Fr. Witherup on Fundamentalism

[BayCityRickL]

I started another thread on Fr. Witherup’s book (Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know) but I seem to hae de-railed the subject myself.

Witherup summarizes a lot of criticism of fundamentalism and of fundamentalists. He even quotes Cardinal Ratzinger as condemning fundamentalism (which I shall define here using the words of the Pont. Bibl. Comm., that it is an interpretation of scripture that is too literal, that is “naively literal.”)

I am not a fundamentalist. But… What I see lacking in Witherup is a sense of excitement about scripture being God’s word. Isn’t that exciting?

It seem that Catholic “scholars” criticize the Bible because that is so in vogue, and there is a lot in the Bible to quibble about, for sure. People have done it for centuries.

To me, listening to people like Witherup criticize the Bible is like having a migraine headache. **Whatever problems exist in the Bible, we do accept that this is the text ** (assuming a reliable translation, which one should never take for granted – I sound nutty, don’t I?) that God has apparently given us for our guidance, education, and general edification

In other words, I’m echoing JPII in Crossing the Threshold of Hope where he says that people reject God because they reject the way God has chosen to reveal himself.

What seems to happen in modern Catholic biblical criticism is that people like Witherup cast doubt and skepticism on inspired scripture, and they (he) redirects us preferentially to books on biblical critism, as if the latter were the more trustworthy.

My most serious criticism of Witherup’s book, and I think everyone should take notice that his book published in 2001 does not have a reference or citation (as far as I could tell) to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism explains the Church’s teaching on the Bible to some extent, and it uses or refers to many passages in the Bible. How could any responsible and competent priest call his book “what every Catholic should know” and not mention the Catechism?

I just feel that Witherup has published his intellectual biases, and has ignored many revelent issues

 

[BayCityRickL]

The second part of my criticism of Witherup is this. He says it may not be worth the time and effort to talk (i.e. argue) with anyone who is a fundamentalist.

I’ve been accused of being a fundamentalist. The problem I have with being called a fundamentalist is when I am speaking of the literal word in scripture.

People like Witherup may jump up and down that some parts of scripture are not historical. He may be right. The problem is, what do we do with those words in scripture? I will state this in different words below.

Example. Suppose I go along and agree that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not literal history. So, there may have actually been no historical event that we would call the original sin. (Note: the Catechism says there are actually was, although the language of scripture is figurative.)

So, in different words, I’m just not so sure that arguing with fundamentalists makes any sense, if we still agree with them on the basic spiritual value of some section of scripture. In other words, it’s the dilemma of a distinction without a difference.

Protestants don’t use the term “original sin” as far as I know == they seem to dance around it. But, they accept the big picture idea of “the fall of mankind.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BayCityRickL:

I started another thread on Fr. Witherup’s book (Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know) but I seem to hae de-railed the subject myself.

Witherup summarizes a lot of criticism of fundamentalism and of fundamentalists. He even quotes Cardinal Ratzinger as condemning fundamentalism (which I shall define here using the words of the Pont. Bibl. Comm., that it is an interpretation of scripture that is too literal, that is “naively literal.”)

I am not a fundamentalist. But… What I see lacking in Witherup is a sense of excitement about scripture being God’s word. Isn’t that exciting?

It seem that Catholic “scholars” criticize the Bible because that is so in vogue, and there is a lot in the Bible to quibble about, for sure. People have done it for centuries.

“Criticism” in the phrase “Biblical criticism” does not mean “tearing the Bible to shreds; finding fault with the Bible”. “Criticism” has no pejorative meaning whatever in this context, although it does have this pejorative meaning in everyday speech: “criticism” is a semi-technical term, like so many others - such as “conversion”: a conversion in football is not the same kind of thing as a conversion to a religion; and “conversion of manners” is different again. It may be worth emphasising this.​

Literalism is part of the problem with Fundamentalism - but by no means all; and it is often very far from literal. But that’s BTW. ##

To me, listening to people like Witherup criticize the Bible is like having a migraine headache. **Whatever problems exist in the Bible, we do accept that this is the text **(assuming a reliable translation, which one should never take for granted – I sound nutty, don’t I?) that God has apparently given us for our guidance, education, and general edification

In other words, I’m echoing JPII in Crossing the Threshold of Hope where he says that people reject God because they reject the way God has chosen to reveal himself.

What seems to happen in modern Catholic biblical criticism is that people like Witherup cast doubt and skepticism on inspired scripture, and they (he) redirects us preferentially to books on biblical critism, as if the latter were the more trustworthy.

