It’s About Time
It’s about time I’ve seen an article like “Combating Biblical Skepticism” by Frederick Marks (May-June 2004). In my return to the Catholic faith, I have had to combat much of the supposed “scholarly” skepticism that Marks points out. I found this to be true often in the New American Bible (especially in the Gospels), an otherwise excellent resource, and in some Catholic Bible commentary series. In their efforts to appear “unbiased,” many Catholic scholars practically trip over themselves apologizing for being Catholic and holding to Catholic beliefs, such as the virginity of Mary. Some writers, even those on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, make you shake your head and wonder if they have ever read Dei Verbum. Reading some of their presumptions (for instance, on the possibility of miracles) oftentimes caused serious obstacles in my return to the Catholic faith.
Now that I’ve been teaching RCIA, I often find myself torn when seekers ask me about which Bible to read for study purposes, or when they are filled with doubt by supposed Catholic scholars. I hope that we continue to see articles like “Combating Biblical Skepticism,” as the threat of modernism and naturalism is a serious problem in our Catholic community. The readers of your magazine would be well served to beware of such modernist tendencies among many Catholic “scholars” and to keep in mind that they do not represent the final word on the subject.
Joe Kussey
Via the Internet
Hope Has Returned
I am finishing up a four-year Catholic Bible Study that has covered each book of the Catholic Bible. At times, the instructors have taken a very modern (liberal) approach in their presentations, to the extent of actually undermining Catholic doctrine. The five questions that are the basis of Frederick Marks’s article (“Combating Biblical Skepticism,” May-June 2004) have occurred during this year’s lectures alone. Between the lectures and seeing fellow classmates take in what was being said without questioning it, I had reached a point where all the enjoyment of reading, discussing, and learning Scripture had been removed from my life.
Yesterday I spent some time praying in front of the tabernacle and was planning to walk away from any serious level of Scripture study or discussions. Today, This Rock magazine with Marks’s article showed up. After reading the article, some hope has returned. For this, I want to sincerely thank both Marks and Catholic Answers.
Dan Yoreo
Via the Internet
Trounce Rather Than Embrace
Once again, This Rock chose to trounce rather than embrace a Catholic man trying to draw others to Christ. First, in October 2003, it thrashed the Pope with articles that a Protestant would be too embarrassed to publish. Now it publishes “Flaw of Blood” by Monica Migliorino Miller (May-June 2004).
Miller calls the film a “masterpiece” and “the most theologically focused treatment of the suffering of Christ ever committed to film.” But the article’s primary contention is that the movie is too violent, a complaint made popular by the secular media. Did Miller notice the film’s title? Is it even possible to make a realistic, nonviolent movie about the death of our Savior?
Nowhere did Miller state that the violence wasn’t true to the Gospels. It seems that her complaint is with God for making our redemption violent and not with Gibson for showing what happened. We can all pick out parts of any film that we would portray differently if we were the producer. The fact that This Rock would publish such a pointless article speaks volumes. When a Catholic apologetics magazine criticizes a Catholic movie, it deters people from wanting to see it.
Instead of emphasizing the negative, This Rock should have published a critique that accentuates the positive and explains the violence. All Catholics should thank God that Mel Gibson brought us a medium that allows our hearts to witness God’s love for us and the actual cost of our sins.
Tom Mitchell
Dearborn, Michigan
Miller’s Modernist Review
I disagree that the analysis provided by Monica Migliorino Miller on The Passion of the Christ (“Flaw of Blood,” May-June 2004) was a theological critique as much as a modernist review. She seemed bothered that Mel Gibson attempted to portray accurately the suffering and death of Jesus. Miller completely missed the theological aspect of the movie by looking at it through the eye of a film critic instead of the eye of faith.
The movie was bloody and cruel. It realistically depicted a scourging and crucifixion. In my opinion, the movie was a wake-up call prompted by God to make straight the way of the Lord. In these dark times, God needed to show this unbelieving world that no matter how cruel or horrible life can be, we always can turn to him for hope, understanding, and forgiveness. Theologically, from a Catholic perspective, this movie was excellent.
Chris Koenig
Omaha, Nebraska
Dangerously Close to Gnosticism
As a new subscriber, and with much chagrin, I read the article you published by Monica Migliorino Miller (“Flaw of Blood,” May-June 2004). After a second reading, my chagrin grew even more pronounced. I found two passages particularly disturbing, and ask you to please give me the opportunity to explain why.
The first passage was this: “I accept that the horrific violence, as with the other images of the film, serves as a theological metaphor” (emphasis mine). Since when does the Roman Catholic Church teach that the physicality of Christ’s redemptive Passion is metaphorical? I am of the understanding that the perfect fullness of Jesus’ human nature (body, blood, soul) and the perfect fullness of his divine nature (divinity) are inexorably bound together in the hypostatic union and that his physical suffering perfected the Son’s filial, obedient self-sacrifice to the Father (cf. Heb. 2:10–18).
