'The DaVinci Code' Stinks
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 10:22AM
20 April 2005
“I didn’t like it very much. I thought it was almost as bad as the book. Tom Hanks was a zombie, thank goodness for Ian McKellen. It was overplayed, there was too much music and it was much too grandiose.” -Peter Brunette, The Boston Globe.
“At the high point, there was laughter among the journalists. Not loud laughs, but a snicker and I think that says it all.” -Gerson Da Cunha, The Times of India.
“People were confused, there was no applause, just silence. I have only read half the book, and then I got bored. It’s terrible” -Margherita Ferrandino, Italian television Rai 3.
“It was really disappointing. The dialogue was cheesy. The acting wasn’t too bad, but the film is not as good as the book.” -Lina Hamchaoui, British radio IRN.
“At Cannes, one scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience, and when the credits rolled, there was no applause, only a few catcalls and hisses. Things were no better Stateside, where the film screened for critics in New York.” -CNN Entertainment
“No chemistry exists between the hero and heroine, and motivation remains a troubling sore point.” riewer Kirk Honeycutt.
Looks like this anti-Christian film will go the way of the blasphemous The Last Temptation of Christ in which a confused Christ loses his virginity to Mary Magdalene and struggles on the cross with homosexual tendencies. Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, however, a blow by blow depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ’s life before the crucifixion, was an overwhelming success. The message? People don’t want to see a virtuous figure like Christ, whether one believes He is who He claims to be or not, slandered.
Time magazine’s Richard Corliss said of The DaVinci Code:
“Beneath the chases and crashes, the chalices and cilices [hair shirts], it denies Jesus’ divinity. … And further still: the film challenges the belligerence that too often adheres to religious believers, the wars and atrocities perpetrated in His name.”
That’s why the movie will be a flop. Hollywood just doesn’t get it; there are some things you don’t mess with. Jesus is one of them.
Expose the Left Independent Conservative
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/492898
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (231)
What I don't get is why all the fuss? I mean, it's a work of fiction...so what people talk about 'could it be true' or 'could it have happened?'.
Sure, some people will believe it, some people will believe anything (my husband sat on a plane yesterday with a guy who believes the world is controlled by the Free Masons and the Mellons) but it's just a work of fiction...supposed to be a good read, keep you occupied, meant to let your mind wander away from whatever five minutes of life you're trying to escape momentarily from.
As for the movie, if it's got bad acting or was adapted badly from the book, I don't think that means the book was bad or it's some sort of divine intervention telling us all the whole concept is ludricrous. I think it just means there was bad acting or a bad screenplay. Happens all the time, not just to movies about Jesus. And it seems to me, people were willing to shell out a lot of money for the book...if the movie fails, it has to be for more reason than the underlying concept. Otherwise, the book would have failed too.
Speaking as a Catholic, I don't get why Catholics are worried/worked up so much over a work of fiction...
Thanks for letting me speak my mind,
S
I am relieved to see the movie was not done too well. While this movie is clearly a device of the enemy to try and undermine what is right and good, it is like most things the enemy does. Cheesy and poorly executed.
If you swing by my blog I outlined a few notions as to why the Da Vinci code might actually be good for Christians. Feel free to add other points or tell me if you disagree : )
God bless
If Brown were to try that he need not worry about possible, ah, unpleasant reaction from the Islamofascists. Hollywood and the MSM would force Mr. Brown into the Federal Witness Protection Program all by themselves long before the jihadists caught up with him.
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060515_126652_126652
S, I will reply in the morning.
Aimz, I won't give a cent to Ron Howard, who produced/directed the movie. I never saw Fahrenheit 9/11 because I don't want a cent of our money to go to Michael Moore.
From what I hear about the movie, I'm not missing much!
I don't mean this as an attack on you, but I am sick and tired of people saying 'The DaVinci Code' is a work of fiction. I mean, yes, it obviously is, but the fact of the matter is that enemies of Christianity will trot out "facts" from the book as though they're somehow proof that Christianity is a farce or something, but the minute you tell them what *really* happened with the Council of Nicea or explain how easy it is to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, they start backpedaling saying "whoa whoa, it's just a *book*, you funny-damn-mentalist".
On the other hand, the people who buy into the "facts" 'The DaVinci Code' are putting their faith in a book. Oh the irony...
As for why the Cath Church is concerned about it, well, it basically takes their entire early history and rewrites it and casts them into a bad light in doing so. I wouldn't be happy about that either.
I don't feel attacked my you. You didn't call me an idiot or tell me my opinion was wrong. I always enjoy healthy debate...
I'm just thinking aloud here, but you know, I have to say for me, as a Catholic, in my everyday walk of life, I don't feel attacked for my faith. I read that a lot on blogs, that people feel that way, but I don't. Maybe it's who I hang around with, some of my very good, best friends have/are been very different than me. Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic...one of the kindest people I knew to me was Hindu and we took this seminar together and I was pregnant and he'd walk with me to get ice cream during the break and we'd talk...it was never you're wrong, no you are. The only one who I've ever met who told me certain teachings were wrong (Cathoic ones), was a fundamentalist Christian minister.
