Category: Bible

Posted on

Description more than Prescription – A Meditation on the Gospel of the Beatitudes from the 4th Sunday of the Year

The Gospel passage on Beatitudes is one of the most familiar of Scripture. Yet, though familiar, these Beatitudes remain difficult to understand. This is because they are very paradoxical.  The word paradox refers to a statement that goes against the common understanding or intuition. We do not usually call the poor blessed, but rather the well off. We do not usually call those who mourn blessed or happy, rather we call joy and laughter blessed. And so forth. So the Lord is presenting us with paradox and we may struggle to grasp the truth of what he says.

It helps to explore the notion of Beatitude for a moment and then apply it to each beatitude.

  1. To begin it is critical to understand that beatitude is not something we do, but something we receive. The beatitudes declare an objective reality as the result of a divine act. The indicative mood should be taken seriously, and not transformed into an imperative of exhortation, as though Jesus were saying, start being poor or meek, then God will bless you. Rather, he is saying that when the transformative power of the cross brings about in us a greater meekness, poverty of spirit  and so forth we will experience that we are being blessed. Beatitude is a work of God and results when we yield to his saving work in us. We are blessed when we accept and yield to the work that God alone can do. With this understanding we can see the beatitudes not as a prescription of what we must do per se, but as a description of what a human being is like who is being transformed by Jesus Christ.
  2. The Greek word is makarios and translates the Hebrew ashere. The Hebrew word is really more of an expression than just a word. It is an exclamation which might well be translated O the blessedness of…. In this sense the Hebrew ashere emphasizes that something is being described more than prescribed.
  3. In ancient Greek times, makarios  (blessed) referred especially to the happiness of the gods.  They had achieved a state of happiness and contentment in life that was beyond all cares, labors, and even death. They lived in some other world away from the cares and problems and worries of ordinary people. In taking up this term to translate the Hebrew ashere, the New Testament teaches on the stability of beatitude, if it is from God. It is, to a large degree a stable, deep and serene beatitude not sharply affected by the vicissitudes of this world. Since the world does not give it, the world cannot take it away.  There is an old saying,  Happiness is an inside job.  Too many people seek to locate their happiness in a world that is unstable and fickle. But the Lord wants to confer on us an inner  beatitude that is deeply rooted, stable, and not easily swept away by worldly conditions. This helps explain the paradox of some of the beatitudes. Thus, one is still blessed even when poor, mourning, and persecuted. Even more, they are confirmed in their blessedness by such realities,  since these things are reminders that we are not at home in this world and that God and His kingdom are our preoccupation and the source of our true beatitude.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, the kingdom of God is theirs – Who are the poor in spirit? They are those who, by God’s grace, shun  anything that would deprived of the joy of being totally dependent on God. Now, all of us are dependent on God, we just don’t know it. The poor in spirit are those who delight in the experience of dependence on God.Those in the flesh strongly resist any such sense of dependence or  lack of control. As such they acquire wealth, power, and resources to create the illusion that they are in control. But they are not and ultimately their whole system will fail. It is a recipe for frustration and unhappiness.

Further, control is like an addictive drug. The more we get, the more we need to feel less anxious. Our modern age illustrates this. Consider for example modern medicine through which we can control things we never could before. Fine, so now all our fears are gone right? Hmm… we have never lived so long and healthy, and yet, we have never been so anxious about our health. Worried doctors, health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies,  goaded and aided by the fear mongering media warn us of one threat after another.  Worried as never before our medicine cabinets fill will prescriptions and OTC  meds. And still we worry. Control is an illusion and an addiction all its own. Medicine is fine, but control is still an illusion and, in the end, it seems we can never have enough of it to feel “safe.”

But how blessed are those who delight to depend on God! Who realize that every beat of their heart is His gift, that everything they have is from God and belongs to God. They not only realize this, but delight in it. They are blessed because they are free of countless fears that flow from the illusion of control.

Now Matthew adds “in spirit” because it is evident that not all who are materially poor are thereby freed of the obsession with wealth, power and the need to control. To be poor is not merely a measure of what is in my wallet, but rather, what is in my heart.

However, to be sure, wealth is a very grave danger to inheriting the kingdom. And those who have it are far less likely to experience with delight their dependence on God. Rather, they will fear it. Let’s be clear, most of the saints were broke and the Son of Man, Jesus,  had nowhere to lay his head. And it makes sense that he did not for he thus had nothing to lose in terms of this world. Wealth on the other hand brings with it many fears and the strong tendency to compromise our faith. The wealthy have too much to lose and thus are filled with fears and an increasing obsession with control. This is a curse and an illusion, for the truth is the whole thing is sinking fast and no amount of temporary control is going to change that. This world is not the Kingdom, but heaven is. And how blessed are those delight to know and experience their utter poverty and dependence on God for, quite literally, everything. They already have the Kingdom by faith and that Kingdom is growing for them. The kingdom of this world however is passing away.

Blessed are those who mourn for they will be comforted – Who are those who mourn? They are those who, delighting in the Kingdom of heaven, see the awful state of most of God’s people. They see that so many do not know God, or why they were made. They see others locked in sin and darkness, often willfully. They see still others who are victims of the sins of injustice and oppression. And they mourn, and they moan, and they pray. Indeed, this beatitude is the basis of intercessory prayer and deepening love for sinners. Because I mourn I pray for the world.

Distinction – Note then the object of this beatitude is rooted in the Kingdom of God and its values, not the passing values of this world. If my Porsche is scratched, or if the stock market is down  and I mourn, that’s not a beatitude.

But oh how blessed are those who mourn over what really matters and who pray. God will console them, strengthen them and encourage them. To mourn is this way is to be blessed. It is a grief that “hurts so good” for we know that it brings abundant blessings for the world as it intensifies our prayer and our own commitment to God and his Kingdom.

Blessed are the meek,  for they shall inherit the earth  – Anger is a very difficult passion. It can sorely vex us but is also a necessary zeal for what is right. Aristotle spoke of meekness (praotes) as the proper balance between too much anger and not enough anger. For sometimes we merely vent our anger to excess. But at other times we fail to be angry enough, and evil and injustice go unaddressed and un-resisted.  But oh how blessed are those who, by God’s grace have authority over their anger. They do not unnecessarily or excessively vent their anger. But they also have the necessary zeal and courage to stand up for what is right and express righteous indignation at sin and injustice.

