Bishop of San Jose Denies Historicity of Gospels in Response to "Passion" Film

Lifesite ^ | Monday February 23, 2004

[nickcarraway]

McGrath criticized by local Catholics for supporting pro-homosexual organizations

SAN JOSE February 23, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Roman Catholic bishop of San Jose California has written an editorial for the local paper in which he denies the historical truth of the Gospels. In response to the accusations of anti-semitism which have been made against the film, "The Passion of the Christ," Bishop Patrick J. McGrath wrote in The Mercury News on February 18, that the charge of anti-Semitism cannot be leveled against Catholicism since Catholics do not adhere to the literal, historical truth of Scripture.

Without commenting directly on the film, which he says he has not seen, the bishop wrote, "While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief."

However Bishop McGrath's statement that the Gospel accounts of the Passion of Christ are mere "theological reflections" contradicts Church teaching.

For example, the Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum states, "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels…whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught…"

Bishop McGrath has been criticized by local Catholic groups for his support of pro-homosexual organizations and his exclusion of the Christian group Courage, a support group for homosexuals who try to live according to Christian morality.

Bishop McGrath's editorial: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryne ws/entertainment/special_packages/passio n_of_christ/7985930.htm

[jscd3]

The Bible no where tells us how old this earth is, however, there is plenty of evidence on this earth that tells us it is far older that 6,000 years.

The Catholic Church would agree with this and say that there is no scriptural or doctrinal issue. Some Protestand denominations would disagree and say the world was so 6000 years old.

G K Chesterton wrote Protestant Superstitions about just this sort of thing...

[Just mythoughts]

Yes I have encountered those that seek to put handcuffs on the timeframe of creation while they totally overlook what is really given in those first 6 chapters of Genesis.

You know fairy tales of eating apples in the Garden.

[jscd3]

You know fairy tales of eating apples

The word "apples" never appears in Genesis

Just having fun....

[Lawgvr1955]

The other line is also from the Firesign Theatre. I am a fan. Seems there are a number of others on this board with the same "addiction", either to Firesign or Monty Python's Flying Circus. This is an interesting place. Lots of bright but "twisted" people here. Goes to prove the breadth and depth of the human condition I guess.

[Just mythoughts]

lol planting seeds......

[shhrubbery!]

EWTN is the Eternal Word Television Network. Check out www.ewtn.com

We used to get it on cable --it depends on your local cable company, I think -- then switched to satellite (now can't get it anymore).

[null and void]

I couldn't even remember whether it was Firesign Theater or Duck's Breath Mystery Theater...

[Qwinn]

Okay, then, you seem to not be a literalist. That's good. Let's work from there to account for these people you have known.

Perhaps the Catholics you have known, and this Bishop, have been confused in their understanding of what the Church teaches by the infinity of debates that occur between the literalists in some Protestant Churches and the official Church position. They hear a Protestant claim that the Flood rose above the level of every mountain on the planet, the Catholic say "No, of course it didn't", and your wife came out of it thinking that Catholics don't believe the story of Noah's Flood, that it's just a made up story. I can certainly see that happening. That doesn't mean that the Catholic who was having that debate with the Protestant -misled- your Catholic wife/friend/whatever. It means that your Catholic acquaintance misunderstood them.

OR, it could simply be that the person who taught them in Catholic School was a heretic like this Bishop in this story (assuming he really is claiming outright inaccuracy, and assuming your wife even went to Catholic School). That's possible, you know. There's quite a lot of heretics -anywhere-. No one is infallible (except the Pope, and he is only infallible on EXTREMELY LIMITED and esoteric grounds, but Protestants never cease misinterpreting -that- aspect of Church teaching either, making it sound like Catholics believe he can't stub his toe) .

The point is, if you have room in your world view to accept that the Bible need not be taken -literally-, then I'm not sure what exactly your grievance would be other than that you've met some Catholics who are rather uneducated concerning what the Church teaches. How does that reflect on the Church itself?

Personally, I think many of these heretical Bishops actually -don't- believe in God and are infiltrators actively trying to undermine the very faith they claim to be espousing. It seems, however, that the Church is a far bigger believer in "State's Rights", of letting the Churches within individual nations handle individuals, than our government is. My guess is that it's by necessity - that with all the issues the Church has to deal with around the world, and add to that many of their profession would feel devoted to more esoteric contemplations of theological minutae rather than politics, the Church (meaning the Vatican, that tiny tiny little strip of land in Italy) simply doesn't have the resources to micromanage bishops and priests on a local level without making sometimes spectacular blunders that would lead to their overall doing more political harm than good, so they prefer a more hands-off approach.

Let me ask you something. Can you give me an example of one of these questions that your lay friends couldn't asnwer for you? Let me have a crack at one.

To the Catholics, I ask: Who would be one step higher than this Bishop in the Church hierarchy? An Archbishop? If so, which one?

Qwinn

[shhrubbery!]

oops, posted a bad link to EWTN...if interested try this: www.ewtn.com

[mitch5501]

Amen!

