(C) CATHOLIC ANSWERS NEWSLETTER
October 1987
by Karl Keating
P.O. Box 17181, San Diego, CA 92117, $12/year
The Bishops on Fundamentalism
Did you hear about the Pastoral Statement for Catholics on
Biblical Fundamentalism? Probably not. The document, issued in
March by the NCCB's Ad Hoc Committee on Biblical Fundamentalism,
got few headlines. Too bad. It has some sensible things to say.
The Committee was composed of six archbishops and bishops:
John F. Whealon of Hartford (the chairman), Alvaro Corrada del
Rio of Washington, Theodore E. McCarrick of Newark, Richard J.
Sklba of Milwaukee, J. Francis Stafford of Denver, and Donald W.
Trautman of Buffalo. They directed their statement to Catholics
"who may be attracted to Biblical Fundamentalism without
realizing its serious weaknesses."
The statement defines "Biblical Fundamentalists [as] those
who present the Bible, God's inspired Word, as the only necessary
source for teaching about Christ and Christian living. This
insistence on the teaching Bible is usually accompanied by a
spirit that is warm, friendly, and pious. Such a spirit attracts
many (especially idealistic young) converts." Quite true, though
one should not conclude the problem is mainly with the college-
aged. More people convert to fundamentalism after, say, age 25
than before, and surprisingly many converts are nearing, within,
or past middle-age.
"According to Fundamentalism," the bishops continue, "the
Bible alone is sufficient. There is no place for the universal
teaching Church--including its wisdom, its teachings, creeds and
other doctrinal formulations, its liturgical and devotional
tradition. There is simply no claim to a visible, audible,
living, teaching authority binding the individual or
congregations."
Just so. Fundamentalism is a spare religion, as
demonstrated by the interior of its churches. It's not
surprising that its adherents find Gothic art confusing and
Baroque art shocking. For them, God writes straight with
straight lines. Gothic and Baroque art were quintessentially
Catholic, full of the mysterious and sacramental, and
fundamentalism is not a religion of mystery or sacraments.
Another problem, say the bishops, is the way in which the
Bible is interpreted. Although Catholics believe in an inerrant
Bible, we understand inerrancy differently than do
fundamentalists. Vatican II taught that "the books of Scripture
must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without
error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings
for the sake of our salvation" (Constitution on Divine
Revelation, No. 11). Fundamentalism goes far beyond this.
"We observed in Biblical Fundamentalism an effort to try to
find in the Bible all the direct answers for living--though the
Bible itself nowhere claims such authority. The appeal of such
an approach is understandable. Our world is one of war,
violence, dishonesty, personal and sexual irresponsibility. ...
People of all ages yearn for answers. They look for sure,
definite rules for living. And they are given answers--
simplistic answers to complex issues--in a confident and
enthusiastic way, in Fundamentalist Bible groups. ...
"[T]he appeal of finding the answer in a devout, studious,
prayerful, warm, Bible-quoting class is easy to understand. But
the ultimate problem with such Fundamentalism is that it can give
only a limited number of answers and cannot present those answers
on balance, because it does not have Christ's teaching Church,
nor even an understanding of how the Bible originally came to be
written and collected in the sacred canon or official list of
inspired books."
True, all true, though the Committee seems to be placing too
much emphasis on the emotional attractions of fundamentalism and
not enough on the doctrinal. We shouldn't underestimate
fundamentalism's appeal to people worried about modern cultural
and political trends, but, if you sit in on fundamentalist
services, you'll see that most sermons are about doctrines.
The bishops go on: "The basic characteristic of Biblical
Fundamentalism is that it eliminates from Christianity the Church
as the Lord Jesus founded it. That Church is a community of
faith, worldwide, with pastoral and teaching authority. This
non-church characteristic of Biblical Fundamentalism, which sees
the Church as only spiritual, may not at first be clear to some
Catholics. From some Fundamentalists they will hear nothing
offensive to their beliefs, and much of what they hear seems
compatible with Catholic Christianity. The difference is often
not in what is said--but in what is not said. There is no
mention of the historic, authoritative Church in continuity with
Peter and the other apostles. There is no vision of the Church
as our mother--a mother who is not just spiritual, but who is
visibly ours to teach and guide us in the way of Christ."
Yes and no. "There is no mention" of these beliefs in the
sense of supporting them, but there is mention of them by way of
opposition. One wonders, in this summer of the Pope's visit,
whether there have been any fundamentalist churches in which the
papacy has not been discussed, at least in passing.
