| Table of Contents | Words: Alphabetical - Frequency - Inverse - Length - Statistics | Help | IntraText Library |
Code of Canon Law IntraText CT - Text |
Sancta Sedes omnia sibi vindicat iura. Nemini liceat, sine venia Sanctae Sedis, hunc codicem denuo imprimere aut in aliam linguam vertere.
The Holy See reserves all rights to itself. No one is permitted without the knowledge of the Holy See to reprint this code or to translate it into another language.
In keeping with n. 3 of the Norms issued by the Cardinal Secretary of State on January 28, 1983, this translation has been approved by the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops. The Latin text is printed with permission of the Holy See and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Nihil obstat Most Rev. Anthony M. Pilla, President
National Conference of Catholic Bishops
Imprimatur Most Rev. William E. Lori, S.T.D., V.G.
Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington
This translation, foreword, and index © copyright 1998 by Canon Law Society of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this book maybe reproduced in any manner without permission in writing from the respective copyright holders, except for brief
quotations in critical reviews and articles.
Case binding: isbn 0-943616-79-4
The Canon Law Society of America graciously gave permission to include this translation of the Code
ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA
AA Decr. Apostolicam actuositatem, 18 nov. 1965 (AAS 59 [1966] 837–864)
AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium officiale
AG Decr. Ad gentes, 7 dec. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 947–990)
AIE SCRIS Decr. Ad instituenda experimenta, 4 iun. 1970 (AAS 62 [1970] 549–550)
All. Allocutio
AP Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Ad pascendum, 15 aug. 1972 (AAS 64 [1972] 534–540)
AS Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Apostolica sollicitudo, 15 sept. 1965 (AAS 57 [1965]
c./cc. Canon / canones, Codex Iuris Canonici, 1917
CA Sec Rescr. Cum admotae, 6 nov. 1964 (AAS 59 [1967] 374–378)
CAl Pius PP. XII, m.p. Crebrae allatae, 22 febr. 1949 (AAS 31 [1949] 89–117)
can. / cann. Canon / canones, Codex Iuris Canonici Orientalis
CC Pius PP. XI, Enc. Casti connubii, 31 dec. 1930 (AAS 22 [1930] 539–592)
CD Decr. Christus Dominus, 28 oct. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 673–696)
CE Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Catholica Ecclesia, 23 oct. 1976 (AAS 68 [1976] 694–696)
CEM De Sacra Communione et de Cultu Mysterii Eucharistici extra Missam, 1973
CI PontiWcia Commissio ad Codicis Canones Authentice Interpretandos
CICS PontiWcium Consilium Instrumentis Communicationis Socialis Praepositum
CIP PontiWcia Commissio a Iustitia et Pace
CIV PontiWcia Commissio Decretis Concilii Vaticani II interpretandis
CM Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Causas matrimoniales, 28 mar. 1971 (AAS 63 [1971] 441–446)
CMat Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Cum matrimonialium, 8 sep. 1973 (AAS 65 [1973] 577–581)
CPEN Consilium a Publicis Ecclesiae Negotiis (a 1-I-1968)
CS Pius PP. XII, m.p. Cleri sanctitati, 2 iun. 1957 (AAS 49 [1957] 433–600)
CSan SCR Instr. Cum Sanctissimus, 19 mar. 1948 (AAS 40 [1948] 293–297)
CT Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Litt. Catechesi Tradendae, 16 oct. 1979 (AAS 71
DCG SCpC Directorium catechisticum generale, 11 apr. 1971 (AAS 64 [1972] 97–176)
DH Decl. Dignitatis humanae, 7 dec. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 929–946)
DO SCUF Directorium Oecumenicum, I: 14 maii 1967 (AAS 59 [1967] 574–592); II:
16 apr. 1970 (AAS 62 [1970] 705–724)
DPME SCE Directorium de pastorali ministerio Episcoporum, 22 feb. 1973
DS Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum DeWnitionum et Declarationum de rebus Wdei
DSD Pius PP. XI, Const. Ap. Deus scientiarum Dominus, 24 maii 1931 (AAS 23 [1931]
DV Const. Dogmatica Dei Verbum, 18 nov. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 817–835)
EcS Paulus PP. VI, Enc. Ecclesiam Suam, 6 aug. 1964 (AAS 56 [1964] 609–659)
EM Paulus PP. VI, m.p. De Episcoporum muneribus, 15 iun. 1966 (AAS 58 [1966]
Emys SRC Instr. Eucharisticum mysterium, 25 maii 1967 (AAS 59 [1967] 539–573)
EN Paulus PP. VI, Adh. Ap. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 dec. 1975 (AAS 68 [1976] 5–76)
EP SCDF Decr. Ecclesiae Pastorum, 19 mar. 1975 (AAS 67 [1975] 281–284)
ES Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Ecclesiae Sanctae, 6 aug. 1966 (AAS 58 [1966] 757–787)
ET Paulus PP. VI, Adh. Ap. Evangelica testiWcatio, 29 iun. 1971 (AAS 63 [1971] 497–526)
FC Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Adh. Ap. Familiaris Consortio, 22 nov. 1981 (AAS 74 1982]
GE Decl. Gravissimum Educationis, 28 oct. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 728–739)
GS Const. pastoralis Gaudium et Spes, 7 dec. 1966 (AAS 58 [1966] 1025–1115)
HV Paulus PP. VI, Enc. Humanae vitae, 25 iul. 1968 (AAS 60 [1968] 481–503)
IC SCDS Instr. Immensae caritatis, 29 ian. 1973 (AAS 65 [1973] 264–271)
ID SCSCD Instr. Inaestimabile donum, 3 apr. 1980 (AAS 72 [1980] 331–343)
IOe SRC Instr. Inter Oecumenici, 26 sept. 1964 (AAS 56 [1964] 877–900)
IGLH Institutio Generalis de Liturgia Horarum, 11 apr. 1971
IGMR Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, 26 mar. 1970
IM Decr. Inter mirifica, 4 dec. 1963 (AAS 56 [1964] 145–157)
LG Const. dogmatica Lumen gentium, 21 nov. 1964 (AAS 57 [1965] 5–75)
LMR SCRIS Life and Mission of Religious in the Church (Plenaria of SCRIS) 20
MC Pius PP. XII, Enc. Mystici Corporis, 29 iun. 1943 (AAS 35 [1943] 193–248)
MD Pius PP. XII, Enc. Mediator Dei, 20 nov. 1947 (AAS 39 [1947] 521–600)
MF Paulus PP. VI, Enc. Mysterium Wdei, 3 sep. 1965 (AAS 57 [1965] 753–774)
MG Paulus PP. VI, All. Magno gaudio, 23 maii 1964 (AAS 56 [1964] 565–571)
