The tribunals of the modern-day
Catholic Church are governed by the
1983 Code of Canon Law in the case of the Western Church (
Latin Church), and the
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in the case of the
Eastern Catholic Churches (Byzantine, Ukrainian, Maronite, Melkite, etc.). Both systems of canon law underwent general revisions in the late 20th century, resulting in the new code for the Latin Church in 1983, and the compilation for the first time of the Eastern Code in 1990.
First instance Cases normally originate in the tribunal of the
particular church (i.e. the
diocese or
eparchy) of the parties to the case. This tribunal in canon law is called the
tribunal of first instance. The bishop of the church possesses the power to judge for his church; however, since the bishop has many different duties in his diocese, most cases are handled by
judges whom he appoints, led by a priest known as the
judicial vicar or
officialis. A single judge can handle normal contentious and penal cases. A college of at least three judges, however, must try cases involving an excommunication, the dismissal of a
cleric, or the annulment of the bond of marriage or of sacred ordination (can. 1425 §1). The bishop can assign up to five judges to a case that is very difficult or important (can. 1425 §2). Otherwise, the judicial vicar assigns cases to the judges and, in those cases which require three or more judges, presides over the panel or assigns one of his assistant judicial vicars to preside, if there are any. The judicial vicar and the assistant judicial vicars must be
priests with
doctorates or at least
licentiates in
canon law. The other judges need only be
clerics with licentiates, but the
episcopal conference can permit members of the
laity with the same academic qualifications to serve as judges on a panel. There are other officers of the tribunal. The promoter of justice, for instance, is a canon lawyer whose job is to represent the diocese as the prosecutor in penal cases and who also can intervene in contentious cases if they concern the "public good", acting as a watch dog for the people of the diocese. Another important officer is the defender of the bond, another canon lawyer whose job is to present reasons to the tribunal why a
marriage is valid in cases of alleged nullity and why an
ordination is valid in the rare cases of alleged nullity of
Holy Orders. The tribunal also has notaries who swear in witnesses and commit their testimony to writing. Parties in a case have the right to appoint an advocate who can argue for them at the tribunal. If a person cannot afford an advocate, the tribunal can assign one to them free of charge. Unlike courts of
common law tradition, ecclesiastical tribunals do not follow the
adversarial system. Based on the same Roman
civil law that is behind much European law, the procedure of a canonical court is more akin to the
inquisitorial system, with the judges leading the investigation. As a general rule, the defendant has the favorable presumption of law, which means that the defendant will win by default unless a majority of the judges is convinced with moral certainty of the petitioner's case (can. 1608). This presumption also applies in penal cases (can. 1728). There are few exceptions to this rule; in those cases, the burden shifts to the defendant. Some matters cannot be introduced at the diocesan level and can only be introduced before the following: • Appellate tribunal for the diocese: cases against the diocese itself or an institution represented by the diocesan bishop •
Roman Rota: cases against the heads of religious orders, cases against dioceses or church institutions that are immediately subject to the
Holy See, and non-penal cases against bishops • The
Pope himself: any case where a
cardinal,
Eastern rite patriarch,
papal legate, or
head of state is a defendant and any penal case involving a
bishop.
Appeal The
appellate tribunal is known as the
tribunal of second instance. Normally the second instance tribunal is the tribunal of the
metropolitan bishop. In the case where the appeal is from a first instance decision of the metropolitan's own tribunal, the appeal is taken to a court which the metropolitan designated with approval of the
Holy See, usually another nearby metropolitan, thus ensuring that appeals from one diocese are never heard by the same diocese. As an example, a case in the
Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, would be appealed to the tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Boston, but a case originating in the Archdiocese of Boston would be appealed to the tribunal of the
Archdiocese of New York, by agreement between the archbishops of New York and Boston. Some cases are automatically appealed (for instance, when a
marriage was found to be null prior to Pope Francis’ 2015 reforms). The appealing party does not need to appeal to the metropolitan; the party can instead appeal to the
Holy See, in which case the
Roman Rota would hear the case in the second instance. If the case was before the Rota in the first instance, then a different panel of the Rota hears it in the second instance. With the exception of cases regarding personal status, if the first instance and second instance tribunals agree on the result of the case, then the case becomes
res judicata and there is no further appeal. If they disagree, then the case can be appealed to the Roman Rota, which serves as the
tribunal of third instance. The Rota is a court of fifteen judges called
auditors who take cases in panels of three and serve as the final arbiters of most cases. There is no appeal from a court case that the
Pope has decided personally.
Other tribunals The
Roman Curia has two other tribunals which either deal with specialized cases or which do not deal with cases at all. The first is the
Apostolic Signatura, a panel of five
cardinals which serves as the highest court in the Roman Catholic Church. Normal cases rarely reach the Signatura, the exception being if a party appeals to the Pope and he assigns the case to them or if the Pope on his own initiative pulls a case from another court and gives it to them. The court mainly handles cases regarding the use of administrative power, including penal cases which were decided using executive instead of judicial power, which is the usual case. It also handles disputes between
dicasteries and other tribunals over jurisdiction, complaints that a Rotal decision is null and should be retried, and matters regarding advocates and inter-diocesan tribunals. There is normally no right of appeal from the decision of the Apostolic Signatura (can. 1629 #1); however, laypersons and clerics have, on rare occasions, convinced the Pope to hear their case afterwards. This is usually reserved for cases where they are facing
excommunication or some other form of severe censure, such as the loss of the right to teach
theology or to administer the
sacraments. Facing
censure, a theologian and priest convinced
Pope John Paul II to hear his case and even asked the Pope to alter his own decision, though the Pope did not reverse the ruling in either case. The other tribunal is the
Apostolic Penitentiary. This tribunal has no jurisdiction in what is known as "the external forum", meaning cases and events which are publicly known, only matters of the "internal forum", which involve entirely confidential and secret matters, including (but not limited to) what is confessed in the
Sacrament of Penance. It primarily deals with cases that arise only within the confessional and which by their nature are private, confidential or whose facts are secret. Such cases are normally brought before the court by a person's confessor, who writes up the relevant facts of the cases, but only what is absolutely necessary, using standardized Latin pseudonyms. The confidentiality of the person, and the priest's absolute obligation to preserve the secrecy of the Sacrament of Penance, are still in force in such cases. This court, under the authority of the Cardinal Major Penitentiary, who acts in the Pope's name, answers the confessor and empowers him to impose a penance and lift a penalty. For instance, the act of desecrating the
Eucharist is one which incurs an automatic excommunication for the person who so acts (an excommunication from the moment of the act, which no court need actually meet to impose), and the power to lift this excommunication is reserved by the Pope to himself. Should this person then approach a priest in confession, repentant, and explain his act and the fact that he acted in secret, the confessor would write to the tribunal laying out the simplest outline of facts, keeping the person's identity secret, and would most likely be empowered to lift the excommunication and impose some private act of penance on the person. ==Eastern Orthodoxy==