Kierkegaard's Catholic Reception and the Legacy of Vatican <scp>ii</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can Søren Kierkegaard—a Protestant thinker from the nineteenth century, who was also a fierce critic of Christianity—be seen as an ally to contemporary Catholic theology? In this article, I argue that although he is not always recognized as such, Søren Kierkegaard has been an important ally for Catholic thinkers in the early twentieth century. Historically, some Catholic readers have been suspicious of Kierkegaard, viewing him as an irrational Protestant irreconcilably at odds with Catholic thought. Nevertheless, by surveying briefly a few important figures in the Catholic reception and engagement of Kierkegaard's writings across Europe in the early twentieth century, one begins to see how Kierkegaard's writings stimulated theological renewal that culminated in the achievement of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). In particular, this article highlights an unexpected yet important historical relationship between the European Catholic reception of Kierkegaard's writings by looking at important figures like Jean Daniélou, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Cornelio Fabro who were associated with the ressourcement movement (1930–1960) leading up to Vatican ii.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".