Jimmy Akin – Page 5

Sola Scriptura & the Bereans

One of the distinctive Protestant principles is expressed in the slogan sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by Scripture only.” The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.

That leads to the common question, “Where’s that in the Bible?”

It’s an important question. In fact, it’s a question that needs to be asked about the doctrine of sola scriptura itself. Because if every teaching on faith or morals has to be based on the Bible then sola scriptura must be based on the Bible.

If it’s not, then it is a self-refuting claim and is false.

So what passages do Protestant Christians appeal to in support of sola scriptura?

Berean Christianity!

One that is sometimes cited is Acts 17, which deals with an incident that happened when St. Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in the Greek city of Berea.

St. Luke writes:

Acts 17

[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Many in the Protestant community have found this an inspiring story, and some have even named their ministries after the Berean Jews. If you go online you can find all kinds of Berean churches, schools, ministries, and bookstores.

The idea is that we should imitate the Berean Jews and take a skeptical attitude of theological ideas we are presented with. Instead of just accepting them, we should search the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told is true or not. If it’s not, then we should not accept it.

If that’s what the passage means—if it is commending the Bereans for their skeptical attitude and refusal to believe a teaching unless it can be found in Scripture—then this would be good evidence for sola scriptura.

But that’s not what it means, and it’s easy to show that.

What About Thessalonica?

You’ll notice that Acts 17:11 says that the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, which raises an immediate question: “What were the Thessalonian Jews like?”

If they are less noble in contrast to the skeptical Bereans, presumably they were credulous individuals who accepted what they were told without Scriptural proof.

That’s not what they were like at all. To see this, let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter, where we read:

Acts 17

[1] Now when [Paul and his companions] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.

[2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,

[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

[4] And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

[5] But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people.

[6] And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,

[7] and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”

[8] And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.

[9] And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

[10] The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.

It’s in that context that we now return to the verse where we started:

[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

**The Real Reason the Bereans Were Praised?**

So the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question.

Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

This understanding is confirmed by the following verses, where we read:

[12] Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.

[14] Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.

So the Thessalonians forced Paul to flee Berea, just as they had forced him to flee from their own town.

Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.

“By the Old Testament Alone?”

There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament.

What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.”

While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith.

What the Berean Jews were willing to do, therefore, was to open-mindedly look at the Old Testament Scriptures, see if they confirmed Paul’s preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and then go on to accept the new, Christian revelation that Paul also imparted.

And he imparted it by preaching, because the books of the New Testament were not all written yet.

The True Attitude of Berean and Thessalonian Christians

If we were to follow the example of the Bereans, we would look at whether the Scriptures we do have support a particular message and, if they do, then be willing to accept further revelation not found in those Scriptures.

We would, ironically, embrace the attitude of those at Thessalonica who did accept the Christian faith, for in 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul told them:

2 Thessialonians 2

[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

In other words, we would recognize the authority of all of the traditions passed on from Christ and the apostles, whether they were written or not.

And this is what the Catholic Church says we should do.

Learning More

If you’d like to learn more about these and other matters, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.

It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out fascinating information on a variety of topics connected with the Catholic faith.

The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

If you’d like to listen to or download this in audio format, just use the player and links below!

Revelation 12: Who Is the Woman Clothed with the Sun?

Virgen_de_guadalupe2 — The Virgin of Guadalupe displays the sun, moon, and stars symbolism of the Woman of Revelation 12

The book of Revelation contains a passage in which St. John sees a great sign in the sky. He wrote:

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne [Rev. 12:1, 5].

Who is this mysterious Woman clothed in the sun?

In the following video–and the accompanying audio (see the bottom of the post)–we explore that question and look at different theories that have been proposed.

In particular, we look at the view advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, both in his personal writing and in his teaching as pope.

The answer may surprise you!

Is She the Virgin Mary?

Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].

Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.

The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.

And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.

But there is more to the story.

Is She Israel . . . or the Church?

The symbolism connected with the Woman is drawn from the book of Genesis, where the patriarch Joseph has a dream involving the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” [Gen. 37:9-10].

The symbolism of the sun, moon, and twelve stars comes from Genesis, where it refers to the family of Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, who headed the twelve tribes of Israel.

That has led some to say that the Woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.

You could go further and note that the Church is the spiritual Israel. So some have suggested that the Woman as the Church.

Figuring out Which View is True

Which view is true?

Is the Woman Mary?
Is the Woman Israel?
Is the Woman the Church?

You could try to solve this problem by making some of the symbols primary and some secondary.

For example, you could make the Woman’s role as the mother of Jesus primary, so she’s his literal mother, Mary, and the sun, moon, and stars imagery only means that Mary was a Jewish woman.

Or you could make the sun, moon, and stars imagery primary and say that she’s Israel, and the fact that Mary was the particular Jewish woman who gave birth to Jesus is secondary.

Either/Or Vs. Both/And

We don’t have to make that choice, because if you study the way symbolism is used in the book of Revelation, it often uses a single symbol points to more than one thing.

For example, Revelation 17 tells us what the seven heads of the beast represents:

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the [Whore of Babylon] is seated; they are also seven kings (Rev. 17:9-10).

If the seven heads can be seven mountains and seven kings then the Woman clothed with the sun might be the Virgin Mary and Israel and the Church.

Pope Benedict’s View

That’s what Pope Benedict suggests. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume 2, he writes:

When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the whole Church. . . .

On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].

On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:

This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].

As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents.

In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.

Learning More

If you’d like to learn more about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.

The very first thing you’ll get is a free “interview” with Pope Benedict where I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings.

He has lots of interesting things to say!

You’ll also get lots of additional information on fascinating topics, absolutely FREE, so you should join now using this handy form:

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

If you’d like to listen to or download this in audio format, just use the player and links below!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

What’s the Best Way to Say the Rosary?

