letters from our readers

Fr. Raymond Brown
and Catholic dogma

Editor: Rev. Philip M. Stark’s defense of Fr. Raymond E. Brown’s orthodoxy (HPR, Aug.-Sept. 1999) is based principally on the consistent approval given to the late biblical scholar by Vatican authorities, who secured his appointment for two terms as a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

    While such approval would seem to create a strong presumption in favor of Brown’s orthodoxy, I believe that such a presumption is overturned by the hard evidence of Brown’s clearly and constantly expressed positions and their equally clear contrast with two doctrines infallibly proposed by the Catholic Church’s universal and ordinary magisterium: (a) that the Holy Spirit—who cannot err—is the simultaneous author of everything affirmed by the Biblical writers; and (b) that the canonical Gospels “always” (not just “usually” or “sometimes”) tell us what is historically true about Jesus (cf. Dei Verbum 11 and 19, with their accompanying official footnote references).

    To cling to an initial presumption in favor of Brown in the face of these facts, one would have to sustain the absurd position—dogmatically, biblically, historically and rationally untenable—that Catholics should decide the meaning of papal encyclicals and the dogmatic constitutions of ecumenical councils on the basis of subsequent appointments and administrative action (or inaction) on the part of Vatican authority, instead of evaluating the wisdom of such decisions in light of an independent, scholarly exegesis of those magisterial documents themselves. (Scripture itself shows us that when it comes to practical decisions, Popes themselves—never mind their Vatican advisers!—can err seriously. Look at the example of St. Peter himself in Matt. 26:69-75 and Gal. 2:11-14.)

    Fr. Brown was an exegete, not a dogmatic theologian. My own recently awarded doctorate in Theology (summa cum laude, from a Pontifical Roman university) is precisely on the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to Sacred Scripture, as expressed and confirmed in the conciliar and post-conciliar documents of Vatican II and their chief signatory, Pope Paul VI. My research has persuaded me that Fr. Brown’s undoubted erudition in Scriptural matters, far from guaranteeing him any special competence to interpret the relevant Roman documents, as Fr. Stark supposes, made him a far from impartial judge of what those documents really mean and teach. Like countless other post-Enlightenment exegetes of all denominations, Brown had become convinced by his own brand of historical-critical “science” that the Biblical writers sometimes make mistaken affirmations, and that parts of the Gospels very probably belong to certain less-than-historical literary genres. But since, by all accounts, he was also strongly motivated to remain a loyal Catholic as well as a “critical” exegete, Brown seems to have been unable to resist the temptation to indulge in “concordism,” i.e., to translate and read the pertinent magisterial documents with a strong liberal bias, so as to harmonize them at all costs with his own “scientific findings.” Unfortunately, the Catholic Biblical “establishment” since Vatican II has generally followed him in this.

    I suspect that the harm which Raymond Brown has unwittingly done to the Church and to souls has been more grievous than that done by theologians more outspokenly liberal than Brown himself, precisely because the “moderation” and “nuances” with which he sugar-coated his pernicious doctrinal principles made his work seem responsible and orthodox to many high-ranking bishops and cardinals who would never have been swayed by the more blatant (although perhaps more logically consistent) biblical skepticism of those such as Küng, Boff, Schillebeeckx, Knitter, or Drewermann.

Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
Ponce, Puerto Rico

Mary, the wife of Joseph

Editor: Fr. John Hillier (November 1999) says, “Pregnant out of wedlock: Mary was pregnant without a husband. The town folks must have murmured. Imagine walking through the market in Nazareth that day . . . Jewish law stated that such a woman should be stoned. But what did Mary do?”

    St. Matthew in chapter 1, v. 19 refers to Joseph “before they came together” as “Mary’s HUSBAND.” In v. 20, the Angel tells Joseph, “Do not fear to take Mary YOUR WIFE . . .” and v. 24 says, “Joseph took his WIFE. . . .” All this, remember, “before they came together.”

    My Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Thos. Nelson 1951, Imprimatur the Archdiocese of Westminster) says on p. 855, “Betrothal in Jewish law conferred the status of HUSBAND and WIFE (hence the terms in v. 19, 20 and 24). A child conceived during this period was regarded as legitimate unless disowned, but the marriage was regarded as incomplete until the husband formally ‘took possession’ of his bride by taking her to his home. This he was free to do at any time.”