The meek have authority over their anger and other passions and thus will inherit the earth. How?  Because self control conserves resources and uses them appropriately. But unrestricted passions dissipate resources and squander the gifts of God.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. – Many fight God and ridicule the values of God’s kingdom. Chastity, forgiveness, and mercy are especially ridiculed today. Many hunger for anything but God,  you name it:  wealth, power, popularity, the latest fad, anything but God. But Oh how blessed are those who hunger and thirst for the righteousness and justice of God and the values of his Kingdom. God will satisfy them with the joy of living under his law and they will rejoice to see the wisdom of His ways.  They hunger for God’s word and devour it when they find it. They rejoice to see God put sin to death in them and bring about virtue. They are excited and satisfied at what God is doing in their life. They are blessed indeed.

Blessed are the Merciful for they shall obtain mercy – We live in a world that often prizes revenge and the destruction of one’s enemies. But we ought to be very careful about this for Scripture teaches that the measure that we measure to others will be measured back to us (Matt 7:2). We are also taught that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven (Matt 6:15) and that merciless is the judgment on the one who has shown no mercy (James 2:12). It’s just simply misguided and a bad idea to go around condemning others and throwing the book at everyone. But how blessed are those, who by God’s grace, have experienced God’s mercy and are equipped to share that mercy with others. They are able to leave most vengeance to God and, though they correct the sinner, they do not need to avenge themselves. According to God’s promise they, by showing mercy, will also experience mercy from God. They are blessed indeed.

Blessed are the Pure of Heart for they shall see God – The Greek here is really better translated as “single hearted.” It is so easy for us to be torn asunder by many contrary drives and wishes. The Book of James says that the double minded mind is unstable in all his ways! (James 1:8). But Oh how blessed are those who can say with St. Paul: this one thing I do…I press on to the prize marked out for me in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:13), or to say with the psalmist: There is only one thing I ask of the Lord: to dwell in the courts of the Lord and behold his face!(Psalm 27:4). Oh how blessed to be single-hearted, to be centered on one thing, to have but one purpose, to be undivided and uncompromised. Oh how blessed!

Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God – Everyone loves peace, but only some are actually working for it. And true peace can only be based on the truth. Hence being a peacemaker is more than being a nice guy and overlooking stuff. True peacemakers announce the kingdom and bring souls to Christ. True peacemakers strive for righteousness and justice and announce its demands. How blessed are those whom God inspires with a dedication to such work. They are indeed sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the Kingdom of God.  In life we are going to suffer. It might as well be for something decent and noble. How blessed are those who, because they have loved God and his kingdom, are hated by this world. At least they share a common lot with Jesus. And they are blessed because they know that only false prophets are loved by all (Lk 6:26). There is a paradoxical serenity that comes from this sort of persecution for it is a sign that we are no longer of this world and that it has lost its hold on us and thus hates us (Jn15:19). Having forsaken this world and been hated by it, they are blessed because the Kingdom of God is theirs in abundance.

One of my mentors has been Fr. Francis Martin a great Scripture scholar, teacher at the Dominican House of Studies and many other places and author of many books and articles. He has also had a great ministry to priests over the years through the giving of retreats. Here are some reflections of his on today’s Gospel.

Posted on

The Miracle of Life – A Meditation on Mystery and Beauty of Life as we March

The magnificence of life is really too wonderful too describe. But I found this description some years ago which summons reverence by its very ability to baffle the mind:

MIRACLE OF LIFE– Consider the miracle of the human body.  Its chemistry is just as extraordinarily well tuned as is the physics of the cosmos.  Our world on bothsides of the divide that separates life from lifelessness is filled with wonder.  Each human cell has a double helix library of three billion base pairs providing fifty thousand genes.  These three billion base pairs and fifty thousand genes somehow engineer 100 trillion neural connections in the brain—-enough points of information to store all the data and information contained in a fifty-million-volume encyclopedia.  And then after that, these fifty thousand genes set forth a million fibers in the optic nerves, retinae having ten million pixels per centimeter, some ten billion in all, ten thousand taste buds, ten million nerve endings for smell, cells that exude a chemical come-on to lure an embryo’s lengthening neurons from spinal cord to target cell, each one of the millions of target cells attracting the proper nerve from the particular needed function.  And all this three-dimensional structure arises somehow from the linear, one-dimensional information contained along the DNA helix. Did all this happen by chance or do you see the hand of God?

Today, many of us march for life, here in Washington, on the West Coast,  and in other communities. Today we ponder the great mystery that is expressed in the 139th psalm:

For it was you who created my being,  knit me together in my mother’s womb. I thank you for the wonder of my being…Already you knew my soul my body held no secret from you when I was being fashioned in secret….every one of my days was decreed before one of them came into being. To me, how mysterious your thoughts, the sum of them not to be numbered! (Psalm 139 varia)

No human being is an accident, no conception a surprise or inconvenience to God. Mysteriously he knew and loved us long before we were ever conceived, for he says, Before I ever formed you in the womb I knew you (Jer 1:4). And, as the psalm says above, God has always known everything we would ever do or be.

It is often mysterious to us why human life is, at times, conceived in difficult circumstances such as poverty, times of family struggle or crisis, or even conceived with disability and disadvantage. But in the end we see so very little and must ponder the mystery of God’s reminder that many who are “last” now are going to be first in the kingdom (e.g. Matt 20:16; Luke 1:52-53).

So today, many will march, and all are called to remember the sacred lives that have been lost. We acknowledge our loss, for the gifts of these children and their lives have been swept from us as well. We pray for women who struggle to bring children to term and experience pressure to consider abortion. We pray for the immediate and sudden conversion of all support legalized abortion for any reason and for a dedication to assist women facing any difficulty in giving birth to or raising their children.

The following video is a shortened version of the masterpiece video called “Genesis” by Ramos David. It magnificently depicts fetal development. I have taken the liberty of adding a different music track since this is a shortened version. The Music is William Byrd: Optimam Partem Elegit (She has Chosen the Best Part), a text most fitting since we pray all mothers will choose life. The full length video is found in higher definition on YouTube by searching under “Genesis Ramos David”

Posted on

Concerns for Civility: What Do The Scriptures Teach Us?

