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

[Qwinn]

Thank you kindly :)

Qwinn

[mercy]

Now don't go all hyperbolic on me. I'm sure there are good priests .... deluded though they may be.

[aruanan]

"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."

The bishop is holding to a view of Biblical criticism that was already old-fashioned at the turn of the 20th century. Liberal theologians, like skeptic websites, hold to this view because it permits them to maintain a non-threatening form of religion: one that they can use to feel personally sublime yet which places no burdens on them because they remain the final arbiters of its meaning.

And what's truly funny is that they say that we shouldn't trust the historicity of accounts of events written by the people that witnessed them but that we should, instead, trust the pooh-poohing of those accounts by those who lived almost two millennia later. Unless I have a solid reason to believe otherwise--and such folks as the bishop have provided nothing more solid than, "trust what we say rather than what the Apostle Paul and others say since their theological reflections don't reflect historicity because they talk about someone coming back from the dead and we all know that's not possible"--the gospel accounts and the rest of the New Testament provide the most reliable historical insight into what transpired way back then.

[mrobison]

...and, in a related development, the good Bishop insisted that human beings really did come from apes.

[mercy]

Was I too cryptic for you? What I meant was ... garbage in .... garbage out.

[mercy]

****Go ahead - I dare you, read it, then you will have no doubt in your mind as to whether it is the truth of God or not. It is the literal, God Breathed Word of God with power to save you and give you wisdom and understanding, and to open your eyes, it will all make sense after you read it. Put down the theology books and the cozy Christian coffee table books and read His Word that was written to you.****


Yes. Just don't mix in a bunch of heretical 'church tradition' with it.

[MiniCooperChick]

Mine's next to Windswept House (I know it's a novel but it's still scary!).

[Trailerpark Badass]

I am not a Catholic and this is not the first time I have been told by practicing Catholics that the Bible is not literal.

I am not a very observant Caatholic, but I have always been taught that the Gospels are accurate historical respresentations of the life of Jesus.

[JohnnyZ]

that the four Gospels…whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts -- The Church.

not historical accounts of the historical events -- the Bish

The gospels are NOT written to be history textbooks (one hopes this is what the bishop meant). They ARE written to be theological reflections which detail true historical events.

You point out that the timelines don't match, but the Gospels do agree on the HISTORICAL events.

That is what I said in my post.

These are historical events, not theological reflections.

They are both.

LIKE I SAID, shades of meaning are very important here. The bishop may very well have been in error in his (im)precise terminology; I'm not an expert. But to impute a theological disagreement from one sentence is unfair, IMO.

[BenLurkin]

Could somebody explain to me why people like this Bishop remain in the curch? Why do they weary themselves with the name of Christ if they don't believe his Word?

[VermiciousKnid]

Good heavens! This man is a bishop of Roman Catholic Church?

Holy Father, call your office! Please!

Regards,

[the invisib1e hand]

Was I too cryptic for you? What I meant was ... garbage in .... garbage out.

Perhaps you were. Let's clarify. Are you saying that Church Tradition and Papal Infallibility are garbage, or did I miss something?

[jscd3]

Was I too cryptic for you?

I don't think that you were to cryptic for him. I think that he understood you perfectly, and then pointed out that from your comments you appeared (in his opinion) to have no idea of what you were talking about (or, I think I can infer, no idea outside of what you picked up from some Jack Chick comic books...)

At least that's the impression that I got from his response to you. I could be wrong, but his reponse seemed pretty straightforward...

[Jack Black]

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

He's probably a fudge-packer.

[null and void]

What's that? Pizza with no anchovies? You've got the wrong man. I spell my name "Danger"

My God! That's no bowling ball! That's my wife!!!

[Just mythoughts]

Why are the wires getting crossed?

I married a Catholic, have been told since we met that the Bible stories didn't really happen, were put there as life's lessons.

My son goes with a gal who he attends church with and she has told him that what is Written is just stories.

Now what this Bishop says I have been told over and over again by people who are Catholic and attend church.

[Qwinn]

Then those people are highly uneducated as to Catholic teaching. That is not the Catholic Church's position, and it looks like they got a bad priest to teach them.

Are you of the notion that if there exists bad priests teaching incorrect theology, that discredits the entire Church and makes their official positions meaningless?

Would you be defending the Church if the official Church position were that the Bible is inaccurate but there were a small number of priests teaching what you believe to be correct? Somehow, I doubt it. There are bad priests in the Catholic religion just like there are bad people in -any- religion. I, for one, have never seen an extremely Catholic televangelist that claims God said to give him money or he would be taken home. Does that mean everyone who shared his faith was corrupt?

Qwinn

[Just mythoughts]

"the Catholic Church does -not- maintain that the Universe was definetly created in 144 hours."

IIPeter 3 clears up the length of a DAY.

I will tell you this is not the first time I have been heard this, but none were Bishops.

[jscd3]

Why are the wires getting crossed?

Why indeed. As I noted in a post to Qwinn above, he may not be Catholic, but he seems to know a Hell of a lot more about Catholocism than a lot a Catholics I know. Your post is proving my point

Ever since the 60's, there has been a real problem in religious formation in America - the Church isn't doing it. A discussion of the reasons why that's the case could probably fill a hundred threads - there are lots of opinions, but the fact is that this is the case.

[Mortimer Snavely]

History tells us that the Church decided what did and did not constitute Holy Writ. If we accept the Bible as the final authority on all matters of faith, we must also accept the the authority of the Church.

If the Church violates Biblical principles, do we not have the necessity of confronting and refuting these errors, in the same way that we look to the authority of the Constitution to correct government error?