I've known a lot of people who have read the book, and frankly I've never met a one who took it for fact. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I know the History Channel or Discovery have explored the whole was Jesus married thing, and of course, the news shows will have the debate going, but that's to get ratings...I'm just saying in my everyday life.
To be certain though, my everyday life isn't yours, nor someone else's. I just think the debate itself is blown out of proportion over a work of fiction.
As for the Catholic Church not being happy about it, well, to me it's like someone saying Gone With the Wind doesn't portray the South accurately. Of course not. It's a work fiction. Perhaps based on fact, but they have a genre for that too. Historical fiction. It's the author's imagination or what he wants to explore or an issue he wants to work out for himself...
If you ask me, the Catholic Church should me much more oncerned about being unhappy with other things that are real, tangible and have actually hurt people.
Thanks again,
S
I think you ascribe too much benevolence to the author of DaVinci. He has an agenda. Here are what some well known Catholic authors have to say about the "fictionality" of 'The DaVinci Code':
*********************************
Ben Witherington III: I turn them to page one of THE DA VINCI CODE that has the heading "FACT." On this page Brown claims that the information in the book is accurate, which in turn causes readers to take the information at face value. I'd respond by telling people to beware and recognize the book as not historical fiction, but purely fiction.
*********************************
Erwin W. Lutzer: THE DA VINCI CODE is a very bold attack against the two doctrines that are central to Christianity: the deity of Christ and the reliability of the New Testament documents. We dare not dismiss it, for the simple reason that some people believe it is historical fiction, that is, based on an alternative understanding of the origins of Christianity.
*********************************
Carl E. Olson: I sometimes say, "Nobody says that Hamlet is 'only a play!'" or "UNCLE TOM'S CABIN is 'only a novel!'" Fiction is a powerful medium that is meant to convey information, although not in a systematic fashion, which is one reason fiction can be so powerful --- readers are often more open to be persuaded by a work of fiction because their defenses can be down and their emotions can be too heavily involved.
*********************************
Richard Abanes: It would be nice if Dan Brown and Doubleday representatives would stick to saying "it's only fiction." But they are not doing that. They are saying that it is fact-based, that it contains true history, and that it reliably and accurately represents a variety of historical events (e.g., the development of early Christianity, the original teachings of Christ, the formation of the Bible, the artwork of Leonardo Da Vinci, etc.). If Dan Brown and Doubleday had started out their publishing success by making it clear that THE DA VINCI CODE was totally fiction, then I never would have written a book. Interestingly, despite Dan Brown's claims that "All the history" in the novel is "accurate" (see Barnes and Noble interview previously noted), the copyright page of THE DA VINCI CODE actually explains in small print that "All of the characters and events in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." So exactly what are readers to believe?
*********************************
Richard Abanes: The answer to this question is really quite simple: People accept THE DA VINCI CODE as fact because Dan Brown has told them it is fact. On the very first page of the novel he states: "FACT: . . . All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In an interview with Barnes and Noble, he declared: "One of the many qualities that makes THE DA VINCI CODE unique is the factual nature of the story. All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate --- as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci's most famous paintings."
And most recently, in a new page posted at his official website (http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/bizarre_facts/davinci_code.html), Brown lists a number of absolutely false statements, but titles them "Bizarre True Facts from THE DA VINCI CODE." This particular Internet page by Brown actually quotes from a document known as Les Dossiers Secrets, which was found in Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale. According to Brown, it proves that members of the super-secret Priory of Sion organization included Leonardo Da Vinci, Boticelli and Sir Isaac Newton. But Les Dossiers Secrets is nothing but a forgery penned in the 1960s by a French conman and deposited in the Paris library. Although such information is widely known in France and throughout Europe, most Americans are still in the dark about Brown's sources. This ignorance has made Brown a millionaire.
And Brown's publisher, Doubleday, has only made things worse by lending their voice of support for claims that Brown's book is true. Stephen Rubin, president/publisher at Doubleday, has boldly stated: "John Grisham teaches you about torts. Tom Clancy teaches you about military technology. Dan Brown gives you a crash course in art history and the Catholic Church" (Quoted in Bill Goldstein, "As A Novel Rises Quickly, Book Industry Takes Note," New York Times, April 21, 2003). Such an assertion, in my opinion, is terrifically irresponsible, given the fact that Brown so blatantly misrepresents what are, and what are not, verifiable aspects of art history.
*********************************
Steve Kellmeyer: Because Dan Brown pretty much told them to accept it as fact rather than fiction. How many fiction novels start out with the kind of "FACTS" page he provides in both THE DA VINCI CODE and ANGELS & DEMONS? I can't think of any. Like Bill Clinton, Brown has deniability. He encourages the reader to accept everything he says as fact by throwing in historical factoids (like the existence of the Council of Nicea), but he then distorts all the contextual history to fit the fiction he writes. If anyone questions him, he says, "But it's only fiction." At the same time, he keeps stressing how much "solid" research he threw into the novel, how he wouldn't re-write it if it were published as history. It's a marvelous marketing tool.
