The core of this article consists of a critical rethinking of the classical “see-judge-act” methodology of liberation theology. The article contends that this method threatens to install a dualism between a universal, secular experience of oppression and a Christian interpretation of it, thereby creating a hierarchical relation that reduces the complexity of the experience of poverty. The author investigates this issue by focusing on liberation theology's understanding of the “preferential option for the poor” (part 1) and the way in which the see-judge-act methodology affects this understanding (part 2). The article gradually moves on to alternative epistemologies, starting with a discussion of a hermeneutical approach (C. Boff and Schillebeeckx) and the method of “historicization” (Ellacuría), and eventually proposing a new phenomenologically and materially informed methodology for liberation theology that is called “cartography” and is grounded in a “new materialist” metaphysics as articulated by Deleuze, Braidotti, and Barad (part 3).

Neo-Thomism, the reading of Thomas Aquinas that became the dominant Catholic theological school in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was eclipsed during the Second Vatican Council but has recently seen a resurgence on the American scene, in terms of both publications and influence among the church hierarchy. This article explores that resurgence in terms of the history of neo-Thomism, the important texts that have come out of this new movement, and signs of its influence on the bishops. In so doing, it critiques the movement for failing to learn the lessons of its fall from favor—in particular, that it has relied on claims to orthodoxy based on authority rather than the power of its own arguments. This article thus argues that theologians should pay careful attention to this movement both to reassert the validity and importance of more contemporary theological methods and to encourage neo-Thomists themselves to develop a greater appreciation of methodological pluralism and reliance on the strength of arguments.

Peter Claver is commonly remembered as a patron saint of ministry to black Americans as well as the “saint of the slave trade.” Partially by comparing him with Saint Martin de Porres, the only African-descended American saint, this article argues that rather than lauding Claver as a racial hero, we ought to recognize him as deeply complicit in the sins of white supremacy. This article aims to help the church more honestly reckon with its white supremacist past.

This article seeks to fill a gap in Catholic literature by reflecting on the extent to which the Tea Party movement can be understood as consistent with Gaudium et Spes (GS). First, the article provides an overview of the Tea Party movement and its core ideological principles: intense individualism, emphasis on negative human rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and laissez-faire capitalism. Next, the article offers a brief description of the contextual and ecclesial background of GS and reviews its key themes. The article then assesses the extent to which the ideological principles of the Tea Party movement are supported by GS, concluding that although there are points of partial resonance between the ideology of the Tea Party and GS, the former is largely inconsistent with the vision outlined and articulated by the latter.

The sacrament of order raises important ecumenical questions, but discussion is hindered by binding historical magisterial judgments of invalidity. This article examines a mostly overlooked ecumenical proposal made by Karl Rahner in 1974 for approaching the sacrament and examines its implications by applying the insights of contemporary cognitive linguistic thinkers. Rahner suggested that Protestant order could be ruled valid by the Catholic Church through a determination analogous to the radical sanation of a marriage. Such a proposal both accepts the prior judgment that the sacrament was invalid and declares it to now be valid retroactively to its beginning. Rahner's proposal has several important implications: first, it can allow for mutual recognition of ministries without requiring either a reordination of the other's presbyters or a revocation of the historical judgments of invalidity. Potentially more broadly, it can serve as the basis for a rethinking of sacramental causality in general.

Many observers detect a noticeable change in tone and practice between the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the one hand, and that of Francis on the other, a shift from what some have called a more rigorously doctrinal and juridical approach to a more inclusive and pastoral one. This change has been dubbed “the Francis Effect,” and numerous commentators have attempted to discern its fundamental characteristics and its impact on the wider church. This roundtable, based on a “reading of the Roman tea leaves” first proposed by James T. Bretzke, SJ, at the 2015 College Theology Society Annual Convention and revised for this issue, offers an interpretation that focuses on the service (munus) of teaching and governing exercised by the pope and its practical impact on the church. In their responses to Bretzke, Julie Hanlon Rubio and Reid Locklin explore this impact further and point out both the strengths and the limits of the Francis Effect.1

Many people sense that Pope Francis is doing something new. Not only theologians, but ordinary Catholics, people of other faiths, and secular observers are listening to this pope in a new way because he seems different from previous popes. Some argue that though Francis’ tone is distinct, much of what he is saying and doing was said and done by his predecessors. Others warn that while the new tone may be encouraging, moral norms (especially those related to sex, marriage, and gender) have not changed. James Bretzke does a great service by amassing large amounts of data to show that the “Francis Effect” or difference is both substantive and real.

James Bretzke notes the ambiguity of the term “Francis Effect” and the difficulty of applying any measures to it. At the root of this difficulty is an ambiguity in the word effect itself. If by this term we mean that some things have transpired as a result of the election of Jorge Maria Bergoglio as the bishop of Rome, then this is trivially true. Had Bergoglio suffered cardiac arrest immediately upon selecting the name Francis (God forbid), even that would have yielded some Francis Effect. Of course, in the media and in Bretzke's essay, the term refers to more than this. For the purposes of this response, I am borrowing three ecclesiastical terms to flesh out possible understandings of this “more”: ordinary, extraordinary, and modal. I take up each of these in turn.