L’abus ordinaire dans les communautés monastiques féminines : une approche structurelle transnationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of abuse of Catholic nuns has only recently come to public attention, unlike abuse of children or adult lay women. However, in recent years, more and more cases of spiritual or sexual abuse of power perpetrated in female communities have come to light. But how is this possible? This article aims to examine the structural mechanisms of female monastic communities, including their gender relations with priests or male communities, which make such abuse possible. Placing the subject in the specific context of monastic life governed by ascetic discipline, the question arises as to when an ascetic practice can become abusive. After studying five types of structures identified as enabling abuse, I place the individual nun within three levels: intellectual, spiritual and physical. While none of the structures themselves or the relationships of individuals to the structures directly produce abuse, the combination of these different elements makes it possible. Based on field research conducted in Catholic monastic communities in Europe and Africa between 2004 and 2021, as well as interviews with former nuns conducted between 2020 and 2024, this article offers an empirical approach to a subject that has not yet been widely explored.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".