***************************
The latest Bizarro Christ bestseller is the so-called Gospel of Judas, lost for 1,600 years but apparently rediscovered 20 minutes ago, edited by various scholars and now published by the National Geographic Society in Washington. Evidently, National Geographic has fallen on hard times since the days when anthropological studies of remote tribes were a young man's only readily available source of pictures of naked women. So I hope this new wrinkle works out for them. Renowned betrayer Judas Iscariot, you'll recall, was the disciple who sold out Jesus. Only it turns out he didn't! He was in on the plot! The betrayal was all part of the plan! For, as the Gospel of Judas exclusively reveals, Christ came to him and said, "Rudolph, with your nose so bright . . ." No, wait, that's a later codex. Christ said to Judas that he "will exceed all" the other disciples because it had fallen to him to "sacrifice the man that clothes me."
As with The Da Vinci Code, the air of scholarship is important. So here's the first sentence of the Gospel of Judas:
"The secret account1 of the revelation2 that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week3 three days before he celebrated Passover4."
Scholarly or what?
Hi Amy,
I'm assuming this post is in reposnse to mine...I think the salutation part was cut off from your post...
Many authors use historical figures in their work. I don't know what you mean exactly by 'no longer literarily sincere.' I own some books that are historical fiction and don't know that just because they have a character in them based on a real person, it makes the book have less of a plot or less of a bite to it. I made a comment today to a friend that what I liked about Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind (over the movie) is that with one line, how when she had a character say that one line, it conveyed everything about who that character was. So when you say literarily insincere...I'm just not sure what that means.
And to answer your question, if someone were to make movies about those things you mentioned, well, I'd probably laugh. And to be clear, I'm not dismissing your question, but I'd know the truth and that's what important. My oldest, by the way, is still in elementary school so I have a hard time picturing him grown up at all, but I mean, I'd tell him, like I tell myself sometimes, it doesn't matter what people think, it's what you know about yourself that counts and how you conduct yourself and what your faith (and I don't just mean religion) and values are.
>I think you ascribe too much benevolence to the author >of DaVinci. He has an agenda.
Perhaps I do, but every author has an agenda. Even non-fiction writers. My husband wrote a non-fiction book and from being intimate with the author, I would say he had one as well, perhaps subtle, not as provoking to be sure, but he had information he felt was important to get out there. Everyone does...
>Carl E. Olson: Fiction is a powerful medium that is >meant to convey information, although not in a >systematic fashion, which is one reason fiction can be >so powerful --- readers are often more open to be >persuaded by a work of fiction because their defenses >can be down and their emotions can be too heavily >involved.
I cut some of his quote short for brevity, but I like some of this and some of it I don't. I agree fiction can be extremely powerful, that's why it can be beautiful, scary, sad, charming, the list goes on and on.
But it also seems to me, he's talking down to the person reading fiction. Sometimes when I read a historicalfiction book (or non-fiction book as well), it makes me think...gives me food for thought. Sometimes I'll want to go find out more, I'll go Google it, or ask someone who knows something about the place, era, or whatever it is. Sometimes, I'll find other books to read to help clarify. Sometimes I'll ask my husband what would he do if...
But I never ever think fiction is real or that non-fiction should not be critically read...
Thanks,
S
Let me first reveal my relevant personal information - I am a Catholic - went to catholic grade school and high school. I know my way around the Bible and have taken a far number of theological classes, as well as having gone on and led numerous spiritual retreats. Onto my comments...
To suggest that the Bible is not fictional, in many parts, is simply not being honest. So, I don't understand how you can immediatley malign Sir Ian for a statement that is correct, in part, if not in total. Fiction does not suggest being wrong or immoral, but it does recognize that all of the information is not a completely accurate representation of events. The Bible is a composite compilation of many authors' allegorical stories and metaphoric lessons. Excepting folks who do not believe in evolutionary biology and science, I hope I don't have to address that absurdity, few academics (don't try to incorporate a political orientation here, I am simply appealing to scholarly writers) would suggest that the Old Testament is meant as a literal, factual account of the Creation of the World, of the genealogical development of mankind, or of Jesus' life. Furthermore, the purported writers of the New and Old Testaments are recounting or creating events that pre-date their existence on Earth by 20 years, or more, in some circumstances. Events that they were not present at or did not have first or second hand information about. Thus, the information contained within many portions of the Bible is not a factually accurate representation of dialogue and events, but a crafted story.
Finally, from the standpoint of non-fiction v fiction, Biblical historians will openly admit that a significant portion of The Bible has been adapted, mistranslated, and skewed based upon the preferences of those that have translated, transcribed, and revised The Bible. One must consider these facts in characterizing the content of the Bible. Sir Ian is essentially correct, though I disagree with the implicit assertions of his comment.