People say the Rosary in a variety of ways. Some say a simple version without any “add-ons.” Others use the Fatima Prayer. Many add the Hail, Holy Queen or other prayers at the end. Some add Scripture verses for meditation.

This raises some questions: Is there one right way to say the Rosary? Are some ways better than others?

A reader from the Philippines writes:

Sir Jimmy, a vital question. I somehow made an initiative to put “add-ons” to my rosary. For example, I put Bible verses before every decade, in order to capture the essence and the focus in every mystery.

I get distracted and drift away when my focus is lost, especially in the repetition of the Hail Mary’s without this.

I knew this is unhealthy, but maybe I have not arrived at the point yet that I can really meditate through the repetitions.

I am a young and adjusting Catholic. Is what I’m doing permissible?

Adding Scripture Verses

First of all, I would not say that it is unhealthy to add Bible verses before each decade. This practice is extremely common, there are many texts that have been published to help people do exactly this, and many people find it helpful to deepen their meditation.

You know who specifically endorsed this practice? Bl. John Paul II. In his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, he wrote:

30. In order to supply a Biblical foundation and greater depth to our meditation, it is helpful to follow the announcement of the mystery with the proclamation of a related Biblical passage, long or short, depending on the circumstances. No other words can ever match the efficacy of the inspired word. As we listen, we are certain that this is the word of God, spoken for today and spoken “for me”.

If received in this way, the word of God can become part of the Rosary’s methodology of repetition without giving rise to the ennui derived from the simple recollection of something already well known. It is not a matter of recalling information but of allowing God to speak.In certain solemn communal celebrations, this word can be appropriately illustrated by a brief commentary.

Got that? Not only is reading Bible passages–even longer ones–okay, but adding a brief commentary to them is okay, too!

So if the reader from the Philippines finds that adding biblical verses between the decades helps his own meditation, that’s great.

But the flexibility in how the Rosary can be said goes beyond this . . .

Different Openings

In the same apostolic letter, John Paul II noted:

37.At present, in different parts of the Church, there are many ways to introduce the Rosary. In some places, it is customary to begin with the opening words of Psalm 70: “O God, come to my aid; O Lord, make haste to help me”, as if to nourish in those who are praying a humble awareness of their own insufficiency. In other places, the Rosary begins with the recitation of the Creed, as if to make the profession of faith the basis of the contemplative journey about to be undertaken. These and similar customs, to the extent that they prepare the mind for contemplation, are all equally legitimate.

Different Ways of Announcing the Mysteries

There are also different ways of announcing and preparing for the mysteries. According to John Paul II:

29. Announcing each mystery, and perhaps even using a suitable icon to portray it, is as it were to open up a scenario on which to focus our attention. The words direct the imagination and the mind towards a particular episode or moment in the life of Christ. In the Church’s traditional spirituality, the veneration of icons and the many devotions appealing to the senses, as well as the method of prayer proposed by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in the Spiritual Exercises, make use of visual and imaginative elements (the compositio loci), judged to be of great help in concentrating the mind on the particular mystery.

Taking a Moment for Silence

One may also take a moment for silence after the mystery has been announced and any Scripture readings done. John Paul II indicates that this is fitting (though he does not say it is required):

31. Listening and meditation are nourished by silence. After the announcement of the mystery and the proclamation of the word, it is fitting to pause and focus one’s attention for a suitable period of time on the mystery concerned, before moving into vocal prayer. A discovery of the importance of silence is one of the secrets of practicing contemplation and meditation. One drawback of a society dominated by technology and the mass media is the fact that silence becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. Just as moments of silence are recommended in the Liturgy, so too in the recitation of the Rosary it is fitting to pause briefly after listening to the word of God, while the mind focuses on the content of a particular mystery.

**Differences in the Gloria (“Glory Be”)**

The Glory Be that concludes each decade can also be done in more than one way. John Paul II indicates that it may be said or sung:

34. . . . It is important that the Gloria, the high-point of contemplation, be given due prominence in the Rosary. In public recitation it could be sung, as a way of giving proper emphasis to the essentially Trinitarian structure of all Christian prayer.

Prayers at the End of Each Decade

There is also variability in the prayer (if any) said at the end of each decade, after the Glory Be:

35. In current practice, the Trinitarian doxology is followed by a brief concluding prayer which varies according to local custom. Without in any way diminishing the value of such invocations, it is worthwhile to note that the contemplation of the mysteries could better express their full spiritual fruitfulness if an effort were made to conclude each mystery with a prayer for the fruits specific to that particular mystery. In this way the Rosary would better express its connection with the Christian life. One fine liturgical prayer suggests as much, inviting us to pray that, by meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary, we may come to “imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise”.

Such a final prayer could take on a legitimate variety of forms, as indeed it already does. In this way the Rosary can be better adapted to different spiritual traditions and different Christian communities. It is to be hoped, then, that appropriate formulas will be widely circulated, after due pastoral discernment and possibly after experimental use in centres and shrines particularly devoted to the Rosary, so that the People of God may benefit from an abundance of authentic spiritual riches and find nourishment for their personal contemplation.

Different Closings

If there are different ways to begin the Rosary, there are also different ways to close it:

37. . . .Is it any wonder, then, that the soul feels the need, after saying this prayer and experiencing so profoundly the motherhood of Mary, to burst forth in praise of the Blessed Virgin, either in that splendid prayer the Salve Regina or in the Litany of Loreto? This is the crowning moment of an inner journey which has brought the faithful into living contact with the mystery of Christ and his Blessed Mother.

Different Mysteries

Of course, John Paul II would be the first person to agree that different mysteries can be used in the Rosary. He was the pope who, in the same apostolic letter we’ve been quoting, proposed the Luminous Mysteries, but these are optional. He wrote:

19. . . . I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ’s public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion.

The Best Way to Say the Rosary

From what we’ve seen, there is not one “right” way to say the Rosary. There are many legitimate options. But is there a best way?

