Talk:Declaration of nullity

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)

copyright?

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)

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)

Civil Effects of Annulment

It is worth noting, as I did in the first line, that in SOME counties (for example, Italy), the Annulment process ALSO acts as a civil process that concludes with BOTH civil divorce AND canonical annulment. Again, as noted, this would depend on the laws of the individual country and their treaty with the Holy See.DaveTroy 09:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Much Jargon

The article is very difficult to read. Further, it fails to address the fact that, in many cases, an "annulment" is merely the Catholic term for divorce. Pope John Paul II frequently complained that, in his view, far too many annulments were granted in the United States. This should be addressed in the article. If the Pope does not understand the annulment process, the rest of us can be pardoned for viewing it skeptically as well.

John Paul Parks (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Incest and Remarriage

There is an ancient tradition in the Catholic Church which considers remarriage to be a comparable to incest, hence the taboo on divorce and taking communion with a second marital partner. This taboo is mentioned in the document Sacramentum Caritatis, which forbids re-married people to have sexual relations, as if they were brothers and sisters. It is not so simple to write about this without any precise sources on hand, but the material could be added after a proper consultation of canon law and ecclesiastic history. ADM (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I would characterize it that way. If a divorced person does not obtain an annulment, but remarries, the church insists that they live together as if they were brother and sister.

John Paul Parks (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree re Too Much Jargon

I do not consider the terminology employed represents jargon at all, but rather that it is saliently pertinent to the subject. Understandably it may present as being considerably unfamiliar to those not conversant with this somewhat technical subject. The original contributor's information is well written and informative. Furthermore, the statement that "annulment" is Catholicism's term for 'divorce' is absolutely erroneous. There is a definitive difference between divorce and annulment. It needs to be clearly stated and understood that the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce and never has. In other words, where it considers a valid marriage exists then The Church cannot and will not grant an annulment. However, where The Church considers there are sufficient grounds upon which to rely and prove that a valid marriage was not originally entered into, then an annulment is possible, on the basis that a valid marriage never existed - hence an annulment.

Confusion arises regarding the finer differences between the two, due to an arrangement in certain countries, (with the sanction of The Holy See), between the Church and the civil law system, whereby the granting of a civil divorce automatically generates the granting of an annulment by the Church. Nonetheless, this does not mean that an annulment is one and the same as a divorce.

On this basis I would suggest that the above query marker be removed from the original contributer's explanation. Dingerooz (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Response

I am aware of the technical distinction between "divorce" and "annulment," but the fact of the matter is that more than 90% of annulments sought in the United States are granted. It strains reason, logic, and credulity to conclude that so many marriages are "invalid" from the beginning. It is also an indisputable fact that the rise in the number of annulments did not start until the 1960's, after the "reforms" of the Second Vatican Council.

I am not the only one who has questioned the excessive number of annulments granted in the United States. In October 1998, Pope John Paul II, in an address to U.S. bishops, expressed his grave concern about the number of annulments.

See www.defendingholymatrimony.org/html/blasts_annulments.html

If the Pope does not understand the process, then I can be excused for failing to understand it as well.

On this basis, and in order for the article to have objectivity, I think the article needs to discuss the fact that, apparently, "annulment" is a convenient way for Catholics to get divorced and then remarry.

The commenter above definitely has a POV on the Catholic annulment, but it should not be incorporated into the article without considering a more realistic view of the Catholic annulment process.

John Paul Parks (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (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 --69.47.219.68 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)