|
Question 85: What is your view on evolution theory? (TR)
Answer: The Catholic Adult Catechism (published in 1985 by the German Bishop’s Conference) touches on this question stating on page 93 ff:
”If we differentiate between the theological intention behind the creation story and it’s imagery, which is based on the world view of the writer, then we have a major problem: the relation between creation and evolution. Most representatives of modern science start with the hypothesis that all material being has systematically evolved to higher and higher beings and life-forms until the emergence of mankind; the goal of evolution. According to this, the world would have been created approximately 12 billion years ago, our earth 5-6 billion years ago, the first life would have appeared 3 billion years ago and human life would “only“ have existed for approximately 2 billion years.”
How does this view relate to the belief in creation? Of course, we have to reject a materialistic doctrine of development, which assumes that all life, including the life and soul of mankind, has developed from uncreated matter. Most scientists no longer interpret the evolution theory like that. Today, there is an increasing opinion that creation and evolution are the answers to two completely different questions and are therefore answers at different levels. Evolution is an empirical term which answers the question of a “horizontal” from where and of the sequential appearance of creatures in time and space. Creation, on the other hand, is a theological term and demands an answer to the "vertical" question why and for what purpose. Evolution always assumes that “something” existed beforehand, something that changes and develops; creation shows why and for which purpose something exists, which can then change and develop.
To combine both views, many theologians now say that: God creates in such a way that the created are empowered to participate in their own development. “God makes things make themselves” (P. Teilhard de Chardin). In this sense, God did not just create the universe in the beginning and only to then leave creation to develop itself. He continuously ensures the existence of reality and supports and guides it in its becoming. God is therefore the all encompassing creative power which releases and pervades the participation of the created. It is precisely in their creative ability that the creatures are the image of the God of creation. There is thus no fundamental contradiction between belief in creation and evolution theory; on the contrary, both statements answer completely different questions; they are found at different levels and belong to different kinds of knowledge.
Despite this necessary differentiation, science and theology are not speaking of two separate worlds. They speak of one and the same reality which is analyzed from different aspects. Scientists and theologians must therefore not carelessly walk past each other; but they depend on a mutual conversation.“
Question 86: How about marriage between members of different Christian denominations? Are Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox allowed to intermarry? (TR)
Answer: In its Codex Iuris Canonici (CIC) of 1983 the Law of the Roman-Catholic church regulates the question of marriage between Christians belonging to different denominations in the canons 1124 ff.
Can. 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.
Can. 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
1° the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;
2° the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party
3° both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.
Can. 1126 It is for the Episcopal Conference to prescribe the manner in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, are to be made, and to determine how they are to be established in the external forum, and how the noncatholic party is to be informed of them.
Can. 1127 §1 The provisions of can. 1108 are to be observed in regard to the form to be used in a mixed marriage. If, however, the catholic party contracts marriage with a noncatholic party of oriental rite, the canonical form of celebration is to be observed for lawfulness only; for validity, however, the intervention of a sacred minister is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
§2 If there are grave difficulties in the way of observing the canonical form, the local Ordinary of the catholic party has the right to dispense from it in individual cases, having however consulted the Ordinary of the place of the celebration of the marriage; for validity, however, some public form of celebration is required. It is for the Episcopal Conference to establish norms whereby this dispensation may be granted in a uniform manner.
§3 It is forbidden to have, either before or after the canonical celebration in accordance with §1, another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the catholic assistant and a noncatholic minister, each performing his own rite, ask for the consent of the parties.
Can. 1128 Local Ordinaries and other pastors of souls are to see to it that the catholic spouse and the children born of a mixed marriage are not without the spiritual help needed to fulfil their obligations; they are also to assist the spouses to foster the unity of conjugal and family life.
Question 87: Jesus said “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel“ (Matthew 15:24). Does Jesus reject all people who are not of Jewish extraction? Or does He not? (TR)
Answer: First of all, here is the full text of this pericope from the Gospel of Matthew, 15:21-28:
“Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, 'Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.' But he did not say a word in answer to her. And his disciples went and pleaded with him, saying, ‘Give her what she wants, because she keeps shouting after us.' He said in reply, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But the woman came and did him homage, saying, 'Lord help me.' He said in reply, 'it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.' She said, 'Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters'. Then Jesus said to her in reply, 'O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed from that hour."