For a given individual or group . . . perhaps.

The underlying principle by which “bestness” should be judged is the degree to which it helps with devotion, with meditation, with growing closer to God.

For an individual, there might be one particular way that does that better than other ways. Or a person might find different ways equally helpful. If so then for that person there is no “best” way.

When the Rosary is said in groups, it can certainly help for there to be a predictable format, so that everyone in the group knows what to expect and is not caught off guard in a way that disturbs their meditation.

The “best” way for that group, then, is likely to be the format every is expecting. That might change over time. The group might decide to include new things, omit some things that were there before, or substitute one option for another. That is okay. The key is not jarring people with the unexpected. (Which, incidentally, can also include the speed at which the prayers are said. Some people race through them, which isn’t good. Others can take a really slow, contemplative pace that might suit them personally but may not be suited for the group. In general, a not-rushed but not-glacial pace is good for groups, without dramatic speed ups or slow downs.)

Expecting the Unexpected

In some cases, when a group recites the Rosary together on a regular basis, over a long period of time, with the same people there, a common format may emerge by consensus. When that’s the situation, individuals should generally try to conform to the group’s way of doing things so as not to disturb the meditation of others by proposing–or even defiantly imposing–what they find privately preferable.

But since many groups are less stable and include different people passing in an out of them, some variability is to be expected with some groups.

When that happens, people should treat it as an opportunity to experience the Rosary in a different way. It may not be the way that they personally would have done it, were they leading the whole thing, but they should “go with the flow” and not get bent out of shape internally (or externally).

In particular, they should recognize that different people have different spiritualities and not look down on the different spirituality of someone else. If another person adds a prayer that you wouldn’t have added, fine. If they omit a prayer that you would have included, fine. If they substitute a different prayer, fine.

What we should not do is look down our noses at others for their differences in these matters. Nobody is “a better Catholic” because they maximize the number of prayers . . . or minimize it . . . or use different ones.

We’re all just different . . . which is the will of God.

What do you think?

By the Way . . .

popebenedict — He has interesting things to say on the Book of Revelation

I’ve gone into this kind of information before with the Secret Information Club.

If you haven’t already joined, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.

You should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

Thanks, and I hope you like the club!

Spiritual Warfare, the Hungry Ghosts, and Blindness

wholearmor — St. Paul describes the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians 6, a classic spiritual warfare text

Spiritual Warfare

What is spiritual warfare?

Why is it practiced differently in the Catholic Church than in other churches?

What are the principles that it is based on?

Are ordinary Christians authorized to cast out demons?

What does St. Paul really mean when he talks about putting on the “whole armor of God”?

What is the “spirit of fear”?

How about the “spirit of religion”?

Who has the power to “bind and loose”? Is it just St. Peter, or is it broader than that?

What does “binding and loosing” mean, anyway?

Who is allowed to perform exorcisms–and do they need special permission?

Does the Bible support the idea that only certain people are authorized to perform exorcism?

What are the dangers exorcism involves for the unprepared?

Is the devil responsible for all of our temptations?

Can we attribute too much power to the devil?

What is a balanced approach to spiritual warfare?

The Hungry Ghosts

Should Catholic schools allow non-Christians to conduct prayer services on school property?

What if it’s in the chapel?

What if it’s in the parking lot?

Who should be consulted in cases of doubt?

Blindness

What is it like to be blind? What struggles do people with severe vision impairment face that sighted people never think about?

What has Jimmy’s own experience with being legally blind for a month taught him about the situation of blind people, and how has it affected his prayer life.

By the way, toward the end of the program, I invite people to join the Secret Information Club. To do that, you can use this handy form:

Or email me if you have any problems at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

In the meantime, to learn the answers to all these questions, just click the “Play” icon!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Was Blind But Now I See

jm_200_NT1.pd-P14.tiff — Behold, the Blind See

I’d like to thank everyone who has been praying for my recent eye surgery. I meant to provide a blog update before now, but I’ve been swamped catching up on things.

For any who may not be aware, I’ve been dealing with cataracts for some time, and for the last month I was legally blind.

Here’s what happened . . . and what I learned.

What They Did

The good news is that the surgery went very well. The procedure, which involves taking out the current lens in your eye and putting in an artificial one, took about twenty minutes.

I was conscious for the whole procedure. They gave me something which they said would relax me, but I don’t know if they gave me quite enough because I remember forcibly relaxing myself several times in the procedure.

Improvement in my vision was immediate. As soon as the new lens was in, I was no longer legally blind. In fact, it was good enough that–simply in terms of vision–I could have driven home. That’s not allowed, though, because of the anesthesia they give you, so a friend drove me back.

Once I was home I started having repeated experiences of, “Oh! Here’s where I left that small object weeks ago.”

To protect the eye during the first day of healing, they put a clear plastic cover over my eye. I’m also supposed to wear that when I’m asleep for the first week, to keep me from accidentally rubbing my eye.

And I’m taking three kinds of eye drops four times a day–one anti-bacterial (to prevent infection) and two anti-inflammatories.

Not the Solution I Expected

Here’s something I wasn’t expecting: It turns out that one of the anti-inflammatories, prednisol, tastes really bad. I was surprised to learn this, because I didn’t put any of the prednisol in my mouth. The folks at the eye surgeon’s office explained that the eye drops get into your tear ducts, which drain into your throat, so an unpleasant tasting eye drop can result in a bad taste in the back of your mouth.

Who knew?

I told them they need grape or cherry flavored prednisol.

They said, “Just don’t blink. That’s what forces the eye drop into the tear duct. Close your eye instead for a minute.” And it helped.

The Results

Now here’s the really good news: I went back the next day for an post-operative evaluation, they checked my vision, and it was now 20/20! (Meaning: An object that is 20 feet away from me looks the way it would to a person with normal vision at 20 feet.)

From legally blind to 20/20 vision the day after is really good, they said, and they went on to say that my vision should continue to improve for the first two weeks.

