"Dei Verbum" and Christian Morals | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P. | Ignatius Insight
Dei Verbum and Christian Morals | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P. | Ignatius Insight
Vatican II sums up the purpose of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, On Divine
Revelation, in the prologue as follows:
Following then in the steps of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, this Synod wishes
to set forth the true doctrine on divine Revelation and its transmission. For it wants the
whole world to hear the summons to salvation, so that through hearing it may believe,
through belief it may hope, through hope it may come to love.
Thus the goal of the document is to encourage the flourishing in Christians of the
theological virtues of faith, hope, and love that St. Paul (1 Cor 13:13)
declares to be the summit of Christian living to which all morality is directed.
The rest of the document, however, is chiefly concerned with matters of faith, since
Gods word is received only in faith. It says little explicitly about the Scriptures,
as they provide the fundamental guide for Christian conscience. Yet it declares of the
Gospel that it is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline(7).
Moreover, it strongly urges all members of the Church to have recourse to biblical reading
as a pure and lasting fount of the spiritual life(21). We are all urged to
go gladly to the sacred text itself, whether in the sacred liturgy, which is full of
the divine words, or in devout reading (25). Thus some reflections of how in
practice this can be realized may be profitable.
First of all, Christian morality must always be seen as an imitation of Christ. Christian
morality is not an abstract ideal, nor is it a mere set of rules, nor is it even just a
well-organized systematic moral and spiritual theology. It is discipleship, the following
of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, not only outwardly but under the transforming power of
his Holy Spirit sent upon all the baptized. It is not so easy to understand how this is
possible. How are sinners to live like the all-holy Christ? How are mere human beings to
imitate the Son of God? How are women to imitate a man? How are children or the aged to
imitate this man in the prime of life? How are the rich to imitate this poor man? How are
the poor, ignorant, and powerless to imitate one who is the wisdom and power of
God(1 Cor 1:24)? How are intellectuals to imitate this carpenter? How are we moderns
of various races to imitate a Jew of the first century? Yet by the power of his Holy
Spirit we are called to be his Body and to live in Him. In fact our many differences are
precisely the ways in which his fullness of grace is to be made manifest to the world in a
way that in his short life on earth in a single place and time it could not be manifested.
This why Dei Verbum takes special care to vindicate the authenticity of the portrayal
of the historic Jesus of Nazareth in the Four Gospels. It emphatically declares that the
Church has "firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that
the four Gospels, whose historicity the [Church] unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand
on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among us, really did and taught for their
salvation, until the day when he was taken up" (19).
Of course some may be troubled by what we hear of the efforts of certain scholars, like
those associated with the much publicized Jesus Seminar, to reduce the historical value of
the Gospel accounts to a bare minimum. These efforts, however, have been well refuted on
scholarly grounds. A distinction must always be made between the certitudes of faith and
reason. As John Paul II so well shows in his encyclical Faith and Reason, the Church has
always defended reason and the human sciences and is confident that when sanely pursued
they will be in harmony with faith. Consequently she is not afraid of the application of
critical historical methods to the Scriptures. Precisely, however, because she appreciates
the value of critical thought, she is not shaken by extravagant speculations so often
motivated by academic pedantry. Moreover the Church is well aware from long experience
that we cannot expect from history much more than certain salient facts on which highly
diverse reconstructions can be built. For Christian life, it is not historical
reconstructions, however scholarly, that must be the basis of our imitation of Christ but
the witness of the divinely inspired Scriptures addressed to faith. Dei Verbum is very
careful in its declaration of the inerrancy of Scripture to make clear that this does not
mean that the true and inspired sense of the Bible can be ascertained by a fundamentalist
literalism or merely subjective interpretation. God has revealed himself in the community
of faith, whose inspired Scriptures and Spirit-guided Sacred Tradition form a single
source of truth so that each must be understood in the light of the other (9).