There’s been a lot of talk about “civility” in the news. Unfortunately it is all wrapped up in politics and is currently being batted about as a thinly veiled political provocation. That is of course paradoxical to say the least (civility used as a kind of club)!  My hope is to avoid all the politics  here and try to focus on the biblical data related to civility. In the end, the scriptural texts strike a certain balance that may be helpful for us to consider, as we shall see.

The word “civility” dates back to about the mid 16th century and has an older meaning that referred to one who possessed  the quality of having been schooled in the humanities. In academic settings, debate, at least historically, was governed by a tendency to be highly nuanced, careful, cautious, formal and trained in rhetorical skill. It’s rules were also prone to refer to one’s opponents by honorary titles (Doctor, professor etc.)  and euphemisms such as “my worthy opponent.” Hence, as the word enters into ordinary usage it comes to mean speech or behavior that is polite, courteous, gentle and measured.

As one might guess, there are a lot of cultural variances in what is considered to be civil. And this insight is very important when we look at the biblical data of what constituted civil discourse. Frankly, the biblical world was far less dainty about discourse than we have become in 21st century America. The scriptures, to include the New Testament, are filled with vigorous discourse. Jesus  for example, really mixes it up with his opponents and even calls them names. We shall see more of this in a moment. But the scriptures also counsel charity and warn of unnecessarily angry speech. In the end a balance of the Scriptural witness to civility must be sought along with an appreciation of the cultural variables at work.

Let’s examine a few of the texts that counsel charity and a modern and American notion of civility:

  1. Words from a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips. (Eccl 10:12)
  2. The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools. (Eccles 9:17)
  3. Anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.  (Matt 5:22)
  4. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Eph 4:29)
  5. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged (Col 3:21)
  6. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be (James 3:9-10)
  7. Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry (James 1:19)
  8. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, (Col 4:6)
  9. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up (1 Thess 5:11)
  10. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips (Col 3:8)
  11. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification (Rom 14:19)
  12. Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness ( Gal 6:1)
  13. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thess 3:15).
  14. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort [the repentant sinner], so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow (2 Cor 2:7).

So, all these texts counsel a measured, charitable and edifying discourse. Name-calling and hateful or unnecessary expressions of anger are out of place. And this is a strong biblical tradition, especially in the New Testament.

But there are also strong contrasts to this instruction evident in the Biblical data as well. And, a lot of it from an unlikely source, Jesus.  Paul too who wrote many of the counsels above often manifests strident denunciations of his opponents and even members of the early Church. Consider some of the passages below, first by Jesus then by Paul and other Apostles:

  1. Jesus said, “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?” (Matthew 12:34).
  2. And Jesus turned on them and said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. “Woe to you, blind guides!…..You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. ….You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean….And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matt 23 varia).
  3. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me….You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire…..He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” (John 8:42-47)
  4. Jesus said, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me (Mark 7:6)
  5. And Jesus  answered them, O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long must I tolerate you!?  (Mark 9:19)
  6. Jesus said to the disciples, “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matt 7:11)
  7. Jesus said to the crowd, “I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. (Jn 5:41-42)
  8. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables (John 2:15)
  9. Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70)
  10. Paul: O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,….As for those circumcisers , I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Galatians 3, 5)
  11. Paul against the false apostles: And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. (2 Cor 11:11-14)
  12. Paul on the Cretans: Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith (Titus 1:12-13)
  13. [Peter Against Dissenters:] Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings….these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish…..They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done….They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!….Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2, varia)
  14. [Jude against dissenters] These dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings….these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain;….These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever…..These men are grumblers and fault finders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. (Jude 1:varia)

Now, most of the passages above would violate modern norms about civil discourse. Are they sinful? They are God’s word! And yet, they seem rather shocking to modern ears. Imagine getting into your time machine and going to hear Jesus denounce the crowds and calling them children of the devil. It really blows a 21 Century mind

I want to suggest to you that these sorts of quotes go a long way to illustrate the cultural dimension of what it means to be civil. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures  there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular point, say  of preparing the meal,  than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them.Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive  debate are common.  But in the upper Midwest and parts of the Deep South conversation is more gentle and reserved.

At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently quite “normal” for, as we see,  Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc.  Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus also  teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter.

Jesus also engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong,  they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it,  but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture  expected things like this from prophets.

Careful –Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.

On the other hand we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the very act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.

Balance – The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First  that we should speak the truth in love,  and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.

Here are two videos that display the zeal of Jesus and a bit of his anger. The Passages depicted are John 6 and John 8.

Posted on

The Role of Fear in Abortion – A Meditation on the Feast of the Holy Innocents

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, all those young boys in and around Bethlehem, two and under, whom Herod had massacred in order to kill Jesus Christ. We know not their number or their names but the Church lists them as among her martyrs. Some have disputed that they should be called martyrs since they did not submit freely for the sake of Christ but were “merely victims”  of Herod. Nevertheless, the Church has long numbered them in her ranks of martyrs. St. Augustine says of them:

And while [Herod] thus persecutes Christ, he furnished an army (or martyrs) clothed in white robes of the same age as the Lord…. O blessed infants! He only will doubt of your crown in this your passion for Christ, who doubts that the baptism of Christ has a benefit for infants. He who at His birth had Angels to proclaim Him, the heavens to testify, and Magi to worship Him, could surely have prevented that these should not have died for Him, had He not known that they died not in that death, but rather lived in higher bliss. Far be the thought, that Christ who came to set men free, did nothing to reward those who died in His behalf, when hanging on the cross He prayed for those who put Him to death. (Serm. 373, 3, quoted in the Catena Aurea).

Today we honor their sacrifice. And through our honoring of them and worship of God, we seek to atone, for the many sins against human life beginning with abortion and including other forms of murder, and euthanasia, disregard for the safety and dignity of others, mistreatment and indifference to the plight of others, and all other sins against life.

Where does human cruelty come from? Surely it grows in us by stages, for most of us are not born with murderous fear of others. It is bequeathed to us by others and we grow it in our heart. Hatred rooted in fear is handed on down through the generations and the murderous inherit a thinking that there are some who are not worthy of their respect and love. Perhaps they are a threat, perhaps they did something in the past. Perhaps they may do something in the future. Herod was clearly a fearful man, so fearful that he was unmoved by the cries of wailing parents or of suffering infants. His heart had grow cruel through repeated insensitivity inflicted on others, due to raging and irrational fear.