We observe this scene from the Gospel, full of life and spontaneity. Matthew describes it with impressive dynamics.
From time to time, Jesus walked beyond the borders of Palestine into pagan territory. This time, He went to the region around the cities of Tyrus and Sidon, north of the Holy Land. And lo, He and His apostles are met by a Canaanite woman who comes from this region. She begins to shout:” Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon”.
It is a cry for help in dire straights, straight from the loving heart of the mother. The daughter is suffering terribly and therefore the woman turns to Jesus. She is likely to have heard about Him, about His goodness towards the sick, about His miracles with them. And so she turns to Him with a plea and with intense faith.
But this time, Jesus’ response is surprising: He does not listen to the intensity of the plea, He does not even say a single word to the woman. He shows that He does not want to intervene, that He does not want to use His miracle powers to serve even such a harshly tried woman.
The apostles turn to Him and beg Him to do something for this woman; they say to Him “Give her what she wants, because she keeps shouting after us”. However, what motivates the apostles to speak in favor of the woman is not so much compassion with the mother, but the unpleasantness represented by her noisy shouting for help. Because she is being heard by many people and directs everyone’s attention to this group of foreign Jews. Jesus’ apostles therefore act out of fear and a certain level of ill feeling.
In this situation, Jesus explains why He does not want to intervene: This is not part of his mission. He says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel“. Jesus, Son of God, knows that during His time on earth His mission is to be limited to the people of Israel. Jesus, mild and humble, does not want to exceed the boundaries that have been set for Him, does not want to take the initative which is not part of His mission. This is a manifestation of great humility, great obedience towards God the Father. Despite the pity He feels, Jesus does not wish to intervene with a miracle here.
But the woman does not lose hope, just the contrary. She approaches Jesus, throws herself down before Him and says: “Lord, help me!”. Jesus gives an answer similar to the previous one: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.“ These are harsh words from Jesus: the Canaanite woman is being compared to a dog.
The woman could have left, insulted by such language, and could have simply left Jesus without saying another word to Him after his rejection. But instead of feeling insulted, she remains with her plea and finds a way to beg insistently in a manner which corresponds to Jesus harsh words. She says: “Yes Lord! [she accepts Jesus’ word, but she also immediately adds:] But even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from their masters’ table“.
Thus, the woman shows great humility: she accepts that she is being compared with a dog. But she successfully uses the comparison to insist with her plea: if the dogs have no right to the bread of the sons, they can still feed themselves from the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. It is truly remarkable: all this energy the woman applies to save her daughter!
Then Jesus says to her: “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish!”. Jesus admires this woman’s faith, admires her insistent pleading. Therefore he agrees to exceed the boundaries of His mission. He says to the woman: “Let it be done for you as you wish”. And from this moment on, the daughter of the Canaanite woman is healed.
Although Jesus’ Mission has been limited by the Father, He believed He could overlook it because the woman’s faith was surely inspired by the Heavenly Father. He therefore felt moved by the Father to show her nothing but pity. And thus, this pericope of the Gospel tells of the universal opening of Jesus to all people who believe in His power and His mission.
Question 88: Why does Jesus curse the fig tree? What can be the guilt of a simple tree? (TR)
Answer: The answer requires two steps:
1. The importance of symbolic actions of prophets.
The old prophets in the Bible, such as Samuel (1 Samuel 15:27-28), Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29-39), or the false prophet Zedekiah (1 Kings 22:11-12) already used symbolic actions during their prophesizing, not so much to impress their listeners more strongly, but because of the effect of these signs: They create a real connection between the signs and the reality they proclaim, so that the proclaimed reality becomes as irrevocable as the accompanying sign. This process can be found with virtually all major prophets of the Old Testament: For example, Hosea’s whole mission is marked by a symbolic act which determines the fate of his life (Hosea 1-30). It is rarer in Isaiah, but compare Isaiah 20 and the symbolic names he gives his children (Isaiah 7:3; compare 10:21); 8:1-4; 8:18). Jeremiah carries out and interprets many symbolic acts and occurrences, and Ezekiel, too, carries out symbolic acts. Like Hosea, he interprets his own trials as symbolic occurrences. Symbolism also occurs in the New Testament, as in the case of the fig tree that is cursed by Jesus (Matthew 21:18-19 and Mark 11:12-14; 20:24).
