M
Mailman
Guest
This is from the book “What is Catholicism? Hard Questions – Straight Answers” © 1999 by Rev. John Redford; Nihil Obstat: Rev. Anton Cowan, Censor Librorum; Imprimatur: Rev. David Norris.
In answer to the question of whether or not the new Catechism [in other words, the Catholic Church] has fallen back to fundamentalism, Redford writes:
“The essence of fundamentalism is the essential historicization of every story in the Bible… For the fundamentalist, to say that the Bible is true means essentially that it must all be factual and historical. It cannot accept the fact that God, in speaking to us as human beings, might speak to us in parable or story form…
“The fundamentalist cannot accept the possibility that an account might appear to be factual (e.g., the story of Job in the book of that name) while in reality it is a fictional poem or story with a moral…
“The fundamentalist cannot accept the possibility that some passages of Scripture are historical, and others not; and that it is not always easy to tell the difference. For example, did the writer of Genesis intend for us to accept the six days of creation literally? Or could it be that he was writing symbolically, and that the scientific view that the world took millions of years to create is not incompatible with a Christian view of creation?”
Describing the approach taken by the new Catechism, Redford continues:
“…the new Catechism could never be seen as fundamentalist, at least in essence…
“What also contradicts any possible fundamentalism in the new Catechism is its affirmation from Dei Verbum of the fact that, in Catholic faith, not only is God the author of Scripture, but the human writers are themselves true authors (CCC 106). Once the human authorship is admitted, then the existence of different literary forms springing from the cultural and historical context of the human authors becomes immediately possible.
“What sometimes gives the impression of fundamentalism in the Catechism is that figures particularly of the Old Testament are described as if their historical existence was itself a matter of faith… But the Catechism never teaches: “Noah and Abraham actually existed.” It simply tells their story, relating it to the history of salvation before Christ…
“… the new Catechism is equally clear when it wishes to assert unambiguously the historicity of certain events, for example the virginal conception of Jesus (CCC 498), and his bodily resurrection (CCC 643). The very assertion of the historicity of these events again underlines the non-fundamentalism of the new Catechism. If the whole of the Bible was seen as univocally factually and historical, then there would be no need to assert the historicity of the miraculous event in Jesus’ life. But, on the contrary, the Catechism wishes to make clear the historicity of certain events related to our salvation, whose factuality is questioned in modern exegesis, while leaving freedom of research concerning the discussion regarding the historicity of other stories in the Bible.”
It is clear that the RCC has no official stand regarding the historicity of the many stories in the OT [including that of Noah] and that Catholics have the freedom to believe what they want on such matters. It is therefore not surprising to see many divergent views from the posters here.
I think Corki’s view is more in line with the teaching of the RCC. He is right in saying “Catholics are permitted to believe the story of Noah as a factual recounting or as an allegorical teaching.”
However, his next statement, “but not fiction or myth,” is a contradiction in terms. A fictional story is something that has not actually happened (not factual or historical). An allegory belongs to that category. When a story is not factual or historical, then it must be fiction. It does not matter if it has some hidden spiritual meaning, or some moral lesson can be learned from it (as in a parable), for as long as it has not actually happened, it is fiction.
Notice what Redford says about the story of Job. It “might appear to be factual while in reality it is a fictional poem or story with a moral….” When a story is not factual then it could not be anything else but fictional. As the OP asks, “Fact or Fiction?”
In answer to the question of whether or not the new Catechism [in other words, the Catholic Church] has fallen back to fundamentalism, Redford writes:
“The essence of fundamentalism is the essential historicization of every story in the Bible… For the fundamentalist, to say that the Bible is true means essentially that it must all be factual and historical. It cannot accept the fact that God, in speaking to us as human beings, might speak to us in parable or story form…
“The fundamentalist cannot accept the possibility that an account might appear to be factual (e.g., the story of Job in the book of that name) while in reality it is a fictional poem or story with a moral…
“The fundamentalist cannot accept the possibility that some passages of Scripture are historical, and others not; and that it is not always easy to tell the difference. For example, did the writer of Genesis intend for us to accept the six days of creation literally? Or could it be that he was writing symbolically, and that the scientific view that the world took millions of years to create is not incompatible with a Christian view of creation?”
Describing the approach taken by the new Catechism, Redford continues:
“…the new Catechism could never be seen as fundamentalist, at least in essence…
“What also contradicts any possible fundamentalism in the new Catechism is its affirmation from Dei Verbum of the fact that, in Catholic faith, not only is God the author of Scripture, but the human writers are themselves true authors (CCC 106). Once the human authorship is admitted, then the existence of different literary forms springing from the cultural and historical context of the human authors becomes immediately possible.
“What sometimes gives the impression of fundamentalism in the Catechism is that figures particularly of the Old Testament are described as if their historical existence was itself a matter of faith… But the Catechism never teaches: “Noah and Abraham actually existed.” It simply tells their story, relating it to the history of salvation before Christ…
“… the new Catechism is equally clear when it wishes to assert unambiguously the historicity of certain events, for example the virginal conception of Jesus (CCC 498), and his bodily resurrection (CCC 643). The very assertion of the historicity of these events again underlines the non-fundamentalism of the new Catechism. If the whole of the Bible was seen as univocally factually and historical, then there would be no need to assert the historicity of the miraculous event in Jesus’ life. But, on the contrary, the Catechism wishes to make clear the historicity of certain events related to our salvation, whose factuality is questioned in modern exegesis, while leaving freedom of research concerning the discussion regarding the historicity of other stories in the Bible.”
It is clear that the RCC has no official stand regarding the historicity of the many stories in the OT [including that of Noah] and that Catholics have the freedom to believe what they want on such matters. It is therefore not surprising to see many divergent views from the posters here.
I think Corki’s view is more in line with the teaching of the RCC. He is right in saying “Catholics are permitted to believe the story of Noah as a factual recounting or as an allegorical teaching.”
However, his next statement, “but not fiction or myth,” is a contradiction in terms. A fictional story is something that has not actually happened (not factual or historical). An allegory belongs to that category. When a story is not factual or historical, then it must be fiction. It does not matter if it has some hidden spiritual meaning, or some moral lesson can be learned from it (as in a parable), for as long as it has not actually happened, it is fiction.
Notice what Redford says about the story of Job. It “might appear to be factual while in reality it is a fictional poem or story with a moral….” When a story is not factual then it could not be anything else but fictional. As the OP asks, “Fact or Fiction?”