An Old Latin Hymn says, Crudelis Herodes, Deum Regem venire quid times? Non eripit mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia (Cruel Herod what do you fear in the King and God to come? He seizes not earthly things who  gives heavenly kingdoms). But in the end it IS his fear that drives him.

We know well that Holy Innocents continue to be killed in our world through abortion. And here too it is most often fear that drives the killing. How will the baby be afforded?! What changes will this baby bring that I cannot take? Perhaps the prenatal tests show a possible defect. I cannot deal with this! What if my parents know that I am pregnant? How will this  pregnancy affect my career?! What if my father finds out I got my girl-friend pregnant!? And society says, What of poverty? What of overpopulation? What of deformity? How can we collectively handle all this?

And thus fear drives the current bloodshed. Fear makes us focus on our self,  such that we think too little of what we do to others. Abortion thus becomes an “abstraction,” an “issue” that is debated, a “choice.” It is anything but real. The reality of fetal pain is out of sight and thus less real than the fear. What abortion is doing to our world, that too is less real than the fear. It is the fear that is real, and the fear eclipses everything else.  And fear desensitizes and thus the killing of the innocent becomes plausible, a woman’s “choice,” reproductive “freedom.”

The only solution to fear is trust, faith in God. God alone can set us free from the awful fears that currently drive abortion. We in the Church must be realistic about the fears that many face before the mystery of new life and we must provide reasons for hope and trust. Fear is a cruel task-master and it drives us to do some pretty awful things. One of the most common lines in the New Testament is “Do not be afraid.” Hope, trust and Faith are important to us on this feast of the Holy Innocents.

There is also this dangerous thought on this Holy Feast.

I’ll explain what I mean by dangerous in a moment. But for now consider some biblical facts with me.

  1. When God was drawing close to liberating his chosen people from slavery in Egypt there occurred the order to murder of the all the baby boys among the Hebrews. It is almost as though Satan sensed that God was up to something good and Satan raged through Pharaoh in murderous anger driven by fear. Thankfully the actual numbers were reduced since the Egyptian midwives engaged in civil disobedience, refusing to allow the practice to continue.
  2. At the time of Jesus, when God was preparing to liberate his people from sin, there also occurred the murder of innocent baby boys. Here too it was almost as though the Devil sensed that God was up to something good and he once again raged, this time through Herod in murderous anger driven by fear. Thankfully too this infanticide also ended at some point.
  3. Notice the pattern. When God prepared a great liberation the Devil, raging in fear,  went after the babies. In our time, on a scale as never before, the Devil is going after our babies in murderous anger driven by fear. What is he afraid of? Is God planning something big in the near future? Is there a great liberation at hand? Is there a great advancement of evangelization and conversion in the offing? We can only speculate. But patterns are patterns and Scripture has a way of repeating its patterns and echoing down through the centuries.

Why is this a dangerous reflection? Because I want to make it clear that abortion, the killing of the innocents in our age, is NOT and never can be considered something good, or a “positive sign.” Such a speculation might cause some to wrongly conclude that abortion is part of God’s plan or something we should see “positively.” We should not. It must be fought. It is of Satan, it is rooted in fear.

End the Massacre And the Glory follows – I want to conclude by reminding you that the great liberation that followed the past infanticides did not occur until AFTER those murderous rages were stopped. Hence, to follow the pattern established in Scripture and to see a potentially great and liberating act of God we must first see an end to the slaughter. Work and pray to end abortion. May the Holy Innocents pray for us!

I put the following video together to honor these young martyrs. The musical setting is by Michael Haydn of the hymn for the Feast of the Holy Innocents: Salvete Flores Martyrum – It is from his Vesperae In F for Equal Voices, Soli and Orchestra.The singers are the The Group singing is Collegium Instrumentale Brugense. This music is available at iTunes. The Latin text of this ancient hymn is quite beautiful. I produce here the Latin text followed by a fairly literal translation. I would like to call your attention to the second verse and a very charming detail. That verse described these young, two year old martyrs and holding palm branches (the symbol of martyrdom) but as they hold them they play with them, in the way a young child will often fiddle with palm branches in Church. Beautiful and so very human!

Salvete flores martyrum, – Hail Martyr Flowers
quos lucis ipso in limine – On the very threshold of the dawn (of life)
Christi insecutor sustulit – Christ’s persecutor destroyed (you)
ceu turbo nascentes rosas. – like the whirlwind does the budding roses.

Vos prima Christi victima, – You Christ’s firstfruits
grex immolatorum tener, – A flock of tender sacrificial victims
aram sub ipsam simplices – right up by the very altar
palma et coronis luditis. – now play with your palms and crowns

Iesu, tibi sit gloria, – Jesus to you be glory
qui natus es de Virgine, – who were born of the Virgin
cum Patre et almo Spiritu, – with the Father and loving Spirit
in sempiterna saecula. Amen. – unto to eternal ages. Amen.

Posted on

The Magnificat is a Bold Prayer!

I pray you might indulge me a little speculation that cuts against the usual “visuals” surrounding the Magnificat. And , if what I say does not please your sensibilities I ask pardon now, and once again your indulgence.

In our western culture we tend to think of Mary in very soft focus, humbly praying, head bowed, quiet and almost shy in her demeanor. And this may all be true. But as I read Mary’s prayer, the Magnificat day after day, and as I read it today’s Gospel, I cannot help but be struck at how bold and charismatic it is. Many of its phrases are taken from ancient Israel and stitched together by Mary in a wondrous and creative way. But as a prayer, it is no gentle meditation. It is one that makes you want to jump to your feet.

My soul Magnifies the Lord! My Spirit REJOICES in God my Savior!

 As I have prayed this prayer every day for the last 25 years I have come to experience that I cannot see Mary saying  this prayer with hands folded and head bowed. I see, rather, a joyful, young woman, filled with exuberance, head raised in serene confidence and hands upraised in joyful, yes, even charismatic,  gestures.  African American Catholics often refer to this joyful disposition as “havin’ church,” and would say something like: “Mother Mary and Sister Elizabeth were havin’ some church up in there!”

