Talk:Matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis

Good sources for nullity reforms

• National Catholic Register
  • http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/not-so-fast-on-fast-track-annulments-canonists-say/
  • http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/with-annulment-reforms-pope-seeks-to-remedy-the-darkness-of-doubt/
  • http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/annulment-reform-6-misconceptions-and-6-developments/
• In the Light of the Law blog
  • https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-second-look-at-mitis-especially-at-the-new-fast-track-annulment-process/
  • https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/a-first-look-at-mitis-iudex/
  • https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/note-avoiding-the-requirements-of-mitis-would-not-be-easy-for-bishops/
  • https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/who-is-satisfied-with-mitis-iudex/
  • https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/nah-that-twernt-no-smear/
  • https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/the-popes-niece-might-be-on-to-something/
• Other
  • http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-reforms-annulment-process-9-things-to-know-and-share
  • http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/09/what_the_marriage_law_reforms_do,_and_what_they_dont_do/1170693
  • http://madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx
  • http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/september-18th-2015/were-heading-for-catholic-divorces/?

Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I just organized this section, and moved your comment and my response concerning Dr. Peters' blog to a new section below, so that editors such as I can cite the discussion and its evidence, argument, and conclusion as a precedent for citation of such blog on other Catholic canon law pages in the future. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 09:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D. blog as reliable source

In the Light of the Law—This is a blog, but the author is noted canonist Edward N. Peters and it should be suitable as a WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk)

I heartily concur with this assessment. I have thought this for a long time, but I didn't know if there was a policy to back this up, or any other editor opinions on the subject. I agree, that this blog should be an admitable source. It was even cited by The Associated Press as a substantive commentary on the reforms; this alone makes it a real source, and not just some private blog. And Dr. Peters has been published numerous times by established 3rd-party publishers within the field of canon law, and cited countless times by the broader media as an authority within the field of canon law. Pope Benedict XVI appointed him a Referendary (expert on canon law) to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura; if the "Supreme Judge of the entire Catholic world" (cf. canon 1442) thinks that someone is an expert in his field, then in the words of another pope, "Who am I to judge?". His blog certainly meets WP:BLOGS. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 09:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No longer stub

I have tried to update the classification of the article, after responding to its stub status. If I have done this improperly please advise as to what I left out. Thanks! Jzsj (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to leave the assessment of an article to the experts. It's certainly not B-class. It's start-class at best: the coverage is very basic. And it's not high-importance. If you look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism assessment page, you'll see that high importance is for things like Thomas Aquinas and College of Cardinals. The best thing in a case like this is just to remove the "stub" rating and leave a blank. Then it will go into an "unassessed" category and somebody will pick it up and rate it in due time. I've done that. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913000300/http://madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx to http://madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)