|
L e t t e r s
AN UNFAIR SWIPE?
|
|
|
|
As an avid reader of both Sacred Scripture (primarily) and modern biblical scholarship (secondarily), it was with great interest that I read Scott Hahn’s interview in the September issue of This Rock ("Scott Hahn on the Politicized Bible"). Prof. Hahn did a fine job in summarizing both the background and limited value of "historical criticism."
However, in doing so, it is my opinion he took an unfair swipe at the particular approach which New Testament scholar Fr. John Meier takes regarding historical research of Jesus. For instance, Hahn claims that Meier drives "a wedge between the ‘Jesus of History’ and the ‘Christ of faith’ " and that he methodologically separates the "historical-critical study of Scripture from theological faith." In a sense, both assertions are true; however, I don’t think they are properly nuanced (and hence, not completely accurate in their implications) as to what Meier is actually saying.
Consider what Meier himself writes in his introduction to volume one of A Marginal Jew, his most recent and prominent writing concerning the "historical Jesus":
"Catholic readers of this book should not be upset by my holding to a strict distinction between what I know about Jesus by research and reason and what I hold by faith. Such a distinction is firmly within the Catholic tradition; for example, Thomas Aquinas distinguishes carefully between what we know by reason and what we affirm by faith. This book remains in the prior realm, while not of course denying the relevance of investigations into the historical Jesus [the ‘Jesus of history’] for faith and theology. It is simply a matter of asking one question at a time."
That’s his point: asking one question at a time. Meier is simply dealing with the first question at hand: What can we assert about Jesus using the commonly-accepted principles of historical-critical research? He does not say that a Catholic scholar is to end his search there, and he does not say that this Jesus (the historical Jesus) is unconnected from the "real Jesus" (the Jesus of faith). Such a chasm built between the two Jesuses is a classically liberal distinction, one which (if his writings are carefully consulted) Meier does not share.
Hahn accuses Meier of taking a "lowest-common-denominator approach" when approaching the Gospels as historical records. Meier does envision an "unpapal conclave" of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and agnostic (Hahn left this last one out) locked up in the basement of Harvard’s divinity school library, not being allowed to leave until a consensus statement on the historical Jesus can be completed. However, Meier is very much aware of the inadequacy that such a consensus document would have. On page 2 of A Marginal Jew Meier writes: "Such a limited consensus statement, which does not claim to act as a substitute for the Christ of faith, is the modest goal of the present work." A "modest goal" does not equal the "only" or "primary" goal which he thinks exegetes should be aiming for. Again, Meier is careful in stating his purposes.
In all fairness, Hahn recognizes Meier’s "moderate" views on the subject and clearly separates him from those fellows who are responsible for the now infamous Jesus Seminar. This is to Hahn’s credit, given that other "conservative" Catholics may not be so charitable. Nevertheless, I disagree with his assessment of this faithful Catholic biblical scholar (and personal friend of New York’s Cardinal John O’Connor).
One can be an orthodox, even conservative, Catholic and still disagree with other fellow orthodox Catholics, especially in matters that do not touch directly upon the essentials of faith (as defined by the magisterium of the Church). We can all agree on the same essential points of doctrine, yet have intra-fraternal differences as to how we think (theologize) about the same.
Perry Turchi
Bellingham, Massachusetts
SLOUCHING TOWARD FUNDAMENTALISM?
I stumbled upon the site quite accidentally whilst searching for a store that carried The Ascent of Mount Carmel. While I cannot say whether Saint John had anything to do with this happy accident, I wanted to express to you personally my joy at finding such a well-prepared, wonderfully presented, and faithful Catholic web site.
I think it was a link from New Advent that brought me to you, which, in itself, was an adventure. (With a few notable exceptions such as "Testament" and "Covenant," I am wary of anything following the word "new.") Your tracts dealing with responses to Catholic bashing and the scandalous charges of Fundamentalists were both reassuring and helpful, as I have a Lutheran friend in danger of slouching toward Fundamentalism. (There is hope—she asked me about videos of Archbishop [Fulton] Sheen, so I sent her one for Christmas!) I especially enjoyed the tract dealing with Galileo, as I have taken a very different path to explain why the magisterium was correct in its censure of his theories. I would be happy to send it to you if you are interested. I never intended to become an apologist, but sometimes God has other plans.
