Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

"Imagine Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a Bishop."

I'm fairly confident this gentleman from Wisconsin could get a job writing for ABC News or USA Today if he wanted to...

Catholics who are shamelessly clueless about the Bible

Catholics sometimes joke about how little they know about the Bible ("Hey, what is that? A book? Neat. Do you read it?" etc., etc.). As comedian Jim Gaffigan (a Catholic) jokes in one of his routines: "I don't know much about the Bible myself. I haven't read it--because I don't have to, 'cause I'm Catholic." So perhaps, just perhaps, we can also laugh lightly about this story (from CNA):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is facing criticism for repeatedly attributing an incorrect quotation to the Book of Isaiah that concerns ministering to creation, Cybercast News Service reports.

The speaker has used the quotation at least five times, often in reference to environmental concerns.

The falsely-attributed quotation most recently appeared in her April 22 Earth Day news release, in which Speaker Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children's children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Biblical scholars, however, are at a loss as to the source of Pelosi’s quotation.

But that's only because the quotation doesn't exist. Otherwise, not a problem! (Hey, I think it's actually from 2 Hallucinations 6:66...)

And then there is this story, as reported by FOX News:

In his upcoming biography of Jesus, "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will make the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee.

An Amsterdam publishing house said Wednesday it will publish the Dutch filmmaker's biography of Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait," in September. ...

In addition to suggesting that the Virgin Mary may have been a rape victim, the book will also say that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 original apostles of Jesus, as the New Testament states.

And--surprise, surprise!—we are informed that Verhoeven is a Catholic.

Over the years, Verhoeven, who is Catholic and holds a doctorate in mathematics and physics from the University of Leiden, was a regular attendee of the Jesus Seminar, which was co-founded by the late religion scholar Robert W. Funk. The seminar called into question miracles and statements attributed to Jesus.

A Catholic who denies the Virgin Birth. I think there is a term for such a person. Hmmm...I have it here somewhere. Oh, yes: heretic. In this case, a heretic who makes really rotten films about strippers. It reminds me of this actual Bible verse: "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." (Prov 18:2). By the way, Verhoeven's main thesis is not original; it has already been published in the book, The Jesus Dynasty (Simon and Schuster, 2006), by James Tabor, and has been around for a while (since the '60s?). Ben Witherington III has written a couple of lengthy responses here and here.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out a few articles for those Catholics (and non-Catholics) who want to learn more about the Bible:

• Approaching the Sacred Scriptures | Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch
• How To Read The Bible | Peter Kreeft
• The Bible Gap: Spanning the Distance Between Scripture and Theology | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
• The Divine Authority of Scripture vs. the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" | James Hitchcock
• Going Deeper Into the Old Testament: An Interview with Aidan Nichols, O.P., author of Lovely Like Jerusalem | Carl E. Olson
• God, The Author of Scripture | Preface to God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology | Fr. Dominique Barthélemy, O.P.
• The Pattern of Revelation: A Contentious Issue | From Lovely Like Jerusalem | Aidan Nichols, O.P.
• Origen and Allegory | Introduction to History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen | Henri de Lubac
• Introduction to The Meaning of Tradition | Yves Congar, O.P.
• Enter Modernism | Philip Trower
• Singing the Song of Songs | Blaise Armnijon, S.J.

Have you heard of the new board game from Fr. Richard McBrien?

No? Well, it's called "Create Your Own Catholicism!" and it comes in three editions: Nostalgic Dissident (with felt banner board and The Collected Works of Gregory Baum), Folksy Radical (in tie-die design and colors and miniature guitar), and Cafeteria Catholic (with hand puppets and contraceptives). [Spoof alert! Spoof alert!] The main goal of the game is to try to use as many meaningless or misleading labels as one can when referring to the Pope, the Magisterium, Catholic dogma and doctrine, and Catholics who are loyal to Church teaching. McBrien, who will be giving a talk somewhere in California sometime next week about something related to Catholicism, is reported to be finetuning the game with help from friends:

The web site provides a link to a McBrien article from June 2007, “Pope Benedict’s Third Year,” in which the theologian notes that “liberal, reform-minded Catholics have been relieved” that Benedict has not acted as they had feared and that “conservative Catholics… have been disappointed that he has not… continued the hard-line approach adopted by his predecessor, John Paul II, and in keeping with the former cardinal’s record as long-time head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” McBrien then discusses the views of two writers who, last year, opined that “‘the old Ratzinger’ is beginning to show his teeth.”
 