I now don’t need glasses to do anything with distance. I don’t need them to drive (that has not been the case ever before, as I was wearing glasses by the time I got my first drivers’ license) or to see objects across the room clearly, etc.

I do still need glasses to read, but only inexpensive, non-prescription ones. Someone on the Internet kindly suggested that they could be had for $1 at the dollar store, so I went by a near by dollar store and got seven pairs for seven bucks.

I decided on a volume purchase because, now that I don’t have to wear my glasses constantly, it’s easy to leave them lying someplace or forget to take them with you–a problem that I knew people had but never really understood. “Why not just wear glasses all the time?” I wondered, not realizing that keeping your reading glasses on can make your distance vision worse.

I Now Have a Minor Superpower

Another thing I didn’t expect is that the lens they put in is treated to have UV protection, so I now have UV protection built into my eye. I still need to wear sunglasses in bright light, simply to reduce the amount of light, but not as much for the UV protection.

Something I had some indication of before surgery was that my color vision would improve. Apparently, I am informed by a kind commenter, all adults start having clouding of the lens by the time they are in their 20s, and thus have some loss of color vision.

With my new lens, WOW! ARE THE COLORS INTENSE! Reds are redder, greens are greener, blues are bluer, etc. It’s like the whole world is now in Technicolor.

Children, apparently, live in a much more colorful world than adults do.

All of the above applies to my right eye, which was the one I had the surgery on. My left eye is scheduled for surgery in September.

So I wanted to thank everyone who has been praying for the surgery and the recovery. It means a lot to me.

What I Learned

The experience has also been valuable to me in that I now have a much better understanding of what it’s like to live with severe vision impairment. There are all kinds of things that blind people have to deal with, and not all of them you would expect. For example: Cooking meat is really difficult. How do you know when it’s done? How do you know it’s not over-done? Or how can you tell if vegetables are fresh or going bad? How do you chop vegetables? I’m not saying that these things can’t be done, but it requires a whole different approach than what sighted people are used to.

I’m just thankful that there is something that could be done to restore my vision, which would not have been the case in the past. A century ago, I would have been stuck and remained functionally (and eventually fully) blind for the rest of my life.

An ongoing part of my own prayers will now be for people whose conditions aren’t as easily treated as mine, that new options will become available and that, until then, they have the help from God and others to deal with the challenges the situation poses.

Won’t you join me?

Can You Attend the Catholic Wedding of a Non-Practicing Catholic?

A reader writes:

I am caught in the odd–maybe not uncommon–situation of my Catholic godson getting married in the Church to a non-Catholic, yet, based on reasonable presumption, not living a Catholic life, not attending Mass, not having anything to with the Church practically, etc. and presumably having no intention of doing so in the future.

If my presumptions noted above are accurate, I find it distasteful to be “using” the sacraments this way.

Perhaps, my godson will even be engaged in receiving the Sacrament of Marriage in mortal sin, thereby sacrilegiously receiving it.

Yet, it appears, my godson is being faithful to the Church’s mind since he is bound to be married in the Church, and he is doing so.

Despite the fact the Church still requires him to be married in the Church, is there not something to be said for witnessing to the seriousness of what is taking place by deciding my godson is not at the point of taking it seriously enough and therefore not attending?

Alternatively put, as godfather, might it be wrong or even sinful for me to be present and witness to my godson that he can act like a Catholic for this ceremony and then go on about his business as a non-practicing Catholic?

Thoughts on any or all of these fronts?

I take a strict line on attending weddings that are presumptively invalid. I never advise people to go to those because of the signal it will send to the participants–and others.

But if the marriage is presumptively valid, I don’t view it that way at all.

Who Else Is “Showing Up”?

After all, if God is willing to show up for the marriage (i.e., make it valid), and if the Church is willing to show up for the marriage (i.e., witness it, which is what the Church does, since the sacrament is performed by the parties themselves), then you should be able to as well.

I understand the distaste of a situation where the person may be celebrating a sacrament in a sacrilegious way (i.e., in a state of mortal sin). But the fact is that the sacrament will still be valid. God will still cause it to come into existence.

Big Trouble!

That’s a good thing because lots and lots of people are not in a state of grace at the time they get married.

That’s been the case since marriage between baptized persons was made a sacrament (and, frankly, it was the case even before marriage could be sacramental).

If not being in a state of grace invalidated marriage then we would be in big trouble.

So God has determined that, though it grieves him the parties are in a state of mortal sin, he is willing to go ahead and make their union a sacrament.

The Church’s Pastoral Judgment

The Church has also judged it pastorally prudent to go ahead and conduct such weddings, perhaps in part because it will help the people in question maintain contact with the Church and, though they aren’t leading a Catholic life now, the fact that the Church was willing ot marry them may help them return to the Catholic ife of faith later.

Marriages, like funerals and baptisms, are one of those moments in a person’s life that get really emotionally charged, and if they get alienated at that moment, it can do enormous–perhaps permanent and fatal–damage to their relationship with Christ’s Church.

As a result, the Church has judged it pastorally prudent to marry such people, even though the situation is not what it should be.

A Godfather’s Role

I would counsel you to do likewise. In other words, if you can reasonably go, go! Particularly in light of the fact you are the gentleman’s godfather. Like the priest or deacon who officiates at the wedding, you are also an official representative of the Church to this young man, and I would show the same attitude that the Church does.

In fact, staying away as a way of making a statement about the young man’s practice of his faith would send a mixed message that could appear to put you in opposition to the Church on this point. As a godfather to this young man, that’s a signal you don’t want to send.

I would also bear in mind that the young man may not be in mortal sin–or at least he may not incur a new mortal sin by getting married this way. If he is like many young people today, he may lack the knowledge needed to realize his situation, and thus one of the needed requirements for a mortal sin may be missing.

Ways to Help?