Now, none of these facts delegitimate the Bible. Instead, the stories become more powerful, as they suggest the confluence of aggregated wisdom, moral exhortations, and life guidance that was distilled into the most important written document ever.
Lastly, your introduction to your post is perplexing. You state: "Ian McKellen, homosexual activist and talented British actor, said this to NBC’s Matt Lauer during an interview with the cast of The DaVinci Code." Please explain to me what "homosexual activist" has to do with Sir Ian's comments? That characterization is not at all pertinent to the later content of your post. Now, I obviously can't speak on your behalf, but I would assume you employ this rhetorical tool to bias your readers against Sir McKellen. Why did you find this necessary? Are you concerned that people might engage his comments in an unbiased way? I wish that you would not have employed such a nakedly partisan (not in the political sense) rhetorical tool. Now, don't try to tell me that his advocacy for other peoples' ways of living makes him completely unable to evaluate the Bible and the Davinci Code. If you are suggesting that he suffers from an inherent bias, perhaps you should turn the mirror on yourself? Perhaps we, believers, should not be allowed to evaluate the Bible for its veracity and written cosntruction, because we believe? Perhaps we are too biased to evaluate the Good Book? I don't think that he can be completely dismissed.
I would be interest in receiving your courteous reply.
Thank you,
Jack
I have intended to ignore the film, as I did Titanic, so as avoid completely embracing mainstream culture... but I have enjoyed pretty much everything I've seen directed by Ron Howard (a beautiful mind, ed tv, apollo 13 etc) and quite a lot of Hanks' acting, so I might watch it.
Last Temptation of Christ was brilliant. I don't believe it is blasphemous... the bible says that Jesus was tempted by grand things, this movie explores the idea of Jesus being tempted by normal human domesticity. People still complain about Life of Brian sometimes.
Whatever. Religion, as with everything else, will be criticised.
Peace.
Hello Jack, if you read the entire review of what Sir McKellen said you will see it mentions him coming out in 1988. So, I think Amy did right by posting that.
Mwalimu, Hollywood picks on Christians and Christianity because they know they can. We don't threaten their lives if they don't agree with our beliefs unlike Islamist radicals who will. What is sad is that they have no idea who they are really dealing and that is Jesus Christ. One day they will.
I won't tackle all of your points, but I will say that your remarks concerning the historocity of the Old Testament questionable (at best) since the verifiable facts from it have been found to be true. For instance, one criticism of the Old Testament used to be that Moses couldn't have written the books credited to him when he did because for his timeline to have been true, it would have predated the invention of written language. That assertion was later proven false.
Another criticism was that at no point in history have birthrights been passed on orally (as we saw in Genesis 27:22-40). Not only did we learn from archeaology that blessings were common and accepted, we also found that such things were actually legally binding!
So just because the writer may not have been present for certain events (care to elaborate?), that doesn't negate the truthfulness of the Bible, esp since the verifiable aspects of the Old Testament have been largely verified in the Old Testament's favor.
“Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God's power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the Apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all.”
-Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII, © 1952 Wipf and Stock Publishers
Johnny, I didn’t understand your objection to Jack’s remarks. What “predictable fodder” are you referring to that was rejected by the Church?
Maybe it makes you wonder what part is true, if any, and maybe it gives you something to talk about over dinner, but I take that as just part of the movie.
Now of course I know that Jesus is a heftier subject than Bigfoot, but I still look at it like a way to get people more interested and spend some money to see it, which is what all movies try to have happen. They want bodies in those seats whether it's Jesus or animated cars...
And, the Church by protesting about it, falls right into the producers hands...they like the buzz. Buzz=ticket sales.
Thanks,
S
'The DaVinci Code' might appear do to well at the box office... at first, but from what I understand it's so boring and bad that it won't be getting repeat viewers. I saw, for example, each of the Lord of the Rings movies, which were SO well done, probably 4 times each in the theater alone. This won't be the case with 'The DaVinci Code'.
Ron Howard also screwed up Apollo 13 from what I hear. Tom Hanks was a terrible Tom Lovell , for example, and I suspect Ron Howard is a large part of the problem for this movie.
Thanks for the background info. It helps to know.
First, I didn't malign McKellen. In fact, I offered no commentary about his comment whatsoever. It would stand to reason that a self-proclaimed homosexual atheist would hold true that belief, and judging from the chuckles from the cast of 'The DaVinci Code' as he made the comment, I would suspect that it's a widely held view in the entertainment industry. That being said, for all their comments, chuckles and disdain for the Church and the Bible, I find it fitting that their movie is a critical flop. It'll make money, no doubt, if for no other reason that why people rubber neck at a hideous car accident, but money alone does not equate success. The movie is a laughing stock, and I suspect God is laughing as well.
You said: "To suggest that the Bible is not fictional, in many parts, is simply not being honest." This is an appalling statement coming from a Catholic, but sadly it is a more common statement coming from a Catholic. We are battling this mind set in our local Church, and it isn't pretty. This is what the Catholic Catechism says about Holy Scripture:
****************************
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PO.HTM
Article 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."74
121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately SO oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,94 The books of the OldTestament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95
123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. the Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).
