Month: January 2012

A reader writes:

I am a Protestant and love listening to Catholic Answers Live. I am hoping you can help me out with the papal bull “Unigenitus” which appears to be condemning the idea of personal Scripture reading, etc. The way it’s worded doesn’t make it appear as if it is saying ‘we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation,’ but rather ‘we reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.’ I’m a protestant (former missionary overseas) who is looking at the Catholic Church, and trying to wrestle with the hard questions. I read the article on the Catholic Encyclopedia, but can’t find anything that deals with it in an apologetic way.

I’m concerned with passages: 79-85.

If my reading is correct, those passages are all condemned as worded. I was hoping you could help me understand why they would be condemned. Thanks, Jimmy, I really do appreciate it!

No problem!

The propositions are all condemned as worded, but the question is: What is the nature of the condemnation they are receiving?

Before we get to that, though, let me give a bit of background for those who aren’t familiar with Unigenitus.

It was a papal bull issued by Pope Clement XI which condemned 101 propositions contained in the writings of a French author named Paschasius Quesnel. The work has a rather involved history.

YOU CAN READ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT IT HERE.

YOU ALSO CAN READ THE RELEVANT PART OF UNIGENITUS HERE.

The history need not detain us, though. The important thing to understand is Unigenitus fits into a genre of papal documents that list and condemn various propositions proposed by a particular author or authors. This kind of document lists a bunch of propositions, typically drawn from the work of a single author, and then issues a condemnation of one type or another as a warning to the faithful.

So what happened in this case is that, because of problems reported with Quesnel’s works, Clement XI had a group of theological experts review them and report back about the problematic propositions that they found in them. These then served as the basis for Unigenitus.

But not all propositions are problematic in the same way, and so you have to look at the specific condemnations that are applied to them.

The thing is, documents of this type often do not match specific propositions with specific censures. The reasons for this are rather complex. Partly, it is driven by the nature of the genre. They aren’t coming up with these propositions themselves or rephrasing them. They’re lifting them straight from the work of another author, who was the person who chose how they were worded. That opens the door to different possible interpretations of the propositions, because an author may have phrased himself in a way that is open to more than one possible interpretation.

In some cases the specific censure that would apply to a proposition might depend on the sense in which the proposition is taken. If it is taken in one sense then one censure might apply. If it is taken in a different sense then another censure might apply. Rather than try to untangle all the possible ways in which a proposition might be taken and list the specific censures that would apply on that interpretation, documents of this nature are often content with listing the general kinds of censures that apply to the propositions in question. This is in keeping with their general pastoral mission, which is to warn the faithful, not provide a detailed analytical look that would satisfy the curiosity of experts.

It would be neat if they did the latter, but they tend not to for practical reasons (among them, it would sometimes require multi-volume works just to deal with all the possible senses that might be involved, it may be difficult to envision all the possible senses, and the stage of doctrinal development needed to address all possible interpretations may not have been reached).

With that as background, let us look at the condemnation that Unigenitus applies to the propositions it deals with. It says they are:

Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

What that means is that each proposition condemned in Unigenitus falls under at least one of these censures. It may fall under more than one, but it falls under at least one. Some are false. Some are captious. Some are evil-sounding. Some are offensive to pious ears. Some may be false and captious. Etc.

But, except for previously condemned propositions regarding Jansenism, the document doesn’t attempt to say which censures apply to which propositions.

That is important for our purposes, because these censures are of very different nature. If something is false, blasphemous, or heretical, that means one thing, but if it is merely evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, or rash, that’s something quite different.

The latter censures do not even mean that the proposition is false. They merely mean that the proposition is at least suspect (evil-sounding), at least badly phrased (offensive to pious ears), or at least unproved and potentially dangerous (rash).

Without going through each individual censure in detail, it is clear that many of them are rather limited in their meaning and do not imply that a proposition is utterly false–just that there is something problematic with it. It may even express a partial truth, but do so in a way that is badly phrased or otherwise deserving of a warning to the faithful.

Since the propositions the reader is asking about aren’t connected with Jansenism, we can’t be certain which individual censures would be connected with individual propositions. The most we can say is that the pontiff saw something potentially problematic with them. So let us look at the propositions and see if we can identify things that might be problematic:

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

 The most problematic word that Quesnel put in this proposition is “necessary.” Is it really necessary that at all times, in all places that every kind of person study the mysteries of Sacred Scripture?

