CrossCurrents A
Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
# 166 Bernard
F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
The Literal Truth—
Or The Whole Truth?
I am not the kind of person who is
easily shocked, but it happens once
in a while, and it happened this week.
After writing last week about the growing
crisis over interpreting the Bible, I was planning to move on this week to
reflections about church attendance.
But in my research I came across a study by the Rasmussin Reports (a
top-ranked public opinion research web-site) that has my attention fixed on
Biblical issues all over again.
LetÕs see if this shocks you too
Last week, I pointed out the growing split
between Christians who read the Bible literally and those who read it
critically. I observed that the
literal approach is more popular even though scholars since the late 19th
century have promoted the critical approach. I further observed that we Catholics,
since Vatican II, tend to get caught in the middle as we try to make Catholic
faith more Bible-based.
The Rasmussin Report, a survey from July,
2006 focused on church attendance, but also provided startling data on Biblical
literacy.
It turns out that 54% of all Americans
believe the Bible is literally true, 32% do not believe the Bible is literally
true, and 13% are not sure.
This majority of all Americans (not just
Christians) who believe the Bible is literally true seems to be especially
prominent among various groups many church leaders would praise. Among weekly churchgoers, for example, the
Òliterally trueÓ believers make up 74%.
They also Òoverwhelmingly supportÓ a traditional definition of
marriage—while those who doubt the BibleÕs literal truth strongly support
recognizing same-sex marriage.
In other words, these Òliterally trueÓ
believers represent the backbone of much of what conservatives think of as
traditional values. And they also
make up the backbone of church membership. Literally true believers make up 85%of all evangelicals, 55%
of all other Protestants—and 53% of all Catholics!
So whatÕs so shocking about this?
If these statistics are accurate, it turns
out that a majority of
Catholics believe the Bible is literally true even though the Church they
belong to teaches no such thing!
Worse yet, the percentage is even higher among regular church-goers. This means
that the more involved Catholics are in the Church, the more likely they are to
be wrong about the Bible! ItÕs not as if these people are wrong-headed on the
Bible because they are Church drop-outs. ItÕs as if, the more religious they
are, the more wrong they get!
I canÕt help wondering: where did they get
their wrong ideas, and what effect does it have on their faith and on parish life?
ItÕs true of course that many parts of the
Bible can be read literally, and
always have been. But that does not mean we can read the whole Bible as
literally true.
As early as 594, Pope Gregory I pointed
out that a literal reading cannot fit all Biblical passages:
At times they cannot be understood
literally because, when the obvious meaning is taken, they engender in readers
not instruction but errorÉ in some instances, also, the words themselves
militate against the possibility of their literal interpretation.
One specific example: in 1909, the Pontifical
Biblical Commission proclaimed that the word ÒDayÓ in the Book of Genesis (which
depicts God creating the world in six ÒdaysÓ) Òmay be taken either in the
strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a
certain space of time.Ó
Last week I pointed out that, by the
beginning of the 20th century, Catholic Biblical scholarship had
fallen well behind Protestant attempts to develop a method for bridging the
huge historical and cultural gap between the Biblical texts and modern readers.
But in 1943 Pope Pius XIIÕs Divino Afflante Spiritu approved Catholic attempts to catch up to the
historical-critical approach:
Let the interpreter then, with all care and without
neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the
particular character and circumstance of the sacred writer, the age in which he
lived, the source written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of
expression he implored. Thus he can better understand who was the inspired
author, and what he wishes to express by his writings.
Today the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly calls for critical, not literal, reading of
the Bible:
In order to discover the sacred authorsÕ
intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture,
the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking,
and narrating then current.
And Vatican IIÕs declaration on divine
revelation, The Word of God,
explains why only critical reading can get at the truth that Sacred Scripture
expresses:
For the fact is that truth is
differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing,
in prophetic goal and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.
Of course, in recent years the growth of
Christian fundamentalism has made a literal Bible reading more popular in the
U.S., and perhaps many Catholics have been seduced by that popularity. But in
1993 the Pontifical Biblical Commission noted just how dangerous this can be:
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous,
for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready-made 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.
So two things are unmistakable: the Catholic Church does not
believe the Bible is literally true, but most of its members do!
Why should this trouble me so much? After all, there are many issues on
which Catholics disagree with the Church. The majority of American Catholics do
not believe that contraception is always morally wrong; many Catholics believe
that abortion can sometimes be justified; many Catholics believe that same-sex
marriage should be legal.
But none of these issues occupies the
center of Catholic tradition the way the Bible does. Even more importantly, in
all these other cases people know just what theyÕre doing: they know the church disapproves of contraception, and
abortion, and same-sex marriage, and they choose to dissent from that teaching.
But this Bible issue is different. My
parish work convinces me that if a majority of Catholics believe the Bible as literally
true, it is not because theyÕre dissenting from Church teaching—itÕs just
because they donÕt even know what that teaching is!
How could this be? After 40 years of
hearing the Biblical texts in English at Mass? After 40 years of preaching
inspired by Vatican II? After 40 years of religious education dedicated to
Church renewal? After 40 years of proclaiming that Catholics are now finally
free to read their own Bibles? Is it really possible that for 40 years weÕve
been breeding closet fundamentalists among our own flock?
Vatican II made it clear that Biblical literacy
was indispensable to a renewed faith and a renewed Church. But this is not what
the Council fathers wanted. If Catholics have gone from Biblical illiteracy to Biblical literalism, then the last 40 years have done more harm than
good—and we face an urgent challenge to reverse our course.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006
Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com
Dr. SwainÕs
opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.
Bernie Swain has
devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US,
Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer,
teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious
organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy
Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.
His writings include Liberating
Leadership (Harper & Row, 1986)
and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic
Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot,
Harvard Theological Review, and
Liturgy.
A lifelong layperson,
he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:
CrossCurrents
Is a weekly subscription
service for parish websites.
Individual Subscriptions
are also available.
For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183