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

[ApesForEvolution]

I know a LOT of 'Christians' like this man...extremely saddening, but not surprising.

[narses]

Are you in Texas?

[sinkspur]

Yep.

[JohnnyZ]

That is not the Catholic Church's position, and it looks like they got a bad priest to teach them.

Most Catholics don't get ANY priest to teach them. They know what they learn from their parents (if anything), what they learn in catechism probably from lay teachers (if they remember it), and what they hear during the homily (if they pay attention).

Most of it is half-remembered, heard from an equally poorly informed friend . . . etc.

[Just mythoughts]

Hey, when someone believes something, you think I can change their mind. I have been told by others that this is not true.

To hear the same words come out of a Bishop 2000 miles away and no connection to the Catholics I know. Sure has my head spinning.

I got turned off by organized religion and took to studying what is written. I got really tired of getting many different answers to the same questions. Finally reached a point of tuning out labels of religion and their doctrine.

Reading this was shocking, I have been told that I would have to go through Catholic teachings to understand, when I would ask questions about what the scripture said. Lay people could not answer questions that I did not understand yet they had attended church for years.

[madison10]

Josphus was a liar? The history of Rome is all a lie? Archaeology is joke? Guess if one is bound & determined to be a history revisionist lying won't matter anyway.

It's good that the true hearts of these unbelieving priests, bishops & pastors are being revealed. The magnifying glass of The Passion is helping congregations see these religious "leaders" for what they really are. Strange how Jesus & His story has a way of doing that across the millenium. ;)

[jscd3]

Are you in Texas?

Ohio

[narses]

Ah, well then there are more Deacons in need of a refresher catechism than just the one. Sadly many have never had a decent formation.

[Qwinn]

Okay, so, we are now coming to the real issue. You -are-, in fact, a literalist, yes? A day is 24 hours, and had to be so even before the creation of the Earth? Noah's flood actually had to rise above the level of every mountain on the entire planet, rather than just being more then enough to wash out all of the populations which by necessity all concentrated on low-level river areas? Noah actually did fit in two of every single animal into his ark (doing that with all the various insect species alone would've sunk the ark instantly, unless of course you buy evolution of those insects to account for all the different species since that point, but we can't do -that- either...)

Let's clear something up here. There aren't two camps at play in this debate, those who disagree with the Bishop and those who don't. There's three.

There's the literalist position, the one you apparently occupy, which states that the Bible is absolutely literal in every last single respect, such as the aforementioned.

There's the accuracy position, the one that says that the Bible is not absolutely literal but is accurate in terms of the historical events that took place. That is the Catholic Church's position, and probably the position expressed by those Catholic you have spoken to, who you are misrepresenting as claiming that the Bible is -inaccurate- and not merely not literal.

Then there is the Bishop's position, which -seems- to be that the Bible is actively historically inaccurate and relates events that never happened at all. This is not the Catholic Church's position.

You happily commingle the 2nd and 3rd as if they are the same thing, because you're in the 1st camp and can't distinguish between the two. If someone points out that Noah's Ark couldn't have carried two of every single animal species currently in existence on the planet, and even if it did, what could they possibly eat for 40 days and nights other than each other, well, then they're saying that the Bible LIES. Never mind that someone can believe that the story of the Flood can be true, that it was indeed several weeks they spent on the Ark, that Noah did manage to take -many- species on the ark (and evolutionary processes could account for speciation since then), etc.

But let's face it. If someone claimed that they were only on the Ark 39 days, 23 hours and 47 minutes, you would call them a heretic.

You've done an excellent job of making it look like anyone who isn't a literalist believes that the Bible isn't an accurate historical account. Too bad it's not reality.

Qwinn

[JohnnyZ]

I have been told that I would have to go through Catholic teachings to understand, when I would ask questions about what the scripture said. Lay people could not answer questions that I did not understand yet they had attended church for years.

Peoples' minds are not encyclopaedic. There are many, many questions that very few people, especially laity, could give complete, detailed answers to, because the answers are not simple, they are very involved and tie in to many other parts of the fabric of Catholic theology.

[CurlyDave]

The word is apostasy

Actually the word is heresy.

Apostasy is abandonment of one's faith, often by converting to a different faith.

Heresy is "opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position".

I don't know offhand which is a more serious sin...

[jscd3]

But let's face it. If someone claimed that they were only on the Ark 39 days, 23 hours and 47 minutes, you would call them a heretic.

Without a doubt, someone holding this position would have to condemn St. Augastine as a heretic.

Not to mention Hillaire Belloc and G K Chesterton in our own time...

I right with you...

[sinkspur]

What are you talking about?

[Terry Mross]

I guess they're all afraid they'll be called "Jesus Killers".

[narses]

Nothing. Nothing at all "deacon".

[sinkspur]

Then why did you ping me to this thread? Are you drinking?

[Lawgvr1955]

In school she wasn't also known as Melanie Haber, Audrey Farber, Susan Underhill,and... Betty Jo Bialowsky?

[Just mythoughts]

You must read IIPeter 3 before you can claim anywhere that I said the day was 24 hours.

IIPeter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

No where did I say anything about what I believe about Noah's flood.

Personally, while it says the whole world, was that to the writer of Genesis - Moses. One need know the purpose of the flood. If it covered the whole earth then how did Chinese written history which predates the flood survive.

While I cannot point to a scripture and claim it to be I do not believed that Noah's flood did indeed cover this whole earth.

So no I don't think I fit in any of your categories.

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.

Common sense is what I require, if it does not make sense and not declared a miracle then what is taught or preached is from man not our Heavenly Father. It is written He is not the author of confusion.

[jscd3]

Sadly many have never had a decent formation.

Well, it's odder than that...

Look, I went to public school in the 60's and 70's. I had zero formation. I have had a lot of catching up to do. And most of it has been on my own...

The deacon that I mentioned earlier is a decent enough guy. Grew up Catholic, plenty of formation. You want to know what the Joyful Mysteries are? He's your man.

But somehow, after attending seminery, he gives a sermon one day that is straight forward Arianism(sp). My oldest son (going to Catholic HS, well grounded in theology and doctrine) and I both turn and look at each other, both mouthing "what the H...?"

Now, every talk of his in Mass is an adventure.

[null and void]

Dunno. I just recognized that particular (tag) line from the skit.