The scene sets up with Mary travelling “in haste” to see Elizabeth. Mary arrives and greets Elizabeth and John the Baptist starts leaping for joy in her womb. You might say he gets things started. The text from Luke then says Elizabeth “cried out with a loud voice: Most blessed are you among women…!” Mary goes on to respond how her soul rejoices in God her savior. No sour-faced saints here, these women are radiant with joy and exuberantly expressing it. Their havin’ church alright, joy beyond all measure is theirs.

This sort of exchange is not uncommon among some of the African American women in my parish. A not un-typical dialogue might go something like this:

A:    Girl,  you are looking radiant!
B:    Yes Lord! Your sister girl is blessed and highly favored! God’s been GOOD to me!
A:    Go on!…. God IS good!
B:    All the time!

Yes, it seems, from any straightforward reading of the Lucan text, that the Magnificat was not recited, it was boldly and joyfully proclaimed in a moment celebrated by two women. One who had come in haste bearing our savior,  and another, filled with the Holy Spirit and her infant dancing for joy in her womb. Two women filled with the joy of God, two women celebrating what God was doing in their lives. Mary proclaims, and she rejoices and says:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;  My spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 

And it is also a prayer that is also bold, even edgy in its critique of the social order:

He has cast down the mighty from their thrones. He has lifted up the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent empty away.

Mary announces a great reversal that is come. Her Son Jesus echoed it: Many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first (Matt 19:30). Some may which to spiritualize these words, and they surely do have a spiritual meaning. But their critique of the vainglory of this world cannot simply be seen as an abstraction or a generality. They have real meaning for the social order here and now. They surely mean we must learn to esteem the poor, the disabled, the weak. In this world they may need us, but as for the world that is to come, we will need them and their prayers to gain entry. And they, if they had faith, will have first places of honor. The reversal is coming, be careful what you call a blessing and what you call unfortunate. Be careful who and what you esteem and who and what you do not esteem. Yes, this is a bold and edgy prayer. It cuts right to the heart of the world’s vainglory.

So again, I beg your indulgence. I am aware that many have rather specific notions of what Mary is, or should be like. The portrait I have here presented is not the usual one in Western culture. But in the end, at least here, I see a portrait of a joyful, exuberant woman who is bold, even edgy in expressing what God is doing for her and for all Israel.

How do you see it?

Posted on

The Pope’s View of the Historical-Critical Method of Biblical Interpretation

I must that I was never all that enamored by the historical critical method of interpreting Scripture. I’ll say more of why in a moment. But some of you may be wondering what the historical critical method is. (If you want to skip my little lesson and some personal reflections of mine and go right to the Pope (instead of mere Msgr. Pope), the quote is at the bottom of the Page in bold italics).

The historical-critical method investigates the origins of a text and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question. Did other ancient texts, whether biblical or non-biblical, adopt similar forms, use similar ingredients, story-lines, allegories, metaphors and the like. The Historical Critical method focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. What do we know of the author and his times? How was he influenced by them? What was his personal story? What other texts did he write and how do they compare what is before us? How does the writing we are studying compare to similar documents of the time? For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar in terms of their basic content of what Jesus said and did. However they also have significant differences. How do we understand and explain the differences? Is one of the three “synoptic” (called this because of their similarity to each other) Gospels more historically reliable than the others as to detail? Why is the Gospel of John so different in tone and content that the other three and what are we to make of this? And so forth.

As such though, the historical critical method focuses primarily, almost exclusively, on the human origins of a text. Of itself this is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The Scriptures are a document of faith, more specifically of the believing community of the Church. They are inspired texts, with God the Holy Spirit as their ultimate author. Further, the role faith in the communities from which the biblical texts emerged is also a significant factor. Hence the biblical text is not merely understood as an historical utterance, but one that was understood and interpreted by those who believed and who also influenced the process of collecting the sacred writings and discerning what was of God. But this process was guided by the Holy Spirit.

The human dimension in all these things is important and essential and the historical critical method is right to explore this dimension, for God the Holy Spirit did not choose to act independently of the human personalities involved or of the believing community of the early Church. But neither was God wholly bound by these things or limited by them. Thus the historical critical method can only be one dimension of proper biblical understanding.

Regarding Sacred Scripture’s human dimension the Catechism has this to say:

In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression. (CCC # 110)

My own struggle – As I have already admitted, I have struggled to be enthusiastic about the historical-critical method. This begins for personal reasons. When I was in Seminary the method was insisted on by some, (not all), of my professors as the only real and valid method of Scripture study. They were zealots of a sort and any suggestion of a world outside this method was dismissed by them. They also isolated themselves historically, since this method is rather a new one. Hence, just about anything written on scripture prior to 1900 was not considered very tenable by them. I remember once turning in a paper wherein I quoted a scriptural commentary from the 1870s. The Teacher simply circled the date in red and had nothing further to say of the point.

I was also troubled by the strong tendency of the historical-critical method to doubt the existence of the miracles recorded in scripture. Not all scholars do this, but the more usual explanation of the miracles were that they were either literary devices, or just epic legends that were common of ancient near eastern and middle eastern texts. Further, claims that Jesus made of his divinity were somehow to be understood as later additions, not something Jesus actually said. Many adherents of the historical critical method were also dismissive of John’s Gospel and tended to sniff at most details there. They considered what they called “the fourth Gospel” to be more theological reflection than actual history, hence it had little offer that they were not quite skeptical of. It did little good to quote John’s Gospel to some of my professors.

De-mystified – Generally speaking then, my experience of the historical-critical method was that it de-mystified the scriptures and saw them only in human terms. The over-arching role of the Holy Spirit as the true and primary author was set aside and, thus, Mark’s gospel was favored over say, John’s and so forth. Since some of my professors were zealots for the method. Asking questions, even in good faith, was considered a veiled rejection of the method and was not usually received well.

And yet I also knew the human dimensions and historical context of the Scripture were important. But getting past the odious qualities of zealots, and the over-emphasis they placed on the human, made it harder for me to learn from them or the method they proposed.

I write all this to introduce the Pope’s reflections on the historical critical method. At heart he is a professor and is thus very careful to distinguish and to realize that the truth is often found in dialogue with various disciplines. He is able therefore to take what is good in the method and describe what is lacking or in need of balance and correction. He does this gently yet clearly. I find his distinctions helpful, especially due to my personal history. I trust the Pope and need someone I trust to say to me, “There is something good here and worthy of acceptance, and there are also some tendencies to avoid.”