MM Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Matrimonia mixta, 31 mar. 1970 (AAS 62 [1970] 257–263)
m.p. Litt. Ap. Motu proprio datae
MQ Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Ministeria quaedam, 15 aug. 1972 (AAS 64 [1972] 529–534)
MR SCRIS et SCE, Normae Mutuae Relationes, 14 maii 1978 (AAS 70 [1978] 473–506)
MS SCDF Instr. Matrimonii sacramentum, 18 mar. 1966 (AAS 58 [1966] 235–239)
nep LG nota explicativa praevia
NPEM CPEN Normae de promovendis ad Episcopale ministerium in Ecclesia Latina, 25
mar. 1972 (AAS 64 [1972] 386–391)
NSRR Pius PP. XI, Normae Sacrae Romanae Rotae Tribunalis, 29 iun. 1934 (AAS 26
NSSA Normae speciales in Supremo Tribunali Signaturae Apsotolicae ad experimentum
OBP Ordo Baptismi parvulorum, 10 iun 1969
OC Ordo ConWrmationis, 22 aug. 1971
OChr SCpC Litt. circ. Omnes christiWdeles, 25 ian. 1973
OCM Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium, 19 mar. 1969
ODE Ordo Dedicationis Ecclesiae et Altaris, 29 maii 1977
OE Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 21 nov. 1964 (AAS 57 [1965] 76–89)
OEx Ordo Exequiarum, 15 aug. 1969
OICA Ordo Initiationis Christianae Adultorum, 1 iun. 1974
OP Ordo Paenitentiae, 2 dec. 1973
OS (1966) Sec. Ordo Synodi Episcoporum celebrandae promulgatur a Summo PontiWce approbatus,
8 dec. 1966 (AAS 59 [1967] 91–103)
OS (1969) CPEN Ordo Synodi Episcoporum celebrandae recognitus et auctus, 24 iun. 1969 (AAS 61
OS (1971) CPEN Ordo Synodi Episcoporum celebrandae recognitus et auctus nonnullis additamentis
perWcitur, 20 aug. 1971 (AAS 63 [1971] 702–704)
OT Decr. Optatam totius, 28 oct. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 713–727)
OUI Ordo Unctionis inWrmorum eorumque Pastoralis Curae, 7 dec. 1972
PA SCpC Notae directivae Postquam Apostoli, 25 mar. 1980 (AAS 72 [1980] 343–364)
Paen. Paulus PP. VI, Const. Ap. Paenitemini, 17 feb. 1966 (AAS 58 [1966] 177–185)
PC Decr. Perfectae caritatis, 28 oct. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 702–712)
PCCICOR PontiWcia Commissio Codici Iuris Canonici Orientalis Recognoscendo
PCCICR PontiWcia Commissio Codici Iuris Canonici Recognoscendo
PF Pius PP. XII, m.p. Primo feliciter, 12 mar. 1948 (AAS 450 [1948] 283–286)
PM Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Pastorale Munus, 30 nov. 1963 (AAS 56 [1964] 5–12)
PME Pius PP. XII, Const. Ap. Provida Mater Ecclesia, 2 feb. 1947 (AAS 39 [1947]
PO Decr. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 7 dec. 1965 (AAS 58 [1966] 991–1024)
Principia SE Normae, Principia quae Codicis Iuris Canonici recognitionem dirigant (Communicationes 1
PrM SCDS Instr. Provida Mater, 15 aug. 1936 (AAS 28 [1936] 313–361)
PS SCpC Litt. circ. Presbyteri sacra, 11 apr. 1970 (AAS 62 [1970] 459–465)
RC SCRIS Instr. Renovationis causam, 6 ian. 1969 (AAS 61 [1969] 103–120)
REU Paulus PP. VI, Const. Ap. Regimini Ecclesiae Universae, 15 aug. 1967 (AAS 59
RFS SCIC Ratio fundamentalis institutionis sacerdotalis, 6 ian. 1970 (AAS 62 [1970] 321–384)
RH Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Enc. Redemptor hominis, 4 mar. 1979 (AAS 71 [1979] 257–324)
RPE Paulus PP. VI, Const. Ap. Romano PontiWci eligendo, 1 oct. 1975 (AAS 67 [1975]
SA Supremum Tribunal Signaturae Apostolicae
SAr SCSO Instr. Sacrae artis, 30 iun. 1952 (AAS 44 [1952] 542–546)
SC Const. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 dec. 1963 (AAS 56 [1964] 97–138)
SCC Sacra Congregatio Concistorialis (usque ad 31-xii-1967)
SCConc Sacra Congregatio Concilii (usque ad 31-xii-1967)
SCCD Sacra Congregatio pro Cultu Divino (a 8-v-1969 usque ad 11-vii-1975)
SCDF Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei (a 7-xii-1965)
SCDS Sacra Congregatio de Disciplina Sacramentorum (usque ad 11-vii-1975)
SCE Sacra Congregatio pro Episcopis (a 1-i-1968)
SCEO Sacra Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientali (usque ad 31-xii-1967) / pro Ecclesiis
Orientalibus (a 1-i-1968)
SCGE Sacra Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione seu de Propraganda Fide (a 1-i-
1968)
SCh Ioannes Paulus PP. II. Const. Ap. Sapientia christiana, 15 apr. 1979 (AAS 71
SCIC Sacra Congregatio pro Institutione Catholica (a 1-i-1968)
SCNE Sacra Congregatio pro Negotiis Ecclesiasticis Extraordinariis (usque ad 31-xii-
1967)
SCong SCR Normae Sacra Congregatio, 7 iul. 1956
SCpC Sacra Congregatio pro Clericis (a 1-i-1968)
SCPF Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (usque ad 31-xii-1967)
SCR Sacra Congregatio de Religiosis (usque ad 31-xii-1967)
SCRIS Sacra Congregatio pro Religiosis et Institutis Saecularibus (a 1-i-1968)
SCSCD Sacra Congregatio pro Sacramentis et Cultu Divino (a 11-vii-1975)
SCSO Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii (usque ad 7-xii-1965)
SCSSU Sacra Congregatio de Seminariis et de Studiorum Universitatibus (usque ad 31-
SCUF Secretariatus ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam
SDO Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Sacrum diaconatus ordinem, 18 iun. 1967 (AAS 59 [1967]
SFS SCIC Litt. circ. Spiritual formation in seminaries, 6 ian. 1980
SN Pius PP. XII, m.p. Sollicitudinem nostram, 6 ian. 1950 (AAS 42 [1950] 5–120)
SOE Paulus PP. VI, m.p. Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, 24 iun. 1969 (AAS 61 [1969]
SPA Sacra Paenitentiaria Apostolica
SpC Pius PP. XII, Const. Ap. Sponsa Christi, 21 nov. 1950 (AAS 43 [1951] 5–24)
SPNC Secretariatus pro non credentibus
SRC Sacra Congregatio Rituum (usque ad 8-v-1969)
SRRD Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones seu Sententiae
Ssap PIUS PP. XII, Const. Ap. Sedes sapientiae, 31 maii 1956 (AAS 48 [1956] 334–345)
UR Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 21 nov. 1964 (AAS 57 [1965] 90–112)
UT SE Ultimis temporibus, 30 nov. 1971 (AAS 63 [1971] 898–922)
VS SCRIS Instr. Venite seorsum, 15 aug. 1969 (AAS 61 [1969] 674–690)
