The author discusses the status and duties of an ecclesiastical judge in processes concerning the declaration of nullity of marriage under canon law. The author addresses the requirements for candidates for the office of judge and highlights the changes introduced by the Motu Proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus in 2015. Next, the duties of the ecclesiastical judge in a matrimonial process are covered. First, the author points to the general duties and focuses on the most relevant ones. Second, the judge’s more specific duties are addressed. A major research problem investigated is who can be an ecclesiastical judge and what requirements the candidates must meet, both in the light of ecclesiastical and natural law. The author does not omit to discuss the origin of the power to judge and its consequences. The article cites papal speeches to the members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. They are a valuable source of guidance on exercising the power to judge. Special attention is paid to the ministry of the bishop as the first judge, as well as in light of the changes introduced by Pope Francis.

Annulment and nullity of marriage are two institutions that function in two separate and independent legal systems. Despite some similarities, they cannot be used interchangeably. The differences between the annulment and declaring nullityof marriage follow mainly from the fact that the canonical marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, a lifelong and indissoluble bond. For this reason, once validly contracted, it cannot be annulled or dissolved by divorce, but only bythe death of a spouse or a dispensation from an unconsummated marriage and the privilege of faith. In the case when marriage is contracted, despite the existence of impediments to marriage, the ecclesiastical tribunal, after completing the relevant proceedings, declares its nullity whereby this judgment is of a declarative nature. In the case of annulment of marriage, the legislator provided for some restriction as to the persons authorized to file a claim, and it also listed the situations in which, even though marriage was contracted in breach of law, its annulment is not possible. Therefore, convalidation by force of law is permissible. Such validation and such restrictions have not been provided by the ecclesiastical legislator, although the convalidation of marriage is possible as long as the matrimonial consent continues and some additional conditions have been satisfied. The judgment regarding the annulment of marriage is constitutive, although the effects of annulment have retroactive effects, whereby the legislator stated that for certain relationships, the rules of divorce shall be applicable. Both in the state and canonical orders, there are three groups of reasons that are the basis for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage. These are impediments to marriage, defects to the declarations of intention of the spousesand defects to the mandate to contract marriage. The individual reasons have been briefly discussed to present the differences in their understanding under canon law and state law. Annulment and nullity of marriage are two institutions that function in two separate and independent legal systems. Despite some similarities, they cannot be used interchangeably. The differences between the annulment and declaring nullityof marriage follow mainly from the fact that the canonical marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, a lifelong and indissoluble bond. For this reason, once validly contracted, it cannot be annulled or dissolved by divorce, but only bythe death of a spouse or a dispensation from an unconsummated marriage and the privilege of faith. In the case when marriage is contracted, despite the existence of impediments to marriage, the ecclesiastical tribunal, after completing the relevant proceedings, declares its nullity whereby this judgment is of a declarative nature. In the case of annulment of marriage, the legislator provided for some restriction as to the persons authorized to file a claim, and it also listed the situations in which, even though marriage was contracted in breach of law, its annulment is not possible. Therefore, convalidation by force of law is permissible. Such validation and such restrictions have not been provided by the ecclesiastical legislator, although the convalidation of marriage is possible as long as the matrimonial consent continues and some additional conditions have been satisfied. The judgment regarding the annulment of marriage is constitutive, although the effects of annulment have retroactive effects, whereby the legislator stated that for certain relationships, the rules of divorce shall be applicable. Both in the state and canonical orders, there are three groups of reasons that are the basis for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriage. These are impediments to marriage, defects to the declarations of intention of the spousesand defects to the mandate to contract marriage. The individual reasons have been briefly discussed to present the differences in their understanding under canon law and state law.

Protection of Personal Rights in the Context of Canonical Proceedings for Nullity of Marriage

This publication marks yet another interdisciplinary contribution by the authors: a canon lawyer and a biblical theologian. They undertake a joint canonical and exegetical analysis of Ezra 9:1–2, reflecting on whether this passage might be counted among the biblical foundations that have informed the Catholic Church’s doctrine on mixed marriages and the diriment impediment arising from disparity of religion. Already, the title poses the research problem framed as a question, “Does the Biblical Injunction against Marriage with ‘Outsiders’ (Ezra 9:1–2) still Bind Catholics Today?” As a first step, the authors undertake an examination of the biblical pericope with a particular focus on the problem of intermarriage, contextualized within its historical setting and the reform initiated by Ezra. Special attention is given to Deuteronomy 7:3–4, which is considered a fundamental underpinning of Ezra’s position. Subsequently, the authors trace the historical evolution of the concepts of impedimentum disparitatis cultus and impedimentum mixtae religionis. The authors move on to discuss the contemporary teaching of the Catholic Church concerning mixed marriages and the granting of dispensations from the diriment impediment of disparity of cult. Particular attention is given to the prerequisites for obtaining the permission of the local ordinary and the aforesaid dispensation, nuanced from the perspective of the Catholic party and non-Catholic one. In the final section, the authors articulate the conclusions of their inquiry. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the study, their research methodology integrated scholarly sources from both biblical sciences and the canonical legal tradition.

This article inaugurates a series of scholarly inquiries undertaken by academics from the disciplines of canon law, psychology, and theology, which makes it inherently interdisciplinary. Recognizing the foundations of marital indissolubility, the authors seek to analyze the role of discernment and volition in the formulation of matrimonial consent by nupturients. Each person enjoys the innate right to contract matrimony. This right may be circumscribed by (i) an incapacity to formulate an act of will (give matrimonial consent), (ii) a substantial defect in its formulation, (iii) lack of ability to execute it, or (iv) a prohibition derived from divine law—whether natural or positive—or from man-made law. Accordingly, the authors examine matters pertaining to processes to declare the nullity of marriage, with a focus on the evidentiary role of expert testimony, typically provided by psychologists. Given the interdisciplinary nature of their inquiry, the authors have drawn extensively on the literature from the fields of canon law, psychology, and theological studies. Mindful of its theoretical orientation, the authors regard this article as a prologue to subsequent research on selected matrimonial nullity cases processed by ecclesiastical tribunals, with emphasis on the analysis of opinions issued by tribunal-appointed expert psychologists.