These fifteen essays by authors who, save one, share a strong academic connection to Boston College, trace the topography of Francis’ moral vision onto the map of academic moral theology. When conceived the authors did not “know” that their collection would appear in the final months of Pope Francis’ reign, yet they would be aware their volume could serve as a retrospective on Francis’ moral magisterium. Francis himself often spoke of a change of epochs, and here we are reminded of two Conclave-related Italian saying, even if they seem to suggest different interpretations: morto un papa se ne fa un altro and papa grasso, papa magro. The first which literally translates as “a Pope dies; they just make another” underscores a perspective that even in a so-called end of era, the sea-change may actually turn out to be a ripple rather than a tsunami. The other, “fat pope [followed by] skinny pope,” points to a historical trajectory that shows at least some discontinuity in terms of theological, pastoral, and political emphases from one papacy to the next.

The Introduction and Conclusion co-authored by the editors frames the 6 essays in Part One: Foundations, and 7 in Part Two: Applications. Both the Introduction and Conclusion are particularly well-written, providing an integrated road map of the principal contributions and their relationship to the overall project, and the individual essays often make reference to the others, which is helpful for providing some continuity in their analyses. Nevertheless, at times one gets the impression these essays are somewhat analogous to the blind men coming into contact with a hitherto unknown pachyderm and then trying to figure out just what kind of a beast they actually have hold of.

Perhaps the strongest and most durable essay is Lisa Sowle Cahill’s “The Moral Theology of Pope Francis: Contextual, Collaborative, Charitable, and Not Always Clear.” She uses Amoris Laetitia to highlight mercy as the illustration of Gospel-grounded love and the need for both discernment, and accompaniment as a companion dynamic to discernment. In her view Francis’ contribution taken as a whole is “a decentralization that follows on contextual discernment, the empowerment of the laity (at least in theory, and in some contexts), the Church of the poor, and the prioritization of love and compassion over analytic stringency and established magisterial positions” (26-27).

Also quite helpful is Elyse Raby’s “Pope Francis's Ecclesial Ethics: Mercy, Subsidiarity, Justice,” in which she weaves together the pastoral and academic implications of the Pope’s overall approach to articulating the demands and challenges for the Church’s mission today. Another noteworthy essay is Andrea Vicini, SJ’s “A Discerning Bioethics: Francis's Threefold Approach” in which this medical doctor-theologian traces Francis’s threefold approach: 1) spiritual relationship with Jesus that characterizes Christian discipleship; Vatican II engagement with the world that “animates a critical, collaborative, and active presence in the social fabric … that nourishes personal and communal discernment,” and an understanding of the common good that is comprehensive, shared, and “rooted in the experience of people, particularly those who are marginalized and excluded” (p. 184).

The editors maintain that it is somewhat difficult to map Francis’ approach on to established moral methodological approaches. This is “true,” but perhaps this then could be read as both an invitation and challenge to moral theologians to reflect upon, and likely revise some of their categories, vocabulary and approaches.  E.g., perhaps concepts such as “intrinsic evil” might be left in the recycling bin---not because there is no longer “intrinsic evil” in the world, but because this particular nomenclature seems easily misunderstood and misapplied in our contemporary world.

Another “friendly amendment” critique concerns the repeated choice of the term “ambiguity” in the volume to describe a hallmark of Pope Francis’ teaching. This can be problematic since this same vocabulary has now been employed, along with the synonym of “confusing,” to code “diplomatic” opposition in conservative circles (such as Archbishop Chaput et al.) to Pope Francis’ pastoral approaches to his papal munera.  Moreover, term is hardly one that the Pope himself used either. A more accurate expression might be to contrast an inductive, personalist paradigm with an abstract deductive top-down one-size-fits-most set of moral norms. It is true that this latter approach enjoyed greater favor in the pontificates of his two immediate predecessors. While “ambiguity” was rarely, if ever, used to describe Veritatis splendor or Caritas in veritate, this does not mean that these two documents are pastorally preferable. If the authors of these essays likely would agree with this last point, then we might re-configure this thematic description of Pope Francis’ basic approach.  Hopefully Pope Francis’ moral vision will develop in continuity with Leo XIV, who then will show positively that even when one pope dies, another can be chosen to continue the work.