**************************
Does this sound even remotely like your view of the Scriptures? Modern rationalism is condemned by Pope Benedict and past popes, and Johnny stated.
Holy Scripture is not fictional. Not the poetry, not the prophecy, not the Gospels and not the Old Testament.
I posted this article a while back about this very issue:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2005/10/10/catholic-church-no-longer-swears-by-truth-of-the-bible.html
Dei Verbum:
"For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."
"It is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race."
"Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13)."
Catholic Catechism:
"Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely."
"You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time."
"In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, 'but as what it really is, the word of God' ."
"God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
"God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more."
"The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
"Still, the Christian faith is not a 'religion of the book'. Christianity is the religion of the 'Word' of God, not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living."
"The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour".
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS: On the Study of Holy Scripture (ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII)
On the Study of Holy Scripture (ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII)
"The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labor carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy."
"It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church..."
"...they have God for their author. Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture."
"It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error."
A Catholic priest friend of mien told me about this subject:
"The Bible is inerrant. This is doctrine and will not change. If this document (The Gift of Scripture)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html is what the article says it is, it is heresy pure and simple and will be rejected soundly. There is the possibility that the actual document does not have the conclusions that the news story does.
The heresy of errors in the Bible when properly understood is perhaps the most common heresy in the church. They quote that God uses human speech in the writing of Scripture. Indeed, He does. However, as Pope Pius the XII put it: "Just as the Son of God made flesh was like man in all things except sin, so the Word of God is likened to human speech in all things except error."
GO FATHER!
More later.....
I have only read the first have of the comments (above), but I wanted to pause and post this message for two reasons:
(1) I wanted to compliment you on the outstanding reply you gave to "S," showing (via argumentation and quotations) that his/her argument does not hold water ["It's only a work of fiction."].
(2) I wanted to show how, even though everyone supposedly "knows" that it is a work of fiction, some readers seem to forget that and to begin believing that it is completely authentic history (or easily could be). According to a page (http://www.catholicleague.org/linked%20docs/DVdeception&ad.htm) at the site of Bill Donohue's outstanding Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights [CLRCR], it was determined, by polling in Canada, that 1/3 of readers believed the book to be "authentic."
For months, CLRCR (and now Opus Dei too) has been trying to persuade Ron Howard to add a disclaimer to the film, saying that it is a work of fiction -- but he refuses. Though over 40,000,000 copies of the book have been sold around the world, "only" 12,000,000 have been sold in the U.S.. You can be sure that millions of people who have not read the book will now see the film -- without even seeing the meager and inaccurate disclaimer that the book has. We who are speaking up so much on TV, radio, blogs, etc., are trying to let these unsuspecting movie viewers know that Ron Howard and Dan Brown are being dishonest with them.
God be with you.
John
PS: Maybe this happened "accidentally," so that everyone can see CLRCR's home page, which has links to tons of good stuff, such as (1) issues of its monthly "Catalyst" and (2) essays defending Pope Pius XII.
I'm sad to see that you don't realize that the "Last Temptation of Christ" was blasphemous. Besides being a tremendous offense against God, it was a box-office (and/or critical) bomb -- not "brilliant," as you said it was. The book's author was excommunicated by his Greek Orthodox Church -- for good reason.
And about Cardinal Arinze's comments. Had you been alive in the 1950s, as I was, you'd know that Hollywood would never have DARED to film "Last Temptation" or "Duh Vinci," because God and religion (even Catholicism) were better respected then, and suits WOULD have been filed around the world.
Since about 1965, though, Hollywood has been overrun with open hatred of Catholicism, especially because of its permanent doctrinal opposition to contraception, abortion, sodomy, pornography, and ordination of women. The Western world is now so degenerate that writers and producers can get away with just about anything. Too bad you think that's a good development in society.
God be with you.
On the subject of the Holy Scriptures, I agree with Leticia, Trent, and Johnny. You are badly mistaken.
Jack, I would not be addressing you as I am going to do, if you had said that you were not a Catholic. But, since you claimed to be Catholic, I have to correct you at length and very emphatically -- both for your own good and the good of others who may read this thread and might be tempted to believe the errors that you posted.
Well, wait a minute! I now see that I don't have to say very much to you, Jack, because Amy has done splendidly already, especially by quoting the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" [CCC] and other sources on this topic. You may not reaalize this, Jack, but as Catholics we are not permitted to dissent from those CCC teachings -- which are themselves, for the most part, a rewording of formal teachings from Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and "Dei Verbum" (the "DOGMATIC Constitution on Sacred Revelation" of the Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965).
Jack, you started by saying that you wanted to "reveal ... relevant personal information" -- namely that you are "a Catholic" who "went to Catholic grade school and high school" ... and "that you "know [your] way around the Bible and have taken a fair number of theological classes, as well as having gone on and led numerous spiritual retreats."