This is not to say that you might not be able to do things to help the young man.

Depending on your relationship with him (and this is always a judgment call), you might invite him to see this as an opportunity to renew and grow closer to his faith.

You might even mention going to confession before getting married, to make sure he’s right with God before undertaking this sacred step. (Though you might also check first to see if this is covered as part of his marriage prep, in which case you don’t need to bring it up).

If you yourself went to confession before getting married, you might speak of how it meant a lot to you to be able to approach the altar knowing that you were right with God–or whatever you think might best help him.

The Bottom Line

In any event, if you can reasonably go, I would say go–especially in view of the fact that you are his godfather.

If God and the Church are doing their parts to help him have a valid marriage, I think it would be a good idea for his godfather to do so as well, despite the understandable concerns and discomfort about the way the situation appears.

I hope this helps, and I encourage people to keep the young couple–and all in similar situations–in their prayers.

What Is the Best Way to Help the Poor?

Yesterday we looked at a question from a Secret Information Club member who is considering becoming Catholic and who was wondering if you have to donate every spare penny to the poor.

The short answer is that you don’t, at least not in normal circumstances. You can read the post to see why.

In the course of answering the question we noted that if everyone tried the donate-every-spare-penny strategy then it would crash the world economy and cause economic chaos that would actually impoverish people.

While helping the poor is imperative for Christians, the donate-every-spare-penny strategy is not the best way to accomplish it.

We also noted that history shows that a better way to help people is by encouraging economic development through letting them have and enjoy private property and offering economic opportunity. This leads to . . .

The Best Way to Help the Poor

The best way to help the poor is thus to enable them to participate in the same kind of economic development that has brought prosperity to others.

It means not shutting them out. Not keeping them down. Helping them get rid of governments that are deliberately obstructing the economic developement of their own people so that the pockets of the local kleptocracy can be lined.

It means all those things.

It’s the same principle embodies in the common idea that if you give a man a fish, he has food for a day, but you teach him to fish, he has food for a lifetime.

To put it another way, giving someone a job is better than giving someone a handout.

Plan B

Both strategies are necessary at times. Sometimes a person is in a situation where, through no fault of his own (or even though his fault), he cannot work.

Handouts in those situations can be absolute lifesavers–literally.

They can, as we have seen in the previous post, be morally obligatory and acts not only of mercy but of justice.

But they are not the preferred solution. Work is better.

As the Church also recognizes, work is ennobling. It better corresponds to the dignity of the individual by allowing him to make a positive contribution to the common good, and helping the poor though economic development (and all that involves, including security, job education, investment, etc.) should be the goal.

Alms for the poor have a definite and very important place, but they cannot be an end in themselves.

They must be “Plan B”–something that is used when helping someone find productive work is not (for the moment or on an ongoing basis) possible.

But when we can, it’s better to help someone with productive employment.

So What About Golf Clubs?

In the previous post, the Secret Info Club member asked, in light of the need to help the poor, whether golf clubs are okay (the kind of golf clubs that you join, not the kind that you swing, although I guess the answer to the first kind will provide the answer to the second kind)–and whether it’s okay to have cable television or take vacations or participate in similar forms of rest and recreation that cost money which could be given to the poor.

Yes.

For a start, not participating in these activities would mean not giving money to the people who make them possible. If people failed to engage in these activities it would mean putting them out of work, and as we saw, work is better than the handouts they would then need to survive.

The activities are morally licit in themselves. There is nothing wrong with playing golf, watching TV, or going on a vacation (though each can be done in a morally illicit way–such as getting super arrogant about one’s golf game, watching porn, or engaging in sex tourism).

As long as they are morally licit for people to participate in them, it is morally licit for people to make their living by helping others do so (e.g., as a golf pro, a TV producer, or a hotelier).

If it’s morally legitimate for people to make a living helping others enjoy these things then that’s preferable to them being reduced to poverty and having to take handouts. So that’s one reason why it’s licit to engage in these activities: It not only provides you with rest and recreation, it provides others with productive work!

Living in a Human Mode

It is always possible for us to “do more” for the poor than we are presently doing, but this fact cannot be allowed to develop into a kind of panicked scrupulosity, where we are terrified that we are sinning if we are not “doing more.”

It will always be possible to do more–either to donate more or to work harder to have more money to donate.

But trying to do those things takes us out of a human mode of existence. It can lead us, for example, to neglect our own needs–including our own need for rest and recreation and, even more importantly, our need to enjoy the good things God has allowed us to have so that we may feel gratitude to him and praise him for his gifts–as well as the needs of our family and those close to us, which are the people to whom we have the strongest obligations, after all.

God does not call us to live in a superhuman way but in a human way–what moral theologians sometimes refer to as living in modo humano.

It may be the calling of some to live heroically on the edge of the human mode. Such people are living saints. But it is not required of us in the main. Unless we find ourselves in a situation that calls for heroic action, we are not called to heroic action.

We may live in a non-heroic but morally decent way and trust God to give us the strength needed for heroic action if we are ever placed in a situation that calls for it. (This harks back to the different we discussed in the previous post about the difference between a law, which all must obey, and a counsel, which may do greater good but is not required.)

Eliminating Poverty

We may not ever be able to eliminate poverty. After all, Jesus said “the poor you will always have with you.” Though he may, hypothetically, have been speaking for his immediate disciples and not for all of world history, the problem of poverty is likely to persist into the indefinite future on one scale or another.

The good news is that poverty is diminishing!

In prior centuries the vast majority of the people of the world lived in crushing poverty, with only a few living outside of its grasp. In the past there was no middle class.

Today huge numbers of people have escaped its grip. Not only is there a middle class, but in many parts of the world people who are on the lower end of the economic ladder are amazingly–unprecedentedly–rich by historical standards.

Here in America even people who are counted as poor by relative standards are likely to have television, computers, air conditioning, telephones, cell phones, smart phones, not to mention better medical care on a charity basis than has been available at any point in human history and more than enough food to keep them from starving to death.

