Talk:Petrine privilege

Untitled
This article is TOTALLY WRONG. I'm a canon lawyer, so I'd like to think I have half a clue about this subject...

"Such a marriage is considered not confirmed (non ratus) through sacramental union, and hence not fully indissoluble." This is sheer garbage! Canon 1141 is applicable to everybody, sacramental marriage or not! You can't have a "partly indissoluble" marriage, guys!

And the canons which this article cites pertain to the PAULINE privilege, not the Petrine. Who WROTE this stuff?!

Look, don't take my word for it--get a professor of marriage law at a canon law faculty to completely rewrite this for you. In the meantime, be aware that this misinformation is confusing a lot of people out there! Ohmariemariemarie (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

--

Dude, this is not petrine privilege, but pauline.

Petrine is about dissolving marriage when it's not been consumated yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.35.45.194 (talk • contribs)


 * The article is correct. The Pauline privilege applies only when both parties are unbaptized.  Take at look at FAQ #40 from the Archdiocese of Chicago. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

POV
This article seems to get very anti-Catholic at end (the last section). It also lacks sources. I recommend it be deleted. —Felix the Cassowary 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article could use improvement but bias is not a good reason to delete an article completely when it deals with a notable subject. Certainly Wikipedia should have an article on the subject. And the article does manage do explain that the Petrine Privilege is as well as giving some sources, though not always cited in the usual Wikipedia format. I also would not say the article is anti-catholic unless criticising the church on one discrete issue counts. Still rewriting to present both criticism and defense of the practice in a neutral tone would be good. MathHisSci (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is very POV as well as unsourced. It presents the supposed lack of a "cogent theological explanation" as a fact while any explanations are just theories. The content either needs to be greatly redone: presented as a specific person's criticism, with sources, as well as the Catholic teaching on why this is allowed, and which side makes more sense is left to the reader; or it needs to be entirely deleted. PaulGS (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The cogent theological explanation is of course that these marriages are not sacramental.--2.236.198.248 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)