The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his078/cath_38.arj/CATH-38.TXT

Text File | 1991-09-25 | 12KB | 387 lines

                 (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.