Are there people here in America who are poor by historical standards?

Perhaps, but they represent a tiny number, and the cause of their extreme impoverishment is due to other causes, such as not taking advantage of the enormous number of benevolence programs (run by private charities or the government) that are available to them. Frankly, they are most likely victims of one or another forms of mental illness that prevents them from taking advantage of the numerous forms of assistance that are available.

Do means to reach them and help them need to be found? Absolutely!

But the larger question remains: How can we best help the poor all over the globe?

The Global Solution

If we want to eliminate global poverty–or drastically reduce it to the extent that this is possible–then we should ask how we did the same job in the developed world.

The answer is: by encouraging economic development through respecting private property and offering economic opportunity. Both public and private charity also played a role, but these two were the engines that allowed the developed world, including America, to achieve its developed status.

They are what we need to share with the developing world, and this process is the ideal behind what is known as the “globalization” of the world economy.

We must be careful how this is done, so that entrenched economic interests in the developed world aren’t given an unfair competitive advantage, but that’s the basic goal.

When it comes to the impact of the process on individuals in the developed world and their economic activities, it means not just targeted donations to individuals in the developing world who need handouts. It also means providing work for those in such nations who want to do work and who–due to better international trade or the Internet–are able to do such work at a distance.

In other words, the solution to the global poverty problem–to the extent we can achieve it–involves a mixture of providing work as the foremost solution, providing handouts as the backup solution, and most of us living in a normal human manner rather than in the heroic manner that circumstances can demand of us in particular situations.

One More Thing

I mentioned at the top of the post that the gentleman who asked the question is a member of the Secret Info Club, and as he notes, he’s not presently Catholic. This reveals something that may not be obvious, which is that the Secret Information Club isn’t just for Catholics. It’s for anyone who likes the kind of information I put on the blog and who would like to receive additional information by email.

For example, right now I’m preparing a message on book recommendations by Pope Benedict.

thoughtful-benedict — Would you like a book recommendation from the pope?

Like many of us, Pope Benedict takes a vacation in the summer to rest, recuperate, and catch up on projects.

Like the rest of us, he finds himself looking for things he can profitably read during this time.

So does Pope Benedict have any thoughts about what people might profitably read during this time?

He does.

That’s why I’ve prepared a special “interview” with Pope Benedict on just this subject that I’ll be sending to members of the Secret Information Club on Saturday, August 18th.

To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:

Just email me if you have any difficulty.

I Don’t Normally Ask for Prayers . . .

. . . but this time I would like to do so.

Here’s the situation: For some time, I have been developing cataracts in my eyes. I’m very young to get them, but I’m told that the men in my family tend to get them unusually early. (I’m also told that some people are even born with cataracts, though that wasn’t the case with me.)

Just recently, I have lost the central part of my vision to the cataracts. The result is that I may, at the moment, I may be legally blind.

I don’t know whether that’s the case, but I do know that at the moment my vision is so bad that I can’t:

Drive a car.
Walk across a multi-lane street (can’t see approaching cars or lighted “Walk” signs).
Cook food (e.g., meat) that I would need to see in order to determine whether it is underdone, done, or overdone.
Read anything written on paper (e.g., anything in any book or anything on an individual sheet of paper).
Read anything on a normal computer screen (i.e., one that hasn’t been specially adjusted for my condition).
Read anything at all without significant eye strain.
See the letters on the keyboard I’m typing on (fortunately, I touch type, but it makes it hard to enter complex passwords when the characters on the specially-adjusted screen are blanked out).
Use audio or video editing software (making it hard to do my podcast and YouTube videos).
See faces and facial expressions, even when the person is close.

It’s also really hard to read and respond to email, so I’m slower about that, too.

You can imagine how this is forcing me to adapt to loss of vision (e.g., I’m having to use coping techniques like memorizing where I put down an object so that I know where to find it again), how it’s slowing down some of my efforts (e.g., after straining my eyes at a computer screen all day, I don’t have that much vision left to interact on the Internet at night), and generally adding strain to my efforts to lead a normal life.

Basically, I can’t see anything far away or close up. I can only see things in middle distance, and then they look blurry and cloudy, like I am looking at a world filled with fog through a blurry lens.

All this has given me a new understanding of the situation that those find themselves in who have vision far worse than the nearsightedness that I’m used to. I’ve been having to develop many of the coping techniques needed by the blind and partially blind.

I can, surprisingly, call square dances. In fact, I can even “sight call” (i.e., use visual cues to match the dancers up using the color of their clothing as clues to who they are). I just need someone to give me a ride to and from the dance which, happily, my Friday club is providing me.

The good news is that cataracts should be eminently fixable. In fact, they tell me that once I get the needed surgery in both eyes, my vision is likely to be better than it has been since I was a boy. I may not need glasses at all to drive, and I may not need anything but nonprescription, supermarket glasses to read (if that).

But we’ll have to see (no pun intended). Things could go badly with the surgery or the healing of my eyes afterward.

And the stakes are high. It’s my eyes we’re talking about.

That’s why I thought I’d break with my usual practice and let people know about the situation in case they would like to pray.

I would be very greatful.

The surgery on my first eye is scheduled for Tuesday, August 21st. The second eye will be operated upon a few weeks after that.

Whatever mention of me and my intentions that you might feel moved to make in your prayers, you have my sincere gratitude.

Please also pray for all those who have to live with vision loss on either a temporary or a permanent basis.

Thank you!

Do You Have To Donate Every Spare Penny?

A member of the Secret Info Club writes:

I’ve been a Bible-believing Protestant for thirty years and I am seriously looking at becoming Catholic. I have an important question regarding the Catholic Church’s teaching on wealth and giving.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2446 “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs. The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.”

