MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2069657438 · doi:10.1353/jur.2012.0058

Administrative Procedures in Canonical Marriage Cases: History, Legislation, and Praxis by Piero Amenta (review)

2012· article· en· W2069657438 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick R. Lagges

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œJurist/˜The œjurist · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTheology and Canon Law Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationPraxisLawCanon lawPrivilege (computing)ClassicsSAINTSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceTheologyPhilosophyArt history

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Administrative Procedures in Canonical Marriage Cases: History, Legislation, and Praxis by Piero Amenta Patrick R. Lagges Administrative Procedures in Canonical Marriage Cases: History, Legislation, and Praxis, by Piero Amenta. Translated from the Italian by Marcus Francis and Christopher Hancock. Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2011. Pp. xxiii-258. While the definitive work for processing marriage cases in an administrative manner remains that of W. WOESTMAN (now WOESTMAN AND KOWAL, Special Marriage Cases and Procedures, Ratified and Non-Consummated Marriage, Pauline Privilege Favour of the Faith, Separation of Spouses, Validation, Presumed Death, fourth revised updated edition, with appendices, Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, Ottawa, 2008, xii, 355 p.), this current volume should help dispel any qualms that tribunals might have in handling cases in a non-judicial manner. It is an excellent companion to the Woestman [End Page 676] and Kowal book. Since the author has worked in the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, he is able to give an insiders' view of how the dicastery handles these cases and the problems that it has encountered in their instruction. The author has done a great service to the Church in preparing this publication. Of particular value is the first part of the book, which gives a rather substantial history of Church teaching on the indissolubility of the bond of marriage. For those who may be teaching canon law in seminaries, or in deacon or lay ministry formation programs, the author gives a brief overview (approximately 60 pages) of biblical and patristic evidence, the medieval Summae, the Paris and Bologna debates, the consensualist doctrine of Raymond of Peñafort, the thought of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, the teaching of the Council of Trent and of the period between Trent and Vatican II, and the theological and canonical foundations of the ministerial power of the Roman Pontiff. The author's comments on the vicarious power of the Roman Pontiff and the possibility of that power being delegated is particularly interesting. Part Two deals with the current legislation in force concerning the dissolution of the bond in favorem fidei and super rato, as well as the practice of the Roman Curia in handling these cases. The author makes useful distinctions in discussing each of these processes and gives substantive background for each of them. Most helpful are his descriptions of cases that have been handled by the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, since they allow tribunal practitioners to avoid certain pitfalls in preparing cases. It should be pointed out, however, that his suggestions deal almost exclusively with the substantive parts of the case. For the technical preparation of a case, practitioners would have to consult Woestman and Kowal (for example, the need for typed copies, accurate pagination, an index, the number of copies to be submitted, etc.). Part Three is the shortest section (26 pages), dealing with cases of separation of the spouses while the bond remains and the presumed death of a spouse. His examples of presumed death of a spouse, however, seem to be situations which will seldom be encountered. More practical would have been mention of the possibility of such cases in the collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001 or certain natural disasters. These phenomenon open up far more possibilities for tribunals today than the examples mentioned. What is most helpful in this volume is the author's constant reminder that the papal dissolution of marriage is a grace and is not a right. Keeping [End Page 677] this is mind gives those preparing such cases a certain orientation on approaching the Holy See. Also helpful is his explanation of the difference between how something is proven in an administrative process versus how something is proven in a judicial process, with the administrative process being far more adaptable to the individual exigencies of each case. With many tribunals reluctant to approach the Holy See with administrative cases, this publication goes a long way in dispelling any fears or anxieties. Along with the Woestman and Kowal volume, it will be an extremely useful tool in preparing such cases and can calm the fears of those who are reluctant to submit cases to the...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,791
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,270
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œJurist/˜The œjuristMême sujetTheology and Canon Law StudiesTravaux en français237 207