|
L e t t e r s
Stretching the Senses of Scripture?
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 4
 April 2000 
|
|
|
Your story in the February 2000 issue, "How to Read Scripture Like Jesus and the Apostles," deals with the various "senses" of Holy Scripture. It has revived old thoughts of mine that I offer here.
I am influenced by Dei Verbum, which teaches us, "All that the inspired authors . . . assert is to be held asserted by the Holy Spirit" (DV 11). I suggest that this is what ought to be signified by the literal meaning of Scripture. What has heretofore been termed the literal meaning ought to be now classified as the verbal meaning (or something comparable). Obviously, much of the time the two will coincide.
I consider that one always needs to clarify the significance of the word "meaning" as used in the three other senses of Scripture. Thus there can be a moral intention and a moral use of Scripture. The former will be the same as the literal meaning described above; the latter will be an application of Scripture, such as used in a homily (albeit foreseen by the Holy Spirit).
In his article, Mr. Kellmeyer uses examples of 1 Kings 18:20–40 and 1 Samuel 16:1–12. His helpful unfolding of those pericopes are, I suggest, uses of Scripture. One needs further elaboration to establish that his developments of these texts are what the inspired writer was asserting.
Fr. David Wechter
Houston, Minnesota
Difficult to Retain
This is in reference to the article "You Can’t Be Right, You Can’t Be Right" by Victor Claveau (February 2000). I applaud the tactics used by Mr. Claveau against the arguments of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In order to be able to do something like that, one must be fairly learned in that particular religion.
I wish I had the resources and the time to study the JWs to be able to do something like that myself. I have learned some things about other religions that I didn’t know by reading this magazine, but it’s difficult for me to retain it all.
My reason for subscribing to This Rock was to use it, along with other resources, to become more familiar with my own religion, which I think is first and foremost.
Keep up the good work.
Richard M. Pitcher
Brenham, Texas
Editor’s reply:
Most people need repetition in order to learn, Richard. That’s why we cover many of the same topics multiple times from different perspectives. Just keep reading This Rock, and eventually you’ll be a top-notch apologist.
Primacy has Nothing to do With Foot Speed
Truth often lies blatantly before us, yet how often do we fail to see it? We are blinded by our own desire to find what we want to find, where we want to find it, and who we want to reveal it. "Sola scripturists," who find it difficult to accept the primacy of Peter ("The Attempt to Whitewash Peter’s Primacy," February 2000), would do well to look more closely at that to which they adhere: Scripture.
Both Luke and John reveal that the apostles already were in agreement as to whom the authority of the Church was given. I refer to Luke 24:12 and particularly to John 20:1–10 (Resurrection accounts). Upon hearing the news from Mary of Magdala, the apostles rush to the tomb. John, the faster runner, arrives at the tomb first but does not enter. His great love for Jesus would have compelled him to go in, touch, and examine the evidence. Most certainly his grief was seeking understanding of the previous days’ events. No, there must have been a stronger dynamic at work here. Was it not that such a moment as this was intended for the whole Church? Was it not that Peter, having been given the keys to the kingdom, should be the first to enter?
Peter’s primacy: accepted and respected. Peter’s primacy: God’s design in our salvation history.
Cheryl Zuiker
DeKalb, Illinois
What’s Wrong With "Bow of Bronze"?
In the January 200 issue, "Dragnet" had a few paragraphs on a new psalm book for the Church of England. While I understood and appreciated most of the criticisms reported, I have difficulty with the criticism of the expression "bow of bronze."
First, I checked four different, sound Catholic translations of Psalm 18, all of which have it "bow of bronze." This leads me to believe that it is the correct translation. Secondly, the "three academics" who "derided the use of the expression" pointed out that "such a weapon would never bend to fire an arrow." However, the psalm is referring to God training the psalmist in war so he could bend a "bow of bronze." In context, it is supposed to be an impossible task for man.
I am not sure if the writer of "Dragnet" was supporting all the criticisms mentioned. I just wish to know if This Rock sees a real basis for criticism of "bow of bronze."
Teresa Nolan
Rockville, Maryland
Editor’s reply:
We see no basis for criticizing the phrase "bow of bronze." We were merely reporting others’ criticism of it.
Feminists Will Grasp at Anything
I read the February 2000 "Up Front" dealing with feminist demands for women’s ordination ("A Whiff of Novelty") and smiled. I was reminded of a conversation that I had quite a few years ago with a friend. She happily described how she’d read that a woman was elected pope during the Middle Ages and her gender was discovered after her death. She was surprised and disappointed when I said that the story had been known for centuries to be false. Feminists will grasp at anything to convince themselves that they’ll get what they want—someday.
