|
L e t t e r s
NOT PICAYUNE
|
|
|
|
ln your May 1997 issue, the excerpt ("No Divorce ‘Except for Fornication’?") from Fr. Hubert J. Richards’ booklet Christ on Divorce notes that the Greek word " porneia " found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 has been mistranslated by Bible translators. This controversy, which might seem picayune to some people, is important because most non-Catholic Christians allow the divorce of mar¬ried couples on the basis of mistranslating " porneia " in these passages as "adultery," "unfaithfulness," "unchasteness," and even "fornication." However, translating " porneia " in these passages as "fornication" makes no sense, if married people are being referred to. Likewise, "adultery" is a bad translation, as Fr. Richards explained, because Greek has a different word (moichatai) which means "adultery," and that word appears in these same passages. The other mistranslations are English synonyms for "adultery" and are tendentiously used to translate " porneia " only in these passages.
Usually " porneia " does mean "fornication." But that translation contradicts the context of these Matthean passages because Jesus was speaking of divorce, the formal ending of a marital or quasi marital relationship. Fr. Richards, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 5:1, asserts that " porneia " can mean an attempted marriage within forbidden degrees of kinship, i.e., incest. However, there is another (or more fundamental) secondary meaning of the word "porneia" which is relevant to these passages. According to the priest author of Catholics and Orthodox: Can They Unite? (sorry I don’t remember his name since I bought his paperback book in the early 1970s and have long since lost it or lent it out), rabbinical literature of the Second Temple Period used "porneia" as a technical term for "concubinage." Whether to translate "porneia" as "fornication" (its basic meaning) or "concubinage" (a secondary, derived meaning) was done according to the overall meaning of a given passage.
In the contest of these two passages from the Gospel of Matthew, it makes sense that Jesus was saying that concubines could, even must, be "divorced" but that wives cannot be divorced as far as God is concerned. This understanding is consistent with other passages of Scripture that indicate that it is really God who joins a man and woman in marriage and that divorcing what God has joined is forbidden by God. On the other hand, the usual mistranslations of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 result in these passages being set at variance with all other New Testament passages concerning marriage and divorce.
In any case, Fr. Richards was certainly correct in indicating that " porneia " in these Matthean passages refers to an impermissible quasi-marital relationship more formal than casual fornication.
Marc Victor Ruessmann
Detroit, Michigan
THE Ph.D. SYSTEM
I thoroughly enjoyed Karl Keating’s article on the new apologists in the May issue of This Rock. I have seen several other Catholic writers discuss source criticism, or the so-called "Q" theory, but they never seem to mention it with reference to other ancient writers. What I see of it in Catholic writing would lead one to believe that source criticism was used by scholars only with reference to New Testament authorship. This form of rogue scholarship, however, has apparently been applied to all or many of the writers of ancient history.
This excerpt is taken from A. R. Burn’s introduction to Aubrey de Selincourt’s translation of The Histories, by Herodotus: "[I]t is evident that Herodotus did have serious Persian sources, and made good use of them.
"But there had also been Greek prose-writers, both geographical and historical, before Herodotus; and it is a serious question, what use he made of them. German scholars, who invented the term ‘source-criticism’ and the method itself—a valuable method, if used with discretion—have sometimes pursued it to a point described by a great British scholar as amounting to the denial that any famous ancient historian ever did any work for himself; his apparent merits are always due to a great predecessor, whose importance or even existence has been unsuspected, until detected by the acumen of the writer of the thesis. Herodotus has suffered much from strivers after originality; but the question posed is a real one."
The writer expands on this theme with this footnote: "I use the word thesis advisedly; since the excesses of Quellenkritik are mainly due to the Ph.D. system, which makes a high salary depend on producing original work. In a field as well-trodden as that of classical literature, to require a young scholar to be original is as inhumane as requiring him to be a humorist, or a poet; a truly original theory has a high probability of being a perverse theory, and a branch of study that has not been well worked over is likely to be one that is not worth much attention. (This does not apply to archaeology, the chief growing-point of modern classical studies, nor, of course, to modern history or the natural sciences; though the danger exists in any study.)"
I think it is interesting that "Q" theory isn’t just something invented to disparage the authorship of the Gospels, but is a method that has been used to attack the integrity of many ancient writers.
Gerard J. Kelly
Omaha, Nebraska
A SARCASTIC MANNER
I thoroughly enjoy your magazine and look forward to receiving it each month. While I certainly applaud your effort to enlighten us on the errors of false religious beliefs, I would expect you to do so with truth and charity. Many people will read your magazine and believe exactly what you say; therefore, you have an obligation to present the truth.
