One of the areas on which Fergus Kerr has kept a wise eye and to which he has made valued contributions over many years is moral philosophy. In fact he had the task of teaching ‘moral theology’ in the early years of his career but quickly moved on. He was quite relieved to do so, he told me once, not least because he found Shakespeare more relevant to morality than the geography of the fallopian tubes. Leaving behind moral theology in that sense did not mean his leaving behind a concern with moral questions. On the contrary, he has maintained great interest in developments in fundamental moral theory and in the centrality of morality for all theology.

In this he is faithful to Aquinas who, as Leonard Boyle has argued, envisaged Summa Theologiae as a work in which the moral is central. If, as Kerr himself has been arguing recently, beatitudo is a key to the unity of the Summa, then this is further support for what Boyle argued on historical and palaeographical grounds. This is not to claim that what Aquinas had in mind was anything like what moral theology came to describe later on, when a strict distinction and even separation of dogma and moral came to prevail especially in seminary training. Aquinas belongs to an earlier world, from which contemporary moral philosophers continue to learn, in which these later distinctions did not apply.

It is now too little discussed, but one key ingredient of 20th century ‘modernism’ has been its reaction to the writing of James Frazer in The Golden Bough. One can think of course of The Waste Land, but also of David Jones’s Anathemata, besides countless other examples. In some of these instances, notably that of Jones, implicit anthropological critiques of religion are turned on their head. Christ as one more sacred king sacrificed becomes instead the typological fulfilment of the sacrificial drama played out in so many cultural instances (though not all—under the influence of Christopher Dawson, Jones is quite specific) between sacred mother and sacred son. More recently, the debate between anthropology and theology concerning sacrifice and Christology has been dramatically renewed. Now, however, in the wake of the work of René Girard among others, the focus has been as much upon Christ’s exception to prevailing norms of sacrifice and power. Fergus Kerr was among the first theologians to make important contributions to this renewed debate (‘Revealing the scapegoat Mechanism: Christianity after Girard’ in Philosophy, Religion and the Spiritual Life ed Michael McGhee (Cambridge: CUP 1992 161-75) and ‘Rescuing Girard’s Argument’ in Modem Theology 8 1992, 388-390). This was highly appropriate for one whose interests, rooted in literary studies, embrace theology, philosophy and the social sciences, with the cultural broadness so notable amongst British Catholics. The present article aims to continue this debate, and further to extend its scope, with reference both to Christ’s typicality and his exceptionality. I hope that this is a suitable tribute to Fergus Kerr.