What is Our Canon?

Hofstra law prof Matt Bodie has announced the "Research Canons" project to identify "the most important works of scholarship in the various areas of legal inquiry."  He explains:

Unlike other disciplines, most law academics do not have an advanced degree in "law."  For students pursuing a Ph.D in areas such as economics, history, or social psychology, they must pass comprehensive exams showing that they have a broad knowledge of the most important works in the field.  It is only after comps that students go on to complete their specialized dissertation research.

Legal academia assumes that entry-level candidates and new scholars have done the background research necessary for their area of expertise.  But it is left to the individual to get this knowledge.  Certainly, the J.D. provides a baseline, and mentors are helpful in providing further direction.  But there is nothing akin to comps that sets forth a comprehensive listing for new folks to follow. 

Previously on MoJ, we've talked about essential works related to certain concepts and more expansive "reading lists," but I'm wondering whether we can come up with a canon of, say, ten pieces of scholarship that should be non-negotiable reading for anyone who is serious about becoming a student of Catholic legal theory.  Is it possible to define a canon for CLT generally, or would it have to be broken down by subtopic?  I'm also curious whether the canon would include actual examples of CLT or, as our previous discussions seem to suggest, would focus on works from other disciplines which explore the underlying anthropological premises on which the CLT project is based.

Put simply, if a faculty candidate indicated an interest in CLT, is it fair to expect the candidate to have read certain books or articles?  If so, which ones?

Rob