For most of October, more than 200 Catholic bishops, along with sundry theologians and experts, met at the Vatican to figure out how to get Catholics to read the Bible — a project easily dismissed by Protestants and some Catholics as too ambitious and about 500 years too late. After all, wasn’t it Rome’s fears about letting mere lay people consult Holy Writ that stoked the Reformation? And Catholics don’t want to read the Bible anyway, right? They’re all about the Mass and the sacraments.
The first supposition has some merit, though the truth is a good deal more complex, and the Reformers — pace, Martin Luther — a good deal less enlightened on that score than is generally assumed. And, yes, Catholics continue to be sacramentally centered Christians who find the “summit and source” of their spiritual nourishment in the Eucharist.
But a funny thing happened on the way to modernity: The Catholic Church opened itself to the Word in a way it hadn’t done before. In the process, it fostered a balanced culture of biblical exegesis and devotion (at least among most scholars and clerics) that many in sola scriptura Protestantism might envy. Especially in light of trends in mainline denominations that foster a radical deconstruction of biblical texts on the one hand, or, on the other hand, a blinkered literalism that appeals to many conservative pew-sitters.
It’s an odd piece. The guy needs a good editor with a big red pen. It feels like the sort of thing that would be written in an academic journal: too many words trying to sound both breezy and hyper literate and too few saying anything simply and clearly.
For example, what does this mean exactly?
Does it mean:
* Rome didn’t want common people to read the Bible, but the Reformers weren’t enlightened as to this fact?
* Rome didn’t want common people to read the Bible, and wanting them to is being enlightened, but the Reformers weren’t enlightened either?
* The complex truth is that Rome both did and did not want common people to read the Bible, but the Reformers weren’t enlightened as to this complex truth?
And what does the pretentious “PACE Martin Luther” mean? Does it mean, “with the possible exception of Luther?” Or “I know my good friend Luther would disagree with me here, but he’d be wrong”?
I think the whole piece is trying to say this:
* About 4-5 hundred years ago the Roman Catholic Church was really opposed to ordinary people reading the Bible. That was a big dividing issue between Catholics and Protestants.
* That began to change 60 years ago. Popes began encouraging their priests and theologians to seriously and critically study the Bible.
* 20 years after that, in Vatican II, they began encouraging lay people to do that.
* Lately they’ve been trying to find all kinds of ways to REALLY encourage this lay reading, especially through small group Bible studies, and they have found some great ways to do that.
* Isn’t this great? It’ll be especially wonderful as Catholics bring to small group Bible study and to their Protestant brothers their own unique Catholic understanding and sensibility for the Bible.
I think that’s what the guy was trying to say. Of course, it wouldn’t have sounded brilliant or fancy; and it wouldn’t padded out to the full length of the WSJ column.
I read it as “the Protestant reformers (with all due respect to Luther) weren’t as big on everybody reading the Bible for themselves as is generally thought.”
Of course, what THAT means I have no idea. 🙂
Well, if the Catholic Church would come out with a DECENT English translation of the Bible, with solid scholarly footnotes, that might help. The American Bible is really poor, IMO, and the notes! Ay! For example, at Pentecost, (Acts 2) the notes say:
“Of course this is a collection of preaching messages given over many years, as the Apostles were not in any position to boldly speak the Gospel message at this time”
Leaves out any move of the Holy Spirit taking control of the situation!