Marie Wolf
Prosser, Washington
Thanks for "Peter" and Pillar
I wanted to thank you for printing the article "The Peter Principle" by Brenda Morrow in the November/December 1999 issue. It is a fabulous article and really conjured up a lot of thoughts of similarities in my own life and experiences. I have long known that Peter regularly put his foot in his mouth and would often open his mouth just long enough to switch feet, and for each of his blunders Christ readily forgave him. So much so that he founded his Church on the Rock, Peter. This article brought Peter’s mistakes and Christ’s quick forgiveness to a new light for me. Brenda Morrow’s presentation of Peter, by bringing all of the stories of his foibles into one article, and placing them back-to-back with each other, clearly and faithfully demonstrated the awesome, quick, consistent, and never-ending forgiveness Jesus offers us when we humble ourselves and seek reconciliation with him and his Church.
I am in the Air Force and deployed for two months to the United Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf area. I have the honor of being the Catholic lay leader at this small base and am blessed with the opportunity to lead Communion services when we don’t have a priest here for Mass (a priest comes through for a day once every two to three weeks). Both during this deployment, and during my four-month deployment to this same base last summer, I have passed out dozens of Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth booklets, as well as left them on the periodical rack in the back of the multi-religion chapel/multi-purpose room.
Last summer a non-Catholic Christian asked me what Catholics believe, and, in the course of one week, we spent nearly twelve hours going through each page of Pillar, looking up each Scripture reference, and discussing it to the fullest, answering many questions for him. Wherever he is on his faith journey, he now knows a whole lot more about the Catholic Church. Thanks for providing that marvelous teaching aid! God bless Catholic Answers abundantly!
Capt. Karl Dolson, USAF
In the U.A.E
Throw Pius IX at ’em
In addition to appealing to Justin Martyr in most justly defending the possibility of salvation for Protestants, as you did in your response to Lloyd Hysan’s letter ("Who Will Go into the Eternal Fire?" January 2000), an even more compelling source is the good nineteenth-century pope, Pius IX. This pope, duly loved by traditionalists, gives us the perfect bridge between the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the teaching of Second Vatican Council. He writes, in Singulari Quadem, "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?"
And again, in Quanto conficiamur moerore, "We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of his great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."
The full quotes are even more instructive, but the point is that Pius IX clearly saw no contradiction between saying in the same breath, "No one is saved outside of the Catholic Church" and, "Of course, as we all know, it is possible for the invincibly ignorant to attain salvation." In two relatively concise paragraphs, we have a pope who is above the reproach of traditionalists emphatically affirm the statements they hold so dear yet at the same time also adamantly assert what Vatican II taught, in the very same language it uses. It is therefore an effective salve against the barbs of those who arrogantly marshal an intimidating host of out-of-context patristic quotes to unjustly limit salvation and attack those who "earnestly contend for the faith once for all handed onto the saints" (Jude 3).
Eric Ewanco
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
Aquinas Counter-Counterpoint
Somehow I knew that my letter "Thomas Aquinas, Computer Nerd" in the November/December 1999 issue would raise the ire of the dyed-in-the-wool Thomists. I was not surprised that none of my opponents found a statement from Thomas stating that sex is an expression of love and happiness. Nevertheless, let me reiterate that, with the Church, I consider Thomas one of our greatest theologians. Anyone who has read my books knows this. But Thomas is not God, and not everything in life is explained by an Aristotelian synthesis.
Phenomenology is a well-respected philosophy. John Paul II has his doctorate from Max Scheler, one of phenomenology’s most ardent spokesmen. John Paul II has formed many of his teachings on family and sex from phenomenology, particularly Familiaris Consortio, in which he equates marital sex with love and denies that sex is merely biological and procreative, the same as the Catechism (2361). Other well-known phenomenologists include Deitrich and Alice von Hildebrand, Edith Stein, Steven Schwartz, William Marra, et al., many of whom communicated with John Paul II.
Phenomenology is a philosophy that seeks to understand the particulars of life as they are in themselves without forcing them into universal categories. The danger of forcing a particular into a universal is that one may put it in the wrong universal, as Thomas sometimes does, since he had only four or five basic universals in his system.
Despite this, Thomists often appeal to Pope Leo XIII’s mandate to have Aquinas taught in the seminaries. But that was only because the seminaries, being in chaos, needed a systemized form of study. Leo did not discount other traditional philosophies and approaches. In fact, the Jesuits, the Benedictines, the Franciscans, et al. formally petitioned Leo to allow their philosophies to be taught in seminaries, and Leo obliged. I have learned one very important thing as a Catholic: God speaks through many men and women of the Church, and we should always be ready to learn from them.
