¹ Facing his death, Socrates famously proclaimed that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” See Plato, Apology, in Essential Dialogues of Plato, ed. Pedro de Bals, trans. Benjamin Jowett. (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2005), 41.

² I am grateful to Horizons for reviewers’ careful attention to an earlier draft of this article and for helpful suggestions for revision.

³ See, for instance, Martha D. Shulski and Daniel R. DiLeo, “What Is Happening to Our Common Home? Considerations from a Catholic Climate Scientist and a Catholic Theological Ethicist,” Journal of Moral Theology 9, special issue 1 (2020): 71–89. This is an especially pertinent example given that, in Laudato Si’, Pope Francis uses some form of “consider” (considerare) more than thirty times. See Francis, Laudato Si’ (May 24, 2015), http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html (hereafter cited as LS).

⁴ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, trans. George Lewis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908).

⁵ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Benziger,1948) (hereafter ST), I, q. 1, a. 7.

⁶ See Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, 5th ed. revised and augmented, vol. 3, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, ed. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992).

⁷ Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Method in Theology, vol. 14, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, ed. Robert M. Doran and John D. Dadosky (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), 25. I say “at least three” questions because I am not sure that, as stated, they express as fully as they might what occurs especially on the fourth level of conscious intentionality, which has much to do with values, feelings, and responsible decision-making leading to actions.

⁸ See “‘Desire’ and ‘Consider’: A History,” Webster Dictionary, Word Play, https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-history-of-desire-and-consider.

⁹ See Lonergan, Method in Theology, 7–27.

¹⁰ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 10.

¹¹ On realms and stages of meaning, see “Meaning,” chapter 3 of Lonergan, Method in Theology, 55–95. Various aspects and kinds of values (e.g., ontic, personal, originating, religious, and terminal) are discussed throughout Method in Theology.

¹² “The formal act of meaning is an act of conceiving, thinking, considering, defining, supposing, formulating” (Lonergan, Method in Theology, 71; emphasis added). Note that six distinct operations together constitute “an”—that is, one—act.

¹³ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 22– 23, 49, 52, 54, 217, 282, 367, 380, 389.

¹⁴ For a discussion of method that emphasizes love, see John P. Cush, “Lonergan’s Communal Novum Organon,” Church Life Journal (November 28, 2018), https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/lonergans-communal-novum-organon/.

¹⁵ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 3.

¹⁶ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 128–30. I would stress that the correspondence between the specialties and the four levels does not mean that those engaged in a particular specialty, say, research, are restricted to operating at only one level, such as “experience,” rather than all four.

¹⁷ On the different kinds of differences—developmental, complementary, and radical—with which dialectics must deal, see Cynthia Crysdale, “Horizons That Differ: Women and Men and the Flight for Understanding,” Cross Currents 44, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 345–61.

¹⁸ On the relationship between foundations and conversion (intellectual, moral, religious), see Lonergan, Method in Theology, 125, 126, 130, 136, 137, 159, 336.

¹⁹ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 8.

²⁰ On this interpretation of the functional specialties, see William P. George, Mining Morality: Prospecting for Ethics in a Wounded World (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), 34, 65, 71, 145, 219.

²¹ For an example of how the functional specialties of method may guide other fields of inquiry, see John Raymaker with Ijaz Durrani, Empowering Climate-Change Strategies with Bernard Lonergan’s Method (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2015).

²² See Office of Ignatian Spirituality, “Ignatian Discernment,” https://jesuitseastois.org/discernment. Recognizing Lonergan’s roots in the Ignatian tradition, a leading Lonergan scholar has written at great length on ethics as discernment. See Patrick M. Byrne, The Ethics of Discernment: Lonergan’s Foundations for Ethics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016).

²³ See Office of Ignatian Spirituality, “The Ignatian Examen,” https://jesuitseastois.org/examenlive.

²⁴ See Louis J. Puhl, SJ, The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Based on Studies in the Language of the Autograph (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1951). John D. Dadosky shows the close relationship between Ignatian spirituality and Lonergan’s thought, especially regarding decision-making and the fourth level of conscious intentionality. See John D. Dadosky, “Is There a Fourth Stage of Meaning?” Heythrop Journal (2010): 768–80, at 777–78.

