|
L e t t e r s
Caught In His Own Web?
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 10
 October 1994 
|
|
|
REGARDING the debate, tapes of which you advertise, between Patrick Madrid and James White, "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?": Although I generally agree with Mr. Madrid's conclusions, I depart from him on his basic defense of the Catholic Church as the infallible church of Christ. Madrid basically uses the same method as Karl Keating in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, page 126: "On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that, we conclude an infallible church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible church that the Bible is inspired."
The problem with this evidentialist line of reasoning became apparent during the debate when Madrid asked White to define the content of the New Testament canon. He asked how White could know that all of the books in the New Testament were originally written by the inspired disciples, since many of these books did not explicitly claim apostolic authorship in the oldest extant manuscripts. When White appealed to historical and textual evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the Gospels, Madrid insisted that using fallible human reasoning and evidence to support the certainty of New Testament authorship was tantamount to admitting that one is uncertain about the Bible's divine authorship, and, therefore, one is unable to claim Scripture as the inerrant Word of God. Unfortunately, if this argument is true, Madrid falls prey to the same problem.
Remember that Madrid's own argument proving the canon of the Bible first shows that an infallible church exists by using fallible human reasoning and historical evidence. The Bible, at this point, is not held to be the revealed Word of God. How does Madrid know, using limited faculties to interpret evidence, that an infallible Church exists? I think, to be honest, he would have to answer that he doesn't know for sure.
Let me say that I have the utmost respect for the people at Catholic Answers and the job they are doing. However, just as is said in Proverbs 1:7, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." I believe that presupposing the truth of God's Word is a more profitable method of defending the faith of the Church rather than using brute facts to come to the knowledge of God's truth.
Tod Geidl
Moscow, Idaho
Editor's reply:
"Presupposing the truth of God's Word" relies on a prior presupposition that the Bible is God's Word, so you have two levels of arbitrary supposition. A Christian might be willing to go along with this, since your presuppositions may be his already-existing conclusions. But why should a non-Christian be convinced by such a procedure, since he can presuppose, just as easily, that the Bible is neither God's Word nor true? Should we be satisfied with a technique that is unable to attract the minds of the majority of the people we meet?
Although Patrick Madrid's argument is superficially similar to James White's, there is no true parallel between the two. This may take a little effort for some people to see.
White says the Christian Church, acting through its leaders, is not infallible in its determination of the canon, but he nevertheless uses its (fallible) determination as his starting point for exegesis. Although using a truncated canon (66 books instead of 73), he accepts the Church's decision that at least these books are inspired.
His problem is that he assumes the fallibility of the Church in deciding the canon, yet he operates as if the canon is known infallibly. (Of course, he desperately wants to say the Church is not infallible--if it were, he'd have to alter his theology.) To be consistent, White should acknowledge that all his exegetical arguments are susceptible to being shown to be false because his canon may be proved to be non-inspired--fallible Church leaders might have erred.
Madrid, on the other hand, uses normal human reason (which can come to sure conclusions--does anyone doubt that two plus two makes four?) to conclude that Christ founded a Church and that his Church is infallible in its teaching. Then he uses that conclusion to argue to the infallibility of the definition of the canon. It's a two-step process. He begins with a provable (or disprovable) assertion, while White begins with two levels of presupposition.
Saved from Sesame Street
I AM the mother of six small children who have many big questions (already). I was raised in a small, mostly Catholic South Dakota town and was never challenged in my religious beliefs. My husband converted after our first child without much help from me (or despite my "help").
I attended a Catholic Answers seminar given in Rapid City a few years ago. I've read some of the tracts put out by Catholic Answers (these came in very handy when controversy arose in our RCIA class), a few books written by people in the Catholic Answers organization, listened to Scott Hahn's tapes, and found many answers to not only my children's questions, but my own and those of my two still-on-the-road brothers-in-law.
Even though funds are always limited in a growing family's budget, I gladly part with this money in exchange for your magazine. All that information keeps Sesame Street songs from running over and over in my head.
Maru Orban
Rapid City, South Dakota
Agape or agape?
THANK you for being there. I only wish that I had known about this publication/movement years ago when hard questions about Catholicism were being asked by family members.
Evangelization of non-Catholics? Heck, we need to start at home with our own cradle Catholics that are falling away in droves from the true Church. I have yet to see a copy of This Rock in a church literature rack, and most Catholics I know never have heard of apologetics--it could really come in handy down here.
Although I'm new in the community, I'm trying to spread the word about apologetics and This Rock. You don't have to stand there with your mouth open--fight back! Get some knowledge!