To our venerable brothers, cardinals, archbishops,
and to the other members of the people of God,
servant of the servants of God
During the course of the centuries the Catholic Church has been accustomed to
reform and renew the laws of canonical discipline so that in constant Wdelity to
its divine founder, they may be better adapted to the saving mission entrusted
to it. Prompted by this same purpose and fulWlling at last the expectations of
the whole Catholic world, I order today, January 25, 1983, the promulgation of
the revised Code of Canon Law. In so doing, my thoughts go back to the same day
of the year 1959 when my predecessor of happy memory, John XXIII, announced for
the Wrst time his decision to reform the existing corpus of canonical legislation
which had been promulgated on the feast of Pentecost in the year 1917.
Such a decision to reform the Code was taken together with two other decisions
of which the PontiV spoke on that same day: the intention to hold a synod of the
Diocese of Rome and to convoke an ecumenical council. Of these two events, the
Wrst was not closely connected with the reform of the Code; but the second, the
council, is of supreme importance in regard to the present matter and is closely
connected with it.
If we ask why John XXIII considered it necessary to reform the existing Code,
the answer can perhaps be found in the Code itself which was promulgated in the
year 1917. But there exists also another answer and it is the decisive one:
namely, that the reform of the Code of Canon Law appeared to be deWnitely desired
and requested by the same council which devoted such great attention to the
As is obvious, when the revision of the Code was Wrst announced the council was
an event of the future. Moreover, the acts of its magisterium and especially its
doctrine on the Church would be decided in the years 1962–1965; however, it is
clear to everyone that John XXIII’s intuition was very true, and with good reason
it must be said that his decision was for the long-term good of the Church.
Therefore the new Code which is promulgated today necessarily required the
previous work of the council. Although it was announced together with the
ecumenical council, nevertheless it follows it chronologically because the work
undertaken in its preparation, which had to be based upon the council, could not
begin until after the latter’s completion.
Turning our minds today to the beginning of this long journey, to that January
25, 1959 and to John XXIII himself who initiated the revision of the Code, I must
recognize that this Code derives from one and the same intention, the renewal of
Christian living. From such an intention, in fact, the entire work of the council
drew its norms and its direction.
If we now pass on to consider the nature of the work which preceded the
promulgation of the Code and also the manner in which it was carried out,
especially during the pontiWcates of Paul VI and John Paul I, and from then until
the present day, it must be clearly pointed out that this work was brought to
completion in an outstandingly collegial spirit. This applies not only in regard
to the material drafting of the work, but also to the very substance of the laws
This note of collegiality eminently characterizes and distinguishes the process
of developing the present Code; it corresponds perfectly with the teaching and
the character of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore not only because of its
content but also because of its very origin, the Code manifests the spirit of
this council in whose documents the Church, the universal “sacrament of
salvation” (dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, nn. 1, 9, 48), is
presented as the people of God and its hierarchical constitution appears based
on the college of bishops united with its head.
For this reason, therefore, the bishops individually and as episcopates were
invited to collaborate in the preparation of the new Code so that by means of
such a long process, by as collegial a method as possible, juridical formulae
would gradually mature which would later serve for the use of the entire Church.
Experts chosen from all over the world also took part in all these phases of the
work, specialists in theology, history and especially canon law.
To one and all of them I wish to express today my sentiments of deep gratitude.
In the Wrst place there come before my eyes the Wgures of the deceased
cardinals who presided over the preparatory commission: Cardinal Pietro Ciriaci
who began the work, and Cardinal Pericle Felici who, for many years, guided the
course of the work almost to its end. I think then of the secretaries of the same
commission: Monsignor Giacomo Violardo, later cardinal, and Father Raimondo
Bidagor, S.J., both of whom in carrying out this task poured out the treasures
of their doctrine and wisdom. Together with them I recall the cardinals,
archbishops, bishops and all those who were members of that commission, as well
as the consultors of the individual study groups engaged during these years in
such a diYcult work, and whom God in the meantime has called to their eternal
reward. I pray to God for all of them.
I am pleased to remember also the living, beginning with the present propresident
of the commission, our venerable brother Archbishop Rosalio Castillo
Lara. For a very long time he has done excellent work in a task of such great
responsibility. I pass then to our beloved son, Monsignor William Onclin, whose
devotion and diligence have greatly contributed to the happy outcome of the work.
I Wnally mention all the others in the commission itself, whether as cardinal
members or as of-Wcials, consultors and collaborators in the various study
groups, or in other oYces who have given their appreciated contribution to the
drafting and the completion of such a weighty and complex work.
