(C) CATHOLIC ANSWERS NEWSLETTER
                           October 1987
                          by Karl Keating

            P.O. Box 17181, San Diego, CA  92117, $12/year			  


The Bishops on Fundamentalism

     Did you hear about the Pastoral Statement for Catholics on 

Biblical Fundamentalism?  Probably not.  The document, issued in 

March by the NCCB's Ad Hoc Committee on Biblical Fundamentalism, 

got few headlines.  Too bad.  It has some sensible things to say. 

     The Committee was composed of six archbishops and bishops: 

John F. Whealon of Hartford (the chairman), Alvaro Corrada del 

Rio of Washington, Theodore E. McCarrick of Newark, Richard J. 

Sklba of Milwaukee, J. Francis Stafford of Denver, and Donald W. 

Trautman of Buffalo.  They directed their statement to Catholics 

"who may be attracted to Biblical Fundamentalism without 

realizing its serious weaknesses." 

     The statement defines "Biblical Fundamentalists [as] those 

who present the Bible, God's inspired Word, as the only necessary 

source for teaching about Christ and Christian living.  This 

insistence on the teaching Bible is usually accompanied by a 

spirit that is warm, friendly, and pious.  Such a spirit attracts 

many (especially idealistic young) converts."  Quite true, though 

one should not conclude the problem is mainly with the college-

aged.  More people convert to fundamentalism after, say, age 25 

than before, and surprisingly many converts are nearing, within, 

or past middle-age. 

     "According to Fundamentalism," the bishops continue, "the 

Bible alone is sufficient.  There is no place for the universal 

teaching Church--including its wisdom, its teachings, creeds and 

other doctrinal formulations, its liturgical and devotional 

tradition.  There is simply no claim to a visible, audible, 

living, teaching authority binding the individual or 

congregations." 

     Just so.  Fundamentalism is a spare religion, as 

demonstrated by the interior of its churches.  It's not 

surprising that its adherents find Gothic art confusing and 

Baroque art shocking.  For them, God writes straight with 

straight lines.  Gothic and Baroque art were quintessentially 

Catholic, full of the mysterious and sacramental, and 

fundamentalism is not a religion of mystery or sacraments.

     Another problem, say the bishops, is the way in which the 

Bible is interpreted.  Although Catholics believe in an inerrant 

Bible, we understand inerrancy differently than do 

fundamentalists.  Vatican II taught that "the books of Scripture 

must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without 

error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings 

for the sake of our salvation" (Constitution on Divine 

Revelation, No. 11).  Fundamentalism goes far beyond this. 

     "We observed in Biblical Fundamentalism an effort to try to 

find in the Bible all the direct answers for living--though the 

Bible itself nowhere claims such authority.  The appeal of such 

an approach is understandable.  Our world is one of war, 

violence, dishonesty, personal and sexual irresponsibility. ... 

People of all ages yearn for answers.  They look for sure, 

definite rules for living.  And they are given answers--

simplistic answers to complex issues--in a confident and 

enthusiastic way, in Fundamentalist Bible groups. ... 

     "[T]he appeal of finding the answer in a devout, studious, 

prayerful, warm, Bible-quoting class is easy to understand.  But 

the ultimate problem with such Fundamentalism is that it can give 

only a limited number of answers and cannot present those answers 

on balance, because it does not have Christ's teaching Church, 

nor even an understanding of how the Bible originally came to be 

written and collected in the sacred canon or official list of 

inspired books." 

     True, all true, though the Committee seems to be placing too  

much emphasis on the emotional attractions of fundamentalism and 

not enough on the doctrinal.  We shouldn't underestimate 

fundamentalism's appeal to people worried about modern cultural 

and political trends, but, if you sit in on fundamentalist 

services, you'll see that most sermons are about doctrines. 

     The bishops go on: "The basic characteristic of Biblical 

Fundamentalism is that it eliminates from Christianity the Church 

as the Lord Jesus founded it.  That Church is a community of 

faith, worldwide, with pastoral and teaching authority.  This 

non-church characteristic of Biblical Fundamentalism, which sees 

the Church as only spiritual, may not at first be clear to some 

Catholics.  From some Fundamentalists they will hear nothing 

offensive to their beliefs, and much of what they hear seems 

compatible with Catholic Christianity.  The difference is often 

not in what is said--but in what is not said.  There is no 

mention of the historic, authoritative Church in continuity with 

Peter and the other apostles.  There is no vision of the Church 

as our mother--a mother who is not just spiritual, but who is 

visibly ours to teach and guide us in the way of Christ." 

     Yes and no.  "There is no mention" of these beliefs in the 

sense of supporting them, but there is mention of them by way of 

opposition.  One wonders, in this summer of the Pope's visit, 

whether there have been any fundamentalist churches in which the 

papacy has not been discussed, at least in passing.      