One of those writers, David Gibson offered the “ban on gays in the priesthood,” the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass, “renewed stands against married priests, and against divorced-and-remarried Catholics receiving communion,” and Benedict’s reinforcement of papal primacy as evidence of “the old Ratzinger” returning, said McBrien.
 
<snip>

McBrien, however, has viewed Benedict as perhaps not progressive enough. In a column last September, McBrien called “convoluted” a June 29, 2007 explanation from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the Church of Christ “subsists” only in the Catholic Church. The explanation, “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church,” was an encapsulation of Dominus Iesus, issued by the congregation when Ratzinger was its prefect.
 
In his September article, McBrien said he preferred the opinion that Vatican II “broadened the boundaries of Christ's Church to include Protestants, Anglicans, Orthodox and separated non-Orthodox Christians.” And as for Dominus Iesus (approved by Pope John Paul II), it, perhaps, “should not be followed,” said McBrien.

Some of the pieces in the new game go by labels such as "Old Ratzinger," "New Benedict," "Traditional Benedict," "Pre-Vatican II Church," "Post Vatican II Faith Community," "Reformed Minded Catholic," "Fundamentalist Catholic," "Anonymous Catholic," and "On Air Dissident, Aging Catholic Theologian." There are three ways to win: make four appearances in six months on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, or CBS and refer to the Pope as "rigid," "authoritarian," or "out of touch"; be interviewed by four newspapers and/or magazines and used the words "liberal" or "conservative" at least fifty times; or go an entire year without reading any official documents of the Catholic Church while writing at least six columns explaining why official Church teaching is incorrect, wrong, bad, nasty, rotten, insulting to women, harmful to small animals, or otherwise unhealthy. Extra points for sneering at Latin and anything deemed "pre-Vatican II." Use of the term "the spirit of Vatican II" does not earn points, but does garner approval from fellow players.

Bonus points are awarded if you have said publicly that Joseph Ratzinger would not be elected Pope following the death of Pope John Paul II. Here is a basic template: "He's too much of a polarizing figure. If he were elected, thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Europe and the United States would roll their eyes and retreat to the margins of the church." Upon the election of Ratzinger, be certain to award yourself five points for calling him "polarizing" and ten points for being relegated to ABC, NBC, and MTV.

The winner is given The McBrien Award, which is sculpted from the shredded pages of Fr. McBrien's book Catholicism, and crafted into the shape of a large body of hot, toxic air. The winner also gets to spend seven days listening to Hans Küng reading his life's corpus out loud. In German. In the rain. Without any sleep.

We now return to our regularly scheduled posts.

Hamas leader: "Rome Will Be Conquered by Islam"

The poor fellow is undoubtedly sincere, saying  that Rome, "the capital of the Catholics," will soon become "an advanced post for the Islamic conquests..." But he is also obviously confused. Atlanta, not Rome, is the capitol of Georgia. And Jimmy Carter, Hamas hugger, is not Catholic, but is some sort of Baptist. I hope that helps to clarify matters.

Some journalists struggle with basic math...

...but it doesn't keep them from reporting on the Pope's three-to-seven days in the United States.

Word of the day: "presumption"

As in "condescending presumption" or "ignorant presumption." Brought to you by Tom Ehrich, an Episcopal priest, who opines in the pages of The Indianapolis Star (ht: Sandra Miesel) about the upcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI:

Millions will parse his every sentence and assign meaning to every gesture.

But I can imagine what his flock needs. In addition to the show, I think people need their pope to help them grapple with today, the real today that extends beyond a global religious franchise.

No doubt, Benedict will receive a thorough briefing on the state of U.S. Catholicism. He'll hear about frustrated bishops, parishes closing for lack of resources and schools for lack of students, a shortage of clergy, restive women seeking leadership, growing pockets of conservatism, Latino immigrants and lagging brand loyalty for all Christian denominations.

The pope could address those trends and simply move on to his next destination. After all, a global leader must have a broad reach.

