It is a great pleasure and honor to offer this address at the end of my term as president of the College Theology Society. I wish to begin by paying tribute to Sister Vera Chester, a member of the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph, a graduate of Marquette University, who served as the first woman president of the College Theology Society between 1980–1982. She died on April 22, 2012. I had the good for tune of having Vera Chester as one of my professors when I was an undergraduate student at the College of St. Thomas shortly after the Second Vatican Council. Although I was a philosophy major, I took quite a few classes in theology. In many of those philosophy and theology classes I witnessed my professors working through and acting out the postconciliar debates between the heirs of Neoscholastic Thomism and transcendental Thomism, and I learned a great deal in the process. I experienced a different kind of approach to theology in a course on spiritual autobiographies taught by Vera Chester at The College of St. Catherine. We were introduced to the writings of Augustine, John Henry Newman, Thomas Merton, and (if my memory is correct) Teresa of Avila and Thérèse of Lisieux. What strikes me about this course now is not only Vera's contagious joyful interest in her subject matter and her students, but also her awareness of the importance of introducing students to theology through the use of narratives, specifically autobiographies that describe spiritual life journeys.

Adolescents and young adults are generally missing from Catholic theological reflection on what it means to be a human person. However, Pope Francis's 2019 Apostolic Exhortation, Christus Vivit, reveals an operative theological anthropology of young people as inherently good and of adolescence and young adulthood as a life stage that is good in its own right. This, then, can serve as a foundation for a more robust theological consideration of adolescents and young adults in Catholic theological anthropology, in general, and in our understandings of the doctrines of the imago Dei, sin, and grace, in particular.

Recent US election cycles, debates about the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of so-called culture war issues have placed the term “intrinsic evil” into public discourse. This issue's roundtable affords readers the opportunity to probe deeply various dimensions of the concept, such as the pedagogical effectiveness of the term, its current use in virtue ethics, and the rhetorical effectiveness of competing moral discourses. The authors' explorations range from consideration of classical questions about the substance and circumstances of acts to a taxonomy for “intrinsic evil” to how social processes affect the discourses available to ethicists.

How different from each other are transcendental method and reconstructive hermeneutics as approaches to foundational theology? Not so different that there is no room for dialogue between Bernard Lonergan and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza. Some parallel areas of concern which Lonergan and Schüssler Fiorenza develop idiosyncratically include the self-correcting process of learning, the role of faith in foundational theology, the relationship between experience and interpretation, and the specific connection within Christian foundational theology of inferiority with the data on Christianity. Imagining how the authors could be open to each other's theory yields points of complementarity.

Recent US election cycles, debates about the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of so-called culture war issues have placed the term “intrinsic evil” into public discourse. This issue's roundtable affords readers the opportunity to probe deeply various dimensions of the concept, such as the pedagogical effectiveness of the term, its current use in virtue ethics, and the rhetorical effectiveness of competing moral discourses. The authors' explorations range from consideration of classical questions about the substance and circumstances of acts to a taxonomy for “intrinsic evil” to how social processes affect the discourses available to ethicists.

The Study Quran is an impressive volume intended for scholars and teachers in various fields, as well as for students and general readers, both Muslim and non-Muslim. It is a vital addition to the existing translations of the Quran and to the not-so-vast body of commentaries on the Quran in the English language. The volume contains a comprehensive English translation and an extensive commentary on the entire Quran, as well as several essays on a range of topics, including Quranic ethics and law, branches of theology, death and dying, and art in the Quran. It includes useful appendices on hadith citations, a timeline of major events specified in the Quran, biographies of the commentators and the authors, a solid index, and a number of maps illustrating the ancient world and Arabia in the early years of Islam.

Recent US election cycles, debates about the Affordable Care Act, and a variety of so-called culture war issues have placed the term “intrinsic evil” into public discourse. This issue's roundtable affords readers the opportunity to probe deeply various dimensions of the concept, such as the pedagogical effectiveness of the term, its current use in virtue ethics, and the rhetorical effectiveness of competing moral discourses. The authors' explorations range from consideration of classical questions about the substance and circumstances of acts to a taxonomy for “intrinsic evil” to how social processes affect the discourses available to ethicists.

