Friedwaldbestattungen. Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung einer alternativen Beisetzungsform by Karl Neimes (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Friedwaldbestattungen. Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung einer alternativen Beisetzungsform by Karl Neimes John M. Huels Friedwaldbestattungen. Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung einer alternativen Beisetzungsform. Beihefte zum Münsterischen Kommentar 64, by Karl Neimes. Essen: Ludgerus Verlag, 2013. Pp. iii–143. German canonist Karl Neimes investigates in this work the canonical ramifications of the faithful choosing to be buried in woodland areas instead of a cemetery. This is a growing phenomenom in Germany and Switzerland primarily for ecological, economical, and sentimental reasons, as the cremated remains are typically buried under a tree in a bio-degradable container in the expectation that the roots of the tree will draw nourishment from the ashes, and purchasers of the plot can imagine themselves some day sharing in the life of the tree while their loved ones and dogs hike and play in its shadows. Although this may sound odd or amusing to the North American, it may only be a matter of time before the practice catches on here. Originally presented as a licentiate dissertation at the Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, the work raises and addresses some key questions: Is such a burial permissible in canon law and, if so, under what conditions? Are there circumstances when one could claim a right to have an ecclesiastical funeral service at such a burial? Does canon law even cover this issue? After an introductory chapter, Neimes considers in the second chapter the cultural changes in current cemetery and burial practices and the challenges they pose for the Church and canon law. The third chapter examines the development of the idea of the Friedwald, which is a wooded area used for burial, as well as the arguments of both the proponents and critics of this alternative to the traditional cemetery. Chapter Four is historical, surveying the developments in canon law on the subject of cremation; these occurred mainly in the twentieth century with two Roman instructions in 1926 and 1963 and the three Codes of 1917, 1983, and 1990. In the fifth chapter, Neimes examines recent developments in particular law on this subject. A 2005 document of the German bishop’s conference, taking its clue from the Code (CIC c. 1184, §1, 2º), says that a burial of cremains in the woods would not be permissible if chosen for reasons contrary to the Christian faith, and it cautioned pastors to observe diocesan guidelines. The author then reviews the guidelines [End Page 688] and norms of six German dioceses which took up the issue, and he also assesses their juridic value. These were followed in 2008 by a document of the liturgy commission of the conference which established some principles to assist the remaining dioceses in developing their own policies; the most important of these is that the pastor should be competent to decide, in individual cases and observing certain conditions, whether a minister may be present for liturgical prayer when the ashes are buried in the woods. The sixth chapter offers some conclusions and perspectives for the future. Among them is the recommendation that lay persons be trained for this ministry so that it becomes more feasible for the Church to be present to the mourners in this unusual setting. The significance of this study for canonists worldwide is perhaps not so much the discussion of all the issues involved in this alternative form of burial but the way that the Church in Germany has responded to it: not with prohibitions and condemnations but with a cautious, pastoral sensibility and a reliance on the particular law of dioceses to assist pastors in a changed cultural situation. [End Page 689] John M. Huels Faculty of Canon Law Saint Paul University Ottawa, Ontario Copyright © 2013 The Catholic University of America Press
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".