Priest (not ACLU) criticizes nativity scene display

[ChristIsLord]

I don’t see that he did anything wrong on this. I guarantee you if some display was up for a Muslim holiday, there would be an outrage. We need to keep religious holiday displays out of government buildings.

i agree it’s ridiculous now, now everyone has to have something up there, mennoras, trees, nativities, pagan solstice symbols, atheistic diatribes. at this point just put the nativity on the church lawn.

 

[irenaeus1]

I just believe the December 25, 1 AD date is incorrect.

No one ever claimed that December 25 1 AD was the date of Jesus’ birth. This is merely the day we set aside upon which we celebrate his birth. There’s a difference.

 

[irenaeus1]

There is a big difference between denying that miracles occur and interpreting a story as fiction used to teach truth. The Catholic authors who say that the birth stories are fiction are not doing so to deny miracles, they are doing so to get at the truth being taught.

Not necessarily true. For example, many liberal scholars who claim that the “birth stories” are fiction then have problems when discussing the virgin birth. The Catholic Church teaches this as literal truth which necessitates that the virgin birth was an historical event (i.e., not fiction). Or did an angel actually come to Mary? If one denies the miraculous, then of course an angel was not sent from God to Mary. Claiming a fictional story to supposedly teach truth makes one wonder what truth is being taught? Don’t get me wrong; I believe that didactic fiction or parables can be used to teach truth… I just don’t see it here.

 

[AlanF]

Perhaps it’s a joke, he is after all called Fr. Laughery.

 

[patg]

Not necessarily true. For example, many liberal scholars who claim that the “birth stories” are fiction then have problems when discussing the virgin birth. The Catholic Church teaches this as literal truth which necessitates that the virgin birth was an historical event (i.e., not fiction). Or did an angel actually come to Mary? If one denies the miraculous, then of course an angel was not sent from God to Mary. Claiming a fictional story to supposedly teach truth makes one wonder what truth is being taught? Don’t get me wrong; I believe that didactic fiction or parables can be used to teach truth… I just don’t see it here.

I don’t think the denial of the miraculous has much to do with the nativity stories. The only real micracle is the virgin birth, which most don’t argue about (there are also the angels singing to the shepherds but if I had to spend all night on a hillside with a bunch of sheep, I’d probably hear more than angels singing).

Most of the events are not in this category - the census, the magi, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight to Egypt, the inn, the manger, the star (possibly), etc.

 

[CollegeKid]

We don’t need another one as there are hunderds of posts in dozens of threads on this topic if anyone is interested (and a myth is a different literary form than an infancy narrative).

I just can’t let unsupportable statements like “The Nativity story is total fact” go without a comment… If one wishes to state (or believe) this as personal opinion, that is fine but it should not be presented as official church teaching.

It is official Church teaching. Blessed Pope Pius XII said as much in his encyclical Humani Generis:

"23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

1. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Affflante Spiritu.”

Source

 

[Lujack]

All right, how is this for a phrasing that might be more acceptable:

The birth narratives presented in the Gospels are fact; the traditional Nativity scene involves a significant amount of conjecture and little-t tradition wrapped around a core of Gospel truth and Tradition.

 

[George_C]

No one ever claimed that December 25 1 AD was the date of Jesus’ birth. This is merely the day we set aside upon which we celebrate his birth. There’s a difference.

Alright. I can accept that.

 

[patg]

It is official Church teaching. Blessed Pope Pius XII said as much in his encyclical Humani Generis:

"23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

1. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Affflante Spiritu.”

Source

That’s an interesting older document and is one piece in the church’s deveopment of the interpretation of scripture. It’s too bad Pius XII didn’t get to read Dei Verbum and the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels to learn about literary forms. He would have seen how the generalities he stated evolved and grew as the church developed his ideas further. He could have read Raymond Brown and John Meier who wrote under the imprimatur and nihil obstat to extend his generalities into a more specific analysis of using fiction as a vehicle of revelation.

But no matter what he did, he would not have found the dogma of the magi or the flight into Egypt or the doctrine of the manger scene.

 

[patg]

All right, how is this for a phrasing that might be more acceptable:

The birth narratives presented in the Gospels are fact; the traditional Nativity scene involves a significant amount of conjecture and little-t tradition wrapped around a core of Gospel truth and Tradition.