When we look to Jesus as revealed in the Gospels and the whole of the Bible as the supreme
model of what it is to be truly moral, we cannot help but focus on the Sermon on the Mount
as recorded in Matthew. Whether we have it in the form that Jesus gave it, or whether, as
many scholars hypothesize, as a synthesis provided by tradition, or even by the author of
Matthew, from the earliest days of the Church it has been accepted as the best summary of
Jesus teaching on the Christian life. The Gospels then show us how in fact this is
how Jesus himself lived, so that his life, death, and resurrection are the most profound
commentary on this Sermon. In it we see that Jesus based his life and his moral teaching
firmly on the Old Testament that the Sermon quotes and interprets.
There is a tendency today to attempt to construct a moral theology on the sometimes rather
general ethical statements of the New Testament, while treating the more specific moral
guidance of the Old Testament as pertaining to the ancient Jews but not to modern
Christians. It is very true, as Dei Verbum itself notes, that the Old Testament
contains matters imperfect and provisional. But the Council goes on to say
"These books [of the Old Testament] nevertheless show us authentic divine teaching.
Christians should accept with veneration these writings which give expression to a lively
sense of God, which are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on
human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our
salvation is present in a hidden way" (15).
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus himself, with an authority that astonished his hearers,
indicates this imperfect character of the Old Testament revelation, You have heard
it said but I say to you. Yet he by no means repudiates it, but rather,
following the Old Testament prophets, he corrects a misunderstanding of the Law as
principally a matter of external ritual and of regulations for the Jewish community alone.
Instead he highlights that what is permanent and universal in it is its moral teaching and
above all its call for faith, hope, and love that is its interior spirit. It was for St.
Peter and St. Paul along with the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem guided by the Holy
Spirit to apply this to the Gentiles, freeing them from the particularities of the Jewish
ritual and judicial law, and calling them to observe its moral precepts not merely in the
letter but the spirit.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus calls all humanity to become perfect as your
heavenly Father is perfect which, of course, means as Jesus is perfect,
since Jesus is the very image of the Father. Obviously this is not possible to human
beings without grace, but the transforming power of grace not only makes it possible, but
urges us to obey this command with our whole heart. Hence the New Law is, as St. Thomas
Aquinas teaches, not an external law imposed from without, but nothing less than the
internal guidance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Christian as in its temple and
conforming the Christian to Christ, who is perfect as the heavenly Father is
perfect (S. Th. I-II, qq. 106-108).
At first sight it might seem, therefore, that the Old Law is obsolete and hence the moral
teaching of the Old Testament is of merely historic interest, but this is not so. In the
passage (Mt 19:17; Mk 10:4) which expands the command against divorce in the Sermon on the
Mount (Mt 5:31), Jesus says of the precept of Dt 24:3 that a man in divorcing his wife
should give her a legal document to that fact that this was given because of the
hardness of your heart and was not so in the beginning when God created
man and woman for each other. This tells us, to quote Dei Verbum again, that while the Old
Testament contains matters imperfect and provisional, [it] nevertheless shows us
authentic divine teaching. Thus the New Testament calls us to observe Gods
original commands as given at the creation of an innocent and graced humanity. To this
innocence and intimacy with God we are again reborn in Christ and his Church by his Holy
Spirit. The New Law contains the imperfect commands of the Mosaic Law freed of the
imperfection that God tolerated during the time of his gradual pedagogy of the Chosen
People. As St. Paul says, The [Old] Law was to be our pedagogue until Christ
came (Gal 3:24).
A crucial example of how important it is to understand this relation of the Old to the New
Testament is the shocking Mosaic Law of the herem or ban, a feature of a
When the Lord your God has led you into the land you are entering to make your own, many
nations will fall before you . . . the Lord your God will deliver them over to you and you
will conquer them. You must lay them under ban. You must make no covenant with them nor
show them any pity. You must not marry with them; you must not give a daughter of yours to
a son of theirs, not take a daughter of theirs for a son of yours, for this would turn
away your son from following me to serving other gods and the anger of The Lord would
blaze out against you and soon destroy you. Instead deal with them like this: tear down
their altars, smash their standing-stones, cut down their sacred poles and set fire to
their idols (Dt 7:1-6).
