What are the canonical grounds for annulment in the Code of Canon Law (1983)?

1. Why the Church says “null,” not “divorced”: the big-picture legal framing that matters

The Church’s annulment system treats nullity as a finding that a valid sacramental marriage never came into being because a legal requirement was missing at the moment consent was manifested. This doctrinal framework is rooted in the Code’s premise that marriage normally is presumed valid until proven otherwise; tribunals must establish moral certainty that a diriment impediment or a defect in consent or form existed at the time of the wedding ^{[2] [4]}. Canonical procedure for proving nullity is set within Book VII’s procedural canons and was significantly streamlined by subsequent reforms (noting procedural reforms discussed in analyses) to expedite tribunal consideration while preserving due process ^{[3] [5]}. The emphasis is legal and evidentiary: tribunals evaluate historical facts and psychological states at the moment of consent rather than later breakdowns in the relationship ^[6].

2. The impediments inventory: what automatically bars a valid marriage

The Code enumerates diriment impediments that, if present, render any attempted marriage invalid from the start. Typical impediments identified across the analyses include antecedent perpetual impotence, prior valid marriage (ligamen), disparity of worship, sacred orders or public perpetual vows, consanguinity and affinity, and age restrictions. These impediments are objective legal bars identifiable by fact — for example, a prior valid marriage or holy orders — and when established they operate regardless of the spouses’ subjective intentions ^{[7] [2] [4]}. Analyses emphasize that tribunals may use documentary or briefer processes when documentary evidence clearly proves an impediment, reflecting a pragmatic procedural route for straightforward cases ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Consent under scrutiny: the most factually complex ground tribunals decide

Defects of consent constitute the most frequently litigated grounds and include lack of sufficient use of reason, grave lack of discretion of judgment, psychic incapacity to assume marital obligations, error about the person or a quality of the person, simulation (total or partial exclusion of essential goods), deceit or fraud, and consent given under force or grave fear. These grounds focus on the spouses’ mental state and intentions at the moment consent was given; tribunals must assess psychological capacity, misinformation, or deliberate exclusion of marriage’s essential ends such as fidelity, permanence, or openness to children ^{[8] [1] [9]}. The analyses stress that canon 1095 and surrounding canons provide the normative criteria but require fact-finding and expert testimony; this is where pastoral, psychological, and legal evaluations intersect ^{[6] [8]}.

4. Form matters: when celebration defects can nullify marriage

A third category concerns defects of canonical form: marriages contracted without required canonical form — for instance, a Catholic marrying outside the Church without dispensation or without the presence of an authorized minister and witnesses — can be declared invalid. The Code prescribes the proper form for validity, and when the formal requirements are not met, tribunals consider dispensation history and the parties’ canonical status. Procedural chapters outline documentary processes for situations where the defect of form or the existence of a dispensation is a straightforward matter of record, allowing expedited resolution when documents clearly establish invalidity ^{[4] [3]}.

5. How procedure shapes outcomes: evidentiary standards and reform dynamics

Tribunals operate under the presumption of validity and require proof to reach moral certainty. The Code’s procedural rules in Book VII instruct judges on competence, forms of trial, and proof; reforms have sought to streamline access while safeguarding rights of defense and appeal. Analysts note a spectrum of processes — full judicial procedures, briefer processes, and documentary processes — each tailored to case complexity, with documentary and briefer paths available when the facts unequivocally establish an impediment or defect ^{[3] [5]}. The procedural architecture balances canonical rigor with pastoral urgency, but this balance produces different outcomes depending on how tribunals weigh documentary evidence, expert testimony, and witness statements ^{[5] [2]}.

6. Conflicting emphases and institutional perspectives to watch

Sources collectively map the canonical grounds but reveal emphases that signal different institutional aims: some summaries prioritize a comprehensive list of recognized grounds and pastoral guidance for advocates, while procedural accounts emphasize tribunal competence and proof standards ^{[7] [3]}. Where pastoral-oriented materials highlight psychological incapacity and fraud as frequent bases, procedural analyses underscore documentary proof and streamlined processes for clear impediments, suggesting potential tensions between accessibility and evidentiary thoroughness ^{[8] [5]}. Readers should note these differing emphases as reflecting distinct agendas — pastoral support for petitioners versus institutional safeguards for sacramental integrity — and that tribunals adjudicate within both pastoral and juridical constraints ^{[6] [4]}.