|
L e t t e r s
Love Connection
|
|
|
|
As a product of the ecclesial lay ministry formation program of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, diocese, and possessing an avid interest in the sacred writ, I was drawn to Fr. Peter Funk’s critique of biblical criticism in the April 2005 issue ("What Is Biblical Criticism—and Should We Trust It?").
My understanding of the historical-critical method (which is that of a student, not a scholar) is that it embraces not only history but source and form criticism, literary and textual criticism, and developments in the study of language and the natural sciences, such as archaeology and paleontology. All of these seem to have been endorsed by the pontifical commission appointed to study the interpretive processes used to gain a deeper understanding of Scripture. Because this scrutiny is ongoing, the Church is always searching for any data that would contribute to and validate its teaching. As the Church believes and teaches that Scripture and Tradition work synergistically together, its findings safeguard the revelations of the past.
When one really understands the apostolic nature of the Church—that direct connection to Jesus Christ through his apostles (which, in my mind, is the benchmark for Christianity)—these various biblical interpretive techniques make the Church a trustworthy teaching source. When I discovered how strongly Christ-centered the Church is in all its teachings, I fell in love with Jesus and his Church all over again.
By the way, Julius Wellhausen was not the first to posit multiple sources in the Pentateuch. A French priest, Richard Simon, did that in 1678, two centuries before Wellhausen’s publication. What a stir that must have caused.
Ed Luckenbaugh
Cashtown, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply:
Thank you for your correction. On further investigation we discovered that Simon indeed did posit this in the seventeenth century. He was not the first, though: Baruch Spinoza suggested the same thing in 1670.
Teaching Moment Lost?
I truly enjoyed Fr. Peter Funk’s article "What Is Biblical Criticism—and Should We Trust It?" (April 2005). But I believe a clarification is in order.
In the side column entitled "Questions Bible Criticism Strives to Answer," Funk referred to the "quest for the historical Jesus" as an influential movement within biblical criticism that seeks "to determine what Jesus actually did and said." He left it at that. As a Catholic priest writing for a Catholic periodical, Funk should have explicitly stated the Church’s authoritative teaching on the matter, namely, that the four canonical Gospels do just that—i.e., they "faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day he was taken up" (Dei Verbum, 19).
This is not mere nitpicking on my part. It is not uncommon for me (a former seminary-trained Protestant minister, now a Catholic) to encounter confusion on this point on the part of many Catholics. Many seem to be under the impression that Scripture is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals but not necessarily in regard to historical details. But Pope Leo XIII’s Provendentissimus Deus Pope St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, and Vatican II’s Dei Verbum all state in the strongest terms possible that Scripture is completely free from error by virtue of the fact that error is incompatible with divine inspiration.
Obviously the Gospels can be misunderstood and thereby obscure the "historical Jesus" from view—which is why we have Tradition and the authoritative teaching of the magisterium. But it seems that many scholars in search of the "historical Jesus" end up discrediting and impugning various portions of the actual Gospel texts. This, according to the constant teaching of the Church, is a gross error. Mind you, I am not in any way suggesting that Funk subscribes to this error. I am simply suggesting that, in my opinion, he had the opportunity to make the Church’s teaching explicit and that, in view of the present confusion on the part of many, he should have done so.
Keep up the good work!
Bruce Sullivan
Summer Shade, Kentucky
Fr. Peter Funk replies:
I thank Mr. Sullivan for his words of clarification on Catholic teaching, as well as for his charity in allowing me the benefit of the doubt—I most certainly reject the notion that Scripture errs with regard to Jesus’ life. In hindsight, the choice of the phrase "the quest for the historical Jesus" was unfortunate, at least listing it as "influential" without further clarification. At that point, though, I was not making any statement about Catholic belief but rather trying to place what is a well-known project within its larger intellectual context.
The "quest" has been influential indeed, almost exclusively among liberal Protestant scholars. Perhaps this clarification, along with the general argument of the rest of the article, will clear up the problem. These particular Protestant scholars recognize that Scripture itself is shaped by tradition (again, see Luke 1:1–4). Rejecting all tradition as suspect, they are forced into the reductio ad absurdum of regarding all Scripture as suspect, including traditions about Jesus.
Catholics have shown relatively little interest in the project, as we acknowledge that the historical Jesus is one with the Jesus who is ever present in the Church, most especially in the sacrament of the Eucharist. There is no need to quest after a man who is daily in our midst!
Legion Facts
I liked the April 2005 issue, especially the article by Fr. Peter Funk on biblical criticism ("What Is Biblical Criticism—and Can We Trust It?") and Aghi Clovis’s Damascus Road ("An Islamic Story"). As a member of the Legion of Mary, I would like to make a clarification—it’s rare we get any mention, so it was great to read that the Legion was instrumental in Clovis’s conversion.