My recommendation, however, would be for Benedict to take the equivalent of a slow walk through Central Park, away from the crowds, away from needing to perpetuate yesterday, away from managing his persona.

Great suggestion, Tom. Those who are familiar, to one degree or another, with the life and work of Pope Benedict XVI have always been a wee bit concerned about his obsession with properly marketing his global religious franchise and constantly spinning and remaking his complex, enigmatic, and paradoxical persona. Why, the guy just seems so calculating and concerned about not upsetting anyone, or saying anything controversial, or engaging in real conversation with real people about real problems. I think he will be relieved to hear that the answer lies in simply taking a walk, a stroll, a hike. Beautiful.

UPDATE: I see that Timothy Shriver, who is chairman of the Special Olympics, has a different idea about what Pope Benedict XVI should do upon visiting the U.S.:

Benedict XVI's upcoming visit to the U.S. is sure to provoke unfavorable comparisons to his more charismatic predecessor, John Paul II. So it's time for him to change his image. How? The cerebral theologian needs to interrupt his schedule, put on sweat clothes, and drop in on a yoga class when he's in town!

He'd accomplish more than an image upgrade. There, sweating in exercise clothes and sneakers, he'd find growing numbers of Americans who have turned to the ancient Hindu practice for both physical and spiritual centering. The Pope would do well to understand the yoga students and their spiritual lives if he is to be fully successful at communicating the message of the gospel to this nation.

Obviously a controversy is brewing. While Ehrich thinks the Pope shouldn't bother with manipulating his image, Shriver thinks he should both manipulate his image and his body. Ah, the many difficult decisions faced by the CEO of a global religious franchise!

Benedict XVI's upcoming visit to the U.S. is sure to provoke unfavorable comparisons to his more charismatic predecessor, John Paul II. So it's time for him to change his image. How? The cerebral theologian needs to interrupt his schedule, put on sweat clothes, and drop in on a yoga class when he's in town!

He'd accomplish more than an image upgrade. There, sweating in exercise clothes and sneakers, he'd find growing numbers of Americans who have turned to the ancient Hindu practice for both physical and spiritual centering. The Pope would do well to understand the yoga students and their spiritual lives if he is to be fully successful at communicating the message of the gospel to this nation.

Obviously a controversy is brewing. While Ehrich thinks the Pope shouldn't bother with manipulating his image, Shriver thinks he should both manipulate his image and his body. Ah, the many difficult decisions faced by the CEO of a global religious franchise!

Are you a very good at reading and writing Latin?

No? Neither am I. But at least we try, I hope, to avoid making these sort of grandis, difficilis mistakes, (see, I told you) as exposed by Dr. Ed Peters.

Francis Cardinal George tells it like it is

From a April 7th Chicago Sun-Times article, some comments by Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago and president of the USCCB:

"[The pope] is 10 years older than I am. So, if he can keep the pace, I guess I can," George added with a hearty high-pitched laugh.

Like Benedict, George supports the strict interpretation of Church laws. But theologically speaking, he doesn't feel a deeper kinship with his boss because of that.

"I don't think there's any substantial difference at all between the two popes," he said, referring to Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II.

There is, however, a well-documented difference in personalities.

"Pope John Paul II was a more outgoing man," George said. "[Benedict] is a more introverted man, a more studious man. So, you stick close to the ideas in this case. And if you want to talk about ideas, he's really very good. He's an interesting speaker." <snip>

George agreed that there's a "certain truth" to the notion that people are drawn more to Benedict's words than his actions.

Those words, of course, aren't universally lauded. Far from it.

In a society of varying and ever-shifting mores, Benedict's unapologetically hard-line (critics say harsh) views on such issues as homosexuality and embryonic stem cell research stand defiantly apart. They don't fit.

That's a nice touch, the inclusion of "(critics say harsh)". Yeah, well, what's new? Is the reporter afraid that if he includes too much nice stuff about the Pope, he might get some heat for it? Regardless, here is the excellent ending:

In the same way, neither does the morally absolutist Catholic Church. According to George, that's as it should be -- as it always has been.