In the July/August edition, Mr. Keating addresses "do-it-yourself religion" ("Up Front"). Presenting the founders of several sects, he criticizes them in a sarcastic manner. In the case of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witness, he states that he "determined that there is no hell and that you’ll go there if you don’t worship at Kingdom Hall." Having co-workers who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and having had a few knock at my door, I am aware of their true belief in this matter. They do not believe in hell, as correctly stated, so the soul of the unbeliever does not go there. Rather they believe that the soul of the unsaved is annihilated.
If I was not a Catholic and I looked to your magazine in my search for God, I would be put off the ever so slight bending of the truth.
Karen S. Adams
San Marcos, Texas
Editor’s reply:
Please re-read the piece. I think it’s fair to say that my short comment on the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of hell qualifies as irony, not as sarcasm (check your dictionary)—and certainly not as a "bending of the truth." The context makes it clear that I wrote tongue in cheek when I said JWs don’t believe in hell but believe you’ll go there if you disagree with them.
LIFEBOAT
Thanks for Adrian Reimers’ perceptive and long-overdue essay ("The Trouble with Catholicism," September 1997) on that unworthy cleric Richard McBrien. Having read McBrien’s articles in our diocesan newspaper (which I sold as a schoolboy and which used to be Catholic) for some time, I ask the following: What can a concerned Catholic do to assuage the anger and pain that such reading brings him? Not read McBrien’s ravings? I suppose; but should one not know his enemy? At Sunday Mass I have to banish all thoughts of this smug, elite neo-Luther because I receive the Host, lest I commit sacrilege. Maybe I should just leave the newspaper in the vestibule! In any case, This Rock is a sort of personal spiritual lifeboat. For this I thank you and bless you.
Thomas Hogan
Long Beach, California
NO PABULUM, PLEASE
It saddens me to read in "No Apology from the New Apologists" that Fr. Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., is considered a "respected" priest who is a professor at one of the West Coast’s leading Catholic universities. I would have much preferred hearing that he was part of some confused liberal Protestant group.
I am a new Catholic as of Easter, 1997. The Holy Spirit began to draw me a year or so ago to the true Church of Christ against my wishes, in fact, against my wildest nightmares. I have been an active, conservative Southern Baptist all my life; my parents, daughter, son-in-law, and three granddaughters are all still Southern Baptist. The remainder of the relatives are Church of Christ, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal. I didn’t even know any Catholics!
I can honestly say that I have become a Catholic because that’s where God wants me to be, but I learned about the Catholic faith and Tradition from you, Hahn, Schreck, Sheed, Hardon, Kreeft, Pacwa, Groeschel, and others. This Rock was one of the first publications I subscribed to. I had to practically beat down the door of my parish to get an appointment with a priest to discuss what I needed to do to "join." I attended classes but, frankly, if it had not been for the 100 or so books and periodicals, along with the audio and video tapes made by the previously mentioned group, I still wouldn’t be well-grounded in my faith.
Catholic Christians are looking for meat—not spiritual pabulum from "respected" priests who support dissent. I absolutely love my Church, but none of the cradle Catholics I’ve talked to can tell me how to get to heaven, and most of the priests I’ve talked with personally seem to go round and round in circles. If it had not been for the "new apologists," I would be in the Church but would know very little about it. So, keep up your hard work at Catholic Answers. That is exactly what I needed . . . answers . . . and you had them.
Marsha Stacy
Dallas, Texas
SALES FORCE OF THEOLOGIANS
At any given time, it has been my experience that most theologians disagree, period. Within Karl Keating’s May 1997 article, "No Apology from the New Apologists," is found a timely response to the growing pandemic of revisionist theologians. Mr. Keating elucidates, "Keep in mind that theologians do not enjoy the charism of infallibility. At times ‘most theologians’ simply are wrong about a particular point. We need to examine the point itself, not take a hand count."
Mr. Keating’s observation here cannot be overemphasized. The teaching of the Catholic Church has never been theologian-driven. To proceed otherwise is Protestant methodology, not Catholic.
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Faith, in an essay published on January 28, 1997 in L’Osservatore Romano, responded to certain revisionist theologians by saying, "The agreement of the universal episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era. This means that a morally unanimous consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the apostles. The wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, ‘If in some quarter, a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all.’ What remedy does he propose? A return to authority. Canon law, he writes, is a ‘protection’ for believers ‘against misrepresentations of revealed doctrine and against a watering down of the faith.’"