²⁵ Such considering or reconsidering can be a challenge. Consider, for instance, the efforts of the 1619 project to alter what its proponents see as the defective ways in which the history of the United States has been commonly understood (mediated phase) and what corrections (conversions?) are required for moving forward (mediating phase) as a nation. Opposition to the project attests to the range of contrasting appraisals of who, what, and where the country has been and visions of where it needs to go. See, for example, Adam Serwer, “The Fight over the 1619 Project Is Not about the Facts,” Atlantic, December 23, 2019.

²⁶ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 18; emphasis added.

²⁷ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 26.

²⁸ For an explanation of what Lonergan means by “consciousness,” see Fred Lawrence, “The Fragility of Consciousness: Lonergan and the Postmodern Concern for the Other,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 55–94.

²⁹ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 10n4.

³⁰ The theme of conversion runs throughout Lonergan’s Method in Theology. For a brief discussion of the topic, see Robert M. Doran, “What Does Bernard Lonergan Mean by Conversion?” Lonergan Resource, Marquette University, https://lonerganresource.com/academic/lectures/.

³¹ The use of the word “objectify” is perhaps unfortunate if it suggests some sort of crude or radical subject-object dualism that is quite foreign to the spirit of inquiry that Lonergan has in mind.

³² On the relationship between self-appropriation and ethics, see Byrne, The Ethics of Discernment, especially chapter 3, “Self-Appropriation” in part 1, “Self-Affirmation,” and chapter 10, “Self-Appropriation,” in part 2, “Why Is Doing That Being Ethical?”

³³ Lonergan, Insight, 214–27.

³⁴ Lonergan, Insight, 244–47.

³⁵ Lonergan, Insight, 247–50.

³⁶ Lonergan, Insight, 250–67.

³⁷ Think of acceleration, as common sense might describe it, as the experience of “going faster.” Compare this to the mathematical formula for acceleration (a = Δv/Δt), the understanding of which (see, e,g., “Acceleration,” Science.net, https://www.sciencefacts.net/acceleration.html) is accompanied by no experienced difference in speed, but can be quite helpful to someone seeking to design a car or airplane.

³⁸ Lonergan, Insight, 197–98.

³⁹ For this reason, in a sharply divided polity, the “common sense” to which politicians and others appeal in reference to proposed laws or policies—sometimes with the implication that anyone who cannot see the wisdom in such proposals must be stupid—may not be “common” at all.

⁴⁰ See Dadosky, “Is There a Fourth Stage of Meaning?.”

⁴¹ Lonergan, Insight, 258.

⁴² Bernard J. F. Lonergan, “Healing and Creating in History,” Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, vol. 16, A Third Collection, ed. Robert M. Doran and John D. Dadosky (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), 94–103.

⁴³ On the ascending scale of values, see Lonergan, Method in Theology, 32, and Brian Cronin, “We Need to Think about Values,” Spiritan Horizons 7, no. 7 (Fall 2012): 75–85.

⁴⁴ Lonergan, “Healing and Creating in History,” 102.

⁴⁵ See Mary Gerhart, “Bernard Lonergan’s ‘Law of the Cross’: Transforming the Effects of Violence,” Theological Studies 77, no. 1 (2016): 77–95.

⁴⁶ As Lonergan puts it in relation to the natural knowledge of God affirmed by Vatican I: “I do not think that in this life people arrive at a natural knowledge of God without grace, but what I do not doubt is that the knowledge they so attain is natural.” See Bernard J. F. Lonergan, “Natural Knowledge of God,” in the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, vol. 13, A Second Collection: Papers by Bernard J. F. Lonergan, ed. Robert M. Doran and John D. Dadosky (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), 113.

⁴⁷ Dadosky, “Is There a Fourth Stage of Meaning?,” 771.

⁴⁸ For a brief discussion of progress and decline that includes remarks about the redemptive role that self-sacrificial love as well as faith can play in history, see Lonergan, Method in Theology, 51–54, 112–114.

⁴⁹ Recall the phrase popularized by Karl Barth and others: Ecclesia semper reformanda est (the church is always in need of reform). For one account of the history and meaning of this phrase, see Dr. Tim LeCroy, “Semper Reformanda: The Origins of the Slogan and Its Meaning,” on his website, Vita pastoralis, https://pastortimlecroy.com/2024/10/31/semper-reformanda-the-origins-of-the-slogan-and-its-meaning/.

