Non-admission to holy communion : The interpretation of Canon 915 (CIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs opinions contrastantes ont ete emises au cours des dernieres annees quant a l'acces a la sainte communion pour les divorces remaries. L'A. revoit ici les normes gouvernant cette question epineuse en se basant, en premier lieu, sur l'interpretation de la loi a partir du droit divin (positif et naturel) et du droit humain dans l'Eglise. Il rappelle que seul le Magistere peut interpreter authentiquement le droit divin positif. A partir de ces considerations, un retour sur la theologie et la discipline sur lesquelles s'appuie le canon 915 rappelle que les normes restrictives s'adressent aux ministres de la communion et en donne les criteres d'application. Il cite quelques ecrits recents du Magistere reiterant l'interdiction aux divorces remaries et en exposant les assises theologiques. Etant donne le remous entourant la reception de ces normes, la Commission pontificale pour l'interpretation des textes legislatifs emettait une declaration le 24 juin 2000 a l'effet que le canon 915 trouve son origine dans le droit divin dont personne ne peut dispenser et en repetait les principes fondamentaux: l'obstination persistante et manifeste dans un peche grave. Dans un souci pastoral, le refus public du sacrement est a etre evite. La solution de for interne ne peut en realite etre acceptee car elle equivaudrait a une exception a la loi de l'indissolubilite. Ainsi, le mariage etant une realite publique, la nullite en conscience d'un premier mariage ne peut etre acceptee. L'A. termine en invitant, comme le font les documents du Magistere, a la charite envers toutes les personnes en situation penible sans pour cela oublier la fidelite due a la doctrine de l'Eglise.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".