Now to the letters. Nick Cammarota claims that because Thomas adds "faith and sacrament" to "offspring" in ST III:49:2, this shows Thomas believes sex is "more than a biological function." Really? The "faith" being spoken about is merely marital faithfulness, since Thomas says, "And thus we have faith, whereby a man has intercourse with his wife and with no other woman." Thomas’s focus is on conjugal fidelity because in the sentence prior he says that offspring are a "due matter." As for "sacrament," Thomas refers only to matrimony, stating, "Besides this, it has certain goodness as a sacrament." Hence, it is clear that Thomas’ view of sex is legal, not personal (i.e., not an expression of love and happiness).
Despite this, Cammarota maintains that "it does not mean that Aquinas removes love, joy, emotion, or pleasure from sex." Is this how Thomists prove things? To support your view you must find an explicit statement in Thomas that says marital sex is an expression of love and happiness. The closest Thomas comes to developing human love is in I-II:28:1, but he does not include sex. When Thomas mentions sex he refers to it as a "sensual appetite."
Paul Gondreau’s letter agrees that Nick lacks evidence. Gondreau says, "Sungenis correctly states that Aquinas does not identify human happiness as such with certain ‘animal’ pleasures as those associated with food, drink, and sex, or with such emotions as joy or love." But let’s not stop there. Must we not reason further that Thomas’s disconnect between happiness/love/sex reduces sex to a biological function? What else is left when you take happiness and love away from sex? Valiantly, Gondreau tries to patch up the disconnect by claiming that "Thomas says ‘virtue cannot exist without the emotions’" and "without the pleasures of sex there can be no chastity." But such virtue is only applicable when John glances at his neighbor’s wife, not when John is having sexual relations with his own wife. It is their mutual love, expressed in sex, that God blesses and creates a child in the womb. This is common sense. You don’t need a degree in Thomism, or even phenomenology, to figure it out.
As for Fr. Lawrence Violette’s letter, he says that "it is the teaching of the Church that procreation is the primary end of marriage," implying that I don’t believe such. No, along with the Fathers and Humanae Vitae, I believe that sex without the intent of producing children is a perversion. But Fr. Violette then says, "This [procreation] is far more wonderful than the passing pleasures of the sexual climax." But why contrast the two? Isn’t the separation of sex from procreation something that Hollywood producers do, which then opens up the pleasures of sex to all kinds of exploitation? Holy married men don’t have sex with their wives to satisfy themselves. They do so because they love their wives and want children to love, and the pleasure is an expression of that love and desire, as both John Paul II and the Catechism specify.
Here’s another unwarranted separation: E. William Sockey’s letter says, "Happiness is a state of mind, not a state of physical pleasure." That’s funny. The Thomistic premise that each of the previous objectors plead is that humans are integrated beings, such that body and soul cannot be separated. Yet Sockey obviously separates the two when he claims that humans can’t have happiness in physical pleasure. Sockey’s idea is precisely the dichotomy that phenomenologists have spoken against, since, if it is followed to its logical conclusion, it leads to a non-integrated being who is forced to separate his sexual experience from his spiritual existence, and begins to think that sex is either dirty, a necessary evil, or performed merely to procreate.
Next, Brothers Michael Hurley and John Mellein say that "man’s ultimate happiness . . . consists solely in the contemplation of God, and this is an activity of the intellect." Really? Where does the Church teach that contemplation is limited to the intellect, and where does she exclude emotion from that process? Ever read doctors Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, or John of the Cross? No, emotions are not "tingly sensations" (the brothers’ phrase to caricature feelings), but a real, deep, burning-in-the-soul that not only knows God intellectually but senses and absorbs him with every fiber of one’s being. Thus, phenomenology teaches that emotion is not a mere physical sensation, but part of the soul of man (something Thomas totally missed) with which man can better know and love God. In fact, we can have the same intensity of emotion with God that a husband and wife have in their intimate relations (Eph. 5:31–32).
Finally, why do Catholics need a philosophy of sex? Because over half the sins of the world are sex-related. If we don’t give them a philosophy, then the people are going to get it from Sigmund Freud, Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, Shere Hite, Betty Freidan, Faye Wattleton, the Supreme Court, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the would-be traders in sex education/ exploitation. Is that what you want?
To all the zealous Thomists: Give an honest look at Dietrich von Hildebrand’s Purity: The Mystery of Human Sexuality and see for yourself why it is a better answer to the sex question than what we have received from Aquinas.
Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
Alexandria, Virginia
|
