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

[Snuffington]

There's just something very sleazy about the calculated self-interest involved.

A total aside, and admittedly off-topic for the thread, but what is the problem with self-interest in your opinion? Seems rather rational, even without taking it to Objectivist extremes. While finding the wager shallow, I'm not seeing the sleaze.

[Qwinn]

"While finding the wager shallow, I'm not seeing the sleaze."

I can't see anyone -actually- believing in God through the wager's logic, the only thing I can see is -pretending- to believe in God. Assuming God exists, I'd rather take my chances when I die in telling him that I lost the gift of Faith at a young age, than that I only -pretended- to have Faith so that I could claim brownie-points both in life and in the afterlife. I don't think God would be amused. Something tells me He gets way too much of that as it is. The hypocrisy of the attitude, the fakeness of it for the sake of personal gain, is what strikes me as sleazy.

Qwinn

[Snuffington]

The hypocrisy of the attitude, the fakeness of it for the sake of personal gain, is what strikes me as sleazy.

Very good reply. Thanks for that. Very honest and insightful.

But this last line worries me. Not because it's not true. Just because the fear of being found hypocritical on some issue has attained phobia status in our age. I'm pretty sure being found wrong was worse than being found hypocritical in most other ages. The other way assumes honesty to self is more important than a selfless submission to truth. I think that's a pervasive, but not terribly wise, ethic of our times.

[Qwinn]

Oh, I'm in intense agreement with you that the current ethical notion that hypocrisy is the most unforgivable of crimes is ridiculous. There's a -lot- worse crimes. Believe me, I am not subject to that particular affliction, and actually I'm impressed that you've noticed that too, cause I've often thought the same thing and what a profound (and harmful) effect it's had on society.

In this case, though, it's not about -other- people finding me hypocritical, it's for the true sake of -being- hypocritical. While hypocrisy is by no means the worst of crimes, it's certainly not -good- either.

From a spiritual standpoint, I see it as worse than it would be from other perspectives. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm never "caught" in the fact that I'm faking it. Everyone believes that I really do believe in God, even though I'm just faking it for the sake of the Wager. The fact is, though, that I really wouldn't have Faith, and my actions, the sins I would commit during that time in my life, would not be the actions of someone of Faith... but everyone would -believe- that they were. I would be presenting myself as a testimony of a -failure- of Faith whenever I sinned... and that itself would be a lie, because Faith would have had no part in preventing me from doing wrong. I wouldn't be hurting just myself, I'd also be hurting those who witnessed me (supposedly someone of Faith) sinning, by implying that Faith is weak. Look. If I honestly had Faith and I screw up, that's one thing. But faking it, and in a way implying that my God and my faith wasn't strong enough to help me get through whatever temptation I gave into? Just... just too weasely for me. And again, not something that I think God would be all that fond of (even worse than not believing without faking), so in any case I think Pascal's Wager is just flawed. If you substitute "If you believe in God and he exists, God will take care of you" with "If you -pretend- to believe in God and he exists"... will he really take care of you? I would be kinda surprised if he did.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

"I'm pretty sure being found wrong was worse than being found hypocritical in most other ages. The other way assumes honesty to self is more important than a selfless submission to truth. I think that's a pervasive, but not terribly wise, ethic of our times."

This is a very very interesting statement, and eloquently put. I think the issue is moral relativism, and that people do not acknowledge any truth outside of their own beliefs. The tricky part is getting people to acknowledge a truth outside of their own beliefs, cause the moment they do, in a sense, they now believe it, and what you're really talking about is conversion.

I've spent quite a while here thinking about your statement, and I'm going in circles trying to think of a good illustrative example of what you're citing. The one popping to mind I can think of is that society would find a homosexual who buried those urges, got married (to a woman, I can't believe I have to actually specify that now), had children, and basically denied those urges and did "right". People would find that hypocrisy to be better than going out and practicing homosexuality.

I'm looking for a less current-events example of what you're saying, though. Something not related to a current cultural crisis, so it can be considered in a more objective light. Any ideas on another good example?

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Actually, I think I've thought of a different way to address it.

