Roll Back Francis’ loosening of Canon Law

Separated Faithful Plea to Conclave: We Need to Roll Back Francis’ Loosening of Canon Law

With Mary’s Advocates, I work to support those who are faithful to marriage after separation or divorce. I see cases where the other spouse fell prey to influencers that led them to abandon marriage after having multiple children and years of happy, thriving marriage. Abandoners force a government no-fault divorce on the whole family, and when they eventually petition a Catholic tribunal for an annulment, Pope Francis made it more difficulty for separated faithful to uphold marriage against accusations of invalidity.

Edward Pentin (ETWN’s Rome Correspondent) says, “The pontificate we had, really, did—sort of— walk over the law in many ways. I think it was considered to be rather lawless. There were many, many, moto proprio, which are the equivalent to a kind of executive order.” (Connor Gallagher Show, 4 May 2025, min. 26m43s)

Dropped Church’s obligation to attempt to facilitate reconciliation

When an abandoning spouse wants to appear as a good Catholic, an annulment can become an attractive route to escape obligations to the faithful spouse. However, many of the reasons for leaving one’s marriage are no basis for separation of spouses in the first place. For example, spouses disagree about how to handle finances, free time, or upbringing of children. They may have different habits for expressing anger (which can be improved).

Prior to 2015, if an abandoner had petitioned for an annulment, the tribunal personnel were obligated to “use pastoral means to persuade the spouses to resume conjugal life, if possible” (even for those with obviously invalid marriages).  In other words, the Tribunal was obligated to try to unite a family.

Now, Pope Francis put the government no-fault divorce language in the Code.  State legislators give all plaintiffs the right to force a divorce when a plaintiff feels they have irreconcilable differences, irretrievable breakdown, or are incompatible. These are totally subjective notions in the viewpoint of the plaintiff. Pope Francis made the tribunal judge simply be informed that the marriage has irreparably failed. This is a subjective notion in the mind of the annulment petitioner, and it is impossible for a tribunal judge to know if this is a fact. Plenty of couples, with the right kind of help, reconcile after experiencing serious problems. See Francis’ new canon law compared to the previous Code.

• Francis’ 2015 motu proprio Mitis Iudex – Can. 1675. The judge, before he accepts a case, must be informed that the marriage has irreparably failed, such that conjugal living cannot be restored.
• 1983 Code – Can. 1676. Before he accepts a case and whenever there appears to be hope of success, the judge is to use pastoral means to persuade the spouses that, if it is possible, they should perhaps validate their marriage and resume their conjugal life.

Elimination of Automatic Review of by Second set of Judges

Marriage has ‘the favor of law.’ That is, all marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise. The Church is pro-marriage. Because annulments are such an important matter, the Church used to require two sets of judges from two different diocese to review any annulment before it was finalized.  If a petitioner got the annulment from his local tribunal, the decision couldn’t go into effect until after a second tribunal evaluated whether it agreed with the first.  Pope Francis eliminated the second review. So now, if the party believes a local tribunal’s finding of invalidity is incorrect, he has to write his own reasons for appeal, unless he has the money to hire a private canon lawyer to draft the challenge.

• Francis’ 2015 motu proprio Mitis Iudex – A single executive sentence in favor of nullity is effective. – First of all, it seemed that a double conforming decision in favor of the nullity of a marriage was no longer necessary to enable the parties to enter into a new canonical marriage. Rather, moral certainty on the part of the first judge in accord with the norm of law is sufficient; – and Can. 1679. The sentence that first declared the nullity of the marriage, once the terms passed as determined by cann. 1630-1633 have passed, becomes executive [i.e. 15-days after publication with no appeal].
• 1983 Code – 1682 §2. If the judgement given in first instance was in favor of the nullity of the marriage, the appeal tribunal, after weighing the observations of the defender of the bond and, if there are any, of the parties, is by its decree either to ratify the decision at once, or to admit the case to ordinary examination in the new instance.

Blocking Appeals Against the Roman Rota

Canon law provides remedies for procedural violations so serious that the judgment is null and void (e.g., failure to submit a valid petition, denial of a party’s right of defense). These fall under canons 1620–1622 for null sentences and canons 124–127 for invalid decrees.

When a party is aggrieved by these illegal decrees and sentences, he can bring a complaint to an appellate tribunal, including the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, which is an appellate tribunal available to the whole world.

Pope Francis issued a law that says there is no appeal against the Roman Rota “concerning the nullity of sentences or decrees.”  This looks like the Rota could violate all the procedures which are supposed to ensure a just outcome and there is nothing an aggrieved party can do to get relief.  Before 2016, one could go to the highest tribunal (Signatura, cf. art. 51), to raise a complaint of nullity against sentences and decrees issued by the Roman Rota.  It seems that this option was eliminated by Francis.  There is still an option to make another kind of complaint (restitution integrum) which is applicable very limited circumstances (c. 1645).

• Francis 7 December 2015 – Rescript Regarding the Enactment and Observance of the New Law on the Matrimonial Process. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 108 (2016) N.1: page 5-6. Original: RESCRIPTUM Circa novam legem efficiendam atque servandam de processu matrimoniali.” […] “II. 2. Non si dà appello contro le decisioni rotali in materia di nullità di sentenze o di decreti. (English translation: Rescript Regarding the Enactment and Observance of the New Law on the Matrimonial Process” […] “II.2. There is no appeal against Rotal decisions concerning the nullity of sentences or decrees)