    After discussing possibilities open to Joseph, the commentary continues, “There remained a third possibility; to celebrate the ‘taking possession’ and thus acknowledge the child as his own. From this, evidently, Joseph shrank; perhaps because it would put him publicly in a false position. The angel reassured him. He could now without scruple adopt this course because the child, though not his, was his more than any man’s. It was the child of his betrothed.”

    In any case, at the time of this incident reported by St. Matthew, Mary would have been only three or four months pregnant, and in the clothes of the time the fact would hardly have been noticeable. By the time it was generally noticed or known, Joseph had “taken Mary his WIFE to his home” and completed the marriage that had already taken place.

Mrs. Doris Martyr
Attadale, Western Australia

The scandal of church-promoted casino gambling

Editor: Msgr. Wm. Smith (December HPR, p. 69-70) is due our gratitude for his careful treatment of the scandal of Church-promoted casino gambling in Colorado. But there are serious, additional reasons why this squalid business must end.

    Dr. James Dobson, an evangelical Protestant who served on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, has concluded: “Clearly, gambling is a destroyer that ruins lives and wrecks families. A mountain of evidence presented to our Commission demonstrates a direct link between problem and pathological gambling and divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, crime and suicide. . . . Gambling is especially dangerous to the young who are enticed by exciting and risky behaviors.” The Family Research Council has arrived at similar conclusions.

    Secondly, Catholic bishops’ conferences in North Dakota, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Missouri are among those vigorously opposing the expansion of gambling as lethal, both to civil society and to Catholic culture. For our Church in Colorado to promote school and parish casino bus tours is to dissipate her moral authority and to undermine the unity of witness to which our Holy Father calls each of us.

    Finally, Church-sponsored casino tours ignore and contradict the dignity and radical demands of the lay vocation as beautifully presented by our Holy Father in the apostolic exhortation Christifideles Laici. George Weigel writes in his biography of the Holy Father (Witness to Hope, p. 555), “. . . Christifideles Laici would seem to be a document well in advance of current Catholic thinking. There is a sense in which Catholic clergy and laity alike are unprepared for the kind of Church John Paul II envisions in this bold proposal. If and when the life of the Church catches up with Christifideles Laici, that fact will alter the face of world Catholicism. . . .”

Michael T. Barry
Colorado Springs, Colo.

Thick and clear defended

Editor: While Ms. Bickford (Letters, 12/99) asks some interesting questions about the “thick/clear” thesis of Mr. Storck, Mr. Storck’s theory seems to be perfectly synchronized with the teaching of Pope St. Pius X on (of all things) sacred music. I maintain that the Pope’s formulation applies to far more than sacred music, and that Mr. Storck has an outstanding insight.

    The Pope’s writing on sacred music often contains the formula that “. . . [sacred music should] . . . elevate the minds and hearts of the Faithful to God.” This is quite specific and clear, and the conjunction “and” is very significant. What he means is that the music should be intellectually rigorous and emotionally satisfying. The further the music departs from this balance (in either direction), the less suitable it is for worship. Late Schoenberg, for example, is far too intellectual; some currently favored cloying “Jesus Loves Me” offerings are similarly handicapped from the emotional end.

    Making the formula more generalized, we could argue that a purely intellectual study of Scriptures could lead to several errors (and in fact, another 12/99 letter makes just that point). On the other hand, there are many who love the “smells and bells” of the Roman liturgy but refuse to acknowledge the hard truths therein, such as the Transubstantiation.

    It is reasonable to conclude that, while the “perfect middle” is difficult to identify, and that there is some latitude surrounding this “perfect middle” for sound faith, the further one gets toward intellectual abstrusity or emotional faddism, the more danger of heresy or at least myopia regarding the “fullness” of truth. Recall that Chesterton referred to the “chariot swaying wildly, but still erect”; this was, I think, his way of describing the acceptable latitude surrounding the perfect balance.

    Pace Ms. Bickford—Mr. Storck has a very fine theory which should be further developed. Just a dash of pepper here. . . .

Lawrence A. Stich
Brookfield, Wis.

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents March 2000