Mary’s disembodied place in the structure of a complementary anthropology and ecclesiology is enmeshed with an inadequate female sexual theology in the Catholic Church. Inattentive to females’ actual experiences of reproductive bodies and sexualities, their vulnerability is masked within the sense of the Marian aspect of the church—the female, the feminine—as somehow exemplary, with diminished agency or authority within the church or over their own bodies. This understanding of Mary impedes females’ sexual flourishing, not least because it is an impossible standard for womanhood but also because it is constructed, monitored, and controlled primarily by a select group of men. This article examines the theological influences on recent papal perceptions of Mary (Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis), the papal perceptions themselves that have fed the construction of her as a nonsexual, disembodied ideal female, and the ecclesiological repercussions of the complementary Marian/Petrine dichotomy applied disparately within the church.

Although humanity, by comparison with the other animals, possesses a distinctive capacity for relationship with God, Christian soteriology is infiltrated by anthropocentrism, rooted in biblical literalism and an imperviousness to the theological implications of evolution, that implies unwarranted limits to the saving work of Christ and the exclusion of the vast majority of sentient creatures from salvation. Given the church’s recognition that humanity gradually evolved from nonhuman forms of animal life and Catholicism’s pan-en-theistic, sacramental vision of creation, this article argues that the death and resurrection of Jesus may be salvific for nonhuman animals who have endured the reality of a fallen world and who, depending on the capacity for loving relationships with which God has endowed their species, could participate in the state of heaven and even theosis. The article envisages a diversity of forms of participation in theosis, corresponding to the diversity that characterizes creation.

In this article, I consider Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) and Max Horkheimer (1896–1973) on the topic of social decline, focusing on the relationship between what Lonergan called “conceptualism” and what Horkheier called “instrumental reason.” I will argue that conceptualism and instrumental reason are distinct conscious intentional phenomena that collude in generating social decline. For the sake of convenience and clarity, I will categorize (with some qualifications) this collusive relationship between conceptualism and instrumental reason as one of “elective affinity.” I will advance my argument, first, by articulating Lonergan’s critique of conceptualism in his Verbum articles. Next, I will turn to Horkheimer’s account and critique of instrumental reason. We will see a striking example of the convergence of conceptualism and instrumental reason in Louis Billot, SJ (1846–1931), a neo-Scholastic theologian and cardinal mentioned specifically by Lonergan and generically by Horkheimer. I will then locate conceptualism and instrumental reason within Lonergan’s theory of intentionality analysis, specifically the levels of consciousness, and will elaborate on their elective affinity. Finally, within the parameters of Lonergan’s account of social decline, I will outline how their collusion generates social decline.

Scholars have long noted that Paul’s biography—the story of a grave sinner converted though God’s grace—is as theologically relevant to Augustine as the apostle’s ideas. But scholars have also argued that Augustine’s account of Paul’s story misconstrues the apostle’s own concerns: whereas Augustine discovers in Paul the paradigm of how God saves the individual’s soul, Paul himself was more interested in salvation history and the extension of God’s covenantal promises to the gentiles. The present article, however, seeks to show how, in at least one way, Augustine’s attention to Paul is bound up with history and the community. Specifically, the article explores how Augustine’s preaching on Paul’s conversion is, in several instances, preceded by a recounting of Paul’s presence at the martyrdom of Stephen. In his predicatory exegesis of these events, Augustine highlights and dramatizes a mimetic chain of mercy from the crucified Christ through the martyr Stephen to the persecutor-turned-apostle Paul. Augustine brings these biblical figures to life before his congregants’ mental eyes, thereby connecting his hearers to seminal moments in salvation history and, in the process, extending that history and the growth of the church into the present and the future.

This article develops three elements for a pastoral approach to dialogue between Catholics and those who identify as spiritual but not religious. The 2023 Pew Survey “Spirituality of Americans” provides a useful overview of attitudes among those who assume this designation. Two recent synod documents reveal the church’s initial response to this phenomenon. Three elements then outline a pastoral response. First, four occasions of interreligious dialogue described in the Vatican document Dialogue and Proclamation are appropriated for conversation with spiritual but not religious persons. Second, the hermeneutic theory of Hans Georg Gadamer is examined for what it offers the church about conversation across difference. Then, in an exercise of theological ressourcement, “Letter 102” of Saint Augustine of Hippo and his book Instructing Beginners in the Faith are consulted to glean from his thought what might enrich a contemporary pastoral response to those who seek a spiritual life outside of religion.