"Unfortunately," say the bishops, "a minority of
Fundamentalist churches and sects not only put down the Catholic
Church as a 'man-made organization' with 'man-made rules,' but
indulge in crude anti-Catholic bigotry with which Catholics have
long been familiar." Again, a slight adjustment is necessary, so
the reader won't get the wrong impression: While only a minority
of fundamentalist churches engage in overt anti-Catholic
activity, all fundamentalist churches "put down the Catholic
Church as a 'man-made organization' with 'man-made rules." That
is a necessary consequence of fundamentalist principles. Who
says A must say B. A fundamentalist who is not, at least
"theoretically," opposed to Catholicism is untrue to his own
principles. This doesn't mean he has to be rude in opposing the
Church--and most fundamentalists aren't rude--but he will be no
latitudinarian.
Returning to the status of the Bible, the bishops note, "It
is important for every Catholic to realize that the Church
produced the New Testament, not vice-versa. The Bible did not
come down from heaven, whole and intact, given by the Holy
Spirit. Just as the experience and faith of Israel developed its
sacred books, so was the early Christian Church the matrix of the
New Testament. The Catholic Church has authoritatively told us
which books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are, therefore,
canonical. The Bible, then, is the Church's book. The New
Testament did not come before the Church, but from the Church.
Peter and the other apostles were given special authority to
teach and govern before the New Testament was written. The first
generation of Christians had no New Testament at all--but they
were the Church then, just as we are the Church today." A simple
point, you might think, but crucial.
"For historical reasons the Catholic Church in the past did
not encourage Bible studies as much as she could have. True,
printing (the Latin Bible was the first work printed) was not
invented until the mid-fifteenth century, and few people were
literate during the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. But
in the scriptural renewal the Church strongly encourages her sons
and daughters to read, study, and live the Bible."
The minimization of Bible reading is something
fundamentalists have difficulty understanding. They think our
frank acknowledgement of the facts condemns us. They know quite
well that little emphasis was put on Bible reading until Vatican
II, at least at the parish level. There's no denying that.
Modern popes encouraged Bible study (see Pius XII's 1943
encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, for example), but it seemed
the trickle-down theory was on hold. We didn't see the same
emphasis at the local level. Most Catholic families owned a
Bible--you could identify it by the dust on the cover--but that's
all that could be said. They didn't read it.
How did this state of affairs come about? It wasn't some
plot on the part of the Vatican, to keep embarrassing truths
hidden from folks in the pews. It was a natural, if unfortunate,
reaction to the excesses of the Reformation, which came along
just as printing came into its own. The Reformers and their
descendents said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth,
the teaching office of the Church being non-existent. They over-
emphasized a truth (that Scripture is a source of revelation)
and, by doing so, lost sight of another truth (that it isn't the
only source).
Catholics responded by emphasizing the Tradition which
Protestants tossed out and by becoming suspicious--not about the
Bible itself, but about the way the Bible could be used, and was
used, by ill-instructed people (and by well-instructed but ill-
intentioned people) to promote error. The Bible was soft-
pedaled, though never banned, and reading it was not discouraged
by higher ecclesiastical authorities. It does no harm to admit
we Catholics waited too long to restore the Bible to a place of
honor in practice--a place it never lost either in theory or at
the higher, more educated levels of the Church.
The bishops end their statement with suggestions. "We need
a Pastoral Plan for the Word of God that will place the Sacred
Scriptures at the heart of the parish and individual life.
Pastoral creativity can develop approaches such as weekly Bible
study groups and yearly Bible schools in every parish. ... In
areas where there is a special problem with Fundamentalism, the
pastor may consider a Mass to which people bring their own Bibles
and in which qualified lectors present a carefully prepared
introduction and read the text--without, however, making the
Liturgy of the Word a Bible study class.
"We need better homilies, since the homily is the most
effective way of applying biblical texts to daily living. We
need a familiar quoting of the Bible by every catechist, lector,
and minister. We have not done enough in this area. The neglect
of parents in catechetics and the weakness of our adult education
efforts are now producing a grim harvest. We need to educate--
and re-educate--our people knowingly in the Bible so as to
counteract the simplicities of Biblical Fundamentalism."
Good points, all. If a single suggestion could be made for
the revision of the bishops' statement (we've quoted half of it),
it would be to make clear that fundamentalism is not merely about
the status of the Bible. Many Catholics think fundamentalism
will go away if only Catholics would pick up Scripture regularly.
That would help, certainly, but that's not enough, because it's
the conclusions drawn from Scripture that make the difference.
Fundamentalism's chief attraction is at the level of doctrine,
and a defense against it must be doctrinal. It must be all these
other things, too--social, emotional, cultural, liturgical--but
it must be doctrinal if it is to succeed.
The bishops on the Committee are to be commended for issuing
their Pastoral Statement for Catholics on Biblical Fundamentalism.
A bilingual version can be obtained by writing to the Office of
Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic
Conference, 1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005-4105.
../