Hey Jude...ussss

Several gallons of ink, both real and cyber-based, have now been spent upon the recent news that a controversial British author/politician and a Catholic priest/biblical scholar with a tenuous relationship with orthodox beliefs have co-authored a novel that "rehabilitates" Judas—that is, makes him the victim of some sort of conspiracy. Jeffrey Archer and Fr. Frank Moloney collaborated on the 96-pages novel titled, The Gospel According to Judas (by Benjamin Iscariot). The London Times proclaimed, "Pope gives blessing to gospel of Jeffrey Archer," and stated:

The Catholic Church is taking Lord Archer’s book seriously because it is co-authored by Professor Francis J. Moloney, a scholar who is head of the Salesian religious order in Australia and who has been a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission since 1984. Professor Moloney, a friend of the Pope, is considered by Roman prelates to be a leading authority on the Christian scriptures.

The book is an account and justification of Judas’s life and his betrayal of Christ written in the style of one of the three synoptic gospels by his supposed son, Benjamin. A senior Catholic source in England told The Times: “It is a wonderful story of forgiveness and mercy through the eyes of someone who never believed Jesus was God. Moloney has brought the four Gospels together into one. Even if only half of Jeffrey Archer’s readers buy the book, millions of people will read the Gospel for the first time.”

Turns out that most of this is skewed or wildly incorrect, as Father Paul Mankowski, S.J., explains in this piece for Catholic World News. He writes:

The following points are offered in correction of errors of fact, emphasis, or interpretation given in the English-speaking media: 

The Pope did not "bless" the Archer-Moloney novel.

The Pontifical Biblical Institute provided the bottled water at the speaker's rostrum for the Archer-Moloney press conference. Its scholars had nothing whatever to do with the book's content.

The Archer-Moloney novel was not "published with Vatican approval."

No biblical scholar, including my former colleague Father Frank Moloney, believes Father Frank Moloney to be "the world's greatest living biblical scholar."

Father Moloney is not "one of the Pope's top theological advisers."

The International Theological Commission, of which Father Moloney was a member, enjoys the same level of teaching authority as the Philatelic Office of the Holy See -- that's to say: zero.

The teaching of the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum (doc) §11 has not been abrogated.

In crudely commercial terms, the authors' choice of Rome as a launch-site and their promiscuous use of the words "Vatican" and "Pontifical" in their promotional efforts was a shrewd move. Hype apart, though, the notion that biblical scholarship or Church teaching has been advanced by the novel is unwarranted.

Father Moloney's insistence that certain miracles of Jesus recorded in the Gospels never really took place is a stance not compatible with Catholic orthodoxy (see Dei Verbum §19), though many heterodox scholars hold similar views. Nor are his judgments doubtful on purely fideistic grounds. The methodology he invokes to reject such miracles is the flimsiest of all critical tools for adjudicating claims of historicity, for the reason that there is almost never a way such a claim can be falsified. It's a game that almost anyone can play because almost no one can find a way to lose.

Amy Welborn asks, "Why did the Pontifical Biblical Institute accede to Moloney's request?" Indeed, why?! Does the PBI think that novels filled with claims contrary to Church teaching—not to mention sound scholarship—should now be not only taken seriously, but championed?

The book and all of the artificially constructed furor (marketing!) surrounding it is not just opportunistic (the promotion of books is hardly a sin, of course), but perverse in its desire to rewrite/reinterpret the Gospels, promote conspiracy theories, undermine Church teaching, and wrap it all in a cloak of pseudo-scholarship. Hey, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? That it is being done with the help of a Catholic biblical scholar is, frankly (ha!), pathetic. Meanwhile, the St. Martin's Press page for the book has this quote from Pope Benedict:

“The very name of ‘Judas’ raises among Christians an instinctive reaction of criticism and condemnation…The betrayal of Judas remains…a mystery.” —Pope Benedict XVI, October 20

Of course, the Holy Father is hardly in agreement with Archer/Moloney's novel claims, which include, according to this article in The Age, that Judas was framed:

In the book, Judas tries to save Jesus but the attempt fails and he is wrongly accused of betraying him. Some who've heard about this (which Archer describes as "totally my idea") assume that Archer, in trying to rehabilitate Judas, is hoping people will be encouraged to forgive his own sins, including his jailing in 2000 for perjury. Archer denies he's seeking any sort of redemption and says he's long mistrusted the New Testament view of Judas and first pitched the idea for this book to a publisher 15 years ago. Moloney talked to Archer about this during their collaboration, which included four long meetings. "I think there's a whole other side of Jeffrey Archer that's yet to emerge," he says. "The very fact that society at large regards him as somebody who's betrayed it in some way, (I suspect) he hopes that associating himself with this will say, 'There's more ways of understanding me.' "

One hardly needs to be a disciple of Freud to wonder at how so many scholars and novelists recreate Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and, now, Judas, to not only agree with their particular ideologies and heterodoxies, but to reflect their personalities. But Benedict, in speaking of Judas, insists that the Gospel writers' depictions of Judas's person and actions are accurate and point to the mysteries of evil and sin:

A second question deals with the motive of Judas' behaviour: why does he betray Jesus? The question raises several theories. Some refer to the fact of his greed for money; others hold to an explanation of a messianic order: Judas would have been disappointed at seeing that Jesus did not fit into his programme for the political-militaristic liberation of his own nation.