2. The story of Jesus cursing a fig tree.
As did the prophets in the past, so does Jesus carry out a symbolic act here, whereby the fig tree represents the barren and, therefore, punished land of Israel. If they get enough water and maybe fertilizer, fig trees can also thrive on harsh, stony ground and therefore the barrenness of a fig tree is a justified nuisance. Of course, the point of the story is not to curse a fig tree as though it was a creature with a free will. Nor is it to criticize the people who may not have treated the tree well enough. As with all symbolic acts, the point of the story lies in the purpose of the sign, and this has to do with the listeners lacking of true faith in Jesus. The text in the Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus in punishing strictness.
Reading the parallel section in the Gospel of Mark (11:12-14; 20:24) shows how the author of the Gospel of Mark inserted this story afterward into a context he had been given. He did this in two stages: first came the curse, then the withering – a later addition which was intended to use the curse to make a point about the effectiveness of faithful prayer.
Question 89: What, according to Christian understanding, are the meaning of the terms “human being“ and “life“? (TR)
Answer: Of course, this broad double question cannot be answered adequately here, but we would like to point out several aspects:
1. Human being
What does the Christian faith think of human beings? Wherein lies their dignity, according to Christian faith?
Man is created by God, in His image, and man is spirit and body, created for communion with God. In this rests his status and his dignity.
Created by God: Many modern day people have difficulties with this because we speak of the human body evolving from amongst the animals. But why should it not be part of God’s plan for creation, that the creatures themselves further develop God’s work: He Himself gives them the power to do this. However, the church states: each and every human soul is created by God. To each human being coming into life God says: I want you. Father and Mother are participating in this act of God’s creation, they represent God’s love. But each and every one of us is God’s creature. We owe him our whole existence.
In the image of God: The Bible clearly states this in the creation story. Of course we ask: in what ways are we similar to God? Through our primacy before all other creatures, which finds physical expression in our upright walking, and especially in our spirit and our soul, our ability to reason and our free will. All this is true, but it is not the most important point. Human beings are the only earthly creature that can hear God and can respond to him. We are God’s partners. We alone can thank God for all of his creation and can praise His glory. Man can forget this or not accept it, but he can not get rid of it. He remains God’s partner.
We have to honor the status and the dignity of human beings, in ourselves and in others, regardless of gender, education, faith or race. We have to look after our health and our reputation and have to fight against any humiliation of mankind. And most of all: We have to pursue our conversation with God, again and again.
The highest exultation of the human race lies in the fact that God’s Son Himself became man. In a much higher sense, Jesus is created in the image of God. But He also wants to raise us up and to complete our similarity with God. We shall be God’s children, sons and daughters of the everlasting Father. And He wants one day to take us up into His glory, body and soul. Already since our Baptism we’re been carrying this life, this grace of God inside us.
The task is therefore to speak of the good image that God has of us. We must not loose sight of who we are – through the grace of God.
2. Life
The meaning life for a believing Christian becomes clear when we look at the secret of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. Easter, the feast of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, is the feast of life. In what sense?
Already the Old Testament sees God as the living one, who creates life. This is the hope of the people of Israel at the time of the prophets. God does not condemn mankind to an everlasting death. This hope existed only vaguely at first, later, in times of hardship and persecution it shone brightly: In the end, He will even raise the dead! And so the resurrection of Jesus signifies that these end times have started. God’s Kingdom is emerging, the new creation has begun. For this reason, the story of the creation of the world is read in the night before Easter. This is the first creation. With Jesus’ resurrection begins the second creation. Our eyes are being pointed towards the future: God will remain the victor, justice and love will conquer injustice and hatred. We ourselves will be resurrected. The whole will be transformed with new life. Everything will arise: including the good someone has done in secret.
