Jump to content

Talk:Declaration of nullity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage Clean Up

[edit]

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)[reply]

copyright?

[edit]

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.) 69.140.164.142 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
As I understand (I believe there is a source for that) the Catechism is free to use for any missionary activity, which includes informing people about what the Catholic Church says. --93.135.33.66 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

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)[reply]

Grounds for Nullity

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Declaration of nullity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declaratory judgement of nullity

[edit]

"Declaratory judgement of nullity" is a more correct definition sourced here. In the new York State, declaratory shiws effect soly within judiciable cases and "declaratory judgments are available for the determination of certain matrimonial rights" (Canonical and Civil Matrimonial Actions: A Comparison, p. 10). "Declaratory judgement of nullity" translateds the Italian declaratoria di nullità (examples: diritto.it; tribunaleinterdiocesanosiculo.it; a civil sentence and an ecclesiastical one).

Properly, nobody, even the Pope, has the right to divide what God has made one flesh (Mt 19,5–6 and 1Cor 7,10–11). Those verses arent' yet sourced in the article. Implied by those verses, there exists a basic distinction between what become null form a certain time onwards and what was null since the time of its begining. For the Roman Catholic marriage, the second hypothesis is the unique admitted. It is uncluear and not yet specified in the article the canonical law in cases of rape, abortion, or adultery which were committed after the nuptials.

Thirdly, canonical and civil law of lay jurisdictions share some excusations for declaring null a marriage, like the circumvention of an incapable. But similar cases shall be verified before the marriage by work of the celebrating priest. For this reason, a decision held by the civil tribunal is capable of explaining effects on an ecclesiastical tribunal (and vice versa).Theologian81sp (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Declaration_of_nullity&oldid=1250052993"