That’s close. Actually, the birth narratives presented in the Gospels involve a significant amount of Jewish midrash style writing combined with the classical genre known as an Infancy Narrative with a historical core. If these stories are literalistic hsitory, the we must accept the same stories (and miracles) which were written about Alexander, the Pharoahs, the Caesars, etc. as being history also.

 

[tm30]

I don’t see that he did anything wrong on this. I guarantee you if some display was up for a Muslim holiday, there would be an outrage. We need to keep religious holiday displays out of government buildings.

Well, you have the government you choose, I suppose. You can have a government that looks to God as the highest Authority and publicly recognizes that, or, you have a government that wants the people to consider no one a higher authority than the elected official. I submit that the gov’t which pretends that belief in God does not inform the right actions of governing bodies, is a gov’t destined for he dustbin of history.

On a side note, are you interested in eliminating Christmas Day as a federal holiday, as well? That seems to be a blatant government “endorsement” of Christianity, no?

 

[tm30]

The birth stories are a blend of Jewish midrash and the ancient literary form commonly known as an “Infancy Narrative”, both of which are mostly fiction.

Possibly, but that explanation, alone, cannot rule out the possibility that these fictional stories were inspired forerunners of the authentic event which would define what they were grasping at. If we make consistent use of the conclusion that because the Infancy Narrative pre-existed Christ as a genre, therefore the Infancy Narrative of Luke must be fictional, then we must look at the Christ-types of Old Testament - Moses, Isaac, Joshua, etc. - and conclude that the authors of the Gospel were merely drawing on these traditional figures to draw out the character of Jesus of Nazareth, and not telling us anything factual about His unique Sonship of God. The alternative, is that, like the Infancy Narratives pre-dating the nativity, Moses, Isaac, et al. were anticipatory figures of the authentic Shepherd of Israel, and Mediator unto God.

Therefore, if we look to the distinct role of Jesus in fulfilling prophecy, He may very well have enjoyed a factual Infancy Narrative that demonstrates His own authenticity, and shines a light on the inadequacy of all other traditions (small “t”) of men. Drawing conclusions from secular contemporary tradition and applying it to Sacred Scripture is simply insufficient.

The burden of proof is not found in proving that Infancy Narratives circulated long before Christ. The burden of proof is found in demonstrating that the Infancy Narrative of Luke is just like all the others. I submit that it is nearly impossible to prove that Luke was merely using literary convention, and the weight of Tradition supports a judgment of “fact” when it comes to Jesus’ nativity as describe in the Gospel.

 

[CollegeKid]

That’s an interesting older document and is one piece in the church’s deveopment of the interpretation of scripture. It’s too bad Pius XII didn’t get to read Dei Verbum and the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels to learn about literary forms. He would have seen how the generalities he stated evolved and grew as the church developed his ideas further. He could have read Raymond Brown and John Meier who wrote under the imprimatur and nihil obstat to extend his generalities into a more specific analysis of using fiction as a vehicle of revelation.

But no matter what he did, he would not have found the dogma of the magi or the flight into Egypt or the doctrine of the manger scene.

I very much doubt the authentic interpretations of *Dei Verbum *and *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels * could be rendered “The Gospels are a collection of fabricated stories with themes antecedent in Jewish folklore that reveal something all the more true for never having happened,” which it seems more or less sums up your view of them. There are a number of terms which could describe that view. “Catholic” is not one of them.

Our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has said over and over during his pontificate that if we did not believe in the literal truth of the Resurrection, then living and believing in the Christian Faith would be the height of absurdity.

By the way, with all due respect for Father Raymond Brown’s scholarly training, experience, and abilities, citing someone with a record of such questionable Catholic orthodoxy in regards to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture hardly lends support to your argument.

 

[patg]

Possibly, but that explanation, alone, cannot rule out the possibility that these fictional stories were inspired forerunners of the authentic event which would define what they were grasping at. …The burden of proof is not found in proving that Infancy Narratives circulated long before Christ. The burden of proof is found in demonstrating that the Infancy Narrative of Luke is just like all the others. I submit that it is nearly impossible to prove that Luke was merely using literary convention, and the weight of Tradition supports a judgment of “fact” when it comes to Jesus’ nativity as describe in the Gospel.