In fact, the Gospel texts insist on another aspect: John expressly says that "the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him" (Jn 13: 2). Analogously, Luke writes: "Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve" (Lk 22: 3).

In this way, one moves beyond historical motivations and explanations based on the personal responsibility of Judas, who shamefully ceded to a temptation of the Evil One.

Of course, talk of Satan and sin aren't too popular these days, and Archer/Moloney admit that they really don't want to get caught up in silly talk about the supernatural and the orthodox belief that Jesus was both man and God:

"I would hope that it throws into greater relief the human side of Jesus," [Moloney] says. "I have him smile. I have eliminated some of the more spectacular miracles that people have trouble accepting. What I've left in are the sort of things I think Jesus possibly did." So no walking on water, no turning water into wine. "It's a more realistic Jesus. It's a more human Jesus and I hope a more compassionate Jesus. I think the Christian Church at the moment is in desperate need of more compassion."

Eat your heart out, Dan Brown!

Moloney hopes the result will provoke useful discussion of Judas and encourage people to think again about the four familiar gospels, spurred in part by the contents of the 10 pages of notes included in the book. The money he makes will be used to build a secondary school in Samoa. It all sounds very promising. Is it possible Archer was sent to him by God? "I think so," Moloney says. "I'm at the end of my academic career and this is a remarkable thing, that after 40 years of thinking and writing at universities, suddenly Jeffrey Archer, who's published millions of books, asks me into his world to write something with him that will open the minds and hearts of many people to the message of Jesus."

And that message would be...what? That a compassionate Jesus who is only human and who didn't do most of what the Gospels said he did....likes me? Is my buddy? Wants to hug my inner child and toss sunshine on the sandbox of my soul? It's not clear. But it is revealing, I think, that Desmond Tutu says the Archer/Moloney anti-canonical concoction is "Riveting and plausible." Would he dare say the same thing about the actual Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? In light of this excitement over convenient fictions, we might reflect for a moment on these words of Benedict XVI, offered in his comments about Judas:

In effect, the possibilities to pervert the human heart are truly many. The only way to prevent it consists in not cultivating an individualistic, autonomous vision of things, but on the contrary, by putting oneself always on the side of Jesus, assuming his point of view. We must daily seek to build full communion with him.

Therein lies the choice: shall we try to see with the eyes of Christ, or through the eyes of a "rehabilitated"—that is, fictional—Judas? And, why does the "individualistic, autonomous vision of things" continue to entice and destroy? Could it be that the sway of Satan and the power of sin are still among us, leading others to also betray Jesus, in their own self-serving way?

Comments

[joe]

Just you wait. For Easter 2008, we'll read of new research proving that Judas and Mary Magdalen were married and their son was a gifted artist who created the Shroud of Turin, which his great grandson sold to the Knights Templar to cover his gambling debts with [insert name of Pope here], and then...

-J.

[Eric G.]

It is absolutely disgraceful that a) the Pontifical Biblical Institute gave space for the promotion of an explicitly and blatantly blasphemous work such as this, and that b) that Father Moloney remains a Catholic--let alone a priest!--in good standing with the Church.

There is simply no excuse for any of this, and the buck stops with the Holy Father himself.

The Holy Father has a moral obligation to a) issue an apology to the Catholic world for this scandal, b) discipline the moron who approved of this event, and c) and excommunicated Father Moloney if he will not recant his blatant heresies.

If the Holy Father does not do either of these things, he (once again!) shows himself to be utterly inept in his Pontifications. He can issue all the 100-page documents he likes; his actions, and what he tolerates under his nose, do not accord with his bombastic words, and they (rightly!) tarnish the image of the Church and her witness to the world.

How long will we Catholics put up with this destructive laissez-faire government by our pastors? Aside from prayer and fasting, we need to start putting the pressure on our pastors: "For the love of God, shape up or step down!"

This applies to our Pope as much as it does to, say, Cardinal Mahoney.

[Carl Olson]

How long will we Catholics put up with this destructive laissez-faire government by our pastors? Aside from prayer and fasting, we need to start putting the pressure on our pastors: "For the love of God, shape up or step down!"

This applies to our Pope as much as it does to, say, Cardinal Mahoney.

Luther would be proud...

[Eric G.]

That's a dishonest cheap shot, and you know it, Mr. Olson. I have not advocated a single heresy, nor have I suggested a course of action contrary to Church doctrine, canon law, or reason. You may dsiagree with me, but I think my commentary otherwise deserves respect.

I concede that I have often been given to hyperbole (Any wonder I'm a fan of Ann Coulter?), but I don't think anything I wrote above can be said to be unreasonable.

