Scripture Is an In-House Document
On the June cover, This Rock poses the question: “What is More Important-the Bible or the Catechism?” (“Lost in Space,” June 1999). Hopefully, every professed Catholic knows the faith well enough to emphatically answer: “The Bible. ” For examples expressing this truth, see paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which concludes:
“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”
Paragraph 11 clearly affirms the awesome value of Scripture:
“For holy mother Church . . . holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
Mr. Taylor, the author of the article, raised many thought-provoking issues about the benefit from direct exposure to God’s speaking to us through the words of Scripture versus the historically demonstrated harm of trying to learn and understand Scripture’s message without the guiding context of informed faith.
To correctly understand Mr. Taylor’s point, let us keep in mind that the purpose of the Catechism is to introduce and to teach the faith to those who do not yet have it. By way of contrast, no book of Scripture was written for or to those outside the community of the people of God. Rather, all Scripture was primarily written for and to those who already possess the faith.
Obviously, the “obedient” Jesuit astronaut in Mr. Taylor’s scenario remembered that he had a personal copy of the Bible inside the rocket before he jettisoned the cargo pod of Bibles.
James Harris
San Diego, California
More Rockers for Life
Add the rock group Creed to the list of bands that come out in defense of life (“Dragnet,” June 1999). In their song “In America” from their “My Own Prison” CD, they sing, “Only in America we kill the unborn to make ends meet.”
Dan Krupa
Via the Internet
Editor’s reply: Creed performed in late July at Woodstock 1999 in Rome, New York. Now there’s a crowd it wouldn’t have hurt to hear this message.
It’s More than Misguided, It’s Pernicious
Kudos to This Rock and to Rachel Fay for her article “Wives Do What?” (June 1999). It was as clear an explication of the Christian view of womanhood as I’ve read. Unfortunately, even clear explanations of the different roles of man and woman are lost on those — and in today’s society they are legion, even among “Catholics” — who have been indoctrinated that to believe there is any difference between the sexes is a form of bigotry.
What I haven’t seen pointed out is that this mindset of ultimate egalitarianism between all persons and both sexes lies also at the heart of the acceptance of homosexuality. As such, it’s more than misguided: It’s pernicious. We must continue to stress the importance of God’s plan for the sexes to our children. Natural law and common sense are on our side.
Aubrey Forsythe
Flint, Michigan
A Catch with the Father
Coincidentally, I read “Up Front” the day after watching one of my all-time favorite movies on video, “Field of Dreams.” At the end of the movie the hero meets his dad as a young man; his dad, a minor league baseball player, doesn’t know it’s his son, now grown-up, he’s talking to, but as the dad starts to walk away the grown son says, “Hey — you wanna have a catch?” In that simple scene of man and man-boy tossing a baseball back and forth resonates the whole universe of unspoken father-and-child connections.
That universe is present too in Tim Ryland’s scene of helping his sick daughter in the exact same way his father helped him (“Up Front,” June 1999). In my own life I hear it in my own laugh, which at times sounds just like my dad (who died when I was fifteen), and see it in the way I interact with my children. In my best moments, when I do something right, it’s almost as if it’s not me doing it; its almost as if I can step back and watch myself channeling my own father. My fits of anger and impatience, too, are like my dad’s, but if they weren’t they’d probably be worse than they are.
This is why God revelation of himself to us as our Father is so important. If God were our Mother we might not tremble so at his displeasure, and we might not be so sure of his rigorous justice. In heaven I so look forward to an intimacy with God that I imagine won’t be unlike having an easy, eternal catch.
Peter McGuinness
Stinson Beach, California
Not a Command to Follow But a Problem to Be Fixed
Reading Rachel Fay’s article in the June 1999 issue (“Wives Do What?”), I was appalled by what she did not include. There is a real dearth of citations in Fay’s article from On the Dignity and Vocation of Women (ODVW) and The Genius of Women, among others, by Pope John Paul II. This has very detrimental effects, especially in her biblical interpretation.
She writes, for example: “God adds [to Eve]: ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’ (Gen. 3:16). God, it appears, is a good deal less tactful than the Southern Baptists; they at least talk about ‘graceful’ submission.”