On Easter Day, we find a new name for God: God of life, who wakes the dead. Our whole thinking and feeling is directed towards the future: Christ is risen, God will lift us together with Him to eternal life. Not death has the last word, but life. God guarantees it. We can trust in Him when all that we can do ourselves has been exhausted. He who believes this receives a new direction in his life. It is no longer important what we can get from life in the here and now, but what God will make of us. In Him we can trust completely!
Of course, this does not mean that Christians must become removed from the world. We are to use our energy and efforts for one another. But it is a huge difference, whether one makes enormous efforts without any hope of ever improving the world, or whether one can be sure that in the end, everything will conclude in God’s victory! Because we are victors with Christ, we can bear do good with confidence and bear suffering. Without loosing hope. That is the Easter faith (Adapted from: Winfrid Henze, Glauben ist schön. Harsum, 2001. p. 51-53; 89 ff.)
Question 90: In the Gospels Jesus says: “And whoever who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven....“ (Matthew 12:32). Is the Spirit greater than the Son? Are they not all of the same being? (TR)
Answer: Man can be forgiven if he errs in recognizing God’s dignity in Jesus, which is shrouded by the lowliness of Jesus as “Son of Man“ (8:20).; One cannot be forgiven if he closes his eyes and his heart to the obvious works of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus accomplishes. In as far as he interprets these to come from powers that are hostile to God, and thus places Jesus in opposition to God, he rejects God’s highest calling for him and places himself outside salvation (see Hebrews 6:4-6, 10:26-31).
Question 91: Why and how are people made saints? (TR)
Answer: Term
Making someone a saint means the Pope giving his solemn verdict about the successful lives of servants of God, “who have followed the example of Christ and have given excellent testimony for the Kingdom of Heaven either through the shedding of their own blood (martyrs) or heroic virtue (confessors)“. In as far as the church officially confirms the sanctification, that the sanctified has “heroically exercised virtues and has lived faithfully to the glory of God”, it also recognizes “the power of the Spirit of Holiness in the sanctification. It strengthens the hope of the faithful by giving them saints as examples and advocates”. This official certainty justifies the public veneration of the saints.
Process
After the formal beatification, which only has a limited papal veneration, for example for a local church, for a religious order or for a specific country, sanctification includes them among the list of saints, into the “canon“, which is why the process is also called “canonization“. In addition to the appropriate reverence from the faithful, it is necessary that the beatified has performed a miracle some time after the beatification which has to be certified in a separate process. There is no legal right to canonization following the successful conclusion of the process. It is characteristic of the processes for beatification and canonization that they only represent a conclusion which is aimed at a possible verdict from the Pope, which he reaches having freely taken the result of the process into account, i.e. he can confirm or reject the conclusion. Both does occur.
Theological Purpose
Through canonization, the Church does not primarily recognize the striving for personal perfection in the succession of Christ, although it does include this meaning; in the context of a theology which is not just aiming at individual salvation, canonization is more than achieving a heroic level of virtue as an incentive for others to do likewise; canonization is the self-recognition of the church, as the Second Vatican Council explains when it deals with the blending point of the eschatological character of the pilgrim church and its unity with the heavenly church (Lumen Gentium 48-51). Saints are not merely virtuous, but the realization of Christ’s promise of salvation to His Church. When the church guarantees their status, it confesses itself as “indestructibly holy”. And it confesses its own history. Saintliness is therefore not the realization of the abstract ideal of a supernatural commandment which always has to follow the same pattern. Rather, saintliness is always expressed in new, concrete, and therefore, historically unique forms which has to conform to an established pattern. The enormous variety of saints, their respective temperaments and life stories confirm this (see W. Schulz, art. “Heiligsprechung“, in: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Bd. 4 (Freiburg: Herder, 1995).
Question 92: What are stigmata? (TR)
Answer: Term
The word stigma, pl. stigmata, originates from the Greek and is a branded or tattooed symbol for decoration on the body, as a sign of tribal belonging and ownership of animals, prisoners, and slaves.
In the context of the mysticism of the passion, the stigma is the involuntarily, bodily visible appearance (“visible stigma“) or the invisible experiencing of the pain (“invisible stigma”) of Christ’s injuries in living people (on the feet, hands and the sides of the body). These stigma resist therapy, are antiseptic and bleed periodically, often around the time of the liturgical Passion.