I can easily see how this proposition would be judged at least rash–or flat-out false (or other things). What about all the people who are in no way prepared for individual Scripture study? Is it necessary that they do so? It would be paradoxical to say that it is necessary that someone unprepared for individual Scripture study go ahead and study anyway. To avoid this paradox one might say that there is no preparation needed to study Sacred Scripture on one’s own, but this seems manifestly false given the tendency demonstrated down through the centuries for people to go disastrously wrong in reading the Scriptures. To say that it is necessary for these people to study the Scriptures on their own (which is what we are talking about here, not studying them under proper guidance of the Church’s ministers) would seem to either entail throwing these people to the wind (i.e., saying that it’s necessary in spite of their lack of preparation) or that no preparation is needed (which seems manifestly false).

Similar problems replicate if we focus on the word useful. Is it really useful at all times, in all places, for every type of person? What about those not prepared?

It seems to me, thus, that the concern with this proposition is quite likely–as the reader puts it–“we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation.”

It does not seem to be “We reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.” If a person has proper preparation (has a proper grounding in the faith, isn’t going to leap to heretical conclusions, is well informed about the methods of Scripture interpretation, etc.) then what would be wrong with him studying on his own? Certainly the rejection of the proposition as in some way problematic does not entail such a conclusion–a conclusion that the Church has never maintained.

80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

 This seems to be objectionable on the same grounds as the previous proposition. Again: What about those unprepared for individual study?

81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

The rejection of this statement seems to be intended to protect the faithful from the having to shoulder the burden of studying the Scriptures on their own in spite of the obscurity that God wished the Scriptures to have. In other words, it’s okay for a person to say, “By God’s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I’m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch, who can’t discern important points on his own, without guidance. The fact that the Scriptures contain this level of mystery is a reason for me not to do Bible study without guidance.”

Remember: A huge number of people were either illiterate or barely literate at this time (and a large number are today as well), and asking them to undertake the burden of unguided Scripture study would simply be preposterous. Even people who can read well need help, as the ability to read alone is not sufficient preparation for understanding the Scriptures. If it were then Christian communities (Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) would not produce such an extensive range of Bible study helps and commentaries.

This proposition thus seems to be intended to protect the unprepared for shouldering a burden they were never meant to carry, and thus to converge again to the idea of proper preparation being needed for individual Scripture study.

82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

The rejection of this statement seems to have the same motive as the former. It seems to be intended to protect Christians from the idea it is “harmful” if they feel the need to say, “I am not prepared to do unguided Scripture study on Sundays; therefore, I wish to withdraw from doing so. I will stick with listening to the readings in Church and the explanations provided by the pastors of the Church and other qualified to expound them.”

83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.

This seems to be concerned to protect the rights of women to make the same objections discussed in the previous two propositions. It certainly is not the case that women should not have the mysteries of religion communicated to them through individual Scripture reading if they are properly prepared. But many women–like many men–were not (and–like many men–are not even today). If they aren’t properly prepared for individual Scripture study then they are not obligated to undertake it, just as men are not.

Quesnel’s assertion that heresies arise through the “proud knowledge of men,” and his apparent suggestion that this would not happen if women read the Scriptures on their own–because of their “simplicity”–is fatuous. Women who are unprepared for individual Scripture study can fall into error just as easily as men, and so they can be excused from undertaking this burden just as much as men.

84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

Earlier we referenced a censure of some propositions as “captious.” This term means, roughly, uncharitably fault-finding. In other words, being unfair to those you are criticizing by a spiteful and fault-finding attitude. In other words, being hypercritical and hostile.

I could easily see this proposition as being captious.

It characterizes the Church as “snatch[ing] away from the hands of Christians the New Testament.”

Harsh!

Is that really a fair characterization? Or is it an uncharitable, biased one?

The Church makes a point of reading from the New Testament at every Mass and explaining its meaning. By “snatch[ing it] away” is apparently meant “not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study.” But we have already seen that there are good reasons for the unprepared not to engage in unguided individual study.

I could easily see this proposition as being classified as captious–unduly critical. The prejudicial phrasing is obvious, and there are good reasons to be cautious about unguided Scripture study for those with very limited backgrounds in the subject.

85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.

This one also seems to be captious.

Notice the drama terms (“forbid” [twice], “cause them to suffer,” “excommunication”) and other drama-juicers (“especially the Gospels,” “forbid the use of light to the sons of light”).

The overall phrasing is hostile and contentious and seems, again, to  be casting the non-endorsement of universal, unguided Scripture study in the worst possible light.

Yet there are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it.

I can thus see how this would be classified as captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, and other similar things.

It thus seems to me that there are, indeed, things that are problematic about propositions 79-85. And it seems to me that they can each fall under one or another of the censures indicated at the end of Unigenitus.

It also seems to me that they do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.

I hope this helps!