Therefore, in promulgating the Code today, I am fully aware that this act is
an expression of pontiWcal authority and therefore is invested with a primatial
character. But I am also aware that this Code in its objective content reflects
the collegial solicitude of all my brothers in the episcopate for the Church.
Indeed, by a certain analogy with the council, it should be considered as the
fruit of a collegial collaboration because of the united eVorts on the part of
specialized persons and institutions throughout the whole Church.
A second question arises concerning the very nature of the Code of Canon Law.
To reply adequately to this question one must mentally recall the distant
patrimony of law contained in the books of the Old and New Testament from which
is derived the whole juridical-legislative tradition of the Church, as from its
Christ the Lord, indeed, did not in the least wish to destroy the very rich
heritage of the law and the prophets which was gradually formed from the history
and experience of the people of God in the Old Testament, but he brought it to
completion (cf. Mt. 5:17) such that in a new and higher way it became part of the
heritage of the New Testament. Therefore, although in expounding the paschal
mystery St. Paul teaches that justiWcation is not obtained by the works of the
law but by means of faith (cf. Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), he does not thereby exclude
the binding force of the Decalogue (cf. Rom. 13:28; Gal. 5:13–25, 6:2), nor does
he deny the importance of discipline in the Church of God (cf. I Cor. 5 and 6).
Thus the writings of the New Testament enable us to understand even better the
importance of discipline and make us see better how it is more closely connected
with the saving character of the evangelical message itself.
This being so, it appears suYciently clear that the Code is in no way intended
as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life
of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to
create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy
to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic
development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual
As the Church’s principal legislative document founded on the juridicallegislative
heritage of revelation and tradition, the Code is to be regarded as
an indispensable instrument to ensure order both in individual and social life,
and also in the Church’s own activity. Therefore, besides containing the
fundamental elements of the hierarchical and organic structure of the Church as
willed by her divine founder or as based upon apostolic, or in any case most
ancient, tradition, and besides the fundamental principles which govern the
exercise of the threefold of-Wce entrusted to the Church itself, the Code must
also lay down certain rules and norms of behavior.
The instrument which the Code is fully corresponds to the nature of the Church,
especially as it is proposed by the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in
general and in a particular way by its ecclesiological teaching. Indeed, in a
certain sense this new Code could be understood as a great eVort to translate
this same conciliar doctrine and ecclesiology into canonical language. If,
however, it is impossible to translate perfectly into canonical language the
conciliar image of the Church, nevertheless the Code must always be referred to
this image as the primary pattern whose outline the Code ought to express insofar
as it can by its very nature.
From this, certain fundamental criteria are derived which should govern the
entire new Code within the limits of its speciWc matter and of the language
appropriate to that material.
It could indeed be said that from this there is derived that note of
complementarity which the Code presents in relation to the teaching of the Second
Vatican Council, in particular with reference to the two constitutions, the
dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium and the pastoral constitution Gaudium et
spes.
Hence it follows that what constitutes the substantial newness of the Second
Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially
in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the newness of the new Code.
Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church
we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church
is presented as the people of God (cf. dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium,
chapter 2) and hierarchical authority as service (cf. ibid., chapter 3); the
doctrine in which the Church is seen as a communion and which therefore
determines the relations which are to exist between the particular churches and
the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; likewise the
doctrine according to which all the members of the people of God, in the way
suited to each of them, participate in the threefold priestly, prophetic and
kingly oYce of Christ, to which doctrine is also linked that which concerns the
duties and rights of the faithful and particularly of the laity; and Wnally, the
Church’s commitment to ecumenism.
If, therefore, the Second Vatican Council has drawn both new and old from the
treasury of tradition, and the new consists precisely in the elements which I
have enumerated, then it is clear that the Code should also reflect the same note
of W-delity in newness and of newness in Wdelity, and conform itself to this in
its own subject matter and in its own particular manner of expression.
The new Code of Canon Law appears at a moment when the bishops of the whole
Church not only are asking for its promulgation, but are crying out for it
insistently and almost with impatience.
As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the
Church. Since the Church is organized as a social and visible structure, it must
also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible;
in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, especially
that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be
adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be
regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals
guaranteed and well-deWned; in order, Wnally, that common initiatives undertaken
to live a Christian life ever more perfectly may be sustained, strengthened and
Finally, by their very nature canonical laws are to be observed. The greatest
care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the
Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based
on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation.
After all these considerations it is naturally to be hoped that the new
canonical legislation will prove to be an eYcacious means in order that the
Church may progress in conformity with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council
and may every day be ever more suited to carry out its oYce of salvation in this
With a conWdent spirit I am pleased to entrust these considerations of mine to
all as I promulgate this fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws for the Latin
May God grant that joy and peace with justice and obedience obtain favor for
this Code, and that what has been ordered by the head be observed by the body.
Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of
the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, in response to the
wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a
collegial spirit, and with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means
of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present
Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it
is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the
watchful care of all those concerned in order that it may be observed. So that
all may more easily be informed and have a thorough knowledge of these norms
before they have juridical binding force, I declare and order that they will have
the force of law beginning from the Wrst day of Advent of this year 1983, and
this notwithstanding any contrary ordinances, constitutions, privileges (even
worthy of special or individual mention), or customs.
I therefore exhort all the faithful to observe the proposed legislation with
a sincere spirit and good will in the hope, that there may flower again in the
Church a renewed discipline and that consequently the salvation of souls may be
rendered ever more easy under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother
of the Church.
Given at Rome, January 25, 1983, from the Vatican Palace, the Wfth year of my
P R E F A C E T O T H E L A T I N
From the time of the primitive Church it has been customary to collect the
sacred canons into one book to facilitate a knowledge of them as well as their
use and observance especially by sacred ministers, since “no priest is permitted
to be ignorant of the sacred canons” as Pope Celestine warned in a letter to the
bishops of Apulia and Calabria (July 21, 429: cf. JaVe,2 n. 371; Mansi IV, col.
