Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the most recent of the Catholic Church’s twenty-one ecumenical Councils, the Second Vatican Council brought the Church up to date with the twentieth century. From 1962–65, bishops, theologians, and other representatives from around the world traveled to the Vatican to discuss and vote upon the future of Catholicism. Although a majority of the bishops (“Fathers”) at Vatican II came from non-Western dioceses, the Council’s history is written by mostly Western theologians whose narratives focus on Western Fathers. This thesis argues that post-colonial historiographic methods can contribute to the Council’s history by retrieving stories of non-Western impact. Nostra Aetate, or the “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” provides a case study for demonstrating the potential of post-colonial methods to retrieve non-Western stories. Chapters trace the document’s history while highlighting examples of how historians routinely overlook the accomplishments of a small group of non-Western Fathers from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA Fathers). A post-colonial lens on the document’s history shows that MENA Fathers substantially contributed to its growth from a short statement on Catholic-Jewish relations to become a more comprehensive statement on world religions. Chapters also examine instances when historians and theologians appear to have misunderstood or overlooked MENA Fathers. Post-colonial methods and concepts are used to supplement these weaknesses in the Council’s story and retrieve a fuller and more accurate narrative. A final chapter examines how this study can contribute to three theological sub-disciplines: doctrinal development, theology of religions, and church history.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".