This excerpt is from the Pope’s recent book Light of the World. It begins with a question by Peter Seewald which articulates many of the concerns I just expressed and then there is the Pope’s answer.

SEEWALD: The historical-critical method had its merits, but it also led fatefully to an erroneous development. Its attempt to “demythologize” the Bible produced a terrible superficiality and a blindness toward the deeper layers and profound message of Scripture. What is more, looking back, we realize that the alleged facts cited for the last two hundred years by the skeptics intent on relativizing pretty much every statement of the Bible were in many cases nothing more than mere hypotheses. Shouldn’t we be much clearer than we have been that the exegetes have to some extent been practicing a pseudo-science whose operative principle is not Christian, but an antiChristian animus, and that it has led millions of people astray?

POPE BENEDICT: I wouldn’t subscribe to so harsh a judgment. The application of the historical method to the Bible as a historical text was a path that had to be taken. If we believe that Christ is real history, and not myth, then the testimony concerning him has to be historically accessible as well. In this sense, the historical method has also given us many gifts. It has brought us back closer to the text and its originality, it has shown us more precisely how it grew, and much more besides. The historical-critical method will always remain one dimension of interpretation. Vatican II made this clear. On the one hand, it presents the essential elements of the historical method as a necessary part of access to the Bible. At the same time, though, it adds that the Bible has to be read in the same Spirit in which it was written. It has to be read in its wholeness, in its unity. And that can be done only when we approach it as a book of the People of God progressively advancing toward Christ. What is needed is not simply a break with the historical method, but a self-critique of the historical method; a self-critique of historical reason that takes cognizance of its limits and recognizes the compatibility of a type of knowledge that derives from faith; in short, we need a synthesis between an exegesis that operates with historical reason and an exegesis that is guided by faith. We have to bring the two things into a proper relationship to each other. That is also a requirement of the basic relationship between faith and reason.

Just a final word of thanks to the Holy Father for the encouragement he gives me here. His charism is to strengthen and unify us (cf  Lk 22:31). His capacity to do this with clarity and gentleness is evident here. There are values to the historical critical method. And yet excesses must be avoided, distinctions made. I find this succinct answer, which he has elaborated in greater detail elsewhere,  of immense help.

Posted on

Is John the Baptist Actually Elijah?

Is John the Baptist Elijah? Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. 🙂 🙂  Please rest assured that your humble author has not become a relativist, neither a lawyer, nor a politician. But the seemingly straight-forward question, Is (was) John the Baptist actually Elijah requires some distinctions and explanations.

Some of you who read this may think the question itself to be a crazy one. “What do you mean is John the Baptist Elijah?!” A little biblical background may help give meaning to the question. Let’s begin in the Old Testament.

Biblical Roots of the Question – On the very last pages of the Old Testament, in the Book of Malachi God both promises and warns that the great and terrible Day of the Lord’s coming was sure to be and that God’s people must be ready for the coming of Lord. It is such an awesome day that God declares he must prepare the people ahead of time by sending Elijah to prepare them. Here is the text:

Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them.  But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves.  Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the LORD Almighty. “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.  He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents;  lest I come and strike the land with total destruction.” (Malachi 4:1-6)

So Elijah , it is said, will come again, before the Lord, to prepare the people and save them from the wrath that will follow. Exactly how he will come, or in what form, is not specified. Will it literally be Elijah come back in the flaming chariot that took him up, or is it an allegorical, or figurative Elijah that God will send?

The Book of Sirach has a similar prophecy concerning Elijah’s return:

How awesome are you, Elijah, in your wondrous deeds! Whose glory is equal to yours? You were taken aloft in a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot with fiery horses. You were destined, it is written, in time to come to put an end to wrath before the day of the LORD, To turn back the hearts of fathers toward their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob. Blessed is he who shall have seen you and who falls asleep in your friendship(Sirach 48:9-11)

This text too lacks specificity as to how Elijah will come and in what form. However, it is directed specifically to Elijah, and that would seem to anticipate a personal return. But here too it is not certain.

These Old Testament Texts surely point to the type of ministry that John the Baptist was undertaking. He called them to repentance just before the Lord’s coming on the scene and thus prepared them to receive him. Although many thought John to be the actual Messiah his denial of being the Messiah caused others to wonder if he were Elijah. This question was specifically put to John by  priests and levites sent from the Jews in Jerusalem:

What are you then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” (John 3:21)

But there is a problem with John’s answer, for Jesus answers quite differently regarding John’s identity.

For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear. (Matt 11:13-15)

As they were coming down from the mountain, the disciples asked Jesus, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” He said in reply, “Elijah will indeed come and restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased.  So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist (Matt 17:10-13; cf also Mark 9:13)

So what are we to make of this seeming conflict between John’s denial and Christ’s affirmation of John’s status as Elijah?

One solution is merely to apply the saying in Latin: Nemo judex in sua causa (no one is a judge in his own case). It is not always possible for us to fully understand our role in God’s kingdom. God has something very specific and very important for all of us to do and we are not always able to fully see this here. In heaven, all will be made plain to us as to our role and place in God’s Kingdom. Hence, although  John the Baptist may not be able to fully see his role, Jesus as God, can and does know that role. So the seeming conflict is resolved in favor of Jesus teaching, for the reason stated. John the Baptist, as the Angel Gabriel said of him: “Will go before Him [The Lord] in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17).

However this is not the same as Jesus saying that John the Baptist is Elijah reincarnated, or Elijah come back from heaven whence he was  taken in a fiery chariot. We don’t need to interpret Jesus this literally. Jesus could well be saying that John the Baptist is the fulfillment of the Elijah figure would return, and that he was  in the office or role of Elijah. We have already observed that the Old Testament texts do not specify the manner of Elijah’s “return.” We need not assume a physical return of Elijah. Rather, as Luke 1:17 implies, we can accept a return of the spirit of his mission, his role.

And this leads to a second and happier conclusion that John the Baptist’s  response that he is not Elijah may not, in fact be wrong or in conflict with the Lord’s teaching. It is possible that he interpreted the question literally to mean, “Are you Elijah come back to earth?” To which he rightfully says, “No.”  Jesus however speaks of him in terms of his role, calling him Elijah, not as a personal identification but in terms of  the role he had as the Elijah figure, promised of old.