Disaffiliation—when members of religious communities leave—has recently become a popular topic for theological and social scientific investigation. Today, fewer Roman Catholics than in recent memory describe themselves as strong members of their church. Many have left to seek other spiritual paths, and many of those who remain do not believe and practice as the Church teaches that they should. These essays propose that the theoretical framework of “deconversion” provides a broader and more effective way to understand forms of religious change that are occurring in contemporary America. In the classroom, teaching theology can take on a specific productive shape when the surrounding culture challenges theologians to take deconversion seriously as an element of, and larger context for, spiritual identity today. Theology remains vital when patient curiosity about the current adventure of religious identity is foregrounded pedagogically. Concluding thoughts sketch some important characteristics of an evangelical church, more concerned with its mission and witness in the world than with maintaining its internal life.

Charles Taylor's exploration of modern social imaginaries sheds light on the differing ways that university faculty and leaders today reflect and help shape the world. This article examines Taylor's work as a point of departure for suggesting two contrasting models of social imaginary abroad in university education—namely, cosmopolis and new Jerusalem. It explores what a robust Catholic imagination represented by the latter model might mean for the contemporary Catholic university, especially as regards the desire for integration of knowledge that is truly reflective of the term “university.” It pays particular attention to Bernard Lonergan's notion of cosmopolis as a way of imagining anew the ways that Catholic universities form students and contribute to research and scholarship, and emphasizes the task of faculty formation as central to Catholic mission in the academy.

Reaction among conservatives to Pope Francis' Evangelii Gaudium has most often been negative. Ross Douthat, however, in his 2013 New York Times op-ed, has offered a more nuanced critique. Our four Roundtable authors respond to Douthat's implied invitation to a discussion by responding from the viewpoint of Catholic social thought.

In this essay the author rethinks the provocative remarks of Karl Rahner about the overall symbolic character of reality in his essay “The Theology of Symbol.” While conceding the inevitable differences in perspective between a Thomistic metaphysics of Being and process-relational philosophy, the author explains how Rahner's “theses” on symbolism likewise make good sense within the context of his own process-oriented metaphysics of intersubjectivity as developed in previous publications. Then he applies this Rahnerian/neo-Whiteheadian scheme to the analysis and explanation of Christian belief in the Incarnation of the Divine Word in the human nature of Jesus, the Real Presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist, and the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.

Once the need to reform Catholic ethics became manifest with the Second Vatican Council, revision and adaptation of moral theology, the science that had served since the Council of Trent as official Catholic ethics, was often presented as the theological path to renewal. Scrutiny of philosophical, ethical, and theological presuppositions, however, discloses that the foundations of moral theology differ radically from those on which contemporary theological ethics must be based and that, accordingly, the way to true reform is not revision and adaptation of moral theology but the replacement of this self-contained science through construction of a fundamentally different kind of ethics, theological relational ethics as an essential, integral part of a reconstituted holistic theology.

In his imposing work, Symbol and Sacrament, Louis-Marie Chauvet creatively explores the implications of symbolic mediation for the whole of Christian theology. Central to Chauvet's “fundamental theology of sacramentality” is the assertion that there is an inescapable absence within any mediation of presence. With this critical principle, he attempts to counter ecclesial triumphalism. Despite this critical concern, Chauvet's impressive project suffers from a naive optimism concerning symbolic mediation. Religious symbols are misused not only by those who assume direct, unmediated presence but also by those who coopt them to ideological ends. Chauvet's theology provides no principle of discernment concerning the possibility of the corruption of the Christian symbol tradition. His use of the notion of Gelassenheit to describe the proper posture toward religious symbols stifles critical reception. This article offers suggestions for correcting these shortcomings in Chauvet's worthwhile project using the thought of Levinas, Habermas, and Ricoeur.

The major reason why ethics seeks to determine the rightness or wrongness of human acts is that it is principally concerned with the question of our identity as human beings, an identity that we shape for ourselves by our willingness to choose to do specific kinds of deeds or acts. Questions of morality, in other words, are at root questions of human identity. We make or break our lives as human beings by the deeds we choose to do.

With this underlying theme the essay seeks to assess the adequacy of diverse moral methodologies insofar as these have been employed in an effort to confront the challenges posed by the new biology. Three types of approaches are examined: the consequentialist type exemplified by Joseph Fletcher, the “mediating” approach discernible in many contemporary writers and given its most systematic articulation by Richard McCormick, and the deontological type so ably presented by Paul Ramsey and Germain Grisez. The author argues that the Ramsey-Grisez type of approach is the most adequate, contending that the other two types of approaches are more concerned with what our deeds get done than they are with what our deeds have to tell us about the meaning of our existence as moral beings.