⁵⁰ See Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, prologue. Perhaps those living in the age of Bernard were more comfortable than are some today with mixing gender identities and roles.

⁵¹ As noted previously (Shulski and DiLeo, “What Is Happening to Our Common Home?”), in Laudato Si’ Francis frequently uses some form of the word “consider.” So perhaps the “ecological conversion” he urges in the encyclical is in large part a matter of our becoming more considerate human beings.

⁵² One thinks of the film My Octopus Teacher, https://www.netflix.com/title/81045007.

⁵³ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 26.

⁵⁴ Note that Lonergan also pays a great deal of attention to “probabilities,” especially “emerging probability,” a worldview that may be traced to our third guide for consideration. See Patrick H. Byrne, “The Thomist Sources of Lonergan’s Dynamic World View,” Thomist 46 (1982): 108–45.

⁵⁵ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 26–27. I count no less than eighteen distinct verbs used to describe just what consideration does for the considerate person.

⁵⁶ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 27–30.

⁵⁷ J. Stephen Russell, “Piety’s Dance: The Cardinal Virtues in Bernard’s De consideratione,” Cistercian Studies Quarterly 49, no. 1 (2014): 27–41.

⁵⁸ See Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 37–40.

⁵⁹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 40; emphasis in the original

⁶⁰ Consider, for instance, the still painfully relevant issue of obliteration bombing, discussed in John C. Ford, SJ’s classic article condemning the practice. In building his argument, Ford uses the word “consider” at least eleven times. For example: “We still must consider what the result for the future will be if this means of warfare is made generally legitimate.” See John C. Ford, SJ, “The Morality of Obliteration Bombing,” Theological Studies 5 (September 1944): 261–309, at 302; emphasis in the original.

⁶¹ The literature is vast but, limiting ourselves to our three guides, we note that Aquinas asks readers to consider war, with significant implications for just-war thinking as well as nonviolence (at least on the part of clerics), within the context of charity (ST II-II, q. 40). It is striking that Lonergan, by contrast, has little to say about war as a moral issue, even though he lived through two devasting world wars. Still, his insights can help us to consider theologically the most terrifying realities of war. See William P. George, “‘Tongues of Fire’: Hiroshima as Hell and a New Pentecost?,” Theological Studies 8, no. 3 (December 2020): 860–81.

⁶² Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 42.

⁶³ Plato, Apology, 38a5-6. Some might ask whether a true Christian should not be considering others before oneself. But just as for Lonergan, self-appropriation requires self-transcendence and conversion, so Aquinas puts “love of self” right below “love of God” but ahead of “love of neighbor” in the “order of charity” (ST II-II, q. 26, aa. 2-3). Self-love properly understood as love of one’s true self, precisely in relation to God, is for Aquinas the basis for love of neighbor. Inordinate self-love, on the other hand, is the source of every sin (ST I–II, q. 77, a. 4). Catherine of Siena (1347–1380), also put great emphasis on self-knowledge that was also heightened awareness of God and neighbor. See Dadosky, “Is There a Fourth Stage of Meaning?,” 773–75.

⁶⁴ See Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 43.

⁶⁵ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 43.

⁶⁶ Consider this excerpt from the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely ratified human rights treaty (the United States is the only UN member country that is not a party): “Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, ‘the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth’…”; emphasis added. To see the challenge of establishing the whatness of human beings, note that this statement does not use inclusive language, does not state exactly what is meant by “before … birth,” and does not venture to say what “appropriate” legal protection might be. For the sake of agreement on the convention, the lack of elaboration in the preamble or the articles that follow on just what the child requires “before birth” may, for good reason, have been intentional.

⁶⁷ Just as, in our day, the “origins” of Pope Francis were, to a significant degree, the Society of Jesus, and of Pope Leo XIV, the Augustinians. Nor, for present purposes, should we overlook Lonergan’s Ignatian and, perhaps by way of Aquinas, his Dominican “origins.”

⁶⁸ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 44.

⁶⁹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 45.

⁷⁰ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 50.

⁷¹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 54.

