Talk:Pauline privilege

Controversy
Most -- although not all -- of the references I found to the "Pauline Privilege" were written from the Catholic point of view. I was not able to determine: I included a link to a Messianic Jewish statement, but I don't know if that is representative.
 * the position of Eastern Orthodoxy
 * the position of specific Protestant denominations

It goes without saying, but please fill in if you can. -- Shunpiker 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any Protestant community that formally uses Pauline Privilege. Is anyone aware of a formal practive outside Catholicism?  I think the Orthodox use the same understanding as Roman Catholicism.DaveTroy 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

 * The Pauline Privilege does not apply when either of the partners was a Christian at the time of marriage. Under Catholicism, the Petrine Privilege may be invoked if only one of the partners was baptized at the time of marriage

These two sentences are contradictory. First it doesn't apply (according to whom?) and then it applies if only one of the partner's were baptized. Then there are the questions - Is it grounds for a catholic to invoke the Petrine Priveledge if their spouse leaves the faith? And I presume that a Catholic who makes a (civil) marriage to an unbeliever could later remarry a Catholic. Is that right?
 * -- NR.Dick 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (discussion migrated from article by Shunpiker)

There is no contradiction: Notice that two separate privileges are being discussed, Pauline and Petrine.

Question 1. If two baptized persons marry, then the Petrine privilege can never apply, even if one party later leaves the faith.

Question 2. A Catholic who makes a civil marriage, to anyone, can later remarry in the Church, because the civil marriage is not considered valid due to "lack of form". -- Cat Whisperer 23:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ad primum: The Petrine privilege says that the Pope can freely dispose of a purely natural marriage. This is a divorce, not an annulment -- the only divorce that is accepted in the Catholic Church. Thus it can never apply to a marriage between two baptized persons, as this is per se sacramental. Ad secundum: Under current sacramental theology, as I understand it, a civil marriage between baptized persons is illicit but valid, since the sacrament is dispensed by the two parties of the marriage, not the priest. A civilly married and divorced person cannot contract marriage in the Catholic Church without an annulment proceeding. If one of the parties was not baptized, the Pauline privilege can be invoked, thus avoiding a lengthy annulment process. The Petrine privilege is very seldom invoked in practice. 62.101.102.226 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ad primum it is more accurat to say that Petrine Priv. is a dissolution of a valid natural marriage, a divorce is a civil action disposing of a civil contract, secundum: I think you're confusing the question of form and sacramental theology. You're correct, between two baptized people a marriage is either a sacrament or invalid.  Canonical form, however, applies to Catholics unless dispensed, as CatWisperer notes above.  Therefore, if a Catholic were to marry a Protestant, in a civil wedding, without the dispensation of Canonical Form, the marriage would be invalid.  If a Baptist were to marry a Baptist in a civil wedding, the marriage is presumably valid, as they have no requirement for Canonical form.  This is discussed at great length in the section on annulments.DaveTroy 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A Different Interpretation
As a believing Christian who reserves the right to think, I interpret the so-called Pauline privilege differently. I think "unbelieving partner" includes a partner who does not believe in his or her spouse or in the marriage itself. In other words, it means ending the marriage (or declaring there never was really a marriage) on the basis of what, in secular terms, would be called incompatibility betwixt the two spouses. Tom129.93.17.139 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Read No original research. 75.14.219.167 (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal
I am removing the entire section headed "controversy" as unencyclopedic. The statements it makes are contentious and completely without sources and citation. Specifically it states "Some denominations do not recognise the Pauline privilege as allowing the dissolution of marriage. arguing that...". If this is actually a view held by "some denominations" than it should be easily citable, as it is its not even clear if these denominations actually exist or if the editor who made the section is doing original research and saying said denominbations exist because the editor assumes they do or thinks they should. The second part suffers from the same problem, starting with "another point of contention" and continuing with "some recognise". If it is contentious it ought to be cited, as well if it is actually contentious it should be easy to cite. The term "some recognise" is a Weasel word, the reason its considered so is that one could easily ask who?, and when?. It could be argued that these are obvious views held by many people. I have little doubt that's so, but the fact that its a question of faith and dogma mean that its not a clear fact that needs no citation. My opinion and the editor of the sections opinion that denominations probably hold this view mean little. We do not qualify as a denomination and for encyclopedic purposes two peoples opinion can not be cited as "some recognise". Two people views, or assumptions of the views of others is not "some" its "me and some other person". If the fact that two people of no notability believe something or figure others do was considered enough to include their opinions in an article than every article would have a long list of every individual's view or theory. That's why its not the WP standard for a citation. Lastly the term "some recognise" is a POV, "recognise" means seeing the facts or objects as they are, "believe" is a more NPOV but as stated above is still unencyclopedic for the aforementioned reasons ie: no sources and original research.--Colinmorley1000 (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone should add a link to this
it should be Pauline exception. 70.109.191.157 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The common name is "Pauline Privilege":

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pauline+Privilege

75.0.0.231 (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)