Fay’s implication is that God’s words in Genesis 3:16 command the woman (wife) to be subject to the authority of the man (husband). This is not even close to the interpretive conclusion drawn by John Paul II in ODVW 10, where we read that Genesis 3:16 refers to unfortunate consequences of sin that diminish the true dignity of both men and women.
According to John Paul II, “he shall rule over you,” represents an “evil inheritance” to be deeply regretted because it breaks the divinely intended “unity of the two.” As he said in his general audience of June 18, 1980: “In the whole context of the Yahwist narrative these words [Gen. 3:16] mean above all a violation, a fundamental loss, of the original community-communion of persons” (found in the 1997 edition of The Theology of the Body, 120). Christians are not supposed to read Genesis 3:16 as a command for wives to follow, but a problem to be fixed!
The chief reason Catholics should not agree to the Southern Baptists’ statement, which implies unilateral subjection of wives to husbands, is found in ODVW 24: “Whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual. . . . All the reasons in favor of the ‘subjection’ of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a ‘mutual subjection’ of both ‘out of reverence for Christ [Eph. 5:21].'”
Cat Clark
Steubenville, Ohio
Editor’s reply: The Southern Baptists’ statement speaks of the wife as “being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him.” This hardly “implies unilateral subjection.” As to the comment concerning Genesis 3:16, I believe the author intended to be ironical rather than literal. That was certainly the intent when it was chosen to be highlighted in the text as a pull quote.
Gun-Shot of Emotion and Drama
Wow! Talk about being struck by lightning! I found Craig Turner’s conversion story (“Heaven Scent”) thoroughly engrossing. It was an interesting contrast to the types of conversion stories that This Rock usually prints, which tend to be testaments of intellectual attraction to the truth of the Church. Mr. Turner’s story was a gut-shot of emotion and drama.
Personally, I tend to look a little more askance at emotional conversions than intellectual ones, but we need to allow latitude for the Holy Spirit to use all means available to call souls into his Church. Things like rose scents and mysteriously “hearing” others’ prayers — and even lightning strikes — don’t do any good if the mind doesn’t follow the heart.
In my own case, it’s the opposite problem: The heart has a long way to go to catch up with the mind. This is one of the little-discussed dangers of the Catholic faith. At least to me, the faith makes so much sense and seems so logical and hangs together so perfectly that intellectual belief is easy. It’s the emotional conversion, the throwing of myself completely and without reservation into the arms of our Lord and our Mother, that’s tough.
Trevor Philippian
(yes, it’s my real name)
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Or Is a Vegan Someone Who Drives a Chevy Vega?
When I read the headline of the June 1999 “Quick Questions” — “Was Jesus a Vegan?” — I thought it meant was he from a planet of the star Vega. I got from the context of the reply that “vegan” is the same as “vegetarian,” but I’ve never heard this word before. Was it a typo?
Joe Discardi
Monteagle, Tennessee
Editor’s reply: A vegan – pronounced VEJ-un is a “strict” vegetarian. While some vegetarians include things like fish and dairy products in their diets, vegans choose not to consume animal products of any kind. They eat no meat, no dairy products, and no eggs. They also don’t wear leather or other materials made from animals. Strictly speaking, members of the radical group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals didn’t claim Jesus was a vegan but a vegetarian. Either way, it’s a silly claim.
Did First Clement Predate First Peter?
Mr. Dwight Longenecker wrote an extremely well-balanced article on the solid historical roots of Catholic belief that Simon Peter wound up in Rome (two-part article, May and June 1999). Nevertheless, I would note a weak point in his arguments, though one, admittedly, of lesser importance. He notes rightly 2 Peter’s indication that 1 Peter was in some true sense the work of Simon Peter (though with the assistance of a Greek writer, Silvanus) and that the mention of “Babylon” as the place from which Peter is writing is a code word for Rome.
But then he says “the earliest external references to the First Letter of Peter is in” what is known as the Second Letter of Peter-“2 Peter 3:1.” He then cites the First Letter of Clement, written around A.D. 97, as the next oldest verification that Peter (through Silvanus) wrote 1 Peter from Rome.