“When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”

Jimmy, would you please clarify what the Church’s teaching is? My wife and I give a lot to the poor and to ministries, but I also belong to a golf club and we have cable TV and sometimes take a vacation and stay in a hotel.

Is the Catechism teaching that Catholics should not have these “goods,” that it is wrong to have luxuries like being a member of a golf club or cable TV? If I don’t give away all my superfluous goods, anything above what is needed, to meet the needs of the starving, am I in mortal sin? Or is this talking about personally seeing a starving man and turning away from him?

I’ll be happy to do what I can. Let’s get started . . .

A Debt of Justice

Let’s start by the Catechism’s statement that in performing works of mercy like giving to those in need we are paying a debt of justice.

The basis for that statement involves the fact that God gave the earth and its resources to mankind to care for our needs. The Church refers to this as the “universal destination” of the goods God has given us.

He has also structured human nature so that we are social beings who are meant to care for one another. If someone is in need, the rest of us have an obligation to do what we can to help him out.

It therefore would be contrary to human nature and to the universal destination of the goods God has given us to knowingly and deliberately allow a person to starve to death when we can reasonably prevent that. (The same applies to allowing other basic needs to remain unmet, but let’s stick with starving to death, because it is a clear case.)

Because it would be contrary to human nature and God’s universal destination for the resources of the earth, it would be unjust to just let someone starve to death.

Since death is a grave matter, to knowingly and deliberately allow it to occur when it could be reasonably be prevented would amount to a mortal sin. (Grave matter and adequate knowledge and deliberate consent being the conditions needed for mortal sin.)

Thus it is reasonable to describe helping starving people as a debt of justice and to describe failing to do so (under the conditions specified) as a mortal sin.

But let’s dig a little deeper . . .

What Counts as Reasonable?

You’ll note that I specified that letting someone starve to death whe it could be reasonably prevented. This is because there are some situations in which there is no reasonable way to prevent it.

For example, if the only way to prevent one person from starving to death were to take food from another person so that he starves to death then there is no reasonable way to prevent the first person from starving.

We are not obliged to save one person from starving at the price of causing another person to starve.

So we must ask the question of what counts as reasonable.

Here there can be a temptation toward what the Church refers to as scrupulosity, or excessive worry about whether something is sinful.

It is easy for us to imagine doing more than we are to help the poor. We can, for example, imagine working super-hard, making lots of money, keeping for ourselves only the amount needed to barely ensure our survival, and donating every spare penny to the relief of the poor.

Are we obliged to do this?

No.

Here’s one way to show that , , ,

The Rule Cannot Be Generalized

If a rule cannot be generalized to everyone then it cannot represent a general obligation that everyone has.

So what if everyone tried to obey the rule just proposed? What if everyone worked super-hard to make money, kept only a survival-level amount, and donated the rest? What would happen?

Chaos.

For a start, if everyone tried to do this, how would we be making money in the first place? Where would the money come from? Suppose your skill is making widgets. In order to make money, you need to sell widgets. But if everyone is buying only the amount of necessities that they absolutely need to survive, then you will only be able to sell subsistence-level amounts of widgets–if the widgets you seel are even necessary for survival. If not, you won’t be able to sell any widgets.

The market for widgets (and all goods and services) would shrink dramatically–catastrophically–thus stopping you (and everyone else) from being able to make the money that you want to donate to the poor.

Trying to apply the proposed rule would thus effectively destroy the economy and reduce those who are not presently poor to a state of poverty.

What would happen to the former poor?

They would receive a short-term infusion of cash (or food, or other goods and services), but then this resource would dry up as the former world economy crashed.

Without economic infrastructure in place in the developed world, the former poor would not be able to manage the wealth suddenly transferred to them or instantly get a new economy going to replace the former one.

And there are a host of other bad effects that would result as well. In fact, every large-scale sudden transfer of wealth (such as sometimes happens as part of political revolutions) tends to go disastrously.

Chaos ensues.

Law or Counsel?

This means that the idea that everyone in the developed world is neither obligated to adopt the donate-every-spare-penny rule nor should they.

Some people might choose to do so. It might even be very good for them to do so. They might even lay up treasure in heaven by doing so. But they are not obliged to do so.

This points to a distinction that the Church makes between a law and a counsel. Laws are things that we are obliged to do. Counsels deal with things that are good to do but that are not obligatory in ordinary circumstances.

Thus Jesus on occasion invited individuals to sell their property and follow him, living a life of evangelical poverty, but he did not expect everyone to do this. (After all, if everyone did it, who would buy all the property being put on the market?)

A More Generalizable Way

While evangelical poverty may be appropriate at times, it is not the way for the whole of society to operate. There is a better way to promote the common good–including the good of the poor–than the donate-every-spare-penny strategy.

This plan involves incentivizing people to work by letting them enjoy the fruits of their labors.

As has long been observed, if you provide positive incentives for a particular behavior, people will engage in more of it.

So if you want to cultivate the earht’s resources in a way that the needs of all people are met, you need to incentivize that cultivation.

Historically, the most successful way of doing that has involved the protection of private property and providing economic opportuity to individuals.

Giving people the opportunity to use their talents and then enjoy the fruits of their labors will lead them to do so, and thus increase the cultivation of the earth’s resources for their good and the good of others.

Thus the Catechism says:

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

Historical experience has showed that this model more effectively assures the cultivation and distribution of the earth’s resources than alternative models. It is thus a more generalizable rule–one that can be put in practice on a large scale in a way that promotes the common good.

This leads to . . . the best way to help the poor, which we’ll deal with in my next post.

The takeaway from today’s post, however, is that the donate-every-spare-penny strategy is not obligatory. There are situations in which donating is obligatory–such as when I know that a person will starve if I don’t assist him and when I have the ability reasonablly to provide that assistance. But this is not the usual circumstance.

One More Thing

For example, right now I’m preparing a message on book recommendations by Pope Benedict.

Like many of us, Pope Benedict takes a vacation in the summer to rest, recuperate, and catch up on projects.