Marie V. Leslie
Wellborn, Florida
Wicca and hand-holding
I would like to add to your reply to Marc Archambault's letter of May 1994 regarding not joining hands with the rest of the congregation during the Lord's Prayer. Mr. Archambault felt that refusing to hold hands was an anti-Protestant attitude.
I have researched the "holding hands" phenomenon and found that Protestants do not have this posture of prayer in their tradition either. It has only recently come into use and then only occasionally. So refusing to hold hands is not being anti-Protestant.
The holding of hands has been brought in by the feminist movement, and its origins are from the Wiccan ritual where the group forms a circle and joins hands to form the base of a cone. Holding hands is to engender power as they pray: to spiral upwards from the base of the cone. As we know, feminists are great for attempting to engender power, and so this hand-holding is coming more and more into use.
For us Catholics, this Wiccan tradition is a serious intrusion. We know we all belong to the Mystical Body of Christ when we are in a state of grace. However, when we join hands, and some are in the state of grace and some are not, then are we presenting the Mystical Body of Christ to the Father? God cannot be present where there is sin. So this is just another way of diminishing our teaching and the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ.
Name withheld by request
Defending Valtorta
THIS ROCK does such a splendid job on the whole (it stirs up my old apologetical inclinations), it is a pity it did such a poor job in answering that writer [defending The Poem of the Man-God, June 1994] and in evaluating [Maria] Valtorta.
Anyone touching on this subject would do well to read all five volumes of the Poem (over 4,000 pages), as I have done--some sections again and again. It is not "fiction," and there is nothing in it against faith or morals, as many authorities and learned priests will maintain.
Some spots of the work could be better translated; not easy, considering the length. And, as any good mystical theologian will explain, in lengthy private revelations, an isolated error or even errors in doctrine can happen. St. Catherine of Siena thought the Blessed Mother told her that she, Mary, was not immaculate.
In such cases directors or confessors should throw out the error, as has happened to many holy persons and saints. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. The baby could be Jesus. In the case of the Poem, the Baby is Jesus Christ!
The Poem was not put on the Index because of any theological errors. Any contending so have to prove such alleged errors specifically, and not give some interpretation or fabrication of their own peculiar mind-set. In those days any writing about private revelations needed an imprimatur. In 1966, Paul VI ruled that no imprimatur is required for writings about private revelations. So today, no Index exists to apply to the Poem and no imprimatur is required, and no one has proven any error against faith or morals to be in it. So anyone can read it. And thousands of educated Catholics do.
True, Cardinal Ratzinger recently asked that the Italian bishops require that, in any future editions, it be stated that the "Church" (meaning here a Roman congregation) does not see anything "supernatural" in the Poem. That is the Cardinal's privilege, but many competent authorities think that someday the opinion will have to be reversed. Such happened to the judgment of the bishop's court which declared St. Joan of Arc a heretic for believing in her "voices" (private revelations). It took a pope to get that unjust judgment reversed. Similarly, the judgment, made some years ago by a Roman congregation (the Holy Office), against the authenticity of the revelations to Sr. Faustina Kowalska was reversed.
Today we are naive if we accept every declaration made by some (we do not say all) bishop ordinaries that a certain apparition or apparitions and accompanying private revelations are not "supernatural." It is usually a matter of their not having properly qualified persons on hand to do a full and proper investigation of the facts.
May all critics of the Poem take time to read it or otherwise remain silent. An open mind will reach the conclusion that this author sent to Rome some time ago: that no doctors of theology, no cardinals, no authors (nor all of them together) could author that majestic work, The Poem of the Man-God. Much less could a poor woman of limited education and often, as a victim soul, suffering on a bed of pain as she wrote. Who then? Let the reader figure the answer.
Rev. Albert J. Herbert, S.M.
Convent, Louisiana
Editor's reply:
Thanks for your comments, Father. Let me conclude this exchange with a few observations.
The real question isn't whether the Poem of the Man-God, as it is printed today, carries an imprimatur. The question is whether it is true, as the publisher and distributors have claimed and as individual promoters have trumpeted, that an "oral" imprimatur was granted by Pope Pius XII. In fact, the claim is not true, and I am surprised that devotees of the Poem do not find this troubling. Legitimate works do not need the artificial life-support of misrepresentation.
The Poem of the Man-God was put on the Index for its overall theological failings. So far as I know, the Holy Office did not issue a list of specific errors it found--but then that was also the way the Holy Office dealt with other books put on the Index. As a rule it issued blanket condemnations, not long listings of errors.