"The Church's mission is to convert the world to Jesus Christ," he said, "not to create a spiritual club where people can feel good about themselves. So, that creates tensions. Some people live in such a way that it creates resentments. 'Who are you to judge me?' "

What, then, can the pope say during his visit to ease those tensions and resentments? Or as a recent edition of U.S. News & World report put it, can he "calm his troubled flock?"

"His primary rule is to strengthen the faith of that flock, troubled or untroubled," George said. "So, it's not just a question of calming people. I'm not sure what that means. If it means keep them settled in their ways, well, he's not going to do that. He's going to call us to conversion, and that's his job."

Or, as Fr. Mitch Pacwa likes to say, "God is in management. I'm in sales." And, ultimately, the same is true even for the Pope. He doesn't have the ability or the authority to "calm" people by remaking, revising, and otherwise flipping Church dogma and doctrine. The point is made with some flair by Mark Steyn:

The root of the Pope's thinking - that there are eternal truths no one can change even if one wanted to - is completely incomprehensible to the progressivist mindset. There are no absolute truths, everything's in play, and by "consensus" all we're really arguing is the rate of concession to the inevitable: abortion's here to stay, gay marriage will be here any day now, in a year or two it'll be something else - it's all gonna happen anyway, man, so why be the last squaresville daddy-o on the block?

Oh—Steyn is referring to Pope John Paul II; the above quote is from a 2005 article. I came across while doing some searches, inspired by a brief post on Bettnett.com about the media's papal template. Part of the template is, in reporting on Benedict XVI's approaching visit to the U.S., to talk about how warm, outgoing, charismatic, fun-loving, and engaging was Pope John Paul II (all true, btw), and to act as though, golly, the MSM just looooooved the late Holy Father. But, of course, that wasn't really the case. For example, this from The Guardian back in April 2005:

He inherited a church still struggling to find its way in a rapidly changing world. Industrialisation, urbanisation and totalitarianism had all challenged the traditional authority structures of a church which, for centuries, had relied on a faithful rural peasantry and a biddable hierarchy. The Vatican councils had unleashed a powerful ferment of reform. The Polish pontiff's response was to revolutionise the papacy while imposing a disciplinary iron grip on the institution and its teachings. He boasted of his "rigidity", a throwback to a tradition of unchanging consistency. By the end, the doctrinaire, authoritarian pontiff was the predominant perception in western Europe, and it crowded out quite how radical this papacy has also been. <snip>

Such mixed interpretations of John Paul II make him one of the most complex and paradoxical figures of his era: he humanised and modernised his office, but not his church. His uncompromising teaching contributed to the decimation of the church in its European heartland, but also to its extraordinary continuing vitality in the developing world.

And what about Benedict XVI? Complex! Paradoxical! Uncompromising! Dogmatic! Authoritarian! Rigid! A disciplinarian!

• "Catholic League: Spinning the Pope's Visit", by William Donohue of the Catholic League (April 8, 2008)
 

You don't have to be an expert on Martin Luther to guess...

... that this isn't what he had in mind back in the 1520s (ht: Sheryl):

The Lutheran Feminist/Womanist/Mujerista Movement exists to celebrate the feminine persona of God/dess and dimensions of the sacred as expressed in faith, worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice.

<snip>

Re-imaging God is very Lutheran – Luther re-imaged God from the traditional angry God (Jesus) with a sword in one hand and a lily in the other while seated above people being sent to hell.  Via scripture and reason and trust, Luther re-imaged a loving God of grace and forgiveness.

Luther, it should be pointed out, once said, "By God's grace, I know Satan very well. If Satan can turn God's Word upside down and pervert the Scriptures, what will he do with my words -- or the words of others?" A great question for the experts, no doubt.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Hey, let's "hope" so!

Some guy once wrote—and I quote:

Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

And the Catholic Church, following the lead of St. Paul and the other Apostles, declares:

Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 643)

Well, hey, what do they know? Not as much as Barbara Nixon—at least if you believe Nixon—who is pastor of United Methodist Church in Junction City, Oregon, and author of this, um, hopeful column in today's edition of The Register-Guard. A friend read it and sent me the following examination, using one of my favorite exegetical methods: perturbed commonsensical sarcasm. His comments in plain type; Nixon's in italics:

Did you read the "guest column" on the religion page in today's R-G?