Pope John Paul II wrote in Redemptor Hominis, "Therefore, when theologians, as servants of divine truth, dedicate their studies and labors to ever deeper understanding of that truth . . . it functions correctly when they seek to serve the magisterium, which in the Church is entrusted to the bishops joined by the bond of hierarchical communion with Peter’s successor. . . . Accordingly, close collaboration by theology with the magisterium is indispensable. Every theologian must be particularly aware of what Christ himself stated when he said: ‘The word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me’ (John 14:24). Nobody, therefore, can make of theology as it were a simple collection of his own personal ideas, but everybody must be aware of being in close union with the mission of teaching truth for which the Church is responsible."
Having converted from Protestantism, I know firsthand the frustration in selecting from a sales force of theologians in order to understand one’s faith. Not so as a Catholic. The sacred deposit of faith ( depositum fidei) was given us in the first century. It has been preserved in its fullness and faithfully handed down from the apostles through the Church for over nineteen centuries and kept as strong, unambiguous and pure as it was nearly 2,000 years ago.
As Michelle Arnold shared in her heartfelt conversion story ["Because He Loves Me," May 1997], "Catholics don’t have to reinvent the wheel; they are free of the doctrinal squabbles Protestants suffer from and can trust the infallible magisterium to teach them the truth. That is where true security lies."
Steven Rush McCoy
Sacramento, California
PROBABILITIES
"No Apology from the New Apologists" (great article by the way) made me think you might be interested in the following: "I am a strong advocate of the general argument that ‘truth’ as preached by scientists often turns out to be no more than prejudice inspired by prevailing social and political beliefs." It is by no less than Stephen J. Gould in Ever Since Darwin, 1977, page 44.
This quote is from a prominent defender of "evolution," a so-called scientific fact that is a scientifically undemonstrable theory that makes use of "probabilities . . . piled upon probabilities" to conclude, ultimately, that there is no God and that ours is a purely self-existing mechanical universe. (This and CFC-caused ozone holes, pollution caused global warming, government intelligence, and biblical scholarship vis-à-vis Brown and Meier are all cut from the same cloth.) These propositions are assertions without proof, and are accepted on faith alone; they are in fact (pagan) religions. Scholarship is something few of the writers would likely even recognize, as its pursuit still requires humility, i.e., respect for the truth.
Virginia Comiskey
Chicago, Illinois
CAN’T WAIT
I am a new subscriber and was about to write you about considering a large article on Mormonism, its practices today, its food collection which it distributes free to the needy in Utah, its slick ads on TV, and the recent outcroppings of books on the Mormons, that is—members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was happy, instead to read your reply ("Letters," January 1997) to one of their members that a comprehensive overview would be forthcoming in the spring by Isaiah Bennett. The richest and fastest-growing church, they remain a mystery to me.
Brother Joseph, S.M.
San Jose, California
Editor’s reply:
A visit to my home this week by Mormon missionaries reminded me of the need for the books by Isaiah Bennett. I happily told the young "elders" that there will be a full-length analysis of the Mormon faith plus a separate handbook for Catholics who open their doors to find LDS missionaries.
REPTILIAN RHETORIC
When Malachi Martin was asked what Catholics should be reading for Traditional Catholic material, he mentioned This Rock. I got a copy of it, and to my astonishment a no-named writer is tearing into Malachi Martin in the July/August "Dragnet"page. In this attack I am personally insulted that the writer assumes that people who tuned into Malachi Martin on Art Bell are also presumed to be watching the "The X-Files" and listening to the dictates of Grace Baptist Church. Maybe we used our brains that are larger than this lizard-brain journalist and deliberately tuned in to listen, all by ourselves. We really do know how.
It is incomprehensible for a Traditional Roman Catholic to understand how some "Christian" magazine allows a writer to print this article while forgetting the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." It is unfair and defamatory to attack Dr. Martin by using quotes stated by non-Catholic congregations who decide to quote him. It also presumes that Karl Keating must be divine where he has omnipotent control over all media vessels from quoting or misquoting what he says from "the Rock."
For fans of Dr. Martin his background is undeniably above anyone who attacks him. But most importantly, he is unafraid of This Rock and others as he continues to spread light and exposes the who, what, and where of the decay of the Catholic Church.
We know the side Malachi Martin is on, and it certainly is not him that "will make the orthodox Catholics lose hope." If you quoted him correctly it was he who said, "We are not to lose faith, because we have our glorious Savior, Jesus Christ." Amen.
Denise Zuppe
Waltham, Massachusetts
The lizard-brain journalist replies: The "Dragnet" item did not attack Martin but raised what seem to us legitimate questions about his faculties as a priest—and, therefore, his overall credibility. We reported on a Vatican letter saying that Martin lost his priestly faculties in 1965. If you have documented proof that he subsequently had them reinstated, please let us know. In the meantime ...
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
