In this article, I consider Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) and Max Horkheimer (1896–1973) on the topic of social decline, focusing on the relationship between what Lonergan called “conceptualism” and what Horkheier called “instrumental reason.” I will argue that conceptualism and instrumental reason are distinct conscious intentional phenomena that collude in generating social decline. For the sake of convenience and clarity, I will categorize (with some qualifications) this collusive relationship between conceptualism and instrumental reason as one of “elective affinity.” I will advance my argument, first, by articulating Lonergan’s critique of conceptualism in his Verbum articles. Next, I will turn to Horkheimer’s account and critique of instrumental reason. We will see a striking example of the convergence of conceptualism and instrumental reason in Louis Billot, SJ (1846–1931), a neo-Scholastic theologian and cardinal mentioned specifically by Lonergan and generically by Horkheimer. I will then locate conceptualism and instrumental reason within Lonergan’s theory of intentionality analysis, specifically the levels of consciousness, and will elaborate on their elective affinity. Finally, within the parameters of Lonergan’s account of social decline, I will outline how their collusion generates social decline.

This article develops three elements for a pastoral approach to dialogue between Catholics and those who identify as spiritual but not religious. The 2023 Pew Survey “Spirituality of Americans” provides a useful overview of attitudes among those who assume this designation. Two recent synod documents reveal the church’s initial response to this phenomenon. Three elements then outline a pastoral response. First, four occasions of interreligious dialogue described in the Vatican document Dialogue and Proclamation are appropriated for conversation with spiritual but not religious persons. Second, the hermeneutic theory of Hans Georg Gadamer is examined for what it offers the church about conversation across difference. Then, in an exercise of theological ressourcement, “Letter 102” of Saint Augustine of Hippo and his book Instructing Beginners in the Faith are consulted to glean from his thought what might enrich a contemporary pastoral response to those who seek a spiritual life outside of religion.

Mary’s disembodied place in the structure of a complementary anthropology and ecclesiology is enmeshed with an inadequate female sexual theology in the Catholic Church. Inattentive to females’ actual experiences of reproductive bodies and sexualities, their vulnerability is masked within the sense of the Marian aspect of the church—the female, the feminine—as somehow exemplary, with diminished agency or authority within the church or over their own bodies. This understanding of Mary impedes females’ sexual flourishing, not least because it is an impossible standard for womanhood but also because it is constructed, monitored, and controlled primarily by a select group of men. This article examines the theological influences on recent papal perceptions of Mary (Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis), the papal perceptions themselves that have fed the construction of her as a nonsexual, disembodied ideal female, and the ecclesiological repercussions of the complementary Marian/Petrine dichotomy applied disparately within the church.