Dragons and Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Penance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Penance

Guest
I’m wondering for a time now if catholics should believe in dragons, and is it a holy creature or a diabolical one. ?

I’ve been taught that dragons are associated with the devil until such time I read a passage of the book of Job where God marvels about His creation which is the Leviathan. Reading the description would conclude that the Leviathan is somewhat a dragon due to its fire-breathing attribute.

What do you think? What is the church’s stand to this?
 
Dragons are mythical creatures. Catholics do not believe in mythical creatures. There are likely some real animals on earth that have dragon-like characteristics such as the Komodo dragon, and we can of course believe in those.

The Church does not have an official stance on them because the Church does not take positions on fantasy and mythology.

Symbolically, dragons in literature and art often symbolize evil that menaces humans and must be slain, just like unicorns symbolize goodness and purity that must not be slain.
But it would be fine for a fiction writer to write about a good friendly dragon (like kids’ cartoons have already done dozens of times) or an evil unicorn.
The Church doesn’t care. It is busy dealing with reality.
 
Last edited:
I think in general the references are to the serpent - Satan, or to the monster - Leviathan. We believe in Komodo dragons, though.
 
Then is it safe to say that the book of Job is not true and is a mere fantasy?
 
But God created the Leviathan as read in the book of Job. Is it also the devil? God seems to marvel at His created Leviathan.
 
Penance said:
But God created the Leviathan as read in the book of Job. Is it also the devil? God seems to marvel at His created Leviathan.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said… I said the dragon refers to Leviathan, too. No, it’s not Satan as it was destroyed and fed to the untamed beasts.
 
The Old Testament, including the book of Job, is full of parable, metaphor, folkloric characters from Jewish tradition, etc. These are Jewish literature traditions that those who wrote the Scripture and read it at a contemporary time would have understood. We are not required to take every folkloric story from the OT literally. We can if we want but the Church doesn’t require it, and it might be a more intelligent approach to read commentary on what a dragon would have actually meant in the context of the writing at the time it was written.

The presence of folkloric or parable/ metaphor elements doesn’t detract from the very real story of a man who suffered horrible tragedies in his life and was wondering why God would do this to him. There may well have been an actual man named Job who suffered tragedies and went through some real life experiences similar to what is described. If there wasn’t an actual Job, then there are certainly people every day on this earth since Adam’s fall who are going through awful losses and events and illnesses and having much the same experience as Job.

Try to read what the Scripture is actually saying instead of getting hung up on a dragon.

I would add that this depth of understanding needed in reading the Scripture is a big reason why the Catholic Church cautions us against just sitting around individually interpreting the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Wew. So will you agree to say that the book of Job is purely fictional? Did the church decide for it to be fictional?
 
I’ve read the whole book of Job and what it tried to imply. What bothers me is that in the book, God highlights 2 of His creatures that He takes pride of. The Behemoth and the Leviathan. If these 2 are just metaphor elements, then what does it imply?
 
Once again:
The Church does not require us to take the Book of Job literally. You can if you want. You can also understand it as a “literary composition”. Or you can understand it as a literary composition based on true events - in other words, there was a guy named Job who suffered disaster but it didn’t happen exactly as it was described in the literary work.

The USCCB NABRE is biased towards NOT taking the Old Testament literally. There are various reasons for this bias but let’s just say the footnotes and commentary - which are NOT part of the sacred scripture themselves, and you can read other Catholic Bibles with different commentary - are rooted in the trend in the 1960s-70s to see the OT primarily as a “literary work”. There are some Catholics who disagree with this approach and DO take it literally. The Church does not take an official position on this, in other words does not tell Catholics “you cannot take it literally” or “you must take it literally”.

Nevertheless I think it is safe to say that even one believes the underlying events were somehow true, there’s a lot of room for literary device such as metaphor, parable, folkloric traditions in recounting the story. Which could also be what the USCCB means when it says “This is a literary composition…” etc.
 
Last edited:
Penance said:
God highlights 2 of His creatures that He takes pride of. The Behemoth and the Leviathan. If these 2 are just metaphor elements, then what does it imply?
Click to expand...
The footnotes in the USCCB discuss the meaning of the Behemoth and Leviathan:

bible.usccb.org

Job, CHAPTER 40

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
bible.usccb.org bible.usccb.org

For additional perspectives, the Haydock Bible lists a number of older Catholic Bible commentaries on the Behemoth here:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/haydock/job/40.htm

And on the Leviathan here:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/haydock/job/3.htm

And also here:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/haydock/job/41.htm
 
Last edited:
Their commentaries doesn’t seem to satisfy the decription of these creatures in the book of Job. I have also never seen these commentaries. I see that the church has no solid stand to this. So does it mean to say that we catholics are free to decide if the book of Job is fictional or not? And we are not sinning if I believe or deny the existence of these creatures?
 
Penance said:
I read a passage of the book of Job
Click to expand...
Also remember that the Catholic version of Esther starts with a dream that includes a battle between two dragons. As explained at the end of the book, one of the dragons represented Mordecai (who is good) and one represented Haman (who is evil).

So I’d say dragons can be used in literature to represent whatever we want. The Scripture itself doesn’t take a definitive good/evil stance.

Edit: And to add, even if we just Revelation’s dragon, I wouldn’t say that we need to always see them as evil. The imagery of things like serpents and dragons in Scripture is going to reflect how people of the original culture saw them and how those creatures were portrayed in the literature around them. It doesn’t necessarily mean God wanted them to always be portrayed as evil creatures in literature.
 
Last edited:
Penance said:
Their commentaries doesn’t seem to satisfy the decription of these creatures in the book of Job.
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion, to which you are entitled and it’s okay with the Church.
I have also never seen these commentaries.
Click to expand...
Haydock Bible is a respected and accepted Catholic Bible edition. It is considered a bit old-fashioned, like the Douay, but it’s still all right with the Church.
I see that the church has no solid stand to this.
Click to expand...
Correct. The Church would prefer also that you focus on what God is saying to you through divinely inspired scripture, and not on whether a literal dragon existed, etc.
So does it mean to say that we catholics are free to decide if the book of Job is fictional or not?
Click to expand...
Correct. Like I said, it is more important to understand what God is teaching us through divinely inspiring the Book of Job to be written.
And we are not sinning if I believe or deny the existence of these creatures?
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top