Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus: Discussing Three Reforms

Introduction

In 2015, Pope Francis issued Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (MIDI) in motu proprio. There were several reforms that came with MIDI which updated the CIC1983 particularly the part concerning matrimonial procedural canon law. In this blog post I intend to choose three of these reforms and discuss them briefly. Principally, the three reforms I chose are as follows:

1. There is no longer need for a nullity case to pass through two instances.
2. Bishops may act as judges in the briefer process (also introduced by MIDI)
3. The process is to be kept at a minimal cost, as long as a just wage can eventually still be paid to the tribunal workers.

The First Reform: Double Conformity Removed

Prior to the this motu proprio, c.1682 stated that “the sentence which first declared the nullity of the marriage is to be transmitted ex officio to the appellate tribunal…” Evidently, any sentence, even those declared in favour of the nullity of marriage were taken to the second instance. This of course, had good intentions. Pope Benedict XIV introduced this idea through the papal bull Dei Miseratione and later Paul VI followed with the papal bull given in motu proprio entitled Causas Matrimonales. His arguments were mainly that it,

• was a way to defend the marriage bond better,
• might exercise freedom for those that wish to enter in another marriage,
• might be unjust for those whose first sentence was declared against the nullity of their marriage.

Thus, the intention behind this was so that there will be some sort of “vetting” so to speak, and the judges of the first instance can be double-checked while their responsibility is shared among other judges within the same Tribunal. The first instance judges may consider this a lesser burden. On the other hand, as we well know, this also resulted in prolonging the sentence due to this suppression of the double conforming and in some cases perhaps, even increasing the costs for the spouses whose marriage is in question.

Ultimately, removing the double conformity indeed makes the process faster which decreases the wound of all those spouses whose marriage is in question, whether the sentence is declared in favour of or against the nullity of their marriage.

The Second Reform: The Bishop is the Judge

With this motu proprio, a new process was introduced, so called the briefer process (i.e., processus brevior). The diocesan bishops may act as judges in the briefer process as confirmed in MIDI. This is listed under c.1683. It is hoped that through this ‘system’, bishops may become closer to the the faithful entrusted to them and thus, may remain hands on with the needs of their community, irrelevant of the size of their diocese(s). The pediments of this reform rest on the teaching of Lumen Gentium which affirms that “…bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.” (LG, 27).

It is still very early to determine how efficient the briefer process is however, there has already been scholarly feedback on this. On a positive  note, the briefer process is a speedy process and therefore the spouses wait way less than the normal process for the sentence while the bishop, who certainly has a lot of other responsibilities and duties to manage, has to go through a process which is not as long as the normal one. Furthermore, the bishop still needs feedback from the ecclesiastical tribunal prior to commencing work on the case. This means that although he has the ultimate responsibility, he may still ask for a handover and he may still consult with the tribunal of his diocese.

However, one cannot take it for granted, like most probably us Maltese currently do, that all bishops are experts in canon law because it is not always the case. Some bishops might need further assistance to reach moral certainty (c.1608) especially when this is not their area. Pope Francis explicitly states in MIDI that he is “not unaware of the extent to which the principle of the indissolubility of marriage might be endangered by the briefer process.” In fact, this was the very reason why Francis included the bishops in the new process, because while they are the judge of their diocese(s), they are also serving the Church in her mission of saving souls (c.1752). Additionally, the Pope also left the possibility for bishops to refer a case of the briefer process to the ordinary process should they see unclarity or doubt.

The Third Reform: Low Costs vis-à-vis Just Wages

The costs of a marriage nullity case has always been an issue. It can be understood that should the ecclesiastical tribunal seek the help of professionals, these professionals need to be paid and their cost is often paid by the spouses whose marriage is in question. It is only fair that professionals are paid for their work. Similarly, although the Church usually has clergy members in the tribunals and thus, the Church has less expenses, this might not remain the case.

Today it is evident that vocations are reducing and thus more lay persons are seeking professions with the Church. Lay persons who qualified to be employed by the Church are also professionals in their area and thus, should also get paid justly, especially since most of these lay persons may have a family to feed as well. Pope Francis puts great emphasis on this issue in fact. In the aforementioned motu proprio the Pope asks the tribunals to charge the least amount possible while also giving a just wage to the employees of the tribunal.

One can understand that the Pope is insisting on the costs because since the Church’s mission is to save all souls, the Church has to make herself accessible to her flock. Should the Church be difficult, expensive or uncaring, people will find it difficult to seek help from the Church, and to confide in her. This is in fact something that shines forth in matrimonial canon law. The Church does not want spouses to live in irregular relationships simply because they do not afford to pay for their marriage to be examined.

Conclusion

Pope is very coherent in his thought process because it might be the case that the longer a process takes, the more expensive it becomes due to other things that may arise (e.g. the need for further periti , other witnesses that might need to travel for long distances, etc..). Thus, joining the first reform (i.e., removal of the double conformity) with the third one (i.e., low costs vis-à-vis just wages), gives a better picture of what the Pope is seeing. As a Pope he has to see the global picture and I personally think that he actually does a very good job in this regard.

 Sources

PAUL VI. “Lumen gentium.” Encyclical

http://www. vatican. va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en. html (1964).

Francis, “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus.” Motu Proprio

http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio_20150815_mitis-iudex-dominus-iesus.html (2015).

Beal, John P., James A. Coriden, and Thomas Joseph Green. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law. Paulist Press, 2000.

Daneels, Frans. “A First Approach to the Reform of the Process for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.” Jurist 76 (2016): 115.

New Advent, ‘Defender of the Matrimonial Tie’, 24 February 2020.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04675a.htm

The Canon Law Society Trust. The Code of Canon Law In English Translation. Collins Liturgical Publications, 1984.

Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. ‘Relatio Finalis’, 24 October 2015.