And in Our Hearts Take up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe, S.J.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By the end of his life, Frederick E. Crowe S.J. (1915-2012) was “widely recognized as the world’s foremost Lonergan expert.” Most famous as the inspiration behind ten institutes around the world for promoting the study of Bernard Lonergan (1904-84) and co-editor of the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, Crowe also modestly sought to expand his fellow Canadian Jesuit’s thought, especially in matters related to the Holy Spirit. Although Crowe’s 1959 article, “Complacency and Concern in the Thought of St. Thomas,” has long been considered a “classic” and his courses on the Trinity at Regis College in Toronto have been called “legendary,” no serious study of Crowe’s thought has ever been undertaken. And in Our Hearts Take up Thy Rest: The Trinitarian Pneumatology of Frederick Crowe is the first dissertation ever written on Crowe. In the dissertation, I claim that Crowe’s reflections on the Holy Spirit go through three stages with two main transition points. Following Crowe’s work from 1953 to 2000, I argue that Crowe’s development should be organized around three main questions: (1) What is the personal property of the Holy Spirit eternally and in time? (2) How is the mission of the Holy Spirit ordered to the mission of the Son? (3) Can the Holy Spirit, as intersubjective Love, be thought of as the first person in the Trinity? In the final chapter, the three stages of Crowe’s development are presented as a series that is unified by his distinction between two kinds of love: complacency (restful serenity) and concern (restless inclining). Although Crowe’s theory of love itself develops, Crowe always maintained that human love provides an analogy for the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession. While Crowe’s pneumatology evolves in response to perceived shifts in Lonergan’s writings, Crowe’s own concerns about the life of the Church also shaped the way he asks his three pneumatological questions. Noting the influences of Newman and Basil of Caesarea on Crowe, I present Crowe’s pneumatology as rooted in the Trinitarian theology of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Bernard Lonergan. Crowe emerges as creatively dedicated to the psychological analogy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".