⁷² Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 58.

⁷³ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 57.

⁷⁴ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 58. According to the Roman Missal, all who come forward to receive ashes on Ash Wednesday, whatever their age, class, race, gender, and so on, might be, hear the words: “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you will return.”

⁷⁵ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 59.

⁷⁶ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 63.

⁷⁷ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 64–65.

⁷⁸ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 69.

⁷⁹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 70.

⁸⁰ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 85.

⁸¹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 111–12.

⁸² In his analysis some fifty years ago of the “disaster” of the Catholic Church taking so long to condemn the practice of slavery, John Maxwell gives several reasons for that tardiness. “Yet another reason,” he states, “seems to be that Catholic moralists, in general, have a tendency to neglect a consideration of the natural and necessary effects of the slave-master’s acts or omissions and to pay more attention to his intentions or motives”; John Francis Maxwell, Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Morality of the Institution of Slavery (Chichester and London: Barry Rose Publishers, 1975), 15; emphasis added. One might argue that, in hauntingly similar fashion, over the years religious leaders have tended to give more consideration to the moral status and welfare of offenders under their care than to the effects of their acts on victims.

⁸³ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 24.

⁸⁴ “Who am I to judge?” may be the most frequently quoted if variously interpreted words of Pope Francis. See Nicole Winfield, “Who Am I to Judge?’ Pope Says of Gay Priests,” AP, July 29, 2013, https://apnews.com/general-news-7b465b60945f40deb3a68b3de742f84a; and Joshua J. McElwee, ‘“Francis Explains ‘Who Am I to Judge?’” National Catholic Reporter, January 10, 2016, https://www.ncronline.org/francis-explains-who-am-i-judge.

⁸⁵ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 96–102.

⁸⁶ For Aquinas, as a matter of charity and of the “foresight” central to the virtue of prudence, even future generations might qualify as “near.” See William P. George, “Regarding Future Neighbours: Thomas Aquinas and Concern for Posterity,” Heythrop Journal 33, no. 3 (July 1992): 283–306.

⁸⁷ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 110.

⁸⁸ With regard to “levels” of care or governance, one might consider a key element of Catholic social teaching, namely, the principle of “subsidiarity.” Problematic situations existing at a lower level of governance should be addressed at that level, with higher levels playing a subsidiary role—ready to assist if needed. In the United States, one need only utter the words “states’ rights” to see how challenging the application of this principle can be.

⁸⁹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 129.

⁹⁰ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 146.

⁹¹ Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 129–56.

⁹² Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, 165–66.

⁹³ We would likely have a very good grasp of what he means by “to consider” were we to focus on everything he has to say in the Summa Theologiae about human knowing and doing. But, in fact, we can learn through experience what Aquinas means by the term if we follow, in attentive, intelligent, reasonable, and responsible ways, his reasoning in answering question after question about all manner of things.

⁹⁴ Recall that, for Lonergan, “inquiring” is one of the “procedures of the mind.”

⁹⁵ ST I, q. 2.

⁹⁶ ST I, q. 28.

⁹⁷ ST I, q. 50.

⁹⁸ ST I, q. 76.

⁹⁹ A word search of the Summa Theologiae, Latin or English (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/∼ST), reveals just how frequently Aquinas uses considerare/consideration or consider/consideration.

¹⁰⁰ ST II-II, q. 64. To see how much there is to consider in this question, see William P. George, “Murder, He Wrote: Introducing Christian Ethics through One Question in the Summa,” Teaching Theology and Religion 11, no. 4 (October 2008): 222–29.

¹⁰¹ As Aquinas points out, in the Summa Theologiae “All things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end” (ST I, q. 1, a. 7).

¹⁰² Thus, answering, sometimes with subtle qualifications, questions not just at the level of understanding or hypothesis (“What is it?”) but of judgment: (“Whether it is so?”).

¹⁰³ See Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas, vol. 1, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, ed. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000); and Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas, vol. 2, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, ed. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).

¹⁰⁴ ST II-II, q. 47; emphasis added.

¹⁰⁵ LS §117.

¹⁰⁶ ST I-II, q. 62, a. 4; ST II-II, q. 23, a. 8.

¹⁰⁷ ST I-II, q. 65, a. 3.