To understand how it is possible for an inspired and inerrant Bible to represent God as
commanding the Israelites to commit what today we would call ethnic cleansing,
or even worse genocide, since in another text the ban is described as
kill every living thing, (Dt 13:16) is certainly not easy. First we must
understand that the inspiration of the Bible that according to the Council of Trent covers
the whole of the canon and all its parts can be explained as recognizing that
God is the principal author of the Bible taken as a whole and of its parts only in the
context of the whole. This is what is today called canon criticism. Dei Verbum
"Since Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with its divine authorship in mind, no
less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking
into account the Tradition of the entire Church and the analogy of faith, if we are to
derive their meaning from the sacred texts" (12).
It follows that when Deuteronomy attributes this command (and other commands) to God it
would be wrong to take it in isolation from the New Testament teaching, Love your
enemies as yourself.
If then we accept its inspiration in this context, we note that, the primary intention of
this command is to warn the Israelites not to permit their faith to be corrupted by the
idolatry of the pagans. We must also make allowance for the Deuteronomists literary
style of black and white rhetoric. Jesus himself was willing to use such rhetoric as when
he said both that we should Do good to those who that hate you, but also
If any one comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children,
brothers and sisters, and even his own life cannot be my disciple (Lk 14:26).
Moreover modern scholarship dates the Deuteronomistic writings long after this command
could have had a practical application as regards actual war, but was rather intended in
the strongest language to warn against idolatry, since this remained a practical problem
in Israel when Deuteronomy was last edited. Finally, it is clear that the Deuteronomist
thought that the ancient wars by which Israel had obtained freedom in the land God had
promised them could not have succeeded if God by his providential power had not cleared
the land of the pagans. In historic fact this was probably a gradual process, but for the
Deuteronomist it seems like one decisive act.
Of course, since, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out (S.Th. I-II. Q. 94 a.5 ad 2), God is
author of life and death, he could have given to the Jews a command to act as his
executioners in punishing the pagans. He could have even included the personally innocent,
since even today the innocent incur the effects of original sin and die with their parents
in wars and natural disasters. But the teaching of Dei Verbum on inspiration and inerrancy
does not imply that the Scriptures contain no historical errors, but only no errors that
would distort its religious message of salvation. Thus it is not necessary to accept the
details of the Deuteronomic understanding of past history. Hence when today we read such
passages we should understand their inspired meaning to be: (1) We must avoid idolatry and
corruption of the faith as of the utmost gravity; (2) God permitted (but did not surely in
the literal sense command) the Jews conduct of war in the manner of their own times, a
manner that for us today is seen to be barbarous; (3) In the New Testament God teaches
that such brutality is no longer tolerable and must be replaced with true respect for the
sacredness of life of all persons. No doubt in a just war it is still ethical to use
mortal force but only against aggressors.
I have analyzed this Old Testament passage that is perhaps the most difficult one in the
whole Bible to understand in a way consistent with Jesus teaching, to show that, as
Dei Verbum teaches, the Bible correctly interpreted contains no moral error. Yet it is
very easy to see how a fanatic could quote this passage to justify crimes like those of
Hitler, Stalin, or Milosevic.
Why then did God permit such dangerous things to remain in the Bible? Dei Verbum responds
to this question by emphasizing that the Bible must always be read in the context of the
Churchs teaching, i.e., its living Sacred Tradition that today takes account of
modern biblical scholarship. This explains why after the Reformation controversies the
tendency in the Church for some time was to discourage Bible reading by the laity except
in very controlled conditions. It was evident that the Protestant principle of
private interpretation was in fact doing much damage and splintering the
Christian community. The lingering result of this policy remains with us even after
Vatican II in that not a few older Catholics remain suspicious of too much emphasis on the
use of the Bible by laymen.
Vatican II, on the contrary, both because it felt that an educated laity today can use the
Bible with more and better information and in order to overcome ecumenical difficulties,
in Dei Verbum approved and encouraged Bible study by all Catholics. That there are risks
in this, in spite of the optimism of the Council, cannot be denied, but certainly the
clergy should be concerned to insure that Catholics read the Scriptures in the light of
solid scholarship and the guidance of the Churchs tradition. With this kind of
guidance difficult texts of the Old Testament need cause no scandal.
What then about difficult texts of the New Testament? We have all met women who were
offended by St. Pauls famous directive to the church of Corinth not to allow women
to speak in church assemblies and, if they had questions, to ask them through their
husbands. Similarly, the admonitions in the Pastoral Epistles for women to be
submissive to their husbands often provoke indignant reactions from women.