Only practicing Catholics are able to be members and attend meetings. Clovis said she attended monthly meetings, whereas regular meetings are weekly, so I suspect that she attended another type of Legion meeting called "Patricians," a monthly discussion group in which a topic is presented by a lay person followed by a discussion. A moderator keeps the discussion moving, but all attendees can have their say. The meetings are primarily for Catholics to learn to defend the faith. A priest or other person well-formed in the faith attends and at the end does a wrap-up and gently corrects any errors or misconceptions.
I’m glad it all came out well for Clovis. Her conversion is heartening.
Madeline Ashley
Los Angeles, California
Flummoxed
Concerning Karl Keating’s April Frontispiece: So many Catholics bailing out over the sexual abuse scandals leaves me flummoxed. Were we worshiping the clergy all these years?
If anything, the awful disaster should make us stronger in our precious Catholic faith.
Donald Clancy
Millbrae, California
Taken to School
In response to Russell Shaw’s article "Do You Have a Vocation?" (April 2005): I am a senior at Christendom College majoring in philosophy and minoring in theology. Recently, because graduation is looming, I have been thinking a lot about my vocation. Over Christmas break I took a week-long silent retreat to discern my vocation and make post-graduation plans. As a result, my understanding of vocation has changed drastically, and I take issue with Shaw’s definition and application of the term vocation.
Aristotle explains that when one seeks for a thing’s definition, the common usage of the word must be examined first. When discussing vocation, Shaw initially explains the common conception as something relating to the priesthood or religious life and then says, "That is a mistake." He proceeds to give three definitions according to "religious talk," but he does not mention the understanding of vocation as something relating specifically to the priesthood or religious life, even though this is a valid understanding and one that is prominent in most circles of "religious talk." The understanding Shaw argues against is the Church’s understanding. The Church understands the nature of the priesthood and religious life, married life, and single life. By applying the term vocation to the priesthood or religious life, it is signifying that they are worthy to have that title of vocation.
Vocation directors are priests who seek out men and women for religious life. They are not counselors willing to speak to anyone about their life plans and desires. Vocation directors have the specific duty to search out those who are called by God to this sublime state.
Jimmy Blankenship
Front Royal, Virginia
Russell Shaw replies:
I thank Mr. Blankenship for his letter and congratulate him on his efforts to discern his personal vocation. I pray for his success in that endeavor. If he’d read my article more carefully, though, he would have found it a help, not a hindrance, to what he’s trying to do.
I did not say that the priesthood and religious life aren’t vocations. I said vocation has three related but distinct meanings: (1) the common Christian vocation shared by all baptized persons, (2) a state in life (priesthood, consecrated life, married life, single life in the world), and (3) a unique personal vocation, which for some people includes the priesthood or the consecrated life and for others does not.
It’s a common mistake to think of vocation only in the second sense—state in life—and then, practically speaking, assume that only people called to be priests or religious have vocations. This has many bad results, including discouraging those not called to the clerical state or to the consecrated life from discerning the vocations they have. They and the Church are much poorer as a result.
The universal practice of vocational discernment would, by contrast, lead many more to discover that God is calling them to be priests or religious than is now the case. But the current practice of discernment tends to limit it to those who already suspect that they’re called to the clerical state or the consecrated life.
As to what the Church has to say about all this, I merely note that my account of personal vocation corresponds to the account given by Pope John Paul II and John Henry Newman. If it’s good enough for John Paul and Cardinal Newman, it’s good enough for me.
Editor’s Mea Culpa
There was a glaring omission to the article "That Rock" in our April 2005 issue. Stephen Ray, a good friend of This Rock and a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live, provided consultation to the author, John Pacheco, and contributed the photographs, taken during the filming of his video series The Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation from Abraham to Augustine, filmed on location in the Holy Land. Inexcusably, I failed to give him credit for his largesse, and I humbly beg his pardon. If you enjoyed the article on Caesarea Philippi, you will love his video series, especially "Peter," which offers a fascinating and visually stunning journey through the places our first Pope walked. You can order it by visiting our website, www.catholic.com, or by calling 888-291-8000.
Need an Oasis?
Thank you for our Prior Peter’s article in your magazine. ("What Is Biblical Criticism—and Can We Trust It?", April 2005). The Monastery of the Holy Cross in Chicago is a beautiful oasis in this city, and his article is an example of the kind of consistent teaching we get there. The Masses and times of prayer are open to the public, and the schedule is on our website: www.chicagomonk.org.
Georgia Montana, Obl.OSB.
via e-mail
|