[mercy]

Actually I find about 90% of all organized religion to be the worst form of garbage. A child can look at massive evidence of corruption, lies, criminality and see the plain truth but a religionist will see the same thing and come up with a complex and detailed defense of the offenders. The Lord told us we must be as little children to enter His Kingdom. I don't think there is anything cryptic about that. This is a mystery and impossible to understand for a religionist while plain as day to a child of the Kingdom. Only His sheep hear his voice. Religionists hear something else.

[Indie]

The Lord told us we must be as little children to enter His Kingdom. I don't think there is anything cryptic about that. This is a mystery and impossible to understand for a religionist while plain as day to a child of the Kingdom. Only His sheep hear his voice. Religionists hear something else.

Amen to that.

[Qwinn]

Little children in the real world need strong authority figures that are actually present and can mete out punishment (even if just a scolding).

I see nothing contradictory with the verse you cite and the Catholic viewpoint that Jesus gave unto Peter the responsibility of founding his Church.

As for corruption, I'm surprised how you could have missed those big swaths of the Bible that point out that ALL men are sinners, and that if God intended there to be a Church, it should be a plain given that it would also bear sinners at every level of it's ranks. The question is, why would God want a Church if it contained men capable of sin in positions of authority? Rather simple, non-complex answer for you: Because the world would be far worse off without it than it is with it. I personally believe that to be entirely true.

Qwinn

[Just mythoughts]

I try not discuss religion with family anymore. I don't bring up the subject unless it is brought up to me. Noah and the flood was at one time a subject of discussion. Adam and Eve is another.

However, I did get a call from a Catholic family member the night of the ABC Mel Gibson piece. She wanted to know what "anti-semitism" meant. Since she was in the midst of the show I politely explained as quickly as I could in the "context" of the subject matter Mel's film, she thank me and went back to the show.

I do not ask these questions anymore, I went and did my own digging, cause I wanted answers. Either the Word is truth or it was a hoax, and I needed to prove that for me.

I take literally "truth will set you free". Truth cuts both ways and doesn't always feel good. Repentence is called for and sins are forgiven.

There is a miracle described when Christ gave up the spirit and I find few who acknowledge it. That miracle gave access to each individual directly to our Heavenly Father through Christ. Man no longer stood behind a veil as the intercessor.

This is not about a grievance, I believe that each individual has the freedom to believe whatever they choose to believe. My responsibility is to plant seeds. Like above pointing out that we are told about the miracle of the veil being rent from top to bottom. What does this mean? One must go to the Old Testament to understand where this was, the purpose of a veil, who stood behind the veil, etc.....

No longer was it required for a man to be the intercessor to our Heavenly Father, Christ became our intercessor.

This is but one example of seed planting, it is not my business what happens to the seed, that is between the individual and our Heavenly Father and He is the mind reader.

[mercy]

Good stuff. Unintelliglble to the veil makers however.

[Salvation]

Good question!

[Qwinn]

Hrm. If the people in question didn't even know what "anti-semitism" meant, you really thought they would have an educated grasp of Catholic teachings? I mean, I don't mean to offend or anything, but someone who doesn't know what anti-semitism means can't be all that well read.

That's what the Church is for. It's a framework for men who wish to devote themselves to a lifetime of study on all the complexities of trying to understand what is by definition not understandable, and to pass that on to their congregations.

I see nothing wrong with that. Consider the Catholic Church as a group of specialists devoted to the study of the divine. Jesus did not expect every person in existence to become priests or to devote their lives to theological inquiry in order to answer these questions for themselves. That's why there's a Church. One man farms, another man fishes, another man studies and preaches. I don't think society could function otherwise.

That doesn't mean that any individual -couldn't- relate directly to God, but most individuals don't have the time or means or desire to devote themselves exclusively to the study and contemplation thereof, and if they all tried to, we'd all starve. They have to provide means for themselves, take care of their families, etc. That doesn't make those who act as intermediaries for -those- people wrong or unnecessary or unhealthy.

It's a shame that you don't seem to be willing to discuss some of these issues further, though.

Me, personally? I have no problem with Catholic teachings, I actually think from a logical and ethical perspective they hold together quite well and consistently. My issue is simply a lack of Faith. Hey, I wish I had it! I believe Faith has been a positive influence on most people I know who have it, and the lack of faith a negative influence on those who don't. I just can't make the necessary leap. Oh well.

I do intend to go see the Passion, though. Have a ticket for a week from Saturday. Looking forward to it.

Qwinn

[Just mythoughts]

"If the people in question didn't even know what "anti-semitism" meant, you really thought they would have an educated grasp of Catholic teachings? I mean, I don't mean to offend or anything, but someone who doesn't know what anti-semitism means can't be all that well read."

Well maybe you can understand my surprise.

We are talking about people who attend church.

There should be teachers, that is the whole point, people are not being taught.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

To the Catholics, I ask: Who would be one step higher than this Bishop in the Church hierarchy? An Archbishop? If so, which one?

The closest Archbishop to McGrath is Levada in SF. (Note: I am not an expert in matters of Church governance). While Archbishops can have influence in surrounding dioceses, I doubt they can take any direct action. Levada would not anyway. He is no better than McGrath and probably much worse.

[Jeff Gordon]

All he needed to say was:

Nobody asked me! :-(