The second passage I found disturbing was this: “Such emphasis on the physical torture of the body fails to serve the deeper theological complexity of Christ’s sacrifice and its meaning for us.” The author neglects to tell us exactly what this “deeper theological complexity” is. On the other hand, Peter is forthright to remind us that Jesus “bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:24).
The New Testament is soaked in reminders of the bloody, brutal physicality of our redemption. In Christ, who laid bare the beautiful truth of God’s love alongside the hideous truth of man’s sin, the theological reality and the violent, bodily reality of our Lord’s Passion are one and the same. In Christ alone, and through his body alone, the latter indeed serves perfectly the former. Paul teaches us, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9).
Given the prophetic depiction of Christ’s Passion from Sacred Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 53, Psalm 22), one could argue that the extent of Mel Gibson’s cinematic treatment of our Lord’s suffering comes closest to, yet probably still falls appreciably short of, its bloody, physical actuality. And after all, is it not the extent to which we enter into the suffering of Christ’s bodily Passion that determines the extent to which we shall also enter into the glory of his bodily Resurrection (cf. Luke 24:24–26; Phil. 3:9–11)?
As for the article’s sidebar (“Gored to Death”), where the author allots her readers a sampling of unsavory, secular reviews of The Passion of the Christ, it simply underscores the perception of Christ crucified as “a stumbling block” or “foolishness” to those without faith and provides, at least for me, a witness to the film’s unflinching fidelity to the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18–31).
In short, denying the extreme physical and psychological suffering of Christ mocked, beaten, spat upon, scourged, crowned with thorns, and crucified undermines the dogma of the Incarnation. It attempts—wittingly or unwittingly—to cleave the hypostatic union by imposing a false dualism upon Jesus’ two natures (i.e., by diminishing the importance of Jesus’ flesh and attempting to divert one’s attention to an otherwise ambiguous, hyper-spiritualized “deeper theological complexity”) and slips dangerously close to Gnosticism.
As Roman Catholics we are called to obey the Lord’s imperative: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). We are wonderfully reassured by Christ’s resurrection that the brutal, bloody, bodily encounter with our Lord in his Passion will effect one of the most profound theological realities of all: the forgiveness of our sins and the eternal salvation of our souls.
Patrick A. Burdick
Oneonta, New York
A Bloody Mess
Though I have no reason to doubt Monica Migliorino Miller’s self-proclaimed devoutness, her perception of flaws in The Passion of the Christ (“Flaw of Blood,” May-June 2004) is itself flawed.
If one actually does think about it theologically, we know that, though we do not always understand God’s plan, all of the events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection—the manger, the wedding in Cana, fishing on the Sea of Galilee, and, yes, the scourging—happened for a reason..
The Jesus who was condemned, scourged, taunted, and crucified on that Friday afternoon must have been a bloody mess. To suggest that realistically depicting the Passion somehow detracts from some other message of Christ is to deny the supreme wisdom of God in allowing these specific events to occur.
Patrick S. Simons
Laguna Hills, California
Editor’s reply: This is only a sampling of the letters we received concerning “Flaw of Blood.” Apparently, faithful Catholics—bless them—will brook no criticism whatsoever of Gibson’s film. Dr. Miller’s critique of the film’s violence, whether or not one agrees with her, was thoughtful, and the second half of her article consisted purely of unqualified praise of the movie’s powerful theological symbolism. We doubt Dr. Miller’s measured criticism of the film, published nearly two months after its release when it had already earned hundreds of millions of dollars, deterred anyone from seeing the it.
Outrageous and Unconscionable
One should expect a reasonable degree of accuracy in book reviews, particularly where there is an intimation of heresy. Your magazine’s review of my book By What Authority (March 2004) was unconscionable in this regard. I will refrain from a point-by-point rebuttal of this outrageous review and focus simply on four points:
1. The reviewer [James Kidd] contends that a central thesis of my book is that “God continues to reveal himself to us today in the same way he did in the person of Jesus Christ.” The reviewer goes on to suggest that it is my view that public revelation continues today. This is incorrect. I do note that “the same Word of God revealed in the Scriptures would continue to abide in the life of the Church, its liturgy, its theological reflection, its doctrinal pronouncements and the daily insight of ordinary believers” (6). But here I am certainly not advocating for any “new revelation” that formally goes beyond the apostolic period, but am merely explaining the integral relationship between scripture and tradition.
