The latest sex abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church involving Cardinal McCarrick is compared with that of 2002 in the archdiocese of Boston, and that of 2012 involving Cardinal O'Brien of St Andrews and Edinburgh. Attention is given to aspects of the latter in part because of the privileged perspective of the author. Thereafter, sociological and other reasons are proposed as to why the Catholic priesthood has been afflicted with cases of sexual abuse and sexual impropriety. The issue is considered of the genesis of homosexuality, and apriori assumptions are rejected taking it instead to be an empirical question. There is analysis of the common distinction between (homosexual) orientation and activity, and of its relevance to the issue of admission to seminary formation. Noting that Vatican documents and statements do not refer to ‘orientation’ but to ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ (tendenze omosessuali profondamente) these notions are related to those of disposition and activity, and it is argued that the important distinction is between orientation and the rest. Finally, it is noted that both traditional and progressive Catholics are often given to idolatry about the Church and to Pelagianism about their faith and practice.

This article addresses three questions: Is there time in heaven? If so, what is it like? and How does it relate to time in this universe? In dialogue with modern science, this paper argues that since Christianity believes in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, it should also affirm that there is time and space in heaven. Thus, rather than picturing heaven as a changeless, eternal moment, it is better to picture is as an everlasting experience of advancing from glory to glory. The time and the space in heaven is not the same as the time and the space in this universe, but the relationship between spacetime in heaven and spacetime in this universe in shrouded in mystery. While in this universe time always advances in one direction, in heaven, we might be able to move both forwards and backwards in time, though always moving forward in glory. It is also possible that the saints in heaven could revisit different times on earth, making for a complex interaction between heavenly and earthly timelines that could explain how the saints in heaven can hear and respond to earthly prayers.

This paper explores Otto Muck's metaphysical concept of Weltanschauung (world-view). My objective is to argue that world-views can be rational. To this end, I will first explain the notion of Weltanschauung and illustrate its relation to metaphysical convictions. Next, I will defend the meaningfulness of metaphysical assertions against two objections relating to verification and falsification. The core of the paper focuses on the integrative function of world-views and the criteria according to which one can evaluate their rationality, in particular, Frederick Ferré’s criteria for the rationality of metaphysical systems. The thesis is that the rationality of a world-view can be evaluated in terms of the adequacy of the integrative function it performs. Finally, I will show why, within Muck's framework, dialogue between proponents of different world-views is a postulate of rationality.

Taking the important work of Grace Jantzen as its starting-point, this article challenges the dominant pan-metaphoricism of Feminist philosophy of religion. Throughout, I defend an apophatic interpretation of analogy – analogy as a dynamic rhythm between affirmation and negation, praise and silence. I argue that Jantzen's negative position on apophaticism is related to her negative stance on the infinite ontological difference between creatures and creator. However, Jantzen's rejection of “traditional theology” is really, it is shown, a rejection of “dialectical theology”. Without analogy, moreover, we are ironically left with a (metaphorical) theology of dialectical opposition. By contrast, the way of analogy guarantees that there is no dichotomy between the divine and the human. The “logic” of analogy is one of no contrast.