¹⁰⁸ ST II-II, q. 47, aa. 6-7.

¹⁰⁹ See Lonergan, Grace and Freedom; J. Michael Stebbins, The Divine Initiative: Grace, World-Order and Human Freedom in the Early Writings of Bernard Lonergan (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995).

¹¹⁰ Displaying his preference for kingship as the best form of government, Aquinas explains that “the species of prudence should be denominated rather from a kingdom, yet so as to comprehend under regnative all other rightful forms of government, but not perverse forms which are opposed to virtue, and which, accordingly, do not pertain to prudence” (ST II-II, q. 50, a. 1, ad. 2; emphasis added).

¹¹¹ ST II-II, q. 50, a. 1.

¹¹² ST II-II, q. 50, a. 2.

¹¹³ For instance, one might ask just what it means for Aquinas to say that slaves retain their rationality and, especially, their “free will.” See ST II-II, q. 50, a. 2.

¹¹⁴ ST II-II, q. 47, a. 12.

¹¹⁵ ST II-II, q. 49, aa. 1–8.

¹¹⁶ With regard to memory: “Secondly, whatever a man wishes to retain in his memory he must carefully consider and set in order, so that he may pass easily from one memory to another” (ST II-II, q. 49, a. 1, ad. 2; emphasis added). With regard to docility: “… since such matters are of infinite variety, no one man can consider them all sufficiently; … Hence in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being taught by others …” (ST II-II, q. 49, a. 3; emphasis added). With regard to circumspection: “Just as it belongs to foresight to look on that which is by its nature suitable to an end, so it belongs to circumspection to consider whether it be suitable to the end in view of the circumstances” (ST II-II, q. 49, a. 7, ad.3; emphasis added).

¹¹⁷ See Josef Pieper, The Cardinal Virtues (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., 1965), 15.

¹¹⁸ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 2.

¹¹⁹ Aquinas warns that the “greed for gain … knows no limit and tends to infinity” (ST II-II, q. 77, a. 4).

¹²⁰ See Joseph Orangias, “The Nexus between International Law and Science: An Analysis of Scientific Expert Bodies in Multilateral Treaty-Making,” International Community Law Review 25 (2023): 60–93.

¹²¹ See, for instance, Marine Biology and Sustainability Learning Center, https://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/how-indigenous-marine-knowledge-reshapes-modern-ocean-conservation/.

¹²² For such a future orientation, see C. G. Weeramantry, Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future, A Report for the World Future Council (Pannipitiya, Sri Lanka: Stamford Lake, 2009). Future generations are also a concern of Pope Francis in Laudato Si’.

¹²³ In the introduction to a later printing of The Sea Around Us, renowned ocean scientist and advocate Sylvia Earle writes: “Most remarkable for me is what Rachel Carson did imagine. Her writings are so sensitive to the feelings of fish, birds, and other animals that she could put herself in in their place, buoyed by air or by water, gliding over or under the ocean’s surface”; Rachel Carson, The Sea Around Us (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), xi.

¹²⁴ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 5.

¹²⁵ See ST II-II, q. 47, a. 8: “Whether command is the chief act of prudence?.”

¹²⁶ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 5, ad. 1. Here, we should recall Lonergan’s discussion of how bias can affect our reasoning.

¹²⁷ “In the truths which they know naturally, [angels] at once behold all things whatsoever that can be known in them” (ST I, q. 58, a. 3; emphasis added). See also William P. George, “‘Angelism’ and Its Devilish Effects on Education,” Chicago Studies 39 (Summer 2000): 194–210.

¹²⁸ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 6.

¹²⁹ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 6, ad. 1.

¹³⁰ Note the title of this 2001 statement by the U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good,” https://www.usccb.org/resources/global-climate-change-plea-dialogue-prudence-and-common-good. Whether the bishops have been robustly prudent in following up on their own call is open to question. See Daniel R. DiLeo, “Study: Most US Catholic Bishops Kept Silent on Francis’ Climate Change Push,” National Catholic Reporter, October 19, 2021, https://www.ncronline.org/earthbeat/politics/study-most-us-catholic-bishops-kept-silent-francis-climate-change-push.

