Lay Associations of Christ's Faithful and the Church's Response to Allegations of Sexual Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: For more than two decades, since the promulgation of the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela in 2001, several official documents were published by the Holy See and different conferences of bishops (e.g., the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops) concerning sexual abuse of minors or persons having the imperfect use of reason. Only clerics were addressed under that law. Since the publication of the revised Book VI on penal law, members of religious institutes of men and women together with any member of the faithful performing a function in the Church are included among alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors. After reviewing all the official documents, the author notes that members of lay associations of Christ's faithful are not mentioned anywhere as alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors. Even the members of public associations of Christ's faithful whose mission is fulfilled in the name of the Church in virtue of their status of public juridical persons are not included. Some suggestions are offered to diocesan bishops for how to take into account the members of lay associations of Christ's faithful in their diocesan protocols.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".