Take this statement: It's worse to claim that a given sin is not a sin, than it actually is to commit the sin. As in, it's worse to claim that there's nothing wrong with theft than it is to steal and hide the fact while telling people that stealing is wrong (hypocrisy). Is that anywhere on the spectrum of what you were getting at?

Qwinn

[Snuffington]

Another great response, and thanks again.

As a frequently failing Christian, I think I understand where you're coming from. If God can see all on judgement day, what chance does a hypocrite like me possibly have? I often feel the temptation to stop trying. Seriously.

On the other hand, once ego is set aside, Christianity is a faith almost tailored for those of us with that mindset. The arrogance and hypocrisy of the faithful is a constant thread in the Bible itself. Christianity is a faith of sinners. Saints are a VERY infrequent exception.

As for the rest, you have my best wishes. I won't try to argue that you must share my own belief in God. But thank you for seriously considering the question.

[Snuffington]

Take this statement: It's worse to claim that a given sin is not a sin, than it actually is to commit the sin. As in, it's worse to claim that there's nothing wrong with theft than it is to steal and hide the fact while telling people that stealing is wrong (hypocrisy). Is that anywhere on the spectrum of what you were getting at?

I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it does fit with my view. Hypocrites acknowledge truth, they just don't follow it.

We can't call that good. But we can appreciate the degree of harm it inflicts in comparison to the same person denying truth altogether.

[Qwinn]

*nod* Then I am in agreement with you. I find moral relativism to be a far worse crime than hypocrisy. A hypocrite may be committing a wrong, but at least he's acknowledging that it's wrong and isn't trying to justify the action. A moral relativist commits the wrong and revels in it and tries to convince others they should do the same. No comparison, IMO.

Qwinn

[Snuffington]

I'm looking for a less current-events example of what you're saying, though. Something not related to a current cultural crisis, so it can be considered in a more objective light. Any ideas on another good example?

Forgive me. I'm tired and need sleep. Here's what leaps to mind:

Say a person takes the sins of the World on His shoulders and, by free choice, is brutally executed for their sake. He's not guilty of the things he's charged with. But he accepts the punishment without protest.

Yes, I know. Not the "bad" sort of hypocrisy. But also not so different in substance from the other kind.

The linking issue seems to be someone claiming to believe that which they truly do not believe. The only difference is who that person intends to benefit by that deceit.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And why did the bishop feel the need to write the article he did?

Actually there is no historical account of the historical events that the above article narrates. The bishop's article was never written. It was a collection of thoughts from various sources that were redacted and reported only moments ago at FR.

As for any "felt needs" involved, those are solely a reflection upon the society in which he resides and not his own.

[Shethink13]

Not to stick up for this guy, since I don't know his record at all, I do think his comment may have been an acknowledgement that the Gospels were not written contemporaneously with the life of Jesus Christ, but some time after. Perhaps his wording was inartful.

Sorry, but this is an exact quote from the Bishop, and it sounds very well thought out so I don't think he can claim to have mispoken:

"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."

Face it, the guy's just a friggin' coward who refuses to defend the truth.

[steve8714]

Papal infallibility is limited...the stupidity of American Bishops is not.

[steve8714]

By and large the Catholic teaching on the Gospels specifically has been that they are factually correct...minor variations in names of people and places are laid to second-hand accounts, etc. There is an argument amopng Catholic biblical scholars as to the dating and priority of the four Gospels. Karl Keating writes an interesting essay about this.

[steve8714]

Will Episcopals defend their Church even if the present administrators of the Communion see nothing wrong with the consecration of an openly gay Bishop who left his wife and daughters for his boy toy?
Don't E-clergy take vows?
I believe there are still good churchmen in the Communion, and will not condemn them for one group that happens to get some temporal power. Doesn't the Catholic Church deserve a like courtesy?

[hobbes1]

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.

It would seem that a little ex-communication is in order....

[steve8714]

The American bishops in "synod" can give guidelines, but unless the Pope calls him on the carpet, he can pretty well do as he pleases.

[steve8714]

They are mildly schismatic...Rome does not want either Latin Mass or open confrontation with these folks.