MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W126084018

Celibate and married clergy in CCEO canon 373

2002· article· en· W126084018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Nedungatt

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia canonica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyCanonEthnologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le canon 373 du CCEO manifeste un equilibre au sujet des normes concernant les pretres celibataires et le clerge marie, chacun meritant estime et honneur. Ce canon doit etre bien interprete pour que son sens et sa force canonique soient bien compris. En faisant l'exegese du canon, l'A. corrige une erreur courante au sujet du celibat clerical. Il demontre que le texte de la Bible concernant le coeur non-partage (1 Cor 7,32-35) doit etre lu dans son contexte: saint Paul veut que tous, gens maries et celibataires, soient exempts de soucis (amerimnoi). Toutefois, affirmer que le coeur non-partage n'est pas l'apanage du celibat ecclesiastique ne laisse pas supposer une sous-estimation de la valeur du celibat. Ici, la metaphore des deux poumons fournit la perspective equilibree pour une interpretation correcte du canon 373. L'article donne une vue d'ensemble de la tradition et retablit l'equilibre d'un droit occidental qui favorise le celibat. La loi du celibat est la meme aujourd'hui en Occident et en Orient pour ce qui concerne les eveques et les diacres: facultatif pour ces derniers, obligatoire pour les premiers. La difference se situe seulement en ce qui concerne les pretres: facultatif en Orient (sauf pour deux des vingt et une Eglises sui iuris ), obligatoire en Occident. Dans la derniere partie de l'article, l'A. traite de la quaestio disputata de la restriction territoriale pour le clerge marie (CCEO, c. 758, 3) et presente le pour et le contre de la validite des decrets romains de 1929-1930.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.165 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia canonicaSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207