It is quite impossible to “prove” any of it. There is no independent evidence that any historian would accept and the church does not require belief in any of it. One’s belief in the events of the birth stories, as well as the rest of the gospels, is a matter of faith.

 

[patg]

I very much doubt the authentic interpretations of *Dei Verbum *and *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *could be rendered “The Gospels are a collection of fabricated stories with themes antecedent in Jewish folklore that reveal something all the more true for never having happened,” which it seems more or less sums up your view of them.

That is an over-simplistic way of saying what the church actually says (in a dogmatic statement):

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

The church does not allow you to deny that fiction is a valid vehicle for revelation, regardless of how you belittle that concept and the church requires us to look at the literary forms in order to interpret the stories correctly. There is no requirement to believe literalistically in most of the accounts.

There are a number of terms which could describe that view. “Catholic” is not one of them.

Most scholars appear to disagree. Have you read the Instruction?

Our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has said over and over during his pontificate that if we did not believe in the literal truth of the Resurrection, then living and believing in the Christian Faith would be the height of absurdity.

We haven’t been talking about the resurrection but if we were, I would emphasize that the belief you mention is purely a matter of faith.

By the way, with all due respect for Father Raymond Brown’s scholarly training, experience, and abilities, citing someone with a record of such questionable Catholic orthodoxy in regards to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture hardly lends support to your argument.

I am sorry you feel that way; many do not. When his books, written under the imprimatur and nihil obstat, are branded as heresy, I may reconsider. Until then, I am far more inclined to follow him than those who do not include the church’s instructions in their analysis.

 

[Teelynn]

Do some people become priests just to destroy the Church from within by their scandals? It’s hard to comprehend what this man does any other way.

• throwing Holy Chrism in the garbage
• recommending a convicted sex offender for a job as a teacher
• promoting gay pride events at the Newman center on campus

??? Where do these priests come from? Who are they?

Boy, I hear you on this one! I have wondered the same exact thing countless times.

 

[CollegeKid]

That is an over-simplistic way of saying what the church actually says (in a dogmatic statement):

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

Neither are of the documents you have cited, *Dei Verbum * and the Instruction, are dogmatic. The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council, and thus authoritative, but not dogmatic. The Pontifical Biblical Commission does not issue dogmatic statements either. Furthermore, consider these previous Popes’ warnings about keeping St. Augustine’s rule of interpretation:

“not to depart from the **literal and obvious **sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.

The church does not allow you to deny that fiction is a valid vehicle for revelation, regardless of how you belittle that concept and the church requires us to look at the literary forms in order to interpret the stories correctly. There is no requirement to believe literalistically in most of the accounts.

I notice that this word you keep bringing up, “fiction,” has not appeared in any of the passages from *Dei Verbum * or the Instruction which you have cited. I’ve read neither document; hopefully I will get to them at some point. Does the term “fiction” appear in them? Of course we can find examples of the metaphorical being employed by the sacred writers, such as (possibly, anyway) the writer of Genesis stating that God created the world in six “days.” Even St. Augustine theorized that perhaps the writer had not literally meant six 24-hour days, but rather longer periods of time.

The main thrust of my point, which maybe I have not expressed as well as I could have, is this: if you are going to apply so liberally to the Scriptures the concept of truth being expressed primarily in the non-literal sense, to the point where it colors the interpretation of such a substantial amount of what we read in them, then how trustworthy is the Bible, really?

Indeed it would seem a very loose foundation to stand on and let serve as your guiding moral and spiritual compass/infrastructure of your faith, if these supposed spiritual truths being transmitted to us have no actual basis in history.

If, for example, you find it hard to believe that the the Holy Family fled to Egypt, so you chuck that and say it merely points to a more profound “spiritual” truth, then I must ask what is this truth and what concrete evidence do we have of it, if the Holy Family didn’t even have time to live that truth through their actions?

We haven’t been talking about the resurrection but if we were, I would emphasize that the belief you mention is purely a matter of faith.

Well of course its a matter of faith, and to say so is purely a matter of tautology. Everything else in the Scriptures is a matter of faith as well, to varying degrees. The point is, we’re supposed to believe in the Resurrection, and the rest of the Scriptures. It hardly seems advisable to go about Christianity by dispensing so easily with the requirement to not depart from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture.

 

[patg]

Neither are of the documents you have cited, *Dei Verbum *and the Instruction, are dogmatic.