If the Holy Father *were* to do all I suggested (i.e. publicly rebuking the event, and disciplining the men who approved it along with Father Moloney), you and every other (orthodox) Catholic blogger would be the first to praise the Holy Father, and we'd hear all this talk of how the "tide was turning" and true reform was being at last manifesting itself in concrete actions.

But yet, we orthodox Catholics at the same time have an unfortunate tendency to "papism", whereby we blindly approve of everything a Pope does, and accuse those who would offer criticism of heresy and/or disobedience.

It's not as if our recent Papacies have an otherwise admirable and respectable track record in dealing with these kinds of things, such that we should give our pastors the benefit of the doubt in the exceptional instance when the ball is dropped.

The gross, immoral negligence of all the Popes since Paul VI (*especially* John Paul II vis-a-vis the sex abuse scandal) indicate a widespread patters of pastoral ineptitude at best, and at worst a two-faced complicity in the evils plaguing the Church.

Is it too much to ask that we stop adoring such manifest incompetency, that we stop making more out of these men's writings than are really there, and that we demand that these Pontiffs practice and enforece what they preach?

C'mon . . .

[Eric G.]

By the way, if Luther were as critical of the Papacy as he was, sand his heresy and sans his disobedience, he would today be venerated as a Saint.

And rightly so.

[Eric G.]

That should read: "sans his heresy and sans his disobedience"

[Carl Olson]

That's a dishonest cheap shot, and you know it, Mr. Olson.

No, not really. I do think that Luther would be proud. And, no, I didn't call you a heretic. I said, "Luther would be proud..." No more. No less. In other words, I'm highlighting the attitude; I'm not making a theological judgment.

BTW, as my post makes clear, I share your frustration. But there is another sort of "papism," in which it is assumed that the Pope should--must!--address this and that issue immediately and with swift, harsh punishment. Perhaps. But I don't think so. Anyhow, I'll see what others think of your ideas...

[Eric G.]

Mr. Olson:

"And, no, I didn't call you a heretic. I said, "Luther would be proud..." No more. No less."

Funny that you didn't say "Saint Catherine of Siena would be proud", "Saint Athanasius would be proud" or "Saint Paul would be proud". (Three examples of Christians who publicly rebuked their religious superiors)

You know darn well that beinging up Luther's name in this context carries with it certain connotations. It'd be sophistic of me to go up to just any charismatic speaker, tell him "Hitler would be proud", and say that I meant nothing offensive by it, that I meant nothing more than to comment on the person's charisma.

And for the life of me I can't see how it's papist to suggest that a religious superior should correct the public, scandalous behavior of a subordinate. Is it "paternalistic" to expect parents to rebuke out-of-control kids, or "authoritatian" to ask a presidential candidate to rebuke (even fire) open and notorious bigots on his staff?

In other words: I hold my Pope to a higher standard than I do my agnostic father and/or John Edwards.

I guess in today's church that makes one a papist . . .

[John Michael Keba]

"The Pontifical Biblical Institute provided the bottled water at the speaker's rostrum for the Archer-Moloney press conference. Its scholars had nothing whatever to do with the book's content."

And perhaps, in the interest of reciprocal stupidity, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Simon Wiesenthal Center can joint host a press conference and book signing for the Institute of Historical Review's next book.

[padraighh]

Remind me, when did St. Paul accuse St. Peter of ineptness and ask him to step down.

Also blaming JPII for the sex abuse scandals is a cheap shot as well.

[Dale Price]

Catholic Biblical Scholarship: Freeing the Bultmann Within Since 1965.

Really--when was the last time you saw anyone associated with the PBC support a Catholic distinctive? The assault on the historicity of the Gospels seems to be a membership requirement.

[Robert Miller]

Somehow the "sex abuse scandal" got injected into this thread.

So, since somebody brought it up, here's my take on it. The "scandal" is the persecution of the Church in the United States by the US government (through its courts and prosecutorial offices). The ultimate scandal is the submission of this country's bishops to the trial lawyers and moral idiots who moved these cases.

We need to fight this new laicist persecution of the Church with much better arguments than our bishops ("healing the hurts", etc. etc.)have been able to offer.

[Steven Cornett]

It seems to be the moral idiots who the bishops bent over to in dealing with this started with listening to the psychologists and secular "experts" instead of the centuries of moral teaching on the issue. I do recall that it was often on the advice of these "experts" that the offending clerics were freed to move to other parishes and re-offend.

In too many cases the Bishops are listening to secular experts in government, the legal profession, and the insurance industry (as in the "Talking about Touching" issue) and still not to the tradition of our church. Until that changes, this will only get worse, perhaps even resulting in churches closed and altars sacked by court order.

I also have to agree with Eric that our Pontiff should roundly and publicly condemn Fr. Moloney and Cardinal Martini (for his role in letting Moloney & Archer introduce the book in such a way meant to confuse, dishearten, and deceive many) and invite them to penance and prayer for their offenses. This seems to be one more case of the best lacking all conviction, while the worst of our enemies within (and without) work with passionate intensity against the Church and all we hold dear.