I don't think one needs to read all five volumes to determine if the work has theological errors. After all, one doesn't need to drink the whole quart of milk to learn if it's sour--a single gulp will do. In my own case, I found enough troubling things in the first part of the first volume that I am convinced the work is not the product of a real supernatural intervention. (I don't need to read all of Bayside's literature to know that that apparition is phony.) It would be a waste of my time to wade through four more volumes of the Poem.
Granted, many have felt edified by reading the work, but I was turned off by what I read, and that would have been the case even had I come across no theological errors. I found the Poem offputting on stylistic grounds; its prose is banal and cloying--but you may say that's a matter of taste: De gustibus non est disputandum.
Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Fr. Philip Pavich have spoken and written against the Poem. The former emphasizes its theological errors, the latter the author's psychological disabilities. (Valtorta reportedly suffered from echolalia during her last years--generally a consequence of earlier psychotic conditions.) I am unaware that any supporter of the Poem has dealt directly with these priests' objections.
If we are "naive" to accept unquestioningly every bishop's declaration that a particular apparition is inauthentic, aren't we even more naive--maybe even disobedient--if we ignore these Christ-appointed teachers of the Church? And aren't we also naive to assume the validity of an apparition just because it is supported by priests or scholars we respect?
I have in mind, for example, Vassula Ryden, who claims to be the vehicle for automatic writing from our Lord and who is backed by some well-known and well-respected theologians. Their support, I fear, has shown that intellectual attainment does not translate into accurate discernment.
Lastly, is it possible that bishops, priests, and laymen who oppose the Poem are in error? Yes, in theory. But I'll place my bets with Frs. Pacwa and Pavich, with Cardinal Ratzinger, with those who ran the now-defunct Index, and with my own instincts.
Paralyzed by his passions
I AM an 18-year-old male who has just graduated from high school. I also consider myself a former Catholic. This decision to no longer hold the faith of my parents came after a long struggle dealing with my relationship with God, emotional problems, and my sexual identity.
Ever since my sophomore year in high school I have been extremely interested in Catholic theology and apologetics. I have persisted till the present day to read and collect many books dealing with the intellectual basis for the Catholic faith, and I now have a library which would be the envy of most seminarians.
I am exceedingly knowledgeable in the teachings of traditional, orthodox Catholicism. I say this not to boast, but merely to demonstrate that my leaving the Catholic Church had very little to do with ignorance regarding Church doctrine. It had much more to do with an emotional and spiritual struggle that left me virtually paralyzed in applying the Catholic gospel of Christ to my own life.
Among these many struggles were bouts with scrupulosity, doubt in matters of faith, dread fear of hell, a fierce habit of masturbation, and, perhaps most importantly, homosexual tendencies. I was well aware of the counsel of the Church in these matters, having read Fr. John Harvey's The Homosexual Person and Fr. Abata's Helps for the Scrupulous.
Yet, as with all the other good books I had read, I was unable to apply what seemed good in theory to my own personal situation. Why was this? I believe much of it had to do with my psychological health or, rather, unhealth. For nearly a year I went to a psychologist and am presently on Prozac (a drug I have been taking since my junior year).
At the beginning of my senior year I met and "fell in love" with a male junior who attended the same school. With him I felt a sense of fulfillment and hope I had never felt from the spiritually-barren, intellectualized brand of Catholic Christianity I had created for myself.
Tasting this sense of liberation gave me the motivation I needed to openly declare myself a homosexual and an agnostic. I was since "dumped" by my "boyfriend," but my decision to acknowledge my unbelief and explore my sexuality remains.
I find the Catholic position on homosexuality to be quite consistent and reasonable--if only it would be sincerely carried out! We cannot ignore the serious proclivity in this country toward treating someone as sub-human merely because of unwilled feelings. I love the statement on homosexuality in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and I hope all sincere Catholics will take it to heart.
At the present time many gay people feel they have only two alternatives: entering the gay community or engaging in self-hatred. For much of my life I chose the latter and am presently employing the former. I think we both agree there is a third alternative: the resolute and firm commitment to chastity based on the innate dignity of the human person, made in the image and likeness of his Creator.
Unfortunately, many people with homosexual tendencies do not feel worthy of this dignity due to the unjust and unchristian bigotry that exists in this country. Though I do not wish to presume what Christ would do, I tend to think he would be far more merciful toward the homosexual struggling to live the chaste life than he would toward those who self-righteously and ignorantly deride homosexuals in general.
I would sincerely ask for your prayers as I continue along this most difficult journey.
Name withheld by request
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