I believe the title is:

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

A Dogmatic consititution is not Dogmatic? I wonder about that…

The Instruction is not dogmatic but it was published under the direct order and approval of Pope Paul VI and presents the words of the church’s most distinguished scripture experts.

“not to depart from the **literal and obvious **sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.

And updated to be clearer by Pope Paul VI.

I notice that this word you keep bringing up, “fiction,” has not appeared in any of the passages from *Dei Verbum *or the Instruction which you have cited. I’ve read neither document; hopefully I will get to them at some point. Does the term “fiction” appear in them? Of course we can find examples of the metaphorical being employed by the sacred writers, such as (possibly, anyway) the writer of Genesis stating that God created the world in six “days.” Even St. Augustine theorized that perhaps the writer had not literally meant six 24-hour days, but rather longer periods of time.

Even Jesus constantly taught with fictional tales. As Dei Verbum states: *“For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.” *

The main thrust of my point, which maybe I have not expressed as well as I could have, is this: if you are going to apply so liberally to the Scriptures the concept of truth being expressed primarily in the non-literal sense, to the point where it colors the interpretation of such a substantial amount of what we read in them, then how trustworthy is the Bible, really?

The church’s scholars don’t apply it liberally, they use the instructions of the church to analyze the literary form to determine what we are reading. The truth does not depend on the literary form of the text.

Indeed it would seem a very loose foundation to stand on and let serve as your guiding moral and spiritual compass/infrastructure of your faith, if these supposed spiritual truths being transmitted to us have no actual basis in history.

I don’t see where that is a problem at all. I am not going to limit God to only teaching truths based on literal writings.

If, for example, you find it hard to believe that the the Holy Family fled to Egypt, so you chuck that and say it merely points to a more profound “spiritual” truth, then I must ask what is this truth and what concrete evidence do we have of it, if the Holy Family didn’t even have time to live that truth through their actions?

If you don’t understand the literary form of the story as being Jewish midrash, you are missing the entire theme of Matthew presenting Jesus as the new Moses.

Well of course its a matter of faith, and to say so is purely a matter of tautology. Everything else in the Scriptures is a matter of faith as well, to varying degrees. The point is, we’re supposed to believe in the Resurrection, and the rest of the Scriptures. It hardly seems advisable to go about Christianity by dispensing so easily with the requirement to not depart from the literal and obvious sense of Scripture.

I don’t see where you get this “easy” part. Analyzing the text as the church’s scripture scholars do is not trivial.

 

[CollegeKid]

I believe the title is:

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

A Dogmatic consititution is not Dogmatic? I wonder about that…

The Instruction is not dogmatic but it was published under the direct
order and approval of Pope Paul VI and presents the words of the
church’s most distinguished scripture experts.

And updated to be clearer by Pope Paul VI.

The fact remains, the Second Vatican Council did not invoke the
Church’s highest teaching authority.

Even Jesus constantly taught with fictional tales. As Dei Verbum states: “For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.”.

According to your method of exegesis, one could advance the argument that Jesus never even existed. The absurd part would be the proponent of such an argument would still say this does not invalidate the Catholic Faith.

Besides, in the instances you mention Jesus always made it clear from the outset, or immediately afterward, that He was speaking in parables and not literally. Thus, I don’t think the comparison is valid.

I don’t see where that is a problem at all. I am not going to limit God to only teaching truths based on literal
writings.

I don’t think you should limit God to only teaching truths based on
literal writings. What I also don’t think you should do is get so
close to the opposite extreme, contrary to the traditional teachings of numerous Popes on Scriptural exegesis, where the literal and obvious meaning of the words in the Bible do not have precedence in interpretation.

If you don’t understand the literary form of the story as being Jewish midrash, you are missing the entire theme of Matthew presenting Jesus as the new Moses.

Maybe, but perhaps you could explain why it is necessary to set up a dichotomy between the employment of the literary form of Jewish midrash and the possibility that the events described in Matthew’s Gospel actually occurred.

I don’t see where you get this “easy” part. Analyzing the text as the church’s scripture scholars do is not trivial.

Well, when a person offers the opinion that a substantial portion of what we read about Our Lord and Savior in the Gospels isn’t true, this is a hint.

 

[CollegeKid]

Sorry about the irregular format, had a little mishap evidently.