MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465259814 · doi:10.1353/jur.2011.0021

Special Marriage Cases and Procedures by Wojciech Kowal, O.M.I., William H. Woestman, O.M.I.

2011· article· en· W2465259814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark L. Bartchak

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJurist/˜The œjurist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersecutionFaithTribunalCohabitationLawCanon lawSociologySpousePolitical scienceReligious studiesTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book is an excellent ready reference for a clear understanding of the marriage procedures regarding nullity. It would be very helpful for practitioners in this area of canon law, as well as for professors of canon law teaching in seminaries and requiring a brief but complete guide in dealing with matters of tribunal practice. Rogelio Ayala Partida Diocesan Tribunal Diocese of Tepic, Nayarit México SPECIAL MARRIAGE CASES AND PROCEDURES by Wojciech Kowal, O.M.I. and William H. Woestman, O.M.I., 4th revised and updated edition, with appendices. Ottawa: Faculty of Canon Law, St. Paul University, 2008. Like the previous editions (1988, 1990, 1994) authored by William Woestman, this book is a compact resource that treats both theoretical and practical aspects of “special” marriage cases. These include the dissolution of the bond in the following cases: ratified and non-consummated marriage; marriage of two non-baptized persons using the Pauline privilege ; polygamous marriages; impossible re-establishment of marital cohabitation due to captivity or persecution; and marriage involving at least one unbaptized party in favor of the faith. Also included are cases of the separation of spouses while the bond remains, validation and sanation of marriage, and cases of the alleged or presumed death of a spouse. The topics are presented in the same order as in the earlier editions. In collaboration with Kowal, the material originally prepared by Woestman has been revised and updated.The most significant revision is in the chapter by Kowal concerning dissolution of marriage in favor of the faith. He provides a commentary on the Norms for Completing the Process for the Dissolution of the Matrimonial Bond in Favor of the Faith issued in 2001 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Also, the chapter concerningthevalidationofmarriagehasbeenupdated .Itincludesrecentobservations of the SupremeTribunal of theApostolic Signatura concerning the use of “invalid convalidation” as a heading of nullity. book reviews 265 266 the jurist The updated appendices (nearly 150 pages) in this fourth edition contain the Latin-English text of the 2001 Norms for favor of the faith cases; explanatory notes for favor of the faith cases issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF); responses of the CDF concerning the validity of baptism in certain cases; and the pronouncements of theApostolic Signatura regarding “invalid convalidation.” Also included are numerous sample documents (petitions, interrogatories, decrees, etc.) for the various types of “special” marriage cases. The bibliography has been significantly updated. It includes a number of sources and studies by various authors that are new since the previous edition. It is understood that not everything can be included; however, the list is expansive enough to include studies in several languages. Finally, there is an index to assist in locating the treatment of similar topics in the various “special” marriage cases. Perhaps a future revision could include references to the corresponding canons of the CCEO not included in this fourth edition. Woestman originally intended this as a handbook for canon law students and those engaged in tribunal practice. He was dedicated to providing periodic revisions. This project has been entrusted to Woestman’s former student Kowal, an associate professor in the Faculty of Canon Law at St. Paul University. Kowal and Woestman are to be commended for their efforts in updating and revising this guide to understanding and addressing “special” marriage cases. It is not surprising that previous editions are nearly impossible to find, even among used book sellers. Students and tribunal officials would be wise to add this fourth revised and updated edition to their libraries. Mark L. Bartchak Diocesan Bishop Altoona-Johnstown, PA ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJurist/˜The œjuristSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207