by witnesses of the credibility of the same, can have the value of full proof, to be evaluated by the judge, after he has considered all the indications and adminicula, unless there are other elements which weaken them.
§2. In the same cases, the deposition of a single witness can produce full credibility, if it concerns a qualified witness who makes a deposition concerning matters carried out ex officio, or unless circumstances of fact and of persons suggest it.
§3. In cases of impotence or of the lack of consent due to mental illness or to an anomaly of a psychic nature, the judge is to use the services of one or more experts unless from the circumstances it is clearly apparent that it is useless to do so; in other cases the prescriptions of can. 1574 are to be observed.
§4. Whenever during the instruction of the case a very probable doubt arises whether the marriage has been consummated, the tribunal, after having heard the parties, can suspend the case of nullity, complete the instruction for a dispensation super rato, and then transmit the acts to the Apostolic See, together with the request for dispensation by one or both parties and the votum of the tribunal and the bishop.
What §1 changed in 2015. The petitioner's own testimony, supported by witnesses of credibility, can have the value of full proof. Before Mitis Iudex, this was discouraged in practice (the so-called "credibility witnesses" rule was applied narrowly). After 2015, Pope Francis explicitly reframed: your own honest declaration of what happened in the marriage is real evidence, evaluated by the judge against the whole record.
On the psychological expert (§3). If the alleged ground touches lack of due discretion of judgment (can. 1095, 2°) or incapacity to assume the essential obligations (can. 1095, 3°) — the two most-common can. 1095 grounds — the judge will normally appoint an expert. Refusing the expert evaluation does not save your case; it usually closes it.
Canon 1679 Mitis Iudex (2015)
The sentence that for the first time declared the nullity of marriage, once the terms of appeal as established in cann. 1630-1633 have expired, becomes executive.
The most consequential change of the 2015 reform. Before Mitis Iudex, every affirmative first-instance sentence had to be confirmed by an appellate tribunal before it became executive. After 2015, no automatic confirmation. The affirmative sentence is executive as soon as the appeal term (fifteen useful days from notification, per can. 1630 §1) lapses without anyone — petitioner, respondent, or defender of the bond — filing an appeal.
What it means for you. If the sentence is affirmative and no appeal is filed, you are canonically free to attempt a new sacramental marriage at the end of the fifteen-day appeal term, subject only to any vetitum attached by the tribunal (can. 1682 in the old numbering; pastoral counsel before remarriage). If an appeal is filed, the executive force is suspended until the appellate tribunal rules. Either way, this canon — and the elimination of the second-instance bottleneck — is why cases that used to take three to five years now often close in fifteen to twenty-four months.
Section V
Canon 1680 Mitis Iudex (2015)
§1. The party who considers himself aggrieved, as well as the promoter of justice and the defender of the bond, have the right to introduce a complaint of nullity against the sentence or to appeal against the same sentence according to the norm of cann. 1619-1640.
§2. Once the terms established by the law for appeal and its prosecution have lapsed and the judicial acts have been received by the tribunal of higher instance, a college of judges is to be constituted, the defender of the bond designated, and the parties admonished to present their observations within the period determined; once this period has lapsed, if the appeal clearly appears to be merely dilatory, the collegiate tribunal, by its decree, is to confirm the sentence of the prior instance.
§3. If the appeal has been admitted, however, the same procedure as in the first instance must be followed with the necessary adjustments.
§4. If, in the appellate grade, a new ground of nullity is alleged, the tribunal can admit it and judge it as if in the first instance.
What §2 does. The appellate tribunal can confirm the lower court's sentence by decree alone — without re-instructing the case — if the appeal is "merely dilatory" (filed only to delay the executive force, not to raise substantive issues). This was a deliberate Mitis Iudex safety valve against weaponized appeals.
What §4 does. If the appeal admits the case to the merits, a new ground of nullity can be alleged for the first time at the appellate level. This is rare in practice but legally available — useful in cases where, for example, instruction at first instance revealed psychological evidence that suggested a can. 1095, 3° ground in addition to the originally-pleaded can. 1095, 2°.
Section VI
Canon 1683 Mitis Iudex (2015) — NEW
The diocesan bishop himself is competent to judge cases of the nullity of marriage with the briefer process whenever: 1° the petition has been proposed by both spouses or by one of them, with the consent of the other; 2° the circumstances of fact and persons, supported by testimonies or documents, render it manifest, and which do not require a more accurate inquiry or investigation, render the nullity manifest.
What this canon created. The briefer process (processus brevior) is wholly new in 2015. It is reserved to the diocesan bishop personally — he, not his judicial vicar, must sign the sentence — and it applies only when both spouses petition jointly (or one with the other's consent) and the nullity is "manifest." In US practice it is comparatively rare: estimates place it at well under 10% of cases.
What it means for you. If your former spouse is willing to join the petition, and the grounds are documentarily clean (e.g., one spouse concealed a prior bond, or simulation can be proved from contemporaneous correspondence), ask your tribunal at intake whether the briefer process is available. If it is, the case can close in months rather than the typical fifteen-to-twenty-four. If it is not, the ordinary process applies and the more thorough instruction is what your case needs anyway.
Canon 1687 Mitis Iudex (2015) — NEW
§1. Once the acts have been received, the diocesan bishop, having consulted with the instructor and the assessor, having considered the observations of the defender of the bond and, if there were any, of the parties, if he reaches moral certitude on the nullity of the marriage, is to issue the sentence. Otherwise, he refers the case to the ordinary method of procedure.
§2. The full text of the sentence, with the reasons expressed, is to be communicated to the parties as soon as possible.