Hence we are back to the question: Is John the Baptist Elijah? Well that does actually depend on what we mean by “is.” Is John Elijah come back to earth? Likely he is not! Is he Elijah in the sense of having the office of Elijah and going forth in the spirit and power of Elijah? Yes.

The Fathers of the Church generally confirm this approach to John the Baptist and his role as Elijah, not the actual Elijah. But some add a twist. The twist is that they interpret Malachi 4 (quoted above) as referring more to Jesus’ second coming than his first and hold out for a coming of the actual Elijah at that time. This helps explain the references in the Malachi passage to fire and burning judgment which pertain more to the Second Coming. It also helps explain why Jesus said to his disciples Elijah will indeed come (i.e. the actual Elijah, just prior to the Second Coming) and then adds, but I tell you Elijah has already come (i.e. figuratively in John the Baptist).

1.  St Jerome – That He says, This is Elijah, is figurative – (Quoted in the Catena Aurea)

2. St. Jerome – St. John the Baptist is called Elijah, not in accordance with foolish philosophers and certain heretics who introduce the topic of metemphychosis (transmigration of souls), but because, according to other evidence of the gospel, he came in the spirit and goodness of Elijah  and had either the same grace or power of the Holy Spirit. The austerity of their life and firm resolve were equally strong in Elijah and John. Both lived in the  desert. The former girded himself with a belt of skins, and the latter had a similar belt. The former was forced to flee because he accused Ahab and Jezebel of impiety in their lives. John was beheaded because he accused Herod and Herodias of unlawful marriage. There are those who think therefore that John is called Elijah because, just as Elijah would lead the way in the second coming of our Lord (according to Malachi) and would announce that the judge was coming, so John acted at the first coming. And because each was a messenger, either of the first or second coming of the Lord.  (Commentary on Matthew 2.11.15)

3. St. Jerome  – He then who at the Savior’s second coming will come in the truth of His body, comes now in John in power and spirit (Quoted in the Catena Aurea).

4. Remigius – for He did not say that John was Elias in person, but in the Spirit (Quoted in the Catena Aurea)

5. St John Chrysostom – For the Scriptures speak of two comings of Christ; that which has taken place, and that which is yet to be. But the Scribes, blinding the people, spoke to them only of His second coming, and said, If this be the Christ, then should Elias have come before Him. Christ thus resolves the difficulty, He answered and said, Elias truly shall come, and restore all things; but I say to you, that Elias has already come. Think not that here is a contradiction in His speech, if He first say that Elias shall come, and then that he is come. For when He says that Elias shall come and restore all things, He speaks of Elias himself in his own proper person, who indeed shall restore all things, in that he shall correct the unbelief of the Jews, who shall then be to be found; and that is the turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, that is, the hearts of the Jews to the Apostles. (Quoted in the Catena Aurea)

Well, as you can see, Scriptural interpretation is a careful matter that requires us to cover our desks with open books and references to other passages in the Scripture. As with many passages of Scripture there is a range of opinion and views. This article is a blog post. It is not a dissertation or an article in a theological journal. Hence, by nature it is incomplete. I invite comments to help complete the picture, and healthy (charitable) debate is encouraged.

The bottom line is that the strongest position is that John the Baptist is surely not the actual Elijah returned to earth. Rather he is an Elijah figure who takes up the ministry of Elijah in the Spirit and power. I also find the distinction of some of the Fathers helpful and compelling in seeing many of the details of Malachi 4 as referring to a return also of the actual Elijah just prior to the second coming. I do not claim this is a doctrine of the faith, only that the position is quite intriguing.

Posted on

On the Synergy of Sacred Scripture – A Reflection on the Pope’s Teaching in the Post Synodal Exhortation Verbum Domini

In the past few days we have reviewed how a humanist group has misused Scripture in an Ad campaign designed to ridicule faith in God. In their human kindness they have chosen the Christmas season to do this. Their misuse of Scripture centers on pulling individual verses from the Bible and posting them out of context and apart from the wider Biblical tradition that often clarifies, balances or distinguishes them.

Pope Benedict recently spoke to this very problem in his Post Synodal Exhortation Verbum Domini. His main point is that individual verses of Scripture must be understood in relation to the whole of scripture, not isolated from it. I’d like to quote a couple sections of the exhortation so we can learn from the Pope an important lesson about Scriptural interpretation.

From letter to the deeper spirit and meaning of the text – In this first quote the Pope makes reference to the literal sense or meaning of a text. Literal here signifies what a text is saying in the literary sense, not necessarily that it should be understood without any symbolic or figurative meaning, not that it cannot have an analogical, allegorical,  or spiritual meaning. The “literal” sense emphasizes what the text is saying, its sentence structure, its grammar, its basic message. However, understanding what the text is merely saying is not enough. We must move on to understand what the text means at a deeper and wider level than its mere literary meaning. The letter must give way to the deeper spiritual meaning. And here is where the Pope picks up:

In rediscovering the interplay between the  different senses of Scripture  it thus becomes essential  to grasp the passage from letter to spirit…..This progression  cannot take place with regard to an individual  literary fragment unless it is seen in relation to  the whole of Scripture. Indeed, the goal to which  we are necessarily progressing is the one Word.  There is an inner drama in this process…. Saint  Paul lived this passage to the full in his own life.  In his words: “ the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life ”  (2 Cor 3:6), he expressed in radical terms the significance of this process of transcending the letter  and coming to understand it only in terms  of the whole…… We know that for Saint  Augustine too this passage was at once dramatic  and liberating; he came to believe the Scriptures  – which at first sight struck him as so disjointed  in themselves and in places so coarse – through  the very process of transcending the letter which  he learned from Saint Ambrose in typological interpretation,  wherein the entire Old Testament is  a path to Jesus Christ. For Saint Augustine, transcending  the literal sense made the letter itself credible, and enabled him to find at last the answer  to his deep inner restlessness and his thirst  for truth. (Verbum Domini, 38)

Hence, to grasp the letter of a text (i.e., what is this text saying) is important because it lays out the data before us. But the next necessary step is to move from letter to spirit so that, by God’s grace and the instruction of the Church we are able to increasingly grasp what the text really means, not merely what it is saying. The Pope is clear to point out that movement from letter to spirit cannot happen if a text is isolated from the whole of Scripture.