Mark Sigerson
Staten Island, New York
IN PRAISE OF PILLAR
I have just read Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth. Oh my, now I know what booklet to recommend to any doubting or demoralized Catholic. It really is an amazingly succinct, consoling work. Nice job!
Edmond J. Micucci
via the Internet
ALTERNATIVE MUSIC
A reader asked you to recommend a Catholic alternate to the National Pastoral Musicians Conference for musicians who serve at Mass. Please find one! Or start one. I’ll help. Do you guys sing the Gelineau Psalms? I love them, but the choirmaster at my parish, good as he is, isn’t into singing the psalms. The genius of the Gelineau Psalms is that, even in the English translation of the French, the words and melodies of the psalms stick in your head for years after hearing them only a few times, and they raise your heart and mind to God whenever you remember them. "For the peace of Jerusalem pray/ Peace be in your house!"
Dave Heywood
Carthage, New York
A CAPTIVE SET FREE
I wrote a letter to your company letting you know that I was a prisoner in a California state prison and that I was indigent. I mentioned that I was interested in your materials and wanted a price list or any material that you could provide someone in this situation. As God does so well, he has provided: he has provided you with the ability to be able to send me Catholicism and Fundamentalism and, so far, three editions of This Rock at no cost to me!
My deepest and grateful thanks from all that you have done. I have been able to read some of the material and let others read the material as well. We all thank you!
Last Easter I was baptized, confirmed, and received my first Holy Communion. I have begun a lifelong journey to become as close to our Lord as possible. Your generosity has helped me as well as others here to achieve more knowledge of this direction. As I have been taught that gifts should be acknowledged and my thanks be given, this letter holds these feelings.
Ken Daul
San Luis Obispo, California
ABOUT BUCKETHEAD
I subscribe to This Rock and love it. About Buckethead ("Dragnet," November 1996)—praise God! is all we can say. It may be "bad" for him right now, being forbidden a parole hearing, but obviously God has more people in prison who need his testimony and evangelization. Your web site is also great.
Nancy McKenna
via the Internet
CONSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE
I thank God for your work at This Rock. Every issue contains something of interest--not only to Catholics, but to all those objectively under the banner of Christ in this relativistic century, who believe in the objective truth of divine revelation or in objective truth at all, rather than in the touchy-feely gospel of "I’m O. K., you’re O. K., God’s O. K." But if a matter of constitutional law will not be out of place, I object to a statement in your July/August issue.
In "Up Front" and in the "Letters" section it was implied that a federal ban on partial-birth abortions is a cut and dried issue, and that there is no valid reason for a prolife person to oppose a federal ban. I agree that the procedure is morally indefensible unless the mother’s life is in danger. I have contacted my own state representative, Fay Boozman, and received his assurance (thank God) that he will introduce an appropriate bill in the Arkansas legislature.
But I hope you will agree that, while the moral law binds secular government absolutely so far as its jurisdiction extends, it cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. If Spain were to legalize slavery, the people of Spain as a sovereign body politic would stand guilty before Almighty God; but Congress would have no authority to legislate for Spain to end the evil.
The comparison of the U. S. to other countries is improper. Unlike other countries, this is not a unitary nation, but a federal league of fifty sovereign, independent republics. The Constitution and the federal government operate on the soil of any state only by that state’s own sovereign will, as expressed in ratifying the Constitution; the federal government exercises only a very few, limited, and largely external delegated powers. In all else, the U. S. government is as foreign to a state as to Spain; any exercise of undelegated power within a state’s boundaries is an act of foreign aggression. The state retains the ultimate responsibility before God for exercising its full range of police power for the safety and welfare of its people. Therefore, the proper comparison is not of the United States to other countries, but between Arkansas, etc., and other countries.
The sovereign people of Arkansas are responsible for failing to protect the unborn, just as they were for slavery in the last century. But the responsibility is theirs alone, as with any other sovereign political community. We must fight for justice at the state level and not depend on the lawless exercise of illegitimate power. As the issue of abortion clinic bombings should remind us, legitimate ends do not sanction illegitimate means.