While some minor efforts have been made in revising the liturgical books to omit passages
that might seem offensive to modern ears, some readings still contain statements that some
find shocking when they hear them read at Mass. I believe that celebrants should become
sensitive to such reactions and not simply hurry over the troublesome pericopes or try to
make impromptu changes in the Sacred Text. While it is responsibility of preachers to be
aware of passages or expressions that might offend, they should not try to silence or
correct the Holy Spirit by passing over the words he has inspired. Instead they should
explain them in the sense that the Tradition of the Church gives to them.
For example, he should point out, as John Paul II has done, that the texts in the
Pastorals about women submitting to their husbands, if rightly read, actually speak of a
mutual submission of husband and wife in respect and love. This is clearly the
meaning of Ephesians 5:21: Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for
Christ. No doubt a modern author would have used other terms than
submission or subordination. Yet the biblical author was teaching
attitudes in marriage that are still valid today. It is only his language and rhetoric
that reflect his own times. As for the Let women be silent in Church of St.
Paul (1 Cor 14:34), the preacher should explain carefully what the situation was in the
Corinthians church and why St. Paul, in view of the circumstances, gave this
pastoral directive to quiet a divisive situation. Certain charismatic women of Corinth
were giving that church a bad reputation by seeming to ignore the customs of the times
that expected heads of household, generally men, to speak for their household. For women
to assume this role on their own seemed at the time to indicate the notion that since
baptism symbolized the resurrection, it also meant the dissolution of all earthly
relationships and responsibilities. It was this heretical notion that St. Paul was writing
to correct, not to provide a rule of conduct for all times. Similarly he wants women to
veil their heads in church to respect local customs and not give a bad impression to
outsiders as to what the Christian assembly was all about.
Does that mean that such passages are now simply obsolete and should be
exorcised from the Bible as a certain feminist theologian has proposed? By no
means; they provide a teaching occasion, in which we can explain how biblical principles
remain always true, but certain of their applications necessarily change as circumstances
change. In American society today nobody is shocked if women speak in their own name even
in the most sacred situations. The restriction of priestly ordination to men does not rest
on such texts, even if so eminent a theologian as St. Thomas Aquinas seems to have
But what these texts still teach us and will always teach Christians, if they are rightly
understood, is that everyone, men and women alike, should not abuse the liturgy by making
it the occasion for division rather than for promoting understanding and mutual love and
unity in the community. It was this peace and love that was St. Pauls concern.
Another current issue about the use of New Testament passages on morality is the
unfortunate tendency to misuse the great teaching of Jesus, St. Paul, and St. John that
the love of God and neighbor sums up the whole Law. Rightly used, this is the
fundamental principle in the light of which all biblical morality must be understood. But
it is not always rightly used. Too often it is put forward as if it meant that the
love of God and neighbor takes the place of the moral Law. The New Testament often
uses a special word for love, namely agape, in order to avoid the erotic,
sentimental, and other more secular connotations of the concept. This why our older
biblical translations used the term charity for agape rather than
love. Today unfortunately charity generally means a concern to
help others, but does not imply that we want these persons for intimate friends, rather
the contrary, we would like to get rid of them and their troublesome requests.
St. Thomas Aquinas points out that the love of the New Testament is a love of the highest
kind of friendship, and this has two aspects (S.Th. II-II. Q. 27, a.2 c.). First, if we
truly love someone we seek what is truly good for them, not just for ourselves, and this
means above all their eternal salvation. Thus those who excuse causing another to sin on
the grounds that one loves them, as extramarital lovers do, is not what the
New Testament is talking about. Second, if we truly love someone we not only want to do
them only good, but to be united to them in a common life of communication and virtue in
eternal life. Friends want to be together.
From this it follows that what the New Testament means by loving God and our
neighbor means that we both seek their good and want to share our lives with them.
In other words love means to seek to include others in a community of mutual care directed
toward life together with God forever. Such love seeks that spiritual solidarity that is
so lacking in our individualistic and secularized culture. Consequently, those who love in
this Christian sense are eager to hear what the Scriptures both Old and New say about a
very detailed and concrete way of life that is directed to achieve the human good and
avoid the evils that corrupt it. Unfortunately today too many read the Bible selectively.