§3. An appeal against the bishop's sentence is made to the metropolitan or to the Roman Rota; if, however, the sentence was rendered by the metropolitan, the appeal is to the senior suffragan; and against the sentence of another bishop who does not have an authority superior below the Roman Pontiff, appeal is made to the bishop selected by him in a stable manner.
§4. If the appeal clearly appears to be merely dilatory, the metropolitan, the Roman Rota, or the bishop chosen in accord with the norm of §3, by his decree, is to reject it from the outset; if, however, the appeal is admitted, the case is remitted to the ordinary method of procedure at the second grade.
Where the sentence can go. The bishop himself reaches moral certitude or, if he does not, the case is rolled into the ordinary process and starts the instruction phase from there — the work already done is preserved. Appeal in the briefer process goes to the metropolitan (or the Roman Rota for metropolitan sentences). The same dilatory-appeal filter from can. 1680, §2 applies.
Section VII
Canon 1688
After a petition has been received according to the norm of can. 1676, the diocesan bishop, or the judicial vicar, or the judge designated by him, omitting the formalities of the ordinary process but having cited the parties and with the defender of the bond present, can declare the nullity of a marriage by a sentence if a document subject to no contradiction or exception clearly establishes the existence of an impediment from which dispensation was not given or a defect of legitimate form, as long as it is equally certain that the dispensation was not granted, or in defect of a valid mandate of a proxy.
The narrow doorway. The documentary process applies only when a single document — a baptismal record showing the prior marriage was never annulled, a marriage register showing the wedding was attempted before a deacon without the required Catholic-form dispensation, a proof that the proxy at the wedding had no valid mandate — settles the question on its face. No witnesses. No psychological expert. The judge reads the document and rules.
What it means for you. Most petitioners do not have a documentary case. If yours is one (impediment of prior bond, defect of canonical form, defective proxy), the tribunal will tell you at intake. The process is the fastest the Code permits — weeks rather than months.
Canon 1691
§1. In the sentence the parties are to be admonished about the moral and even civil obligations binding them, if there are any, toward each other and toward their offspring, to furnish support and education.
§2. Cases for the declaration of the nullity of a marriage cannot be treated by an oral contentious process mentioned in cann. 1656-1670.
§3. In other matters which pertain to the procedure, the canons concerning judicial trials in general and the contentious trial in general are to be applied unless the nature of the matter precludes it; the special norms for cases concerning the status of persons and cases pertaining to the public good are to be observed.
§1 is the pastoral signature of every nullity sentence. Even when the bond is canonically declared null, the tribunal admonishes the parties of their continuing moral obligations to children of the union — support, education, presence. A declaration of nullity does not erase paternity, maternity, or the duties that follow.
Section VIII
Canon 1697
Only spouses, or one of them, even if the other is opposed, have the right to request the favor of a dispensation from a marriage that is ratified and non-consummated.
This is not nullity. A dispensation super rato et non consummato is a different canonical act from a declaration of nullity. It presumes a valid marriage was contracted but never sexually consummated, and it asks the Roman Pontiff (only the Apostolic See can grant this) to dissolve the bond. The case is gathered at the diocesan level and forwarded to Rome with the bishop's votum.
What it means for you. If your marriage was canonically valid but was never consummated — a small fraction of cases, but real — this is the canonical road, not the nullity road. The Companion does not treat this path in detail because it is rare and tribunal-specific; ask your judicial vicar's office directly.
Section IX
Canon 1707
§1. Whenever the death of a spouse cannot be proved by an authentic ecclesiastical or civil document, the other spouse is not considered free from the bond of marriage until after the diocesan bishop has issued a declaration of presumed death.
§2. The diocesan bishop is able to issue the declaration mentioned in §1 only if, after having carried out appropriate investigations, from the depositions of witnesses, from rumor, or from evidence, he has reached moral certainty regarding the death of the spouse. The mere absence of the spouse, even for a long time, is not sufficient.
§3. In uncertain and complicated cases the bishop is to consult the Apostolic See.
The edge case. Canon 1707 governs the rare situation in which a spouse has disappeared, no death certificate exists, and the remaining spouse needs canonical clearance to remarry. Mere absence — even years of it — is not enough; the bishop must reach moral certainty of death from other evidence. The Companion includes this canon for completeness, not because most petitioners will encounter it.
The Code does not, by itself, answer the question of your marriage. The tribunal does that — using the Code, the Instruction Dignitas Connubii (PCLT 2005), Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (Pope Francis 2015), the doctrinal teaching of Familiaris Consortio and Amoris Laetitia, the witness testimony, the proofs, and the prayer of the Church. What this document gives you is the procedural shape that holds the whole. Knowing the shape lets you be patient with the time.
Source: Codex Iuris Canonici, auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus, 25 January 1983 (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, official Latin typical edition); as amended by Pope Francis, Litterae Apostolicae Motu Proprio datae Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, 15 August 2015 (in force 8 December 2015). English text: official Holy See translation, Vatican.va. Companion commentary is the work of 1765 Sanctum Co, 2026, and is not a substitute for advocate counsel.
What the canon is doing. Marking the boundary line. The ecclesiastical tribunal has exclusive proper-right jurisdiction over the question of the canonical validity of the marriage of a baptized person — that is the question of whether, at the moment of consent, a sacramental marriage came into being. Anything downstream of that (custody, division of property, civil divorce) belongs to the secular court. The tribunal is not a divorce court with incense; it answers a different question.
What it means for you. If you have not yet obtained a civil divorce, the tribunal will normally want it in hand before the case proceeds (this is a particular-law expectation in most US dioceses, not a universal-law requirement). The civil court decides whether the civil marriage is dissolved; the tribunal decides, on different grounds and by a different standard, whether the sacramental bond ever existed.