But Scripture is not considered only in terms of the whole, but also in terms of its direction or goal. And this goal is Christ. Hence as St. Ambrose taught Augustine and we are reminded by Pope Benedict: the entire Old Testament is  a path to Jesus Christ. Thus we look back to and interpret the Old Testament in the light of Christ. God dealt with ancient Israel in stages where he increasingly led them away from barbarity and incivility by the Law and prophets. In these Last Days he speaks to us through his Son and seeks to perfect us even further through his grace. So, each passage or verse of Scripture must be understood in relation to not only the whole of scripture but also its place in the “trajectory” of Scripture.

Thus, what our humanist friends did in the Ads we have discussed was an inauthentic use of scripture. It is not possible to simply yank a verse out of thin air then say, “See here! Look at what they believe.” Or “Look at what their holy book says!” For example, in quoting from 1 Samuel as they did wherein God seems to command genocide, or to quote Leviticus, that those guilty of homosexual acts are to be stoned to death, in doing this our humanist critics fail to see where these texts are on the trajectory of Scripture or how they relate to the whole of it. We have come a long way as God’s people from the time of such cruelties. God has led us in this manner. The committing of genocide is unthinkable today given where God has led us. And, although homosexual acts are still spoken of as sinful at every stage of revelation, the death penalty for sexual sins has been set aside by Jesus own example (e.g. John 8).

In this next passage the Pope emphasizes the ultimate unity of all Scripture in the Person of Jesus Christ. All the Scriptures find their ultimate unity and meaning in him. This is done is at least three ways. Continuity, wherein Jesus affirms and brings forward Old Testament teachings and understandings, deepening them and fulfilling their meaning in a fairly straight-forward way. Discontinuity, wherein Jesus fulfills Old Testament texts in a paradoxical way (especially by suffering and dying) and sets aside certain or replaces certain Old Testament practices or understandings (e.g. the antitheses of Matt 5, the canceling of dietary laws in Mk 7:19). And Fulfillment wherein he transposes ancient texts and practices to a higher thing (e.g. the passover meal now becomes the Eucharistic Banquet). The Pope writes:

In the passage from letter to spirit, we also  learn, within the Church’s great tradition, to see  the unity of all Scripture, grounded in the unity  of God’s word, which challenges our life and constantly  calls us to conversion. Here the words  of Hugh of Saint Victor remain a sure guide: “ All  divine Scripture is one book, and this one book is  Christ, speaks of Christ and finds its fulfillment in  Christ ”. Viewed in purely historical or literary  terms, of course, the Bible is not a single book,  but a collection of literary texts composed over  the course of a thousand years or more, and its  individual books are not easily seen to possess  an interior unity; instead, we see clear inconsistencies  between them…..which nonetheless  are seen in their entirety as the one word of God  addressed to us. This makes it clear that the person  of Christ gives unity to all the “ Scriptures ”  in relation to the one “ Word”….(Verbum Domini,  39).

Moreover, the New Testament itself claims  to be consistent with the Old and proclaims that  in the mystery of the life, death and resurrection of Christ the sacred Scriptures of the Jewish  people have found their perfect fulfillment. It  must be observed, however, that the concept of  the fulfillment of the Scriptures is a complex one,  since it has three dimensions: a basic aspect of  continuity with the Old Testament revelation, an  aspect of discontinuity and an aspect of fulfillment  and transcendence. The mystery of Christ stands in  continuity of intent with the sacrificial cult of the  Old Testament, but it came to pass in a very different  way, corresponding to a number of prophetic  statements and thus reaching a perfection  never previously obtained. …The paschal mystery  of Christ is in complete conformity – albeit  in a way that could not have been anticipated –  with the prophecies and the foreshadowings of  the Scriptures; yet it presents clear aspects of discontinuity  with regard to the institutions of the  Old Testament.Verbum Domini, 40).

  Three essential keys to interpretation – Thus Scriptural interpretation for a Catholic must admit of a careful sophistication wherein an individual passage is seen in its relationship to three things:

  1. The whole of Scripture
  2. Its place on the overall trajectory of Scripture
  3. Its relationship to the Person and Paschal mystery of Jesus Christ.

Surely too an appreciation of the genre and basic literary devices like hyperbole, metaphor, simile, analogy and so forth is also essential. Since the Scriptures are a Church Book, one would also never presume to read them apart from the beliving community or in opposition to the magisterium.

If we fail to do this we risk not only misinterpreting Scripture but also of getting stuck in some of the difficult or problematic texts of the Old Testament especially. We have seen in the first quote above how St. Augustine overcame his own difficulties in the regard by focusing on Christ and seeing everything in relation to him.

Help for the Dark Passages of Scripture – In the last two days one of the conversation threads has focused on the problematic texts of the Old Testament wherein God called for a “Ban” wherein every living human being, and every animal in a given town was to be killed. Texts like these shock us, and they should. But we must also remember they are very early in the trajectory of Sacred Scripture and such practices were discontinued by God as he led his people away from brutality and instructed them through the prophets to act with justice and learn of mercy. Here too the Pope comments on this “Dark Passages:”

In discussing the relationship between the  Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also  considered those passages in the Bible which,  due to the violence and immorality they occasionally  contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it  must be remembered first and foremost that biblical  revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan  is manifested progressively and it is accomplished  slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance.  God chose a people and patiently worked  to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to  the cultural and moral level of distant times and  thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating  and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre,  without explicitly denouncing the immorality of  such things. This can be explained by the historical  context, yet it can cause the modern reader to  be taken aback….In  the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets  vigorously challenged every kind of injustice  and violence, whether collective or individual,  and thus became God’s way of training his people  in preparation for the Gospel. So it would a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture  that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should  be aware that the correct interpretation of these  passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired  through a training that interprets the texts in their  historical-literary context and within the Christian  perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical  key “ the Gospel and the new commandment  of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery  ”. (Verbum Domini 42)

Conclusion – And thus the Pope instructs us on the careful, nuanced and sophisticated care that Catholics must bring to Scriptural reading and understanding. Simple proof texting can have a place in setting forth teachings. But generally we ought to be careful of pulling out “one-liners” to illustrate complex theological teachings. The use of Scripture as a foundation of doctrinal teaching is proper and essential  but we must be careful to be sure the passages are used authentically, in proper relation to the whole of scripture, its trajectory and ultimate relationship to Christ. Scripture has a sacred synergy which is not usually well served by a simplistic singling out of the Sacred text.