469). His words are echoed by the Fourth Council of Toledo (633), which
prescribed the following after the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline in
the kingdom of the Visigoths once the Church had been freed from Arianism:
“Priests are to know the sacred scripture and the canons” because “ignorance, the
mother of all errors, is especially to be avoided by priests of God” (can. 25:
In fact during the Wrst ten centuries nearly everywhere there flourished
countless collections of ecclesiastical laws. These private collections contained
norms issued especially by the councils and the Roman PontiVs as well as other
norms taken from lesser sources. In the middle of the twelfth century, this mass
of collections and norms, not infrequently contradicting one another, was put in
order again through the private initiative of the monk Gratian. This concordance
of laws and collections, later called the Decretum Gratiani, constituted the Wrst
part of that signiWcant collection of laws of the Church which, in imitation of
the Corpus Iuris Civilis of the Emperor Justinian, was called the Corpus Iuris
Canonici and contained the laws which had been passed during two centuries by the
supreme authority of the Roman pontiVs with the assistance of experts in canon
law called glossators. Besides the Decree of Gratian, in which the earlier norms
were contained, the Corpus consists of the Liber Extra of Gregory IX, the Liber
Sextus of Boniface VIII, the Clementinae, i.e. the collection of Clement V
promulgated by John XXII, to which are added the Extravagantes of this pope and
the Extravagantes communes, decretals of various Roman pontiVs never gathered in
an authentic collection. The ecclesiastical law which this Corpus embraces
constitutes the classical law of the Catholic Church and is commonly called by
this name.
To this corpus of law of the Latin Church corresponds to some extent the
Syntagma canonum or oriental corpus of canons of the Greek Church.
Subsequent laws, especially those enacted by the Council of Trent during the
time of the Catholic Reformation and those issued later by various dicasteries
of the Roman Curia, were never digested into one collection. This was the reason
why during the course of time legislation outside the Corpus Iuris Canonici
constituted “an immense pile of laws piled on top of other laws.” The lack of a
systematic arrangement of the laws and the lack of legal certainty along with the
obsolescence of and lacunae in many laws led to a situation where church
discipline was increasingly imperiled and jeopardized.
Therefore during the preparatory period prior to the First Vatican Council,
many bishops asked that a new and sole collection laws be prepared to expedite
the pastoral care of the people of God in a more certain and secure fashion.
Although this task could not be implemented through conciliar action, the
Apostolic See subsequently addressed certain more urgent disciplinary issues
through a new organization of laws. Finally, Pope Pius X, at the very beginning
of his pontiWcate, undertook this task when he proposed to collect and reform all
ecclesiastical laws and determined that the enterprise be carried out under the
leadership of Cardinal Pietro Gasparri.
The Wrst issue to be resolved in such a signiWcant and diYcult undertaking was
the internal and external form of the new collection. It was decided to forego
the method of compilations of laws whereby individual laws would have been
expressed in the extensiveness of the original text; rather the modern method of
codiWcation was chosen. Hence texts containing and proposing a precept were
expressed in a new and briefer form. However, all of the material was organized
in Wve books which substantially imitated the system of Roman law institutes on
persons, things and actions. The work took twelve years with the collaboration
of experts, consultors and bishops throughout the Church. The character of the
new Code was clearly enuntiated in the beginning of canon 6: “The Code generally
retains the existing discipline although it introduces appropriate changes.”
Therefore it was not a case of enacting a new law but rather a matter of
arranging in a new fashion the operative legislation at that time. After the
death of Pius X, this universal, exclusive, and authentic collection was
promulgated on May 27, 1917 by his successor Benedict XV; it took eVect on May
Everyone hailed the universal law of this Pio-Benedictine Code, which made a
signiWcant contribution to the eVective promotion of pastoral ministry throughout
the Church, which in the meantime was experiencing new growth. Nevertheless, both
the external situation of the Church in a world which had experienced sweeping
changes and signiWcant shifts in customs within a few decades as well as
progressive internal factors within the ecclesiastical community necessarily
brought it about that a new reform of canon law was increasingly more imperative
and was requested. The Supreme PontiV John XXIII clearly recognized the signs of
the times, for when he Wrst announced the Roman Synod and the Second Vatican
Council, he also announced that these events would be a necessary preparation for
undertaking the desired renewal of the Code.
Shortly after the Ecumenical Council had begun, the Commission for the Revision
of the Code of Canon Law was established on March 28, 1963 with Cardinal Pietro
Ciriaci as president and Monsignor Giacomo Violardo as secretary. However, the
cardinal members of the Commission in a meeting with the president on November
12 of that same year agreed that the true and proper eVorts of the Commission
should be deferred and should commence only at the conclusion of the Council. The
reform was to be carried out according to the decisions and principles to be
determined by that same Council. Meanwhile on April 17, 1964 Paul VI added
seventy consultors to the Commission established by his predecessor John XXIII;
he subsequently named other cardinal members and consultors from all over the
world to participate in the expediting of the project. On February 24, 1965 the
Supreme PontiV named Rev. Raimondo Bidagor, S.J. the new secretary of the
Commission since Monsignor Violardo had been promoted to the oYce of secretary
of the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments; on November 17 of the
same year the pope appointed Monsignor William Onclin as adjunct secretary of the
Commission. After the death of Cardinal Ciriaci, Archbishop Pericle Felici,
former general secretary of Vatican Council II, was named pro-president on
February 21, 1967. On June 26 of that same year he became a member of the Sacred
College of Cardinals and subsequently assumed the oYce of president of the
Commission. Since Father Bidagor ceased functioning as secretary of the
Commission on November 1, 1973 on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, Most
Reverend Rosalio Castillo Lara, S.D.B., titular bishop of Praecausa and coadjutor
bishop of Trujillo, Venezuela, was named the new secretary of the Commission. On
May 17, 1982 he was appointed pro-president of the Commission upon the premature
On November 20, 1965, just before the closing of the Second Vatican Council,
there was a solemn session of the Commission in the presence of the Supreme
PontiV Paul VI, at which were present the cardinal members of the Commission, the
secretaries, consultors and oYcials of the Secretariat appointed in the meantime.
This session publicly inaugurated the work of the Code Commission. The allocution
of the Supreme PontiV laid the foundations of the whole enterprise to a certain
extent. It was recalled that canon law flows from the nature of the Church, that
it is rooted in the power of jurisdiction entrusted to the Church by Christ, and
that its purpose is to be viewed in terms of the care of souls in view of
external salvation. Furthermore, the character of church law was illustrated; its
necessity was vindicated against the more common objections; the history of the
progress of law and its collections was alluded to; and especially there was
highlighted the urgent need of a new reform of the law to respond to the ongoing
need of appropriately adapting church discipline to changing circumstances.
