Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the first external assignments given me after coming to Sewanee as a new ABD (All But Dissertation) instructor in 1977 provided the first inkling for me of the importance of the topic of our forum-theologies of and community. Bishop William Sanders of the then still undivided diocese of Tennessee asked me to be his resource person in the negotiations with the Roman Catholic diocese of Nashville, putting together the agreement on mixed marriages between Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. His opposite number, Bishop James Niedergeses, was (and is) a well-known Vatican II liberal, and relations were cordial. Hopes were high for a solid and commodious agreement. As came entirely naturally to him, Bishop Niedergeses tapped as his resource person the chancellor of the diocesan marriage tribunal. This was an older priest with a doctorate in canon law. I had never met such a creature before, but was too naive to know it. Being very polite, they asked us Episcopalians to initiate the conversation, and Bishop Sanders turned to me. I was still in the midst of finishing a doctorate at a distinguished Roman Catholic school, St. Michael's College of the University of Toronto, completing a dissertation on the ends of marriage and the spirituality of parenting. So I launched confidently into a summary of the doctrinal agreements achieved in ARCIC, and the new sacramental theology of Vatican II as embodied in the work of Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and Kasper. I suggested we now had two fundamental building blocks for an agreement-a theology of marriage as a sacrament on which we could both agree, and a shared theology of the primacy of a common baptism. On that basis, I suggested the outlines of an agreement that would treat the faith communities of the matrimonial couple in a mixed marriage as nearly in inter-communion, based on Vatican II's recognition of Anglicanism as having maintained more Catholic theology and structures than any other reformed church.1 When I paused for breath, my opposite number very politely said, Father Hughes, everything you have said is correct from a theological point of view. Nevertheless, according to the General Law of the Church of Rome, we can't do that. End of discussion for the time being. At a later meeting, with a new, younger chancellor, oriented more theologically and towards the Vatican II reforms, we got a happy agreement. But several things stayed in the back of my consciousness-the weight of this thing called the General Law of the Church of Rome, and the existence in their system of these persons with doctorates in canon law. I did not know of any Anglicans with earned doctorates in canon law,2 and I suspected that if you had one, it would count against you. These thoughts stayed on a back burner of my brain until a few years later I was invited to be a resource for the Nashville session of a series of meetings on lay spirituality held around the country by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. That very weekend the new code of canon law, revised along Vatican II lines, was published.3 There was great excitement, because this new code was expected to ease the way for many further reforms, or the implementation of reforms already suggested by the Council. Most exciting to those gathered were the new canons on the laity, which embodied the new place given the members of the whole people of God in Vatican II ecclesiology. Even I could see it was a major step forward. I was more surprised, however, when it came time for Vespers, and the decision was made, meeting no resistance, to read from the new canons on the laity as a lesson. What struck me was the vast cultural divide revealed. It is not that an Episcopalian would think of reading from the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church as a lesson at Evensong and then reject the idea, but that it would never occur to us. I began to see this deep and largely unspoken difference about what we meant by law and how we believed it formed and shaped the community of faith as a hidden pitfall in all our relationships with the Roman 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".