Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Here is the second issue with regard to homiletics which I brought up with Fr. Gary.  Now Fr. Gary is a difficult to understand man and this comment reflects something of that.  He would not want to be said to be disobedient to the Church.  However, he was all too often able to rationalize such disobedience.  Thus, this comment in written with the presupposition of fidelity to the Church while trying to show ways in which he may not always have been:

Another comment which I would like to offer may seem insignificant, but I think that it is not.  It is the way one treats difficult passages of Scripture in homilies.  Too often recourse is made to interpretations which seem more palatable to the faithful but I would argue that this tends to undermine the authority with which an ordained priest speaks, especially when he speaks in union with the Church.   In general I think that these difficulties can be divided into three categories:

- an apparent contradiction between the words of Scripture and the Gospel message as taught by the Church;

- an apparently harsh statement by Christ or one of His disciples that would seem to be at odds with what the preacher perceives to be the message of the Gospel;

- an apparent contradiction between history/science and Scripture

For the last 50 years or so, all too many critical scholars are all too quick to dismiss this or that scriptural assertion as an error.  If it is true that it is possible for Scripture to err in any matter that it asserts to be true, then intuitively people will begin arrive at the logical consequence that Scripture is not completely trustworthy.

While this realization remains in the “preconscious” mind of the faitful, it can result in a selectiveness in accepting Church authority based upon the impact it has on them given their life situation. If the ramifications of the undermining of scriptural inerrancy reaches their consciousness, it very well could compromise their faith.

In any case the assumption of error on the part of these scholars is incorrect.  It is clear that the Church has infallibly taught there can be no error in Scripture.  I understand some Catholics teach that Dei Verbum, paragraph 12 indicates that there could be error in Scripture if an assertion does not have to do with faith or morals.  This is based upon seeing a supposed restrictive clause in the text dealing with inerrency, which says “for the sake of our salvation.”  I believe that this is a misunderstanding of the paragraph.

Without going into the details of why this is the case, I think the previous sentence makes any discussion of the supposed “restrictive clause” unnecessary.  The previous sentence says, “…as true authors … they consigned to writing whatever [the Holy Spirit] wanted and no more”  (DV 11).  The logical consequence to saying there is any error in Scripture then is to say that the Holy Spirit wanted the inspired authors to convey error; a theological impossibility.  What then remains is that what we think to be an error is, rather, our misunderstanding of the author’s meaning or our understanding of Church teaching.

Unfortunately to suggest that either Jesus or the inspired author was wrong and the modern scholar or priest is correct, not so subtly implies to the listeners that they are on their own when it comes to discerning the truth.  If God Himself can make errors then it makes no sense to trust Him or His Church.  Again, this implicitly supports the relativism prevalent in modern society and makes it nearly impossible for any homilist to motivate the laity to change their lives if it is in the least bit inconvenient…much less difficult.

It is all too common today for many homilists to rely upon the opinions of theologians and Scripture scholars.  Unfortunately, this can be the case even when these opinions contradict the teaching of the Church.  While there are plenty of Catholic theologians who deny the ability of the Church to be authoritative (much less infallible) in anything, much more common for homilist to rely upon are those who incorrectly divide matters down a hard line between infallible/irreformable teachings and reformable/opinions of the Church.

These scholars treat a teaching that is not infallibly taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra statements or declarations of ecumenical councils) as if it were on the same grounds as the opinion of a theologian.  This is an incorrect distinction and disregards the teaching authority given by the Lord to His to the Church.

First, they miss the fact that there are infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. The CDF has given the examples of the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination and artificial contraception as infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.  Second, even teachings that are not infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium still carry significantly more weight than a theological opinion.  Vatican II’s  Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium paragraph 25 advises that even papal teachings that are not infallible still must be given the submission of intellect and will (i.e. beyond mere outward obedience, but a areligious assent) if they are taught by Him as something that must be held by the faithful.

A theological opinion carries no such weight.  Therefore a theological opinion that contradicts what the Church teaches, as expressed by the pope when he is teaching as pope, can never be used as a possible alternative teaching.  When this is done it again undermines the authority of the Church and therefore the authority of the homilist.  Again, people intuitively understand that truth does not change (times change, secular values change, but God and His truth cannot-even if we sometimes understand the truths more deeply or describe them in different language); therefore, if the Church contradicts itself in any dogmatic teaching then it is not worthy of trust in anything.

Without the confidence that the priest is teaching with God’s own authority, through the authority of His Church, the laity will be inclined to follow only that guidance already in line with the way they currently live.  And I suggest that this is very logical, after all if there is not human authority on earth that has God’s authority and infallible protection, then we don’t even know that we can believe in the Gospel.

Confidence on the part of the faithful in the inerrancy of Scripture and the infallibility of the Church are foundational for the homilist’s authority because his credibility and authority to speak are derivative upon these. Uncritical use of critical theories which will probably change tomorrow, may make the homilist look erudite and modern, but it works at cross purposes with his vocation.  A more integral use of all senses of Scripture in accord with Catholic tradition is the most effective and appropriate approach to homiletics.