Most biblical scholars who use a thoroughly historical method seem convinced that 2 Peter was written in the name of Peter (to reflect to the churches distant from Rome Peter’s farewell message to Christians) at a somewhat later date-probably around 130. See the late Raymond Brown’s 1996 Introduction to the New Testament (767) for a summary of the reasons that support this dating.
(Brown, by the way, treats this issue not in any way that would undermine the place of Peter as unique in the minds of the first Christians. To the contrary, he says both letters of Peter reflect a developing appreciation of a unique importance of the ministry of Simon Peter as central to the Church’s life. Indeed, Brown wonders whether a certain hostility of some Protestant scholars toward 2 Peter is due to their recognition of “Early Catholicism” elements in it. Because of these elements, some have even suggested the book be dropped from the Canon. Brown discusses whether their objectivity is damaged by a “Reformation” bias that is triggered by evidence in 2 Peter of certain Catholic doctrines already present and now unfolding even more clearly by 130-doctrines such as a primacy unique to Peter and somehow to be present to the Church in all ages.)
Thus, at least some objective evaluations of the place of 1 Peter in the early Church conclude that 1 Clement, written around 97, is the earliest reference to 1 Peter and thus Peter’s final days in Rome-and 2 Peter is not.
Rev. Edward J. Bayer
Randallstown, Maryland
Vaporizing the Myth
James Akin did a good job of vaporizing the myth that the New Testament — and, by extension, Catholicism — is inherently anti-Semitic (“The New Testament and Anti-Semitism,” June 1999). What would be laughable if it weren’t so annoying is the way proponents of Catholic anti-Semitism view ancient history through the warped lens of modern-day political correctness. This is what Akin’s article did so well: put the views expressed in the gospels into their historical context.
In this day and age it seems to me (see the continuing furor over Pope Pius XII’s stance vis-à-vis Nazism) there is more anti-Catholicism from Semites than vice versa
Margaret Shimm
Wood’s Hole, Massachusetts
Editor’s reply: For the Vatican’s most recent take on Jewish anti-Catholicism, see “Dragnet,” page 11.
I Was So Moved by Mr. Ford’s Article
As a thirteen-year veteran law enforcement officer, I was impressed by Russell Ford’s article (“Special Sons of the Mother of God,” February, 1999) and disappointed to read letters by those who question inmate conversions. I was so moved my Mr. Ford’s article that I have volunteered to be a prison Eucharistic minister.
Once an inmate enters the system, it doesn’t matter what he’s done to get there; he is being punished for his crimes. It’s not up the laity to determine the sincerity of anyone’s confession.
Michael Eversman
Mililani, Hawaii
Greek to Me
When defending the interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, Protestants use the Greek (petros-small stone/petra-massive rock) approach, while Catholics use the Aramaic (kepha-rock) to show that Peter is indeed the rock on which Jesus founded his Church. We explain that while Matthew was written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic.
In the “Quick Questions” section of the March 1999 issue, in defending Jesus’ teaching on marriage (Matt. 19:3-9), the difference in the usage of the Greek words “porneia-invalid” and ” moicheia-adultery” was shown.
In using the Aramaic defense just three chapters earlier, shouldn’t we also use this defense in chapter nineteen as well? Does the Aramaic that Jesus spoke support the porneia/moicheia difference?
Rod Stewack
Joliet, Illinois
Editor’s reply: We do not have an Aramaic original for any of the Gospels. In the Greek versions that we do have, some phrases are idiomatic enough that we are able to easily translate back from the written Greek text to the spoken Aramaic, which can clarify the meaning of the Greek. This is true for Matthew 16:18. It is less true for Matthew 19:3-9, where by default we must rely on the Greek alone.
Choir Can Sing the Gloria Alone
I would like to correct the item in your May 1999 “Dragnet” department regarding liturgical music. Noting encouraging signs of a resurgence in traditional Catholic church music, the author maintains that “the restoration of traditional music in the Novus Ordo Mass would require changes in the rubrics of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal.” Specifically, he says, “the GIRM requires that the ‘people of God’ sing the Gloria together.”
Article 31 of the GIRM states that the Gloria “is sung by the congregation, or by the congregation alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone.” According to the American bishops’ statement, Music in Catholic Worship, the Gloria “provides an opportunity for the choir to sing alone on festive occasions” (66). Many Catholic church choirs take advantage of this opportunity to sing settings of the Gloria taken from the “treasury of sacred music” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 114).