The Supreme PontiV further indicated to the Commission two elements which
should underly the whole revision eVort. First of all it was not simply a matter
of a new organization of the laws as had occurred at the time of the Pio-
Benedictine Code; but rather it was also and especially a matter of reforming the
norms to accommodate them to a new mentality and new needs even if the old law
was to supply the foundation for the work of revision. Careful attention was to
be paid to all the decrees and acts of the Second Vatican Council since they
contain the main lines of legislative renewal either because norms were issued
which directly aVected new institutes and ecclesiastical discipline, or because
it was necessary that the doctrinal riches of the Council, which contributed so
much to pastoral life, have their consequences and necessary impact on canonical
Repeatedly in allocutions, precepts and decisions during the following years,
the two above mentioned elements were recalled to the minds of the Commission
members by the Supreme PontiV, who continued to oversee the whole enterprise from
on high and assiduously pursue it.
If the subcommissions or study groups were to carry on their work in a
methodical fashion, it was necessary above all that there be identiWed and
approved certain principles which would serve as guidelines during the process
of revising the whole Code. The central committee of consultors prepared the text
of a document, which, at the request of the Supreme PontiV, was submitted to the
examination of a general session of the synod of bishops in October 1967. The
following principles were approved nearly unanimously.
1. In renewing the law the juridic character of the new Code, which the
social nature of the Church requires, is to be retained. Therefore the Code is
to furnish norms so that the members of the Christian faithful in living the
Christian life may share in the goods oVered by the Church to lead them to
eternal salvation. Hence, in view of this end, the Code must deWne and protect
the rights and obligations of each person towards others and towards the
ecclesiastical society to the extent that these rights and obligations pertain
to divine worship and the salvation of souls.
2. There is to be a coordination between the external forum and the internal
forum, which is proper to the Church and has been operative for centuries, so as
to preclude any conflict between the two.
3. To foster the pastoral care of souls as much as possible, the new law,
besides the virtue of justice, is to take cognizance of charity, temperance,
humaneness and moderation, whereby equity is to be pursued not only in the
application of the laws by pastors of souls but also in the legislation itself.
Hence unduly rigid norms are to be set aside and rather recourse is to be taken
to exhortations and persuasions where there is no need of a strict observance of
the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline.
4. In order that the Supreme Legislator and the bishops may collaborate in the
care of souls and may exercise the pastoral oYce in a more positive fashion,
those faculties to dispense from general laws which until now have been
extraordinary are to become ordinary with reservations to the supreme power of
the universal Church or other higher authorities only in those areas which
require an exception on account of the common good.
5. Careful attention is to be given to the greater application of the so-called
principle of subsidiarity within the Church. It is a principle which is rooted
in a higher one because the oYce of bishops with its attached powers is a reality
of divine law. In virtue of this principle one may defend the appropriateness and
even the necessity of providing for the welfare especially of individual
institutes through particular laws and the recognition of a healthy autonomy for
particular executive power while legislative unity and universal and general law
are observed. On the basis of the same principle, the new Code entrusts either
to particular laws or to executive power whatever is not necessary for the unity
of the discipline of the universal Church so that appropriate provision is made
for a healthy “decentralization” while avoiding the danger of division into or
the establishment of national churches.
6. On account of the fundamental equality of all members of the Christian
faithful and the diversity of oYces and functions rooted in the hierarchical
order of the Church, it is expedient that the rights of persons be appropriately
deWned and safeguarded. This brings it about that the exercise of authority
appears more clearly as service, that its use is more clearly reinforced, and
7. In order that such objectives may be appropriately implemented, it is
necessary that particular attention be given to the organization of a procedure
which envisions the protection of subjective rights. Therefore in renewing the
law attention should be paid to those elements which are most especially lacking
in this area, i.e. administrative recourses and the administration of justice.
To achieve this it is necessary that the various functions of ecclesiastical
power be clearly distinguished, i.e. the legislative, administrative, and
judicial functions. What individual functions are to be exercised by which
governmental organs is also to be deWned.
8. The principle of territoriality in the exercise of ecclesiastical government
is to be revised somewhat, for contemporary apostolic factors seem to recommend
personal jurisdictional units. Therefore the new Code is to aYrm the following
principle: generally speaking the portions of the people of God to be governed
are to be determined territorially; however, if it is advantageous, other factors
can be admitted as criteria for determining a community of the faithful, at least
along with territoriality.
9. As an external, visible and independent society, the Church cannot renounce
penal law. However, penalties are generally to be ferendae sententiae and are to
be inflicted and remitted only in the external forum. Latae sententiae penalties
are to be reduced to a few cases and are to be inflicted only for the most
10. Finally, as is admitted by all, the new systematic arrangement of the Code
required by the revision process can only be sketched at the outset but cannot
be de-Wned and determined precisely. Therefore the new organization of the Code
will have to be pursued only after a suYcient revision of its individual parts,
in fact only after nearly the whole work has been completed.
From these principles which ought to guide the process of revising the Code,
it is quite clear that there is a need to apply everywhere the doctrine of the
Church expressed by the Second Vatican Council, especially its determination that
attention is to be paid not only to the external social dimensions of the
Mystical Body of Christ but also and especially to its internal life.
And in point of fact the consultors were guided by these principles in drafting
Meanwhile a January 15, 1966 letter of the cardinal president of the Commission
to the presidents of the conferences of bishops asked the bishops of the whole
Catholic world to express their concerns and advice regarding the law to be
drafted and the best way of structuring relationships between the conferences of
bishops and the Commission so as to maximize their cooperation for the good of
the Church. Furthermore, the bishops were also asked to send to the Secretariat
of the Commission the names of canonical experts in their respective regions who
in the judgment of the bishops were the most distinguished in terms of canonical
expertise; the special competence of these experts was also to be indicated. The
consultors and their collaborators could be selected and named from these
individuals. Actually, at the very beginning and throughout the working of the
Commission, besides its cardinal members the following collaborated in the
drafting of the new Code of Canon Law: bishops, priests, religious, laity,
experts in canon law, theology, pastoral practice, and civil law from all over
the Catholic world. During the whole revision process 105 cardinals, 77
archbishops and bishops, 73 secular presbyters, 47 religious presbyters, 3
religious women and 12 lay persons from 5 continents and 31 countries served as
members, consultors and other types of collaborators with the Commission.