I'm sorry, Jack, but your described experiences are not enough to persuade me to trust the accuracy of your statements or to trust the judgment of your opinions. Your "fair number of theological classes" seem to have taught you great deal of errors -- the kinds of things that "progressive" protestant theologians began to invent in the 1800s, to be revived in some quasi-Catholic colleges and seminaries in the 1960s (and beyond). That kind of stuff is now gradually on its way out, through the diligent work of the last two popes and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
The truth is, Jack, that you did not attend an "orthodox" Catholic university (for example, Franciscan University of Steubenville, where you could have learned from Prof. Scott Hahn), so you do not know anywhere near what you need to know about the Bible. Well, I should have said that you didn't know anywhere near enough UNTIL you read what Johnny and Amy quoted to you. Now you know a lot better, unless you closed your mind to what they told you.
Hi, Silke.
I don't want to put words in Amy's mouth, but I have to think that she realizes that the Church allows us to believe that SOME books of the Bible (e.g., Song of Solomon, Job, Tobit) may contain poetry, parables, or other lesson-teaching tools -- and that much of the Old Testament (especially the Psalms) can be read in multiple "senses" (literal and spiritual).
The problem is, however, that the atheistic actor said that the ENTIRE Bible ought to have a "Fiction Disclaimer" on it. Then Jack said that "Sir Ian is essentially correct." But the truth is that Jack and Ian's position is INCORRECT.
Jack wrote that the "Bible is a composite compilation of many authors' allegorical stories and metaphoric lessons." Jack also wrote that the Bible lacks "a factually accurate representation of dialog and events." He's wrong! A Catholic is not permitted to say such things.
Jack goes wrong again by saying, "... Biblical historians will openly admit that a significant portion of The Bible has been adapted, mistranslated, and skewed based upon the preferences of those that have translated, transcribed, and revised The Bible."
This is wrong. "Biblical historians" can only speculate or opine, but cannot "openly admit" anything, because they were not around when the Bible was being written. Only people who actually DID something can ADMIT what they did. Historians cannot "admit" anything. They -- that is to say, SOME of them (the ones Jack was taught to believe) -- can only OPINE from their positions of secularistic skepticism, imaginative assumption, and political correctness. Sorry, but I'll accept the Catholic Church's authoritative rejection of their opinions!]
The Church has repeatedly guaranteed for us the inerrancy of the whole Bible and the "historicity" of the Gospels and of the historical-narrative books of the Old Testament.
God be with you all.
Silke, I am absolutely not saying that there is no room for symbolism or figurative speech in the Bible. I do beleive that it is historically accurate and there is no reason why it should not be treated as a historical document. The Bible consists of history, poetry, symbolism and prophecy. The Bible is not about conveying "messages". If you read the Catholic Catechism's description of scripture that I relayed above, that says it.
Does anyone think the Koran is fictious?
Later...
Here are some more quotes from Dei Verbum which seem
relevant to this discussion…
Chapter III:
"12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
In addition, this document (“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”), published in 1993 and endorsed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, discusses the right way to understand Holy Scripture. I found these paragraphs particularly interesting:
Page 17, paragraph F…
“Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired Word of God has been expressed in human language and that this Word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the Word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith.”
Page 20, paragraph B1…
“The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense it not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.
When fundamentalists relegate exegetes to the role of translators only (failing to grasp that translating the Bible is already a work of exegesis) and refuse to follow them further in their studies, these same fundamentalists do not realize that for all their very laudable concern for total fidelity to the Word of God, they proceed in fact along ways which will lead them far away from the true meaning of the biblical texts, as well as from full acceptance of the consequences of the incarnation. The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise period of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social environment. Anyone who desires to understand the Word of God should humbly seek it out there where it has made itself visible and accept to this end the necessary help of human knowledge. Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his Word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language.”
http://www.deiverbum2005.org/Interpretation/interpretation_e.pdf
Sorry for the long post but I’m interested in your response to the Church’s guidance on reading Holy Scripture. Do you agree with the paragraphs I cited?
I applaud you for seeking Catholic perspectives from Catholic sources; that is the best way to research what the Catholic Church holds as true.
The problem with the passages you have quoted is that people hear that the Divine Word has been expressed in human artforms, they immediately ascribe the weaker, inferior definition to man's part, eg, that man must have erred, or worse yet, imposed outrageous stories about miracles on us. That is exactly what the Catholic position can NOT mean. I find it most unfortunate that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger used the word 'fiction'; that is most certainly not an orthodox characterization of Holy Scripture. Joseph Ratzinger's native tongue is German; I would be curious to what word the English translator rendered 'fiction' from in the original document.
What you will not receive because of your cultural filter is that these positions are very recently adopted; the Church taught that the scriptures were inerrant for millenia. It is the scandalous work of form critics and philosophical speculation that have injected all this doubt. There is nothing that a 19th or 20th century form critic can add to the understanding of the scriptures when they begin with a priori assumptions such as there is no such thing as the supernatural. These wolves enter only to ravage and destry the Lord's flock and the harshes judgments are reserved for them.