2. The author accuses me of saying that the Monophysites were not heretics. This is simply a false and dangerously inflammatory accusation. The reviewer’s selective quotation and lead-in is unconscionable. He quotes my description of monophysitism while simply making up the part where I say they are not heretics. Obviously monophysitism is a heresy, as is the related heresy of monothelitism, which was the real subject of the passage that was selectively being quoted. Far from supporting a heretical position, I explicitly noted on that same page that monothelitism was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople.
3. The reviewer attributes to me the view that Christ is present in the Eucharist “symbolically but not physically.” Here he grasps the “letter” but not the “spirit,” for in fact Catholic Church teaching does not teach that Christ is present in the Eucharist “physically”; rather it teaches that Christ is present within the appearance of bread and wine, “truly, really, and substantially.” The failure to grasp this elementary feature of Catholic eucharistic doctrine raises questions about the theological competence of your reviewer.
Both Augustine and Aquinas insisted that the eucharistic body of Christ was not Christ’s physical body. Rather Christ is present in a real but spiritual manner. Explaining Augustine, Aquinas wrote: “Rather, he meant that Christ’s body is there spiritually, that is, invisibly and by the power of the Spirit” (ST IIIa, a.75, q. 1 ad primum). Nowhere in my book do I ever suggest anything counter to the teaching of Trent that Christ is present in the Eucharist under the appearance of bread and wine, “truly, really, and substantially.”
4. The author several times attributes to me viewpoints (e.g., “he wonders whether the concept of revelation might be extended to the Qu’ran”) when I am in fact summarizing positions that are proposed in theological debates in a separate section concluding each chapter titled “Disputed Questions.” Your reviewer freely drew from summaries found in the “Disputed Questions” sections and misleadingly presented them as my own positions.
Given the theological tenor of your journal, I would expect a vigorous theological disagreement with some of the positions that I do propose. But I would also expect a certain integrity in accurately representing the positions of an author before refuting them. Your readership deserves that much.
Richard R. Gaillardetz, Ph.D.
University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio
James Kidd replies: Space permits me only a brief response to Dr. Gaillardetz’s four points:
1. In his book Gaillardetz never distinguishes between public and private revelation. Indeed, his theory that the “living testimony of the faithful” should be the basis of Church doctrine shows that he thinks this testimony has at least as much authority as Scripture and Tradition.
2. Gaillardetz never uses the word heretics to describe the Monophysites. Instead, he minimizes their disagreement with the Church, saying that it was simply a difference in emphasis. But the Church never condemns as heresy an emphasis on something that is true.
3. While it is true that the Church does not teach that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, Gaillardetz stresses the symbolic.aspect of the Eucharist while ignoring the fact that it is more than just a symbol. This is misleading, especially when presented to those who are learning about the faith.
4. It is true that the “Disputed Questions” sections contain summaries of marginal positions, but Gaillardetz presents them in a sympathetic way, failing to mention that nearly all of them have been explicitly rejected by the magisterium. Moreover, many other heterodox arguments can be found in the body of the text itself. For instance, that the magisterium is fallible in matters of faith and morals is clearly Gaillardetz’s own position.
Doctors’ Obligation Is the Patient
I wish to respond to Marge Will’s letter, “Brain Death Is a Tricky Concept” (April 2004).
Ms. Will is mistaken in her assumption that if she had signed an organ donor form, the medical team would not have tried as hard to save her son. This widespread myth must cease. The medical team’s primary ethical and treatment obligation is to the patient, regardless of organ donation status. Various codes for physicians and nurses and hospital patient rights statements—as well as criminal laws—prohibit any activity that would hasten death. Euthanasia, whether by acts of omission or commission, is illegal in forty-nine states (Oregon being the only exception) and against Catholic teaching as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. CCC 2277).
To avoid conflict of interest or issues of potential impropriety, the medial team is not involved in the organ donation process except to notify the organ procurement agency of a possible donor.
The term “brain death” is no longer widely used. The preferred terminology is “death by neurologic criteria.” This definition is written into each state’s statutes. The medical-ethical definition is a cessation of all brain activity and/or blood flow to the brain as determined by electroencephalogram (EEG), cerebral blood flow studies (to determine if there is blood flow to the brain), and an apnea test (to determine if the patient can breathe on his own).
Ms. Will seems to accept death as cessation of pulse, breathing, etc.—known as death by cardio-pulmonary criteria, another accepted definition in all fifty states. A person whose brain is truly dead (no blood flow or activity) quickly will be dead by cardio-pulmonary criteria, since heartbeat and breathing, controlled by the brain stem, no longer will function.
Ms. Will is incorrect that with the “new brain death definitions, we now have something quite dangerous and deliberate on our hands.” The concept of death by neurologic criteria has existed in some form since the 1960s, when it became possible to transplant organs. What Ms. Will experienced with her son’s accident was a physician’s best prognosis, which turned out to be incorrect. This is not an uncommon experience.
Christopher W. Fuerst
Dillwyn, Virginia