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

[loftyheights]

You ought not be surprised, actually. What is ironic about this whole issue of the crucifixion and passion of Christ is that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe the historicity of the scriptural account. This is not to say they don't believe parts of it are probably true. It's just that one can never know for sure. It's called the higher critical or historical critical method of interpreting scripture. The historical-grammatical method actually views the scripture as the inspired and inerrant Word of God. That's why I think this movie is going to be great, because it takes seriously the biblical record.

[jscd3]

Roman Catholic Church does not believe the historicity of the scriptural account

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...

[Remole]

From what I can read from the statements of the Bishop and from the first half-dozen replies on the thread, it is the Bishop who is correct and his critics who are wrong.

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.

[Remole]

Just because the text says that the word of God is "God Breathed" does not mean that each and every word in the Bible is to be understood in a literalist way. Surely you would accept that many texts in the Bible, in particular the Psalms and the Song of Songs, contain metaphor? Is it not possible that the Gospel texts contain passages that blend material reality and theological interpretation? I affirm, too, that the Bible is inspired by God--FOR OUR SALVATION, employing every craft and agency of human skill in order to communicate the will of God for our salvation.

[Campion]

Here's the full text of the relevant paragraph from Dei Verbum (emphasis mine):

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.

[jscd3]

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

[Remole]

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.

[BlessedBeGod]

...Catholics do not adhere to the literal, historical truth of Scripture.

Then just how does the esteemed bishop interpret John 6? And are his consecrations invalid because of it?

[the invisib1e hand]

ok, well, then I stand by my first response.

best.

[george wythe]

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.

[nickcarraway]

I agree with you. The sentence is worded in such a way as to be vague, and allow one to say it was misunderstood. But since he is a bishop, he has the obligation to be clear.

[nickcarraway]

No, he isn't a Jesuit. He's quite comptetive with the Jesuits, since the own the only other Catholic cemetary in the diocese.

[Unam Sanctam]

I don't find your argument or your interpretation of Dei Verbum convincing. The text affirms the historicity of the events in the Gospel. To say that they are real "theologically" and not real "really" is simply doublespeak. As St. Paul said (I'm paraphrasing), if Christ did not die and rise again, then there is absolutely no point in Christianity and it is all one big waste of time.

[rogueleader]

Sorry. Mel Gibson is not Old Catholic.

He is Roman Catholic, but he is part of an extreme sect, and worships at a church that is not part of a Roman Catholic diocese.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b55825%2424icor%241%40ID-103489.news.dfncis.de

Again, sorry. Should have googled first.

[ninenot]

Not a big deal--except that I, too, have attended the Old Rite Mass regularly (mine was authorized by the Bishop.)

I don't view THAT as extreme. Perhaps you know that the preaching in his church is extreme? Is the priest Extreme?

How do you define Extreme?

[Remole]

But my point did not deal with the historicity or the theological meaning of the main event(s)--and for Paul, the only main event(s) that matter is the suffering and death of Jesus. On those issues, the historicity and the theological meaning of the Gospel accounts are, in the main, quite solid. What I was talking about in my post is the historicity of the gospel narratives--all 4 of them--taken as a whole and consider in their details. There is no debate that the Gospels contain many events of the ministry of Jesus that differ among themselves; to take one example, Mark-Matthew-Luke has Jesus going to Jerusalem at Passover only once, while John has Jesus going to Jerusalem at passover 3 times; so which is it?

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.

[rogueleader]

"How do you define Extreme?"

It is extremist in its sense of tradition. Is that bad? Not necessarily?

I am not familiar enough with it on other matters to comment.

[ninenot]

Descartes wrote a cute little mathematical treatise on Catholicism, and wound up becoming one. After all the math and logic was done, it came down to something like this: "if you have any sense of 'odds,' JOIN THE CHURCH."

Or something like that.

[Qwinn]

I think the person you're referring to was Pascal, not Descartes.

And it's not even really mathematical. What he said was this.

If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you were wrong but it doesn't matter.

If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, you were right but it doesn't matter.

If you don't believe in God and he does exist, you're in serious trouble.

If you believe in God and he exists, you were right and he'll take care of you.

Therefore, it's all upside and no downside to believing in God.

Personally, I hate it. I'm agnostic, and I would -like- to have faith, but I can't bring myself to practice over logic like this. There's just something very sleazy about the calculated self-interest involved.

Qwinn

[ninenot]

Thanks for the correction. It was a dead Frenchman, anyway.

As to Faith--there are very few who understand the logic of the RC--and the inevitable synthesis flowing therefrom. Faith is given to one--one does not "grow" it on one's own.

Go find a good priest (we can help if necessary) in your area and DO IT!

Then you can post here with just as much angst-ownership as BlackElk, Salvation, Totus, NYer, et al...