Easter Sunday, with its church celebrations, family dinners, egg hunts, bunnies and baskets, has passed. As a pastor, I am well aware that people who celebrate the holiday enjoy it many different ways. More importantly, they celebrate many different perspectives on the meaning of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Some Christians see this quite literally as the culminating miracle from God, following Jesus’ great sacrifice to put things right between God and humanity. At the other end of the spectrum are those who understand it as a grand metaphor for the rebirth that can happen in anyone — this, also a miracle from God. Between the totally literal and the highly metaphorical lie all the variations of belief about what happened and what is believed about it.

Darn those Gospels!  They're so cryptic! Why don't they just tell us what the resurrection means? And even St. Paul doesn't shed any light on this event!

Christians do not speak in one voice about the Resurrection.

But more particularly so if you're a "Christian" who is a Methodist pastor.

Personally, my understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection rises from the story itself.

Aha! Very clever of her.  Without her personal understanding, we'd be bereft.

Jesus was clearly an extraordinary teacher and healer.

Some, who are not Methodists, even call Him "Son of God."  Which doesn't seem to take away anything from His teaching and healing.

His words and actions attracted people who were oppressed, disabled, discouraged, outcast and demonized. Life was hard. Times were tough. He did what he could to fill hungry bellies and heal broken bodies.

Yeah, and too bad He couldn't do more. But He not only helped the "demonized", He actually

cast out demons, and even brought the dead back to life.

He preached about “the kingdom of God.” He brought encouragement and hope.

Preach it, pastor! He also forgave sins, and said that those who believe in Him, even if they die, shall live forever.  Oh, sorry; that's probably not appropriate to bring up about Easter.

Now, the people who followed Jesus, I imagine, were a bit like me.

True.  They weren't 100% Christians until they received the gift of the Holy Spirit.  That's when they began to preach about Jesus.  I bet she going to do the same, one of these days.

When I am hopeful, I begin to picture the future as I would like it to be. So for many, “the kingdom of God” meant that Jesus would overthrow the Roman government and reign as a prince of peace, ending their oppression. They considered him to be a revolutionary.

Others had no idea what to expect but they pinned all their hopes for a better life on him. He had many followers who simply knew that things just had to get better with him around!

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; she's hot on the Gospel message now!  Things go better with Jesus!

So when Jesus was arrested and executed by Rome, I can appreciate how horrified they must have been. Not only were they grieved and frightened, but they had truly lost all hope. It was hope that died on the cross.

I thought it was Jesus Who died on the cross.  But I'm not Methodist, so perhaps there's a difference with those people.

I can imagine this because of difficult moments in my own life when my hopes — my visions for the future — have been dashed by the unexpected. The deaths of my husband and my sister in a short season not only grieved me, it left me with full responsibility for my aging parents and my young adult children.

She too has been crucified.

I felt paralyzed with hopelessness. And it is in that place where I didn’t have a clue how to move forward, that God surprised me — not with what I had pictured for my life, not with an easy road by any means, but with a journey that has been beautiful in ways I never imagined.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him, can have a beautiful journey."

So, if the death of Jesus was the death of hope (literally, metaphorically or something in between), then the resurrection of Jesus is God’s promise of unimaginable possibilities in the midst of our lives, no matter what.

I think it's wise that she allows for many options here. The early Church was kind of backwards in not doing the same.  They probably would have attracted more members more quickly, if they had only told people that they didn't really know for sure what the death of Christ meant, but nevertheless, if you're willing to suffer martyrdom for His sake, your life will be full of unimaginable possibilities....as long as you're still alive, that is.

Barbara Nixon is pastor of United Methodist Church in Junction City, a congregation of followers of Jesus who respect and uphold all spiritual paths that lead to living in the love of God.

Well, at least there is truth in advertising here.  She doesn't claim to be pastor of a real Christian church.  You can't hold this congregation down to those limiting and antiquated "I am the way, and the truth and the life" words of Christ, Who was so busy attracting people to believe in hope.

For more about why the "grand metaphor for the rebirth" doesn't hold up to intelligent scrutiny, check out the DVD, "Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?" Those who would like to learn much less about the Resurrection can go here.

• Benedict reflects on the "certainty and joy of Christ's resurrection" | March 26, 2008