Even before the last session of the Second Vatican Council, the consultors of
the Commission were gathered in a private session on May 6, 1965, in which, with
the consent of the Holy Father, the Commission president submitted three
fundamental questions for their study. It was asked Wrst whether one or two
codes, i.e. Latin and Oriental, were to be drafted; it was also asked what
methodology was to be followed in the drafting process or how the Commission and
its organs were to proceed; Wnally, it was asked what would be an appropriate
division of labor among the various subcommissions, which would be functioning
simultaneously. Reports prepared by three groups established to deal with these
questions were forwarded to all the Commission members.
The cardinal members of the Commission met for the second time on November 25,
1965 to discuss these same questions and respond to certain proposals (dubia)
formulated concerning them.
A principle regarding the systematic organization of the new Code to be
proposed to the synod of bishops was drawn up from a votum of the central
committee of consultors, which had met on April 3–7, 1967. After the meeting of
the synod, it was deemed appropriate to establish in November, 1967 a special
committee of consultors to study the systematic organization of the Code. At a
meeting of this committee at the beginning of April, 1968, all agreed on not
incorporating in the Code properly liturgical laws, norms on beatiWcation and
canonization processes, and norms on the external relations of the Church. All
agreed as well that in the part on the people of God there would be placed norms
on the juridic status of all members of the Christian faithful and a distinct
treatment of the powers and faculties which pertain to the exercise of the
diVerent functions and oYces. Finally all agreed that the structure of the books
of the Pio-Benedictine Code could not be maintained in its integrity.
During the third meeting of the cardinal members of the Commission on May 28,
1968, they substantially approved a temporary arrangement according to which the
study groups already established were organized in a new way: “the systematic
organization of the Code,” “general norms,” “the sacred hierarchy,” “institutes
of perfection,” “laity,” “physical and moral persons in general,” “marriage,”
“sacraments other than marriage,” “the ecclesiastical magisterium,” “the
patrimonial law of the Church,” “processes,” “penal law.”
The issues dealt with by the study group on “physical and juridic persons” (it
was subsequently called this) were later incorporated in the book on “general
norms.” Furthermore it was deemed appropriate to establish a study group on
“sacred places and times and divine worship.” In view of their broader
competence, the names of some other study groups were changed: the group on “the
laity” was later called the group on “the rights and associations of the faithful
and the laity”; the group on “religious” was later called the group on
“institutes of perfection” and Wnally the group on “institutes of life
consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels.”
The principal features of the method followed during the more than sixteen year
revision process are to be briefly recalled. The consultors of the individual
groups fulWlled their signiWcant duties with the greatest dedication, considering
only the good of the Church either in preparing written observations on the parts
of their own schemata, or in discussing various issues at meetings in Rome at
determined times, or in examining the animadversions, observations and opinions
on their schemata which were forwarded to the Commission. The procedure was as
follows. To each of the consultors, who numbered from eight to fourteen on the
individual study groups, was assigned a certain issue which was to be studied in
view of the revision process, with the present Code as the point of departure.
After an examination of the questions, each consultor was to transmit a written
opinion to the Secretariat of the Commission as well as a copy to the relator
and, if time permitted, to all the members of the study group. The consultors of
the study group met in Rome according to a predetermined schedule. With the
relator leading the discussions, all the questions and opinions were considered
until a text of canons was approved, at times after a process of voting on
individual parts, and drafted in schema form. During the session the relator was
aided by an oYcial who functioned as an actuary.
The number of meetings for each study group was greater or lesser depending on
the concrete issues, and the work was carried on for years.
Especially during the latter stages of the process, certain mixed study groups
were established so that consultors from diVerent groups could meet and discuss
issues which directly pertained to several groups and had to be resolved through
After the drafting of some schemata was completed by the study groups, the
Supreme Legislator was asked to give some concrete indications of the subsequent
steps to be taken in continuing the work. According to the norms handed down at
the time, those steps were as follows.
The schemata together with an explanatory report were sent to the Supreme
PontiV, who determined whether they were to be forwarded for consultation
purposes. After this permission was obtained, the printed schemata were submitted
to the examination of the universal episcopate and other consultative organs
(namely, the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, ecclesiastical universities and
faculties, and the Union of Superiors General) in order that they might express
their opinion within a prudently determined time frame—not less than six months.
At the same time, the schemata were also forwarded to the cardinal members of the
Commission so as to enable them to make their general or particular observations
The order in which the schemata were sent is as follows:
1972—the schema on administrative procedure;
1973—the schema on sanctions in the Church;
1975—the schema on the sacraments;
1976—the schema on the procedure for the protection of rights or processes;
1977—the schema on institutes of life consecrated by the profession of the
evangelical counsels, the schema on general norms, the schema on the people of
God, the schema on the Church’s teaching oYce, the schema on sacred times and
places and divine worship, and the schema on the patrimonial law of the Church.
Undoubtedly the revised Code could not have been appropriately prepared without
the inestimable and continuous cooperation aVorded the Commission by numerous
very valid animadversions especially of a pastoral character oVered by bishops
and conferences of bishops. The bishops submitted very many written
animadversions, either general ones on the schemata considered as a whole or
particular ones on individual canons.
Of great beneWt also were those general and particular animadversions submitted
by the sacred congregations, tribunals and other institutes of the Roman Curia,
based on their experience in the central government of the Church. This was also
true for the scientiWc and technical proposals and suggestions oVered by
ecclesiastical universities and faculties reflecting diVerent schools and ways
of thinking.
The study, examination and collegial discussion of all the animadversions,
general and particular, which were forwarded to the Commission constituted a
weighty and veritably immense burden which lasted seven years. The Secretariat
of the Commission took pains carefully to organize and synthesize all the
animadversions, proposals and suggestions which, after they had been forwarded
to the consultors and carefully examined by them, were subsequently collegially
discussed in working sessions conducted by the ten study groups.
