Reflections of a Judicial Vicar of an Appeal Tribunal on the Proposed Reform of the Canonical Matrimonial Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On August 27, 2014, the Holy Father established a Special Commission of study for the reform of the canonical process in marriage nullity cases. The reform of the marriage nullity process was also part of the final report of the 2014 Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The author, Judicial Vicar of the Canadian Appeal Tribunal, reflects on this proposed reform of the canonical matrimonial process and offers some further thoughts based upon his academic experience and his service as Judicial Vicar. His reflections are focused on (1) the simplification of the procedure in first instance tribunals; (2) the dispensation of the requirement of second instance for confirming affirmative sentences of first instance; (3) the possibility of establishing an administrative means under the jurisdiction of the diocesan Bishop; and (4) the interaction between canon law and civil law. Are the proposed changes not introducing the practice of divorce and thus giving up the indissolubility of marriage?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".