Pius XII and His Bible Revolution

[chewchoo]

For decades, the figure of Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, has been at the center of some volatile polemics.

The controversy has raged since the end of the Holocaust over whether the Pope did and said enough in defense of the Jews and other victims of the Nazis. The Roman Pontiff, who guided the Church through the terrible years of the Second World War and the Cold War, is the victim of a “black legend,” which has proven difficult to combat and is so widespread that many consider it to be more true than the actual historical facts.

One of the unpleasant secondary consequences of this black legend, which falsely portrays Pius XII as indulgent toward Nazism and indifferent to the fate of the victims of persecution, has been to sideline or even obliterate the extraordinary teaching and contribution of this Pope who was a precursor of the Second Vatican Council.

…

After 40 years of strident opposition, the Catholic Church in the 1940’s, under the pontificate of Pius XII, made an undeniable about-face toward biblical criticism. That Pontiff’s 1943 encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” instructed Catholic scholars to use the methods of scientific approach to the Bible that had hitherto been forbidden to them. It was now safe for Catholic scholars to take up the methods that were previously forbidden. A particular aspect of the encyclical definitively steered Catholics away from fundamentalism: namely, the recognition that the Bible includes many different literary forms or genres, not just history.

zenit.org/article-23860?l=english

 

[Digitonomy]

I had read about this, very interesting. I was unaware of the role of Pius in ushering the historical-critical method into Church scholarship.

A particular aspect of the encyclical definitively steered Catholics away from fundamentalism: namely, the recognition that the Bible includes many different literary forms or genres, not just history.

I wonder if this or a similar instruction hadn’t been issued, would the Church have a significantly more fundamentalist character now?

 

[chewchoo]

.I wonder if this or a similar instruction hadn’t been issued, would the Church have a significantly more fundamentalist character now?

hard to say. was the catholic church very fundamentalist just prior to pius XII’s decision?

 

[Digitonomy]

hard to say. was the catholic church very fundamentalist just prior to pius XII’s decision?

Good question. I think in many ways the Church, at least in the US, was more isolated before that time. Being out of the mainstream, there was not as much interaction with other denominations. So I think Catholic theology was not described and defended as often in the language and from the perspectives of other Christian groups.

Now that that has changed, a number of Catholics approach their faith from at least a somewhat fundamentalist direction. For any question about the faith, they can spit back a Bible verse to justify Catholic practice. That’s fine as an apologetics tool, but I think some view this collection of verses as the heart and soul of the Catholic faith, at the expense of tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. You will also find Catholics who view local, national, and world politics always through the prism of scripture - another somewhat fundamentalist approach.

I suspect this might be much more common now without Divino Afflante Spirutu, but my perspective is pretty limited, so I’m curious what others think.

 

[jdnation]

There some confusion over what we would consider a fundamentalist… It’s a fact that Protestants also know and recognize that there are other genres of literature in the Bible.

The problem was not literalism, as some books of the Bible, well a great majority of them, are history accounts and meant to be read literally.

It’s just that some interpret passages that are poetic or hyperbole… hyperliterally. As an example a hyperliteralist will read the passage where Christ says that it’s better to cut off your arm than to sin and think that Christ literally commanded us to aputate ourselves. But Christ was speaking using hyperbole.

The whole debate of what books are history centers really around Genesis. I believe that Genesis is literal historical truth. Sure it’s presented with some poetic prose but this is no different to how historical accounts were written in those days. But it’s interesting that during Pius’ time, as Evolutionary ideas got more ground that many scientists wanted to believe in evolution rather than the world of the God. So Pius was being lenient with them, after all if we believe that the Bible is the word of God then there’s nothing to be afraid of if it is scrutinized. Sadly despite a lack of evidence many more fell victim to evolutionary beliefs, and during Pius’ time evolutionary beliefs were at their height as the underlying philosophy of Nazism. So this little historical note of Pius opening the Bible up to scientific scrutiny carries with it a heavy sense of irony. Years later more have abandoned the Bible in favor of naturalistic science and no longer believe in the resurrection either and use science and genetics and other evolutionary philosophies to justify population control, abortion, homosexuality, promiscious sex, euthanasia etc. etc.

 

[chewchoo]

There some confusion over what we would consider a fundamentalist… It’s a fact that Protestants also know and recognize that there are other genres of literature in the Bible.

The problem was not literalism, as some books of the Bible, well a great majority of them, are history accounts and meant to be read literally.

It’s just that some interpret passages that are poetic or hyperbole… hyperliterally. As an example a hyperliteralist will read the passage where Christ says that it’s better to cut off your arm than to sin and think that Christ literally commanded us to aputate ourselves. But Christ was speaking using hyperbole.

The whole debate of what books are history centers really around Genesis. I believe that Genesis is literal historical truth. Sure it’s presented with some poetic prose but this is no different to how historical accounts were written in those days. But it’s interesting that during Pius’ time, as Evolutionary ideas got more ground that many scientists wanted to believe in evolution rather than the world of the God. So Pius was being lenient with them, after all if we believe that the Bible is the word of God then there’s nothing to be afraid of if it is scrutinized. Sadly despite a lack of evidence many more fell victim to evolutionary beliefs, and during Pius’ time evolutionary beliefs were at their height as the underlying philosophy of Nazism. So this little historical note of Pius opening the Bible up to scientific scrutiny carries with it a heavy sense of irony. Years later more have abandoned the Bible in favor of naturalistic science and no longer believe in the resurrection either and use science and genetics and other evolutionary philosophies to justify population control, abortion, homosexuality, promiscious sex, euthanasia etc. etc.

wow! tying biblical critism to secular relativism. i don’t think so.
we have been heading towards secular relativism since the age of enlightenment. gnostism was reborn then, evolution came about in the 1800’s. we are in the age of science and we are 2000 years removed from the time of Christ. we need to study other works of that time and archealogical finds to better interpret the life style of that time. Jesus used everyday concepts in his parables and we need to better understand them. i’m not talking about the history channel analysis, but a catholic focused analysis.

 

[jdnation]

wow! tying biblical critism to secular relativism. i don’t think so.
we have been heading towards secular relativism since the age of enlightenment. gnostism was reborn then, evolution came about in the 1800’s. we are in the age of science and we are 2000 years removed from the time of Christ. we need to study other works of that time and archealogical finds to better interpret the life style of that time. Jesus used everyday concepts in his parables and we need to better understand them. i’m not talking about the history channel analysis, but a catholic focused analysis.

Biblical criticism has gone hand in hand with secular interests who seek to chastize and bring the Bible to disrepute. It’s nothing new… This is not to try and generalize everyone who engages in Biblical criticism. Many do so for the sake of affirming its truths more effectively and clearly. Evolution and naturalism as concepts go far back even further than Charles Darwin in the 1800s. Darwin only popularized it by this time. I only wished to point out that this may coincide with a time when evolutionary beliefs were becoming more widespread as Germany before Hitler was also known to have philosophers and liberal theologians who were criticizing the Bible and Christianity. SUch errors would no doubt spread throughout Europe.