Every animadversion was considered with the utmost care and diligence. This was
true even in the case of animadversions contradicting one another (which
frequently happened). Due consideration was given not only to their sociological
importance (namely, the number of consultative organs and persons who proposed
them), but especially to their doctrinal and pastoral value, their coherence with
the doctrine and implementing norms of the Second Vatican Council, the pontiWcal
magisterium, and their necessary coherence with the juridic canonical system when
examined from a speciWcally technical and scientiWc standpoint. In fact, as often
as it was a case of a doubtful matter or when questions of special importance
were debated, the opinion of the cardinal members of the Commission was sought
during one of their plenary sessions. In other cases in view of the speciWc
matter under discussion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and other
dicasteries of the Roman Curia were consulted. Finally, many corrections and
changes were incorporated in the canons of the early schemata at the request or
suggestion of the bishops and other consultative organs, so that some schemata
were entirely renewed or changed.
After all the schemata had been reworked, the Secretariat of the Commission and
the consultors undertook a further weighty task. It was a matter of seeing to an
internal coordination of all the schemata, of ensuring a uniform terminology
throughout especially from a technical-juridic standpoint, of drafting canons in
brief and elegant formulations, and Wnally of deWnitively determining a
systematic organization so that all of the schemata, prepared by distinct study
groups, could be integrated into one completely harmonious Code.
The new systematic organization which, as it were, spontaneously emerged slowly
during the revision process, is based on two principles, one of which is Wdelity
to the more general principles already determined by the central committee, the
other of which is its practical usefulness so that the new Code can be easily
understood and used not only by experts but also by pastors and indeed by all
members of the Christian faithful.
The new Code therefore consists of seven books which are entitled: General
Norms, The People of God, The Teaching Function of the Church, The Sanctifying
Function of the Church, The Temporal Goods of the Church, Sanctions in the
Church, and Processes. Even if the diVerent rubrics which precede the individual
books of the old and new Code appear to indicate suYciently the diVerences
between the two systems, nonetheless the systematic innovations of the new Code
are much more evident in light of its parts, sections, titles and rubrics. But
it is certain that the new organization not only corresponds better to the proper
matter and character of canon law than the old organization, but also, and what
is of greater importance, the new is more in keeping with the ecclesiology of the
Second Vatican Council and those principles flowing from it which were proposed
at the very outset of the revision process.
On June 29, 1980, the solemnity of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, the
printed schema of the whole Code was presented to the Supreme PontiV, who decided
it was to be forwarded to the cardinal members of the Commission for their de-
Wnitive examination and judgment. In order to highlight even more the
participation of the whole Church in the last phase of the revision process, the
Supreme PontiV determined that other members be added to the Commission,
cardinals and even bishops selected from the whole Church, conferences of bishops
or councils or groups of conferences of bishops proposing candidates. Thus the
expanded Commission numbered seventy-four members. At the beginning of 1981 they
forwarded many animadversions which subsequently were subjected to a careful
examination, diligent study and collegial discussion by the Secretariat of the
Commission, with the help of consultors endowed with special expertise in the
individual issues being discussed. A synthesis of all the animadversions together
with the responses given by the Secretariat and the consultors was forwarded to
the members of the Commission in August, 1981.
A plenary session was convoked by order of the Supreme PontiV to deliberate on
the entire text of the new Code and to cast a deWnitive vote on it. The session
took place October 20–28, 1981 in the aula of the synod of bishops. There was a
discussion of six questions of particular weight and importance as well as of
other questions proposed at the request of at least ten Fathers. At the end of
the plenary session, the Fathers unanimously responded placet (aYrmatively) to
the following question: whether it pleased the Fathers that, after the
examination during the plenary session of the schema of the Code and the
emendations already introduced, the same schema along with the changes which had
received a majority vote during the plenary session was worthy of being presented
as soon as possible to the Supreme PontiV, who would issue the Code at a time and
in a way which seemed best. Consideration was also to be given to other
animadversions which had been presented as well as to a certain polishing of the
text regarding its style and Latinity (which tasks were entrusted to the
president and the Secretariat).
The entire text of the Code thereby reworked and approved was enlarged by the
addition of canons from the schema on the Fundamental Law of the Church which had
to be inserted in the Code in light of the material with which they dealt. After
the Latin style of the text was further polished, it was printed and given to the
Supreme PontiV on April 22, 1982 with a view toward promulgation.
The Supreme PontiV, however, personally reviewed this latest schema with the
help of certain experts and in consultation with the pro-president of the
PontiWcal Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law. After mature
consideration the Supreme PontiV decreed that the new Code was to be promulgated
on January 25, 1983, i.e., the anniversary of the Wrst announcement by Pope John
XXIII of the undertaking of the Code’s revision.
Since after nearly twenty years the pontiWcal commission established for this
purpose has felicitously completed the diYcult task entrusted to it, there is now
available to pastors and other members of the Christian faithful the most recent
law of the Church, which is characterized by simplicity, precision, elegance and
true legal science. Furthermore, since it is fully pervaded by charity, equity,
humanity and a true Christian spirit, it attempts to correspond to the divinely
given external and internal characteristics of the Church. It also seeks to take
cognizance of the conditions and needs of the contemporary world. But if on
account of the excessively swift changes in contemporary human society certain
elements of the new law become less perfect and require a new review, the Church
is endowed with such a wealth of resources that, not unlike prior centuries, it
will be able to undertake the task of renewing the laws of its life.
Now, however, the law can no longer be unknown. Pastors have at their disposal
secure norms by which they may correctly direct the exercise of the sacred
ministry. To each person is given a source of knowing his or her own proper
rights and duties. Arbitrariness in acting can be precluded. Abuses which perhaps
have crept into ecclesiastical discipline because of a lack of legislation can
be more easily rooted out and prevented. Finally, all the works, institutes and
initiatives of the apostolate may progress expeditiously and may be promoted
since a healthy juridic organization is quite necessary for the ecclesiastical
community to live, grow and flourish. May our most gracious God grant this
through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Church,
her spouse St. Joseph, Patron of the Church, and Saints Peter and Paul.
F O R E W O R D T O T H E T R A N S L A T I O N