A couple days ago I blogged about a book purportedly about Catholic moral theology called “The Sexual Person” by two professors associated with Creighton University, and the US Bishops clear rebuke of the arguments presented therein.
Basically the authors deconstruct all Scriptural and magisterial sources of authority for moral reasoning by applying a radical historicism. In other words, “The biblical authors, the church fathers, and the popes just reflected the cultural norms of their day, plus they aren’t as smart as we are now, so we can disregard their views about sexuality.”
For me, reading the arguments from “The Sexual Person” were a blast from the past.
While I was in high school, and an ardent Dutch Calvinist, a report was made to my denomination’s synod from one of our sister denominations, concerning their committee on sexual morality. After years of study, this Calvinist denomination’s committee was unable to affirm almost any of traditional Christian moral teaching. The only principle remaining to guide one to moral sexual relations was “justice love.” Wherever “justice love” was present, sex was moral. They recommend that our denomination accept the same “principles” of “morality”—ones essential re-articulated now in “The Sexual Person.”
Looking over the reasoning our sister denomination was using, I realized their “hermeneutic” could be used to defeat any Scriptural teaching.
That was the beginning of a gradual dawning on me—which would eventually lead to Rome—of the realization that Scripture alone was not sufficient to conserve the deposit of the faith, because various hermeneutics could make Scripture say almost anything one wished.
One needs to be guided by tradition, but even tradition is not enough—there also has to be a living voice of the salvific community.
“When Scripture is disjoined from the living voice of the Church, it fall prey to the disputes of experts,” Benedict XVI says.
The living voice just spoke through the mouths of the US Bishops. I am thankful for them.
7 comments:
Thank you for this beautiful post, which gives a clear example of how Scripture can be interpreted to say just about anything and why God gave us the Teaching Authority of the Church to guide us in understanding His Word.
Key point: there is no possible way to interpret something from a purely "objective" stand point. If contemporary philosophical hermeneutics have taught us anything it's this--pure objectivity is a modernist myth. Furthermore, as Gadamar, McIntyre and others observe, it is impossible to read a text apart from a tradition. Given that, isn't likely that if God intended to reveal himself in inspiring Scripture, would he not also see to it that there would be a tradition through which would could reliable read it?
I think so.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, EITHER by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).
Exactly! And not only a living voice, but an infallible one, as Bl. John Henry Newman points out in his, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:
, “…the very idea of revelation implies a present informant and guide, and that an infallible one…if Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error.”
Amen.
Going off of what Danny and Michael are saying, it's like this: The Catholic system is the only one that can work; either (1) God set up the Catholic system, or (2) God set up something that doesn't work. I'll throw in my lot with (1).
Jorge, According to St. Irenaeus, the rule of faith (which is distinct from Scripture) is required to employ a correct interpretation of Scripture. The key lies in one's interpretive lens, which is inescapable. The Catholic Church has interpreted Scripture authoritatively, employing this regula fidei. Scripture lies within the heart of a living, breathing, believing community, which has been alive for 2,000 years. It cannot be severed from that community's regula fidei. That would do a disservice to the very nature of Scripture itself.
Dear Jorge:
The Scriptures are inerrant and infallible, we agree.
Far be it from me to diminish the authority of Scripture.
On the contrary, those who separate the Scripture from the Church and the Church's tradition are the ones who end up diminishing its authority, for it is the Church and her Tradition that teach that it is authoritative in the first place.
Leaving the interpretation of Scripture up to each individual, which is your position, definitely diminishes its authority, as Scripture becomes twisted to fit each person's opinions.
Your definition of the Church is not helpful because there is not even common agreement on "what Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught." Your definition of the community is so vague that one could never know what the community thought or taught for sure.
That certainly was not the paradigm with which St. Paul operated, because he called the Church "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). It's impossible for the Church to be that unless it is visible and unified.
God bless,
John
Post a Comment