The Catholic Tradition

¶ … creation accounts of Genesis as a basis for your explanation, what specific dangers/problems can arise when viewing the Bible within a fundamentalist framework? How would you advocate solving or addressing these problems?

One rather obvious problem with a literalist interpretation of Genesis is that there are two creation narratives within the Bible, both of which are mutually exclusive. In the first version, God creates humanity in a fairly impersonal fashion, and each day is spent constructing different aspects of the heaven and the earth. The second version, which details the story of Adam and Eve, is a far anthropomorphic version of God's creation of humanity (Albl 211). The composite nature of Genesis suggests that the Bible is not a singular, linear source of eternal truth, but a collection of myths and literatures of an ancient people. It can be used as a source of wisdom and profound spiritual reflection, but to use it as a literal depiction of the universe is limiting: to do so limits the spiritually creative responses of the believer to the text as well as forces an ancient text to do something it was never intended to 'do,' namely conform to the empirical standards of modern science.

This is the inherent flaw of creationist science -- it strives to merge modern scientific standards with ancient texts. Taking a literal approach to the Bible forces believers to choose between modern, life-saving scientific research and the spiritual comforts religion can bring. The best approach is to use the Bible as a source of ancient and profound wisdom and teaching: it instructs the reader in transcendent truths, not in the scientific method of how the world was literally created. A reader does not have to reject evolution or the Big Bang to be a good Christian. Also, by understanding the fact that the Bible was filtered through human and historical methods, ancient attitudes towards women become more comprehensible. A believer does not have to reconcile them with his or her own era and modern ethics of toleration.

Q2. Suppose that you are a faithful, dedicated follower of Hinduism (that is, a non-Christian). You meet up with a Christian who tells you that you are a pagan, and that no matter how good you are, you will go straight to hell unless you accept Jesus. Give your thoughtful response to this person. To support your beliefs, be sure to discuss the inclusive view of salvation, and to include problems you see with the exclusive view. Be sure to use Rahner's idea of anonymous Christianity.

Even devout Christians such as Dante envisioned an afterlife where righteous pagans would have a place of reward and peace. Karl Rahner even conceived of a kind of non-sacramental Christian spirituality for pagans and nonbelievers: by taking a view of the world that is fundamentally in line with Christianity, nonbelievers participate in the Christian tradition and can be saved. This solves the 'problem' of entire peoples and cultures being condemned to hell, simply because they are not officially Christian.

Q3. We stated that a Catholic approach to theology is essentially analogical or metaphorical. Using specific examples, explain what is meant by this assertion.

Catholics believe that the human world is analogous to the transcendent, spiritual world. Because of the Fall and Original Sin, the earth is a reflection of the creator God, but less perfect because it is inhabited by sinful human beings. This sense of the divine essence being 'filtered' through many layers is also conveyed through the hierarchy of saints, to which believers pray to ask for God's assistance. The multi-tiered nature of goodness and authority is further reflected in the structure nature of the Church itself, where the Pope presides over cardinals, bishops and priests in a hierarchical fashion. The hierarchy of the Pope presiding over the church functions as an analogy for the presiding figure of God over the heavens and earth.