¹³¹ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 7, ad. 1. Here, Aquinas might have said “relatively few”—relative, that is, to an infinite number. The morally relevant circumstances in some cases—say in a war—may be finite in number, but they can still be many and enormously complex. This makes circumspection more crucial still.

¹³² Given the immense power of technology, it is understandable that the philosopher Hans Jonas counseled that we should be guided by a “heuristics of fear.” See Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 26–27, 202–03. On the other hand, Aquinas warns that fear can cause distortion, “making things seem either bigger or smaller than they are” (ST I-II, q. 44, a. 2).

¹³³ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 8.

¹³⁴ ST II-II, q. 49, a. 8, ad 1.

¹³⁵ ST II-II, q. 53.

¹³⁶ For more on this topic, see George, “Regarding Future Neighbours,” 298–99.

¹³⁷ ST II-II, q. 53, a. 5.

¹³⁸ See Lonergan, Insight, 5, 9 and passim.

¹³⁹ See Lonergan, Method in Theology, 48–49.

¹⁴⁰ See Lonergan, “Prolegomena to the Study of the Emerging Religious Consciousness of Our Time,” in A Third Collection, 52–69.

¹⁴¹ See Lonergan, Method in Theology, 14–15.

¹⁴² See Lonergan, Method in Theology, 110.

¹⁴³ Cynthia S. W. Crysdale, ed., Lonergan and Feminism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994). As the abstract for an article on M. Shawn Copeland’s theology puts it, this eminent scholar “joins a liberationist epistemology with the conceptual framework of Bernard Lonergan to offer both a stinging critique of racism and a constructive Catholic theological anthropology”; Christopher Pramuk, “Living in the Master’s House: Race and Rhetoric in the Theology of M. Shawn Copeland,” Horizons 32, no. 2 [Fall 2005]: 295–331.

¹⁴⁴ See, among his several publications drawing on Lonergan, Joseph Ogbonnaya, Lonergan, Social Transformation, and Sustainable Human Development (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013); and Joseph Ogbonnaya, “Towards a More Indigenous African Catholicism: Insights from Lonergan’s Notion of Culture,” The Ecumenist 52, no. 1 (2015): 17–23.

¹⁴⁵ See n21 above.

¹⁴⁶ See Patrick McKinley Brennan, “Asking the Right Questions: Harnessing the Insights of Bernard Lonergan for the Rule of Law,” Journal of Law and Religion 21, no. 1 (2005/2006): 1–38.

¹⁴⁷ See William P. George, “International Law as Horizon,” in Ongoing Collaboration in the Year of St. Paul, vol. 23, Lonergan Workshop, ed. Frederick Lawrence (Boston: Boston College, 2012): 195–226.

¹⁴⁸ Lonergan, Method in Theology, 103.

¹⁴⁹ Lonergan, Insight, 769. See n103 and n109 previously.

¹⁵⁰ Here I refer only to the four cardinal virtues and one theological virtue. There are numerous other virtues—such as faith, and hope, patience, and kindness—that are relevant, too.

¹⁵¹ See My Octopus Teacher.

¹⁵² See Dadosky, “Is There a Fourth Stage of Meaning?.”

¹⁵³ See Dadosky, “Is There a Fourth Stage of Meaning?,” 771–72.

¹⁵⁴ Consider, for instance, the great impact that Aristotle’s philosophy, which extended to animals and other beings, had on Aquinas; that those working in the fields of biology, physics, and paleontology had on Teilhard de Chardin, author of the Phenomenon of Man, trans. Bernard Wall (London: Harper and Row, 1959); or that the work and person of Charles Darwin had on the theology of Elizabeth A. Johnson in her writing of Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).

¹⁵⁵ ST I, q. 47, a. 1.

¹⁵⁶ See John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University, ed. Frank M. Turner (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996), especially discourses two, three, and four, 14–75. I would note that, for Newman, the perfection of the intellect that a university education might advance, while immensely valuable, is not sufficient. “Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk”; he warned, “then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man” ([discourse 5.9]: 90). All the more reason to consider such things as values, virtues, vices, biases, and healing love that were of such concern to the three guides to consideration profiled in this article.

¹⁵⁷ ST I, q. 3, prologue.

¹⁵⁸ Romans 5:5 (NAB). This was a key, perhaps foundational, biblical text for Lonergan.