Le Code de Droit Canonique de 1983, en raison du phénomène de l'inculturation, est-il adapté au Japon?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his address to the Roman Rota on February 4, 1977, Pope Paul VI insisted that the new Code of Canon Law was meant Inc the Catholic Church throughout the world and, hence, the values of various civil cultures had to be better acknowledged and accepted. In a similar spirit of inculturation, the new 1948 Japanese civil code had incorporated numerous Western democratic principles; hence, marriages ratified according to customs now had to be registered according to civil regulations in order to be recognized as valid. In 1958, the A. Succeeded in having these civil requirements accepted by the local Church in Japan. The article explains how the 1983 Code has allowed lot different cultures and particular situations in local churches. For example, the presbyteral council and the diocesan pastoral council are canonical institutions created to facilitate dialogue in the Church; this corresponds to the Japanese mentality of sodan which encourages the sharing of opinions and ideas at ah soneto1 levels. Canon 529, §2 encourages the faithful to develop a concern for the community; similarly, harmonious family ties are very important in Japanese culture. Canons 1118, §2 and 1127, §2 permits the celebration of a marriage outside of a church or an oratory, and for the dispensation from canonical form; in Japan, where Catholics make up but 0.5 of 1% of the total population, the celebration of a marriage in a neutral place or according to another public form is often the only acceptable solution. It is by making such allowances fur the various cultures of the world that the Code is truly a service in the Church.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".