It is true that the other movements of the traditional Mass Ordinary are more problematic when adapting polyphonic choral settings to the Novus Ordo Mass. In practice, choirs that sing the Gloria often include the Kyrie and Agnus Del from the same polyphonic Mass. The Credo and Sanctus are rarely sung exclusively by the choir, as both are considered congregational chants. However, nothing prohibits the congregation from sharing in the Church’s treasury of sacred music by learning simple settings of these texts from the Gregorian chant repertoire.
Richard Rice
Alexandria, Virginia
I Studied Myself Right Into the Catholic Faith
My company received an e-mail with a copy of Catholic Answers article on Seventh-Day Adventism. I must commend you on the accuracy and nonjudgmental attitude the article took. The writer dealt with facts and beliefs without condemning the people who believe such stuff.
I was raised SDA and am presently the office manager for an independent ministry whose background is SDA. I, however, converted to Catholicism five years ago. I was asked to teach a Revelation seminar that dealt with the mark of the beast and the rest of their nonsense. The fact is, I studied myself right into the Catholic faith.
Theresa Fisher
Via the Internet
Luther’s Doctrine Supports Catholicism
Another problem with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, along with the ones mentioned by James Akin (“Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles,” April 1999), is that if the corollary doctrine of the “clarity of Scripture” is true, then we Catholics are right.
According to Bernard Ramm on page 98 of Protestant Biblical Interpretation (third edition, 1970), “It was Martin Luther in his work, The Bondage of the Will, who determined the Protestant theory of the clarity of Scripture. Luther spoke of the external and internal clarity of Scripture. . . . The external clarity of Holy Scripture was its grammatical clarity. If an interpreter properly follows . . . ‘the laws of language’ . . . he can know what the Scriptures specifically mean. . . . The internal clarity of Scripture is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart or mind of the believer.”
According to the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, Catholics are 1,040,354,000 of the world’s 1,929,987,000 Christians, or 53.9 percent. Add the world’s Orthodox Christians (223,204,000) and you have 65 percent of the world’s Christians reading Scripture in the same way. The Protestants (360,913,000) and Anglicans (54,785,000) taken together are only 21.5 percent. (There are 287,857,000 “other Christians” according to this book.)
People get the impression that since there are 20,000-plus denominations of Protestants, Anglicans, and “other Christians,” together they must form the majority of the world’s Christians. They’re actually only about a third. Statistically speaking, Luther’s “clarity of Scripture” doctrine favors the Catholic interpretation.
Don Schenk
Allentown, Pennsylvania
No Plans to Print on Bubblegum Wrappers
I simply must respond to the letter written by Phil Killian in the March, 1999 issue regarding the overall “look” of This Rock magazine. It seems that Mr. Killian has his priorities a little mixed up. To cancel a subscription because of the way the magazine looks is ridiculous, to say the least.
I feel strongly that the message of the magazine is what is important, not the presentation. In fact, I don’t have a problem at all with how it looks. I wouldn’t care if This Rock was printed in purple crayon on a bubblegum wrapper (but let’s hope it doesn’t come to this), just as long as I was able to read it. This Rock provides a veritable feast for a hungry soul. Bon appetite!
Elaine Hill
Williamsburg, Virginia
Priests: Leave Your Collars On
Just recently, a priest told me an amazing story of how he was doing some shopping “off-duty” and, because he was pressed for time, had not yet had the chance to take his clerics off. So he was in a drug store wearing his black clothes and his white collar. It so happened that when he left the store, an old man with worn-out clothes recognized him as a Catholic priest and went to him. He said to Father that he hadn’t been to confession in forty-something years, but now wanted to take this opportunity. He confessed his alcoholism and all the pain and sinfulness he had had in his life in that time. All of this happened right there in the parking lot.
After the confession, the man started to cry as Father absolved him from his sins. This story has impressed me quite a bit, and I think we can all draw the obvious conclusion: priests should wear their collar as often as possible. As the example demonstrates, a mere collar can save a soul. Priests: leave your collars on! It’s so sad to see that many priests these days dress secularly.
Mario Derksen
Via the Internet