     "Unfortunately," say the bishops, "a minority of 

Fundamentalist churches and sects not only put down the Catholic 

Church as a 'man-made organization' with 'man-made rules,' but 

indulge in crude anti-Catholic bigotry with which Catholics have 

long been familiar."  Again, a slight adjustment is necessary, so 

the reader won't get the wrong impression:  While only a minority 

of fundamentalist churches engage in overt anti-Catholic 

activity, all fundamentalist churches "put down the Catholic 

Church as a 'man-made organization' with 'man-made rules."  That 

is a necessary consequence of fundamentalist principles.  Who 

says A must say B.  A fundamentalist who is not, at least 

"theoretically," opposed to Catholicism is untrue to his own 

principles.  This doesn't mean he has to be rude in opposing the 

Church--and most fundamentalists aren't rude--but he will be no 

latitudinarian. 

     Returning to the status of the Bible, the bishops note, "It 

is important for every Catholic to realize that the Church 

produced the New Testament, not vice-versa.  The Bible did not 

come down from heaven, whole and intact, given by the Holy 

Spirit.  Just as the experience and faith of Israel developed its 

sacred books, so was the early Christian Church the matrix of the 

New Testament.  The Catholic Church has authoritatively told us 

which books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are, therefore, 

canonical.  The Bible, then, is the Church's book.  The New 

Testament did not come before the Church, but from the Church.  

Peter and the other apostles were given special authority to 

teach and govern before the New Testament was written.  The first 

generation of Christians had no New Testament at all--but they 

were the Church then, just as we are the Church today."  A simple 

point, you might think, but crucial. 

     "For historical reasons the Catholic Church in the past did 

not encourage Bible studies as much as she could have.  True, 

printing (the Latin Bible was the first work printed) was not 

invented until the mid-fifteenth century, and few people were 

literate during the first sixteen centuries of Christianity.  But 

in the scriptural renewal the Church strongly encourages her sons 

and daughters to read, study, and live the Bible." 

     The minimization of Bible reading is something 

fundamentalists have difficulty understanding.  They think our 

frank acknowledgement of the facts condemns us.  They know quite 

well that little emphasis was put on Bible reading until Vatican 

II, at least at the parish level.  There's no denying that.  

Modern popes encouraged Bible study (see Pius XII's 1943 

encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, for example), but it seemed 

the trickle-down theory was on hold.  We didn't see the same 

emphasis at the local level.  Most Catholic families owned a 

Bible--you could identify it by the dust on the cover--but that's 

all that could be said.  They didn't read it. 

     How did this state of affairs come about?  It wasn't some 

plot on the part of the Vatican, to keep embarrassing truths

hidden from folks in the pews.  It was a natural, if unfortunate, 

reaction to the excesses of the Reformation, which came along 

just as printing came into its own.  The Reformers and their 

descendents said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, 

the teaching office of the Church being non-existent.  They over-

emphasized a truth (that Scripture is a source of revelation) 

and, by doing so, lost sight of another truth (that it isn't the 

only source).  

     Catholics responded by emphasizing the Tradition which 

Protestants tossed out and by becoming suspicious--not about the 

Bible itself, but about the way the Bible could be used, and was 

used, by ill-instructed people (and by well-instructed but ill-

intentioned people) to promote error.  The Bible was soft-

pedaled, though never banned, and reading it was not discouraged 

by higher ecclesiastical authorities.  It does no harm to admit 

we Catholics waited too long to restore the Bible to a place of 

honor in practice--a place it never lost either in theory or at 

the higher, more educated levels of the Church.

     The bishops end their statement with suggestions.  "We need 

a Pastoral Plan for the Word of God that will place the Sacred 

Scriptures at the heart of the parish and individual life.  

Pastoral creativity can develop approaches such as weekly Bible 

study groups and yearly Bible schools in every parish. ...  In 

areas where there is a special problem with Fundamentalism, the 

pastor may consider a Mass to which people bring their own Bibles 

and in which qualified lectors present a carefully prepared 

introduction and read the text--without, however, making the 

Liturgy of the Word a Bible study class.  

     "We need better homilies, since the homily is the most 

effective way of applying biblical texts to daily living.  We 

need a familiar quoting of the Bible by every catechist, lector, 

and minister.  We have not done enough in this area.  The neglect 

of parents in catechetics and the weakness of our adult education 

efforts are now producing a grim harvest.  We need to educate--

and re-educate--our people knowingly in the Bible so as to 

counteract the simplicities of Biblical Fundamentalism." 

     Good points, all.  If a single suggestion could be made for 

the revision of the bishops' statement (we've quoted half of it), 

it would be to make clear that fundamentalism is not merely about 

the status of the Bible.  Many Catholics think fundamentalism 

will go away if only Catholics would pick up Scripture regularly.  

That would help, certainly, but that's not enough, because it's 

the conclusions drawn from Scripture that make the difference.  

Fundamentalism's chief attraction is at the level of doctrine, 

and a defense against it must be doctrinal.  It must be all these 

other things, too--social, emotional, cultural, liturgical--but 

it must be doctrinal if it is to succeed. 

     The bishops on the Committee are to be commended for issuing 

their Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism.  

A bilingual version can be obtained by writing to the Office of 

Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic 

Conference, 1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

20005-4105.