Posted on 02/24/2004 6:57:17 PM PST by 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
That's nonsense. The Church does in fact accept the historical accuracy of the Gospels.
Lutheran Loft - I'm guessing Missouri Synod. Am I right? Just a friendly question...
These statements from Dei Verbum, the Catechism and other Catholic Church documents must be interpreted carefully. When Dei Verbum says that the Catholic Church affirms the historicity of the Gospels, that does NOT mean that the Catholic Church holds to the literalist view that each and every detail in each Gospel is akin to a videotape recording of what happened in the years A.D. 27--30. The key word in the texts of Dei Verbum, the Catechism and other documents is "REALLY". The Catholic Church affirms that the Gospels "hand on what Jesus . . . really did and taught" during his ministry. The key word is "really": the gospels affirm the theological reality of the sayings and deeds of Jesus; the gospels have no intention of reporting just the bare events. In the gospels, events are presented AS INTERPRETED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE FAITH OF THE FIRST TWO GENERATIONS OF CHRISTIANS.
Furthermore, Dei Verbum (paragraph 11) makes it clear that "the books of the Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth with God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." The key phrase is "Truth . . . for our salvation"--not truth for the sake of an historical documentary or for a history book.
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
This, to me, seems pretty straightforward. The Gospels tell the "honest truth about Jesus". They aren't always rigid histories in the strict chronological sense -- they don't always agree on chronology, for one thing -- and some events and people are syntheses of multiple events and people. But everything they describe, or something very much like it, really happened.
Compare that to Bp. McGrath's statement:
[T]hese sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon ... events ...
This statement is internally contradictory. What does it mean for something to be "not a historical account" but to nevertheless "narrate" "historical events"? But the real question is whether the bishop is trying to say that the Gospels are only "theological reflections," and not also "historical narrative," albeit historical narrative written in the style of eastern Mediterranean Jews and Greeks 2000 years ago, not in that of 21st Century Americans. With that idea, if that's what he's saying, I think Catholics ought to strongly disagree.
I agree. I think that you have nailed it
Then just how does the esteemed bishop interpret John 6? And are his consecrations invalid because of it?
best.
You raise a good point, namely, just what the bishop intended to say. I think this is a situation where the bishop wanted to a) deflect any suspicion that the movie is anti-Semitic by assuring people that the Gospels are not strict history in the modern sense and b) encourage Catholics to not spend too much attention debating the differences between the accounts of the Passion in the 4 Gospels and the version presented in Mel's movie. I am sure that, for the bishop (and I agree), there are more important things to debate than whether the Roman whipping cords held a nail or pig's knuckles, or whether Jesus carried the whole cross or just (just!!) the crosspiece.Good post.
As I say in my post, the real issue here is the meaning of "really"--"eigentlich" in German, "vere" in Latin. "Eigentlich" considers real history only that which can be confirmed by material means; while "vere" looks more at the inner meaning of the event(s). I am not dabbling in doublespeak here; I am speaking about a shift in the meaning of the adverb "really" that took place in early to mid-19th century that continues to bedevil people to this day.
The Catholic Church does NOT hold to the "reality" of the gospel narratives as if they were videotape renditions of the original events. But that is what "eigentlich" and much of fundamentalism affirms or wants to read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.