Top Gun: Maverick is a film about the American Empire: its ethos and hopes, its illusions and contradictions. This essay considers the propaganda content of the movie, and reflects on what it reveals and conceals about the wider political and social context of America's imperial project. The film provides insights on the shifting expectations, and troubles facing the American Empire in 2022. In reflecting upon the sequel and comparing it with the original, it is possible to notice changes and new prerogatives in the self-perception of the United States, as well as an overall imperial fatigue and tension. In particular, this essay evaluates the use of missionary language and metaphors in the film, and considers that empires have a chronic incapacity, or maybe impossibility, in abdicating their power. Top Gun: Maverick shows that an empire, any empire, would simply cease to be such if it would not believe in its own myth of perennial youth. Ultimately, this essay considers the burden of the American Empire: its damnation is its immortality, its illusion of eternity.

The purpose of this work is to explicate Thomas Aquinas' teaching regarding the nature of satisfaction, punishment, and the relation between the two in the Passion of Christ. This task is undertaken as a response to recent treatments of Aquinas' soteriology that misinterpret his understanding of the penal nature of Christ's work of satisfaction. I argue that Aquinas' explication of Christ's ‘satisfactory punishment’ on the cross does not reduce the salvific significance of the Passion to the mere endurance of a penalty in order to fulfill an arbitrary legal requirement, nor does it reflect a notion of God as wrathful and delighting in human suffering. Rather, the punishment that constitutes the Passion is a complex reality that is willed by God and chosen by Christ as a fitting means of attaining the end of his saving mission, namely, the healing and elevation of sinners.

This paper focuses on one scientific aspect of eco-theology, which I argue has not yet received sufficient attention either within public discussion or from theologians, namely, that of biodiversity. Given the entanglement between biodiversity loss, climate change, and poverty, understanding the biological context is significant ethically quite irrespective of the presuppositions of different philosophical approaches to eco-theology. After beginning with a more general argument for why it is important for theologians and theological ethicists to engage with and understand different aspects of the relevant science, I will then survey scientific accounts of current biodiversity loss, including arguments for its relevance to social justice questions. I then provide an outline of the first steps towards a theological ethic on biodiversity, drawing on the insights of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ and Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the ecologically relevant virtues of practical wisdom and mercy.

For twelve of the years during which he spent a semester lecturing as a visiting professor at the Gregorian University (Rome), Frederick Copleston enjoyed close contacts with Bernard Lonergan. He was one of the two ‘house’ censors of Insight. He also wrote a very positive review of the book for the Oxford-based Journal of Theological Studies, which was then co-edited by Henry Chadwick. The personal and professional contacts between Copleston and Lonergan have been widely neglected; they call for further study and evaluation.

The ‘naturalizing’ agenda in contemporary secularist philosophy is often presented in opposition to traditional theism. But looking at the history of the terms ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ reveals a discontinuity between how these terms are currently understood and how they were understood in the past. The modern ‘naturalist’, in insisting that all phenomena should be brought within the domain of the natural, is advancing a thesis that many classical, medieval and early-modern philosophers and theologians would have regarded as fairly self-evident. What has changed is not that there is a new determination to include within the natural domain what was previously excluded from it, but rather that there is a radical shift in how the natural domain is to be understood. This paper argues that the philosophically interesting question is not whether or not we should be naturalists, but which of two naturalisms we should adopt: secular naturalism, with its neutralist conception of nature in general and of human nature in particular, or theistic naturalism, according to which the natural world and our own nature bear the stamp of the divine. It turns out the former (secularist) view is vulnerable to serious difficulties, on both the epistemic and the moral fronts.

This paper explores Christianity's ambiguous relationship to capitalism by engaging Marx's notion of the fetishism of commodities as a way of rethinking Marxism's critique of religion from the standpoint of political economy. Following Etienne Balibar's distinction between the theory of ideology and Capital's theory of fetishism, I examine how the later Marx conceived of religion as socially conditioned by the society of commodity production, which takes on religious dimensions. Commodities are the basis for a concept of fetishism which commands total subjection, alienating human beings under capitalism. This critical focus also reveals Christianity in its totalizing role as a symbolic structure shaped by the inescapable logic of exchange-value, money, and universal equivalents. Nonetheless, Christianity retains the impetus to anti-fetishism, provided it unites with the Marxist science of critical perception. This anti-fetishistic union focuses on the transparent and revolutionized social relations of real presence as the nonalienated reverse of fetishism's false presence. A critical apophaticism, tempered by the materialist amendments of Marika Rose and Slavoj Žižek, offers the bridge to such a union and highlights the anti-fetishistic avenues of failure and utopia.

In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis urges not just a renewal of respect for creation but also a metanoia in our attitude to the created world. This article is a response to the Pontiff's challenge, exploring how a distinctively ‘modern’ approach to creation arose in the late nineteenth century which still influences our attitudes today. As those attitudes arose, however, the article argues that Christian thinkers were able to articulate other approaches, which are referred to as ‘doing eco-theology at the foot of the Cross’. The article explores these views and their implications in shaping a Christian response to the present ecological crisis within which we find ourselves. In particular, it concentrates on the interpretations of ‘nature’ in the writings of the German atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and his exact English Jesuit contemporary Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889) who were bothworking at the dawn of the ‘modern’ view of ‘nature’ and creation.