History
Up until medieval times there is no evidence of stigmatization. The first proven case of real stigmatization is that of St. Francis of Assisi (on September 14, 1224) on Mount Laverna in the Toscana. According to the vision of the seraph, he always displayed real and vivid impressions of the nails and the injuries in the side of the body. St. Francis always hid these stigmata, but after his death his companion Elias of Cremona informed all Franciscan orders in a letter. The after-effects are striking and can be seen in an increasing number of stigmatizations, to date about 350 or more cases, among them Catherine of Siena (1375), Veronica Guiliani (1697) and Th. Neumann (1926).
Theological Interpretation
The church treats stigmatization with reluctance and care. Retaining a fundamental openness to miracles, the phenomenon has to be judged in the context of the respective biography and intentions (from a medical, psychological and theological perspective: to discern the cause). Leaving fraudulent stigmatization aside, there is a big range between auto-suggestion and charisma, natural and supernatural occurrence. There is no guaranteed connection between stigmatization and saintliness, however, authentic stigmatization can be a cross-category pointer to the importance of the cross and suffering of Jesus Christ. What is true for Catholic Christians with respect to miracles in general is also true here: For Christians who study the history of the church, miracles in the past and the presence are possible, although strict criteria have to be applied to their verification (see Andreas-Pazificus Alkofer, art. “Stigma“ im Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Bd. IX. Freiburg: Herder, 2000).
Question 93: Why did Jesus not ask for His message and teachings to be written down? (TR)
Question 94: Many of the details are written down differently in the Gospels. If the same Spirit inspired the writers, why is the details inspired differently? (TR)
Answer to both questions: 1. The questioner should carefully re-read the 1st chapter of the above published book : “Holy Scripture and the word of God“ and then our reply to question 60 on page 7 above, about why there are four different gospels.
The question why Jesus did not ask for his message and teachings to be written down arises from the classical Islamic teaching from the Qur’an (see Sura 2:136) that some outstanding prophets, such as Moses (Mūsā), Jesus (‛Īsā) and Muhammad have each been given a scripture directly from God. For Moses it was the Tora, for Jesus the Gospel and for Muhammad the Qur’an. According to this belief, the respective scriptures, the words of which were at first found in the heart and on the lips of its prophet, were soon written down in the form of a scripture roll or a codex, without any changes in the actual wording. This understanding implicitly contains two statements, one, that these prophets did indeed receive the actual wording of a scripture, and secondly, that what they have proclaimed verbally, i.e. what they believed to be God’s message, was then written down verbatim without changing even a single letter. We leave the question open to which extent this view of history can be reliably verified.
The consensus among critical non-Christian and Christian researchers about Jesus of Nazareth is, without exception, that He never claimed that God had revealed to Him the wording of a Holy Scripture which already existed with God, which in Islamic tradition is called indschīl, nor that He alone or with the help of His apostles had given the message thus understood a written form in one single book, called indschīl.
In a consensus with critical research, it must be imagined that the process of “becoming writings” of Jesus’ messages, or better, the process of the genesis of the writings which were later collected and became the normative scriptures of the Church in the form of the “New Testament”, occurred as described by the well known Catholic theologian Otto Hermann Pesch:
“Jesus Himself refers to “scripture”, to “the law and the prophets” (see the Gospel of Matthew 22:40), which contain [according to Jesus’ teachings} the Word and the Will of God. But what happened to Him [Jesus] was the same as happened to the stories of the Old Testament and to the words of Moses and the prophets. At first, people talked about Him – in Mass, in the statements of faith, people talked about His words. Only later were they written down, at first a few, then more and more words He had spoken and that they meant for the believers. Finally, in the hands of talented writers and theologians, stories, word and interpretation merged together again to complete stories, which we call the Gospels, in accordance with the first line of the oldest among them (see Mark 1:1). In addition, there were the “pastoral letters” of the various apostles, missionaries and leaders of communities, especially of Paul.”