The quotes Amy provided above are the official position of the Catholic Church, and you will find no mention of fiction. Ratzinger's opinions are very worthy of the deepest consideration, but they are not on par with the Catechism.
It is prejudice, not informed research that causes people to arrive at the conclusion that any of the Bible is fiction. Jesus Christ gave full credulity to the Bible and he is the wisest and most perfect man who ever lived.
I guess they should also add a spelling class to the curriculmn.
I am a graduate level theology student as well and I am disgusted by how far the form critics bend over backwards to accomodate the enemies of the Church. This was the exact environment during the last days of the first temple period (ca 586 BC). The people gave all benfit to Baal, Ashera, Molech, etc... even sacrificing their children to the pagan gods. These form critics offer the Church nothing bit their own rationalistic, antisupernatural bias and could not cure a sick soul if all of them together tried their best. They care not for souls, nor for God, but only for man-made theories about literature and fables about ancient civilizations. The jaws of hell will soon open up to swallow them as the prophets and apostles testify. You put your faith in the God-man, Jesus Christ, and make him the measure of perfection, and these Judases will not be able to harm you at all.
It sounds like you disagree with the guidance offered in the 1993 document. Are you saying, for instance, that Genesis is literally true – that the Earth and all living things were created in six days? Or do you believe, as Dei Verbum proposes, that “For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”
From what I understand Genesis is not meant to communicate historical or scientific truth, but rather theological truth.
Silke, I purposely left out the interpretation of Scripture from my previous quote because it can be taken out of context. The Catechism is simply stating the obvious; that Scripture is comprised of differing literary forms, different time periods, but it in no way contradicts that:
********************
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
********************
THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS VENERATED THE SCRIPTURES AS SHE VENERATES THE LORD'S BODY. This is extremely significant. The Church venerates the Lord's Body literally: as literal body, literal blood. NOT as fiction or fable.
This is part of the argument I had with a priest recently whom I am at great odds with and who has, by his position in the Church and authority in the Church, damaged my faith (or should I say my desire to be apart of the Catholic faith): that is, if scripture is NOT inspired except for small bits and pieces; if it is NOT reliable for historical purposes, if it is NOT believable but full of translational error, then his necessity to the Church is null. To say there was no Adam and Eve.. to say Isaac *may* have been a historical figure but really the author, whomever he was, was only trying to make a commentary on child sacrifice, to say that miracles of the Bible were only the author's way of showing that their God was greater than pagan gods, is to discredit John 6 in which we take Jesus' discourse about His body and blood literally. The "I am the bread of life, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood" discourse is not corroborated in the other Gospels yet we build our entire worship on that event, and there is no need to take it literally if I cannot trust in holy scripture. The Catechism is clear about venerating scripture.
Some religious people are more interested in appearing relevant than being relevant. This is the problem. I'm not opening a debate on the Real Presence, but rather noting the convenient hypocrisy by Catholics who claim the Bible is NOT reliable, or is fiction.
I don’t think it’s about “appearing relevant” or even claiming the Bible is not reliable. On the contrary, it’s about understanding that Holy Scripture can and should be understood on many levels.
The 1993 document I sited earlier said this:
“The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
Even Pope Benedict recognizes that to fully understand Genesis, one must move beyond a literal reading of the text.
You took the Cardinal's statement,"“For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.” to mean what YOU wanted it to mean, which is that God did not create the universe in 6 days, and you attempt to put the onus of proof on me. That is wrong; Amy's quotes show the Church's reverence for the Scriptures are the same reverence for Christ Himself. The Cardinal's remarks are about context, audience, writing idioms, ancient ways of communicating sober realities in Mesopotamia. They in NO WAY preclude the possibility of the literal creation account, and you cannot wring that meaning from his words.
You fail to see that to give ground here unravels the entire Messianic claim. The Jews have a geaneology that goes back 5,766 years to.... ...what? Adam and Eve. Jesus is IN that geaneology. Jesus believed in Adam, Noah, Moses, etc.... the geaneology in Luke's Gospel demonstrates Jesus as the son of David, the Son of Judah, the son of Israel, the son of Abraham, the son of Noah, the son of Adam, the son of God. The problem with the form critics is they [a priori] dismisss the INTERNAL evidence of the Bible! They begin with the thesis that any fulfilled prophecy was written after the fact and was placed in the mouths of the prophets later. This is blasphemy and must be condemned.
The whole problem with your way of looking at things is that you never come out and say, "I adore the one true God who, whether he did or not, possesess the almighty power to create all the known universe in just 6 days." That is the catholic position, whether rank and file Catholics accept the testimony of Jesus or the ever-changing speculations of scientists and impious scripture assassins.
Should it have a disclaimer as well?