Kevin A. Carson
Springdale, Arkansas
Editor’s reply:
A moral point, then a political point. You say that partial birth abortions are "morally indefensible unless the mother’s life is in danger." Wrong. They always are morally indefensible. It never is right to intend to kill an innocent person, and the fact that the mother’s life might be in danger doesn’t make a wrong act right.
Now to your political point. No matter what our wishes may be, the fact is that the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter now and has been for the better part of a century. The federal government usurped powers not granted it under the Constitution, and it kept them, with the tacit agreement of the states themselves. There no longer are "sovereign states" except when votes are announced at political conventions. ("The sovereign state of Alabama casts fifteen ballots for the next president of the United States . . .") Abortion has been authorized by the federal judiciary and encouraged in federal family planning programs. With minor changes in the composition of the House and Senate, Congress could engage in blanket funding of abortion. As things now stand, the states have no authority—and now power—to impose a will contrary to the federal government’s. I’m not saying that’s how it should be, but that’s how it is. Pope Leo XIII, in one of his encyclicals, noted that there is nothing so salutary as viewing the world as it really is. In dealing with abortion, we need to keep that injunction in mind.
NO FEAR
I was frightened by the state of the Church in general and especially the state of the Church in my diocese, until I subscribed to your magazine. Thank you for providing a source of truth.
Steve Graessle
via the Internet
MISSING RED HATS
I very much enjoyed the article by Edward Peters on the next papal election ("The Next Conclave," October 1996). However, I believe that the list of American cardinals listed by Mr. Peters on page 31 is short two names: Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit and Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore. That would bring the total number of Americans in the next conclave, if it were held today, to ten. Also, with Archbishop Stafford of Denver being called to Rome, he likely will be added to the rank of the cardinals in the near future.
Paul S. Czarnota
Clinton Township, Michigan
FAR FROM UNBIBLICAL
My name is David Hockley, and I’m twenty-one and the son of a British pastor working in France, and a year ago I thought that I had understood all the major tenets of Protestantism and believed they were perfectly coherent. I didn’t really have a clear-cut position on Catholics, I simply believed that there must be a few Christians within the Catholic Church—probably among the charismatics.
Last summer I met some Catholics from Ireland whom I knew to have a personal relationship with Christ—therefore qualifying as Christians, to my mind. We spent quite a time discussing in a friendly way the logic behind both Catholic and Protestant churches, and I can’t remember anyone trying to convince anyone else. I came to realize that the Catholics comprehension of the Eucharist was, well, far from unbiblical. However I was not convinced that its not being unbiblical meant it was the truth. I came to the point where I saw both positions as equally founded, from a logical point of view.
I therefore decided to find out what was the truth. And the best thing to do, I thought, was to go to Mass and take Communion. I did this and came back shaking and shaken. I was now convinced that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, and yet I was not satisfied. Indeed, to my mind the dilemma now was that if the Catholics were right about the Eucharist, might they not be right about one or two other things ? That was mid-November last year.
A friend of mine who was going through the same sort of thought processes lent me a book she had found helpful, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. I like a good, well-thought out discussion, and this was just my thing. It was great reading, but it was also terrible. I found myself acknowledging that what had till then been my faith was not as logically coherent as I had thought—that, in fact, to be coherent I had to move on.
At that same time, many of the young people in the church I was attending in Paris started moving in the same direction, although not all of them on the same path. We are now fifteen or so (out of a church attendance of fifty) to have become Catholic or to be seriously considering the move. And Catholicism and Fundamentalism has been essential in explaining the finer points of Catholic doctrine to those who found themselves convinced the Catholics were right about the Eucharist but scared stiff about our Lady or baptism of infants or purgatory.
My girlfriend—whom I started dating a little after all this started—was a Catholic with a deep desire to know more about God, but who was not having her questions answered in her local parish. Thanks (once again) to the book. I was able to bring her the answers to her questions, and she has changed beyond recognition over this last year: She used to be depressed; she now shines.
David Hockley
via the Internet
LITTLE BY LITTLE
I’m writing to thank you for printing the correction about the Hindu woman and the Pope in your April 1996 issue ("Quick Questions," responding to the charge that Pope John Paul II had been anointed by a "priestess of Shiva."). The original story was very upsetting and confusing, and your correction was such a relief. There are many stories such as the above. Perhaps little by little you can throw light on more of them.
Marie Duffey
Norwalk, Connecticut
|