”And thus a new collection of books, the “New Testament“ was created. And just like using the Old Testament, the people of Israel learned their faith in God’s closeness through their history, so Christians use the New Testament to learn their faith in God’s final and irrevocable closeness to all human beings in His Son, the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ. Therefore, the New Testament is “Holy Gospel”, just as the Old Testament. It does not negate the Holy Writings of the Old Testament. It is the same God in whose actions among the people of Israel and in whose appearance in Jesus Christ we believe in. Both Testaments together, one as the book of promise, the other as the book of fulfillment, form one Holy Scripture – the founding Charta of faith and the Church. The question: “Can the Bible be believed” has therefore been answered, because it answers itself. We believe because the Bible invites us to believe. Without the Bible we would not be Christians, because without it we would not believe. It is as though we would look at a beloved person and ask: Am I allowed to love this person? If we love him, then we simply love him and no longer ask whether we’re allowed to do so. The same is true about belief with regard to the Bible: Its word invites us to believe. If, as a consequence, we believe in God, we simply believe. The Bible has then convinced us so much that we no longer ask, whether we “can” believe in it.”
The Bible as a human book
“ [Of course]… we want to know whether all these things have happened just as we read them in the Bible: All these strange stories of God’s miraculous intervention in the course of history. We keep hearing of “biblical criticism”, of “critical biblical science“, which compares the stories in the Bible with the knowledge we have about the times and the environment of the Bible with other sources, and then concludes: It cannot have been like this, history and legend have merged here, and the religious interpretation has colored the telling of the story. …“
“At this point, we have to impress something important: The Bible contains God’s word, but hidden in human words. The more we therefore take the Bible seriously as a human book, the better. However, this also means that its authors were children of their times – which can also be seen from the fact that they wrote in their own language which happened to be spoken in their environment: Hebrew or Greek. They wrote their books in the way people wrote books in those days. Because, for example, in those times good stories were even more loved than today, biblical writers included stories in their books and maybe even invented some in order to explain what they wanted to say. And of course they wrote their books to promote faith in God, to proclaim His activity. Who can be surprised then that faithful interpretation and the report itself merge? Nor is it astonishing, that the books contain much of other thinking besides faith, for example the construction of the universe, the end of the world etc. What they did not write was a modern day school book, where one thing clearly follows the other, nor an “objective” newspaper report or a police protocol, because they did not know what that was. And if you had told them they had been taken for legends, they would not have understood why this should be a criticism.”
God’s word cannot be obtained by any other means than bound in this word of the Bible written in its particular time. And if the Bible were different, if, for example, it was written the way we would rather have it, then we would never have found faith, because this Bible would not exist. It is easy to understand. If the biblical writer, possibly through special revelation from the Holy Spirit, had written in the style of the 20th century, then no-one in his own time would have understood properly. No-one would have felt that it concerned them, and therefore, no-one would have been interested, no-one would have kept it, written it down, translated it into other languages and spread it – and we would know nothing of the Bible today. There is therefore a very good reason for God’s word being hidden in the human. We should be thankful for that and not complain that we, having been born later and somewhere else, not only have to translate the Bible, but also have to explain and interpret it in order to understand it fully.” (Kleines katholisches Glaubensbuch. Topos Taschenbuch no. 29; 13. Edition. 1992.)
For the process of explaining scripture through the centuries into ever new times and situations, the church has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. According to Catholic understanding, the Holy Spirit, via the office of teaching (lat. magisterium), the Bishop of Rome who stands in the succession of Christ, and all the other Bishops, protects the church from basic errors in the teaching of faith and morals.
Question 95: What do you think of the book, "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown? In your opinion, is the book an attack of the free masons on the Catholic Church? (TR)
Answer: It is not the goal of our homepage to discuss literature. After I having read what the author write about himself and his novel, and after having researching the novel myself, I would oppose the idea that Dan Brown is making a direct attack on the Church and that he identifies himself with the free masons' position. The novel is a work of the imagination, of fiction, and not to be read as any form of actual historical portrayal. There is a lot of room for interpretation of the book. Every person who would wishes to form his own personal opinion about the novel needs to keep these facts in mind. More information can be found at: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
This page was translated by Erika Baker and Leanne Cvetan.
|