Like the rest of us, he finds himself looking for things he can profitably read during this time.

So does Pope Benedict have any thoughts about what people might profitably read during this time?

He does.

That’s why I’ve prepared a special “interview” with Pope Benedict on just this subject that I’ll be sending to members of the Secret Information Club on Saturday, August 18th.

Just email me if you have any difficulty.

Are All the Books of the Bible Historical?

JesusNicodemus — Is everything in the Bible historical? What do the teachings of Jesus reveal?

Everything in the Bible is historical in the sense that it was written in historical times. The Bible is a small library of literature that was written over the course of about 1,000 years–a period that ended nearly 2,000 years ago. So the biblical books are historical documents in that sense.

But what about the content of the biblical books? If you open up the Bible to a random passage, does that mean what you are reading is automatically history?

An Obvious No

In one sense, the answer is an obvious no. Not all books in Scripture are trying to recount historical events.

The Gospels are. The Acts of the Apostles is. Many books of the Old Testament are. But relating history is not the purpose of other books.

For example: the epistles of St. Paul or the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. These are concerned with building people’s faith, but they aren’t narratives. They don’t tell the story of what happened in a particular period in history the way that Matthew, Acts, or 1 Kings does.

We can learn certain historical facts from them, but these historical items are things mentioned in passing, not the principal purpose of the epistles.

Similarly, in the Old Testament we find books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. These also may make passing references that are of value to historians, but they aren’t intended to tell us the story of particular historical periods.

What About Prophecy?

What about the prophetical books? Don’t these tell us about history?

Yes, but they also are not straightforward historical texts.

The book of Revelation contains information about both the beginning and the end of Church history, and so it relates to history in a definite way.

The Old Testament prophetical books contain material that relates to the events of their own day, to times soon after, to the time of Christ, and to the end of the world, so they also relate to history.

But they convey this material in advance and through symbols. That makes them different than straightforward historical records.

The Example of the Gospels

Consider just the Gospels. These books are historical in the sense that they relate what Jesus did during his earthly ministry. But they also contain Jesus’ teachings. While these were given at a certain point in history, they aren’t about history. Jesus was not serving as a history professor. The content of his teachings deal with God and our relationship with him.

Consider in particular Jesus’ parables. These are lessons that communicate theological truths in an allegorical way.

When Jesus says, “A man left on a journey,” or “A sower went out to sow,” or “There was a man who had two sons,” he is not intending to tell us about about particular historical events. It would be a mistake, when told about the man with two sons, to ask, “What were their names?”

Instead, Jesus is using allegory told in the form of a story to reveal a spiritual truth. The parables thus show us something very significant . . .

A Story Is Not Enough

The fact we are reading a story in the Bible does not automatically mean that we are reading history.

Jesus’ parables contain stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, but Jesus is not intending to tell us about a specific historical event that really happened.

That means that when we read a story in the Bible, we must examine it to see whether it is meant to be a historical account or something else. We must look to the cues it gives the audience to signal what kind of account it is.

Taking Your Cues from the Text

It is notable that, in his parables, Jesus almost never names anyone involved in the story. (The only exception is Lazarus in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.) Instead, he leaves the principal figures anonymous: a king, a master, a son, a servant.

That is one of the conventions Jesus uses to tell us that what we are reading is a parable rather than a historical narrative. But this is not the only way that the Bible signals something other than history.

Another signal is obvious symbolism. If you open the Bible to certain prophetic passages, you will find passages in describing monsters–dragons, wild beasts that combine the features of different animals, things with many heads.

This kind of obvious symbolism can also serve as an indicator that what you are reading isn’t straightforward history but something else.

Subtler Cases

Jesus’ parables and the prophetic texts are obvious cases that contain cues which even people today, raised in a totally different culture, can pick up on. But there are texts in the Bible that use cues subtle enough that it is easy for people today to miss them.

Consider this: Suppose we took the parable of the Prodigal Son and gave names to the characters. Suppose we added the name of the village where they lived–a real village. Suppose we even said the year in which the events took place (according to the ancient way of reckoning years). What would we make of the story then?

We might well conclude that Jesus was telling us about an actual historical event.

There might be cues in the tales that would signal their allegorical nature, but in the absence of the familiar cues of nameless characters in a nameless place at a nameless time, we might mistake what we were reading for straightforward history.

So here’s something interesting to think about: If, within the Gospels, Jesus told short allegories that could be taken as historical accounts if a few details were supplied, could God inspire an entire book–not just part of a book–that is an allegory? Could he even supply names, dates, and places, trusting the ancient audience to recognize the allegorical nature of the text where we might miss it?

And not just could God do this, but has God done this?

John Paul II was of the opinion that he has.

John Paul II on Allegorical Books of the Bible

He didn’t give an exhaustive list of allegorical books (many would put the book of Job into that category), but in 1985 John Paul II gave a brief review of the books of the Old Testament in which he stated:

The Books of Tobit, Judith, and Esther, although dealing with the history of the Chosen People, have the character of allegorical and moral narrative rather than history properly so called [General Audience, May 8, 1985].

Why would he say this?

Tobit, Judith, and Esther all contain named figures–some of whom are known to history. They mention real places. And they refer to datable events. So why would he say they are allegorical rather than history proper? What cues in the text would reveal that?

In coming posts, we’ll take a look at that, and it will give us a chance to learn some interesting things about the Bible.

In the meantime, though, allow me to mention . . .

Pope Benedict’s Recommended Reading

Like many of us, Pope Benedict takes a vacation in the summer to rest, recuperate, and catch up on projects.

Like the rest of us, he finds himself looking for things he can profitably read during this time.

So does Pope Benedict have any thoughts about what people might profitably read during this time?

He does.

That’s why I’ve prepared a special “interview” with Pope Benedict on just this subject that I’ll be sending to members of the Secret Information Club on Saturday, August 18th.