This article outlines Pope Benedict’s (who was then Cardinal Ratzinger) non-literalist interpretation of the six-day account of Genesis.
http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/austriaco2.htm
Here’s an exerpt…
“the exegete should interpret a text from within the context of the unity of the Bible. Applying this criterion to the interpretation of the six-day creation account, we discover that the creation accounts in the Old Testament — the Hexaemeron is only one of several found in Genesis and in Psalms — are clearly “movement[s] to clarify the faith” and are not scientific or historical narratives. For instance, Cardinal Ratzinger notes that a study of the origins of the creation texts in the Wisdom literature especially reveal that they were written to respond to the Hellenistic civilization confronted by the Israelites. Thus, it is not surprising that the human authors of these accounts did not use the image of the six days to assert their faith in the one Creator God. This image would not have been appropriate for their time and would not have been understood by their Greek contemporaries. In contrast, a study of the origins of the Hexaemeron, the six-day account of creation, found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that it was written to respond to the seemingly victorious Babylonian civilization confronted by the Israelites several centuries before their encounter with the Greeks. Here, the human author of the sacred text used images familiar to their pagan contemporaries to refute the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account that claimed that the world was created when Marduk, the god of light, killed the primordial dragon. Thus, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, it is not surprising that nearly every word of the first creation account addresses a particular confusion of the Babylonian age. For instance, when the Sacred Scriptures affirm that in the beginning, the earth was without form and void (cf. Gen. 1:2), the sacred text refutes the existence of a primordial dragon. When they refer to the sun and the moon as lamps that God has hung in the sky for the measurement of time (cf. Gen. 1:14), the text refutes the divinity of these two great celestial bodies believed to be Babylonian gods. These verses, and they are only two of many examples, illustrate the intent of the human author of the Hexaemeron. He wanted to dismantle a pagan myth that was commonplace in Babylon and assert the supremacy of the one Creator God.
In sum, a comparative study of the different creation accounts scattered throughout the Sacred Scriptures reveal that they were not and are not historical or scientific narratives. They were theological arguments that used different images to communicate the same truth – the truth about the Creator and his Creation.”
I’m interested in your thoughts on this or the article in general.
Dear Silke,
You have (probably inadvertently) done everyone here a serious disservice by quoting from "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" and then saying some inaccurate things about it. You have improperly been trying to make Catholics here think that it is a teaching document that gives doctrines that are binding on Catholics, that it was written by Cardinal Ratzinger (who is now Pope Benedict XVI) or at least that he endorsed all of its contents.
Here are the facts. "The Interpretation ..." is not binding on Catholics. It is not a document of the Magisterium (Teaching Authority) of the Church. Rather, it is a series of comments published in 1994 as a result of a vote of the a majority of the members of something called the Pontifical Biblical Commission. This commission (which happens to be overseen by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly headed by Cdl. R) is like several other pontifical commissions -- study groups of scholars that advise the pope and have been given permission to publish the results of their deliberations.
If one looks at "The Interpretaion ..." itself with a careful eye, several things are apparent:
(1) Unlike official Church documents, it does not say that the pope endorsed its contents. It does not even say that Cardinal Ratzinger endorsed all of its contents.
(2) The "Preface" contains the following words: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation ..."
(3) Concerning the "Conclusion" (from which you quoted, Silke), an "End note" says the following: "Out of 19 votes cast, the text of this last paragraph received 11 in favor, four against and there were four abstentions. Those who voted against it asked that the result of the vote be published along with the text. The commission consented to this."
This last point reveals that (a) a committee of at least nineteen scholars was at work and (b) there was far from unanimity. Of course, the Church never teaches according to even a unanimous vote of a committee anyway! We don't even know if Cardinal Ratzinger had one of the votes that were cast -- or how he voted, if he did.
By bringing up the above, I am not saying that I reject all of what the document states. By no means! I'm just saying, Silke, that, in discussing these matters with Catholics, I would appreciate it if you would quote only from genuine teaching documents of the Church (such as the papal encyclical quoted above [from Leo XIII], Vatican II's "Dei Verbum," and the new Catechism). Thank you.
Johnny, I wish that you had known about the things that I just told Silke, as it would have saved you a lot of time and energy that you spent in arguing against this unofficial document. However, Johnny, I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that you reject parts of the Church's teaching on the Bible, as they are proclaimed in "Dei Verbum" and/or in the new Catechism. Please set me straight on this. Are my suspicions correct? Do you reject some of the things taught in the Vatican II documents and/or in the new Catechism?
God be with you all.
I wish to ask you again please not to rely on documents such as this one, as though they were binding on all Catholics. The truth is that the article refers to comments made by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was the Archbishop of Munich in 1981, before he came to be part of the Vatican Curia under Pope John Paul II.
We cannot tell whether, in making his comments about Geneis, Cardinal Ratzinger was just expressing his private opinions as a scripture scholar and theologian -- or whether he was trying to teach his local church of Munich. One thing is sure, though: He was not binding Catholics around the world to agree with his assessment.
Finally, we have no way of knowing whether Pope Benedict XVI (now, 25 years later) would agree with everything he said in 1981. [Even if he still does agree with it, I think that he realizes that it was his personal judgment, and I think that he will never declare it to be the only thing that Catholics are allowed to believe about Genesis.]