In this paper I argue that Heidegger's critique of Aquinas on truth must be seen in light of Vallicella's critique of Heidegger. Heidegger criticized Aquinas for allegedly placing truth in the ‘subjectivity’ of the human mind via correspondence (adequatio). While the accuracy of this reading of Aquinas is highly contested, the criticism itself has sometimes been turned back upon Heidegger. In three forgotten articles in the 1980s, William Vallicella contended that Heidegger reduces Being to truth, and truth to the alleged ‘subjectivity’ of Dasein. Though Vallicella garnered some minimal attention at the time, his argument was soon forgotten, along with its potential implications for Heidegger's criticism of Aquinas. This paper will first establish the nature of Heidegger's critique of Aquinas, followed by Vallicella's critique of Heidegger, evaluating the former in light of the latter. It will be shown that Heidegger critiques Thomas for a mistake he does not make, then makes that same mistake himself, only to retreat to a position similar to what Thomas actually holds, but in a way that solves nothing, for he lacks Thomas’ anchor in a divine mind. These points will coalesce in the ultimate conclusion that Vallicella can be used to both undermine Heidegger's critique and undergird the value of Aquinas’ position on truth.

Having spent my professional career in England I am more familiar with English poetry than with Welsh and so one of my great pleasures now is reading Welsh poetry. A book I have read and re-read more than once is The Poems of Saunders Lewis. There the poem that has gripped me and still does is this great poem. Apparently, it received much attention when it was published - three articles by D. Z. Phillips with a reply and a note by the poet commenting on the background influences. Without returning to that, I want to note the importance of the influence. Simple though the language may be, the poem is full of philosophical and theological ideas together with a keen awareness of Biblical study.

There is an ancient Christian tradition of a ‘good and holy death’. That tradition has largely been forgotten in the medicalization of death, which regards death solely as an enemy to be defeated at all costs. This paper examines the tradition of a holy death through the lens of Margaret Edson's play W;t, with particular attention paid to the use of John Donne's poetry in the play. The paper then uses theologian Allen Verhey's writings on the Christian art of dying as a means to understand the play in a Christian context, with special attention paid to the way in which it portrays Vivian Bearing, the play's protagonist, as a victim as much as a beneficiary of modern medicine.

My The Second Vatican Council on Other Religions (Oxford University Press) appeared in 2012. In 2014 it went into a paperback edition, which allowed me to list some reviews and promise to enter into dialogue with all the reviewers. This article takes up such dialogue and discusses what came from nine reviewers. Glenn Siniscalchi wrote two reviews. Eduardo Echeverria went much further by writing two long essays on the book.

Robert Grosseteste articulated an unusual view of Christ's death that resonates with Karol Wojtyla's personalist conception of love as self-gift. Grosseteste argued that the cause of Christ's death was not crucifixion but the active breathing forth of his spirit as he hung on the cross. Grosseteste said that in this act Christ took all the faithful into an Aristotelian friendship in which Christ is the “other self” of each one of the redeemed. As a result, the redeemed form a single mystical person with Christ. Grosseteste's account of Christ's death seems consonant with Wojtyla's personalism in three ways. First, it makes the moment of Christ's death into an active gift of self. Second, parallel to the way an ordinary self-donation depends on self-possession and results in self-discovery, Christ's self-donation depends on his power to lay down his life and results in the realization of the mystical personhood of Christ in the Church. Third, Grosseteste treats the love between the persons of the Trinity as involving the self-donation of the Son to the Father. This article contains three sections. The first two treat Grosseteste and his resonance with Wojtyla. The third draws conclusions for contemporary Christology and anthropology.

Defining death as irreversible cardio-circulatory arrest connects death with ability to resuscitate, raises ethical issues about heart-transplants, and tells us rather when death occurs than what it is. I consider whether death is ceasing to exist, whether immortality is natural for human beings, and whether spatio-temporal continuity is necessary for being the same person. That immortality is natural is alien to Jewish thinking in the Bible, where the idea of existence after death developed only with that of God's transcendent existence. Plato's definition of death as the separate existence of soul and body is grounded on his analysis of intelligence. Christian philosophers now accept that intelligence evolved out of sentience and sentience out of inanimate matter; so they may prefer the Jewish view that existence after death is a gift from God dependent on faith; Aquinas perhaps thought faith stands to natural intelligence much as natural intelligence stands to sentience.

This paper advances a provisional case denying the attribution of the medieval liturgical sequence Sanctitatis nova signa, written in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, to Thomas of Celano (died c. 1260), who is best known for writing the earliest biography of the saint. The Conventual Franciscan friar and bishop, Pietro Ridolfi, provides the oldest extant attribution of this sequence to Celano. Luke Wadding (died 1657) echoes this point in his Annales Minorum; several recent critical editions of early Franciscan texts, as well as countless secondary sources, cite Wadding for the attribution to Celano. This identification remains problematic, not only due to the lateness of the Ridolfi-Wadding claim; the sequence's use of Dionysian mystical motifs and details unique to Bonaventure's Legenda Major (completed 1262) should exclude the possibility of Celano's authorship. Consequently this study tentatively dates the sequence to the latter part of the thirteenth century. Unlike the earlier sequences for Saint Francis attributed to Pope Gregory IX (died 1241) and Thomas of Capua (died 1243), Sanctitatis depicts Francis as a model Dionysian mystic. This mystical exemplarity becomes the image of unity advanced by the Franciscans to heal the internal crises plaguing the order in the later thirteenth century.