“More trustworthy” on what ? Books on biblical criticism are about the contents of the books - they are not books of dogmatic theology. A commentary on Matthew will typically discuss the meaning of the specifics of the text, its transmission, date, integrity, history of its use in the Church, background, history of interpretation, significant variant readings, the theology of the book, its plan, comparison of the matter common to it & the other gospels, and much else. Talk about its inspiration, however interesting & valuable & true, doesn’t tell one anything about the specifics of the book. Being the book is inspired, tells one nothing about what its contents mean - dogmatic theology and Biblical criticism look at the Biblical books from different points of view.​

If I buy a cup of coffee, and what to know where it comes from, I don’t want a chemist to to tell me what it is composed of - I want to know what part of the world it’s from. A chemical analysis of it won’t answer that question - interesting as such an analysis might be. Both questions are valid - but neither can take the place of the other. So with the Bible. Those questions about the Bible are all perfectly legitimate. ##

My most serious criticism of Witherup’s book, and I think everyone should take notice that his book published in 2001 does not have a reference or citation (as far as I could tell) to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism explains the Church’s teaching on the Bible to some extent, and it uses or refers to many passages in the Bible. How could any responsible and competent priest call his book “what every Catholic should know” and not mention the Catechism?

Doing so may not be relevant to his book.​

The title is, as you point out, not “What every Catholic should know”, but “Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know” - which is a different matter entirely.

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/s.htm#Sacred Scripture

Fundamentalism appears not to be mentioned in the CCC anyway. So the CCC can hardly be quoted on the subject. So he can hardly be blamed for quoting references to Fundamentalism in the CCC if they not exist ##

I just feel that Witherup has published his intellectual biases, and has ignored many revelent issues

 

[BayCityRickL]

Towards the conclusion of his book, Fr. Witherup also sweeps in his criticism of “Catholic Fundamentalism.” This is a form of fundamentalism, he says, in which some Catholics take the magisterial teachings of the Church too narrowly, and use those teachings to attack more liberal members of the Church. see page 72 of his book for his direct words on the matter.

I don’t expect to see a resolution of this liberal/conservative matter in my lifetime, as I think it has to do with human nature more than with Christianity. It is our fallen human nature to always look for loopholes to orthodoxy.

We don’t want to fall into legalism, where we try to estimate, for example, how many times we can commit venial sin before we drift into mortal sin. That is not, to me, the essense of orthodoxy.

No amount of rationalization by Witherup can overturn the warnings of scripture about what is good and evil. We’ve been told, divinely.

He wants to emphasize, in his own fundamentalist way, that the Bible is the “words of God in the words of men.” Yes, that’s exactly what I would expect God to do. The Bible is still God’s word.

 

[adnauseum]

Liberal historico-critical interpretation was a protestant “innovation” my friend. In the last mid-century, liberal Catholics took up the practice to imitate protestants, but it definitely started with the “reformers.”

As to fundamentalism and literal interpretation, Catholics interpret the Bible as the first Christians interpreted it. The Old Testament was filled with types and metaphors pointing forward. Jews at the time recognized the gospel in that sense.

Catholics are not required to take the bible literally. This is not a consequence of liberal historical methods, but rather a consequence of our emphasis on the nature of the scriptures, and our tradition of interpreting the Bible as the first Christians did.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Gottle of Geer:

… The title is, as you point out, not “What every Catholic should know”, but “Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know” - which is a different matter entirely.

Indeed it is.

There is a close relationship between Biblical exegesis and catechesis. And, this I attribute to the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown in his book on ‘biblical perspectives on crises facing the church’ [or some title similar to that] published in the mid-70’s.

A former acquaintance of mine is a graduate of the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. He is generally a Baptist, as far as I can tell. He says that he always wants to adopt a position on a matter that is in agreement with the Bible.

I have a parallel belief about the CCC, which itself was put together to address problems in catechesis in the last several decades since Vatican II. some of that problematic catechesis is based on biblical perspectives that the Church really does not approve. Further, the CCC has an open-minded view about modern exegesis. For example, we know that JPII did not take a fundamentalist / literalist view of creation. And, in the catechism, while not addressing “fundamentalism” per se, demonstrates an underlying exegesis. See paragraph 337. The CCC says that the words of Genesis creation are “symbolic.”

I suppose you might say that this is the longer version of my criticism of Witherup on this issue. While the CCC is certainly not a biblical commentary, it does keep a believer on the right track in reading and discussing the Bible. And** that ** is the omission that I fault Witherup for.

Oh, yes, I fully realize that Witherup’s book is his book. On the standard of telling “what every Catholic should know” and specifically in his concluding chapter on “A Catholic Response to Fundamentalism” he simply ignores the Catechism. It is in that sense that I feel he falls short.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I must correct myself in a big way. Witherup does mention the Catechism on page 38 and calls it “the most convenient and succinct summary” of the Church’s teaching on the Bible.