Talk:Declaration of nullity
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Declaration of nullity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Marriage Clean Up
Whoever wrote the base article, you did a great job!! Thanks also to the other editors. I tried to refine this a bit, especially the legalities of annulments. I hope I made it clearer, but since I work with Canon Law professionally, I am not always sure if I made something clearer or too technical. DaveTroy 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is copyrighted material; although it may be fair use in the United States, it may violate copyright if the article is displayed in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the fair-use doctrine, unless the copyright owner has granted permission. Has this been done? (As I understand, the Pope owns the copyright.) 184.108.40.206 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- The way the current copyright has been enforced, as I understand it, you may only use two paragraphs block text without sending the work to a censor (fact checker if you will) for doctrinal correctness. However, you can use the Catechism as a reference, provided you aren't actually "quoting" (ex. The Church teaches.......cf. CCC ##).DaveTroy 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Section on Eastern Orthodox Tribunals
The Canon (780) cited as supporting validity and acceptance of the Eastern Orthodox tribunal by the Catholic Church states NO such thing. In fact, Canon Law commentary on the Canon specifically states that a "Catholic tribunal" MUST be annul the marriage. http://books.google.com/books?id=X5rcnhLnRYMC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=CCEO+canon+780&source=bl&ots=ExodqmLKXI&sig=7MoG-R9vD1VE-ReYN6ZohK0K3J4&hl=en&ei=r3QDS9XYLMeEnQeS5-Fp&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=CCEO%20canon%20780&f=false --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Starting the first of many drafts and rewrites. There is no historical background, and this does not present a modern worldview. True historical background (minus onesided beliefs), as well as all Vatican publications should be integrated. Missclark (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Grounds for Nullity
I have edited the last paragraph of the section "Grounds for Nullity", since it uses wrong terminology (a declaration of annulment is not a 'dispensation'), gives an inaccurate account of the position of Benedict XVI (suggesting that it is an ideological stance when it simply corresponds to the exact requirements of canon 1095), makes unsupported hypotheses about the possible influence of Archbishop Raymond Burke in the matter; and, not least, because its main source (as appears from its note 12) is an interview with an ex-priest on an Australian radio program. It is not true that Benedict and John Paul II before him have been "critical of dispensations for purely psychological reasons". They have criticized annulments based on the supposition of some simple immaturity at consent; and have called for a proper interpretation of canon 1095 as given in the 1983 Code. Canon 1095 allows for declarations of nullity based on psychological grounds, but specifies that the psychic defect involved at consent must have been grave and must have related to the essential rights and obligations of marriage.Unimpeder (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)