Some quote the passages about social justice and freedom but explain away or suppress the
passages about sexual morality as obsolete. Others quote the commands against sexual
immorality to prove that those who talk about social justice are hypocrites, but pay
little attention to how the biblical commands on social justice rebuke their
individualistic political and economic views. We must take the whole biblical moral law,
in all its details, as interpreted by Christ and the Tradition of the Church as given for
our welfare, not to take away our freedom but to liberate us to live as Jesus did and with
Yet how is such a Christ-like life possible for us weak persons living in a society with a
culture of death? We know, of course, that all things are possible for God and
that he has sent us the Holy Spirit to empower us in grace to do what we cannot do of our
own power. Hence, we are frequently sorry for our sins and do a little better for a while.
But as St. Paul reminds us (1 Cor 9:24), no one wins a race just by taking a few steps
forward. We have to keep running to the goal. This requires a consistency in our lives
that is probably the hardest thing for most of us to achieve. Consistency in right living
is possible not just through occasional resolutions to do better, but through virtue, that
is, a quality or skill that enables us consistently to keep moving toward the goal, no
matter what obstacles arise before us. Even a virtuous person in an unguarded moment can
sin, as the Bible tells us about David who the Lord considered a man after my own
heart (1 Sm 13:14), yet who in an idle moment became an adulterer and murderer. Yet
if we have solid virtue we are greatly guarded against such weaknesses.
This is why today biblical scholars are pointing out that in the Old Testament the
emphasis is on Law, that is, rules to guide behavior; in the New Testament, though it
continues to teach this Law, the emphasis shifts to talk of the virtues. For example, St.
Paul says, The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against these there is no law
(Gal 5:22-23). There are two kinds of virtue recognized in Christian Tradition: one is the
gift of God, the work of the Holy Spirit in us, as St. Paul indicates. These are given in
baptism and remain unless destroyed by deliberate, serious sin. Yet there are also natural
virtues that we acquire by regularly living according to the moral law, and thus acquiring
a skill in keeping that law consistently, just as a person learns to play golf or the
piano with consistent effectiveness. What is often not understood is that if we use the
virtues that are gifts of the Spirit we will gradually also acquire the natural virtues
that will support these gifts. But we can fail to do so in two ways. The first is not to
use our gifts of the Spirit by acting from other than Christian motives and by neglecting
the use of the sacraments and prayer. Too often this is the case with baptized Christians
who simply live in a worldly way, never rising above it by cooperating with the Holy
Spirit. It is possible for such worldly persons, Christian or not, to acquire the natural
virtues by practice, and that is why sometimes they put Christians to shame by their
better conduct. Yet without grace and the use of Gods gifts no one, however
naturally disciplined in virtue, can go for long with falling into mortal sin. Then the
good habits acquired by a disciplined life may suddenly fail and even become a source of
pride and arrogance and still deeper malice and sin.
The right way, taught in the New Testament, is to make use both of the virtues given us by
the Holy Spirit and of the disciplined practice of morality urged on us by sound reason.
This has through the ages been the pastoral urging of the Church, which warns us not to
tempt God by simply relying on his gifts of grace without an effort at acquiring a natural
integrity of life, or on the other hand, trying to live simply on our own acquired habits
of morality. Grace perfects nature and nature, rightly used, supports grace.
The Bible itself seldom contrasts these two aspects of a virtuous life, nor does the
Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasize the classical distinction made by St. Thomas
Aquinas between the infused and the acquired virtues. Yet the
doctrines of the Creation on the one hand and of the Incarnation on the other, in which
the divine and human, nature and grace, are intimately wedded, imply this twofold
character of human virtue found in Christ himself.
The primary virtues that the New Testament teaches are first of all what later theologians
were to call the theological virtues because they enable us to consistently
maintain our direct and intimate friendship with God himself, and therefore with our
neighbor in God. These are faith, hope, and love, of which love (agape) is the greatest,
but which is not possible without faith and hope. We cannot truly love God if we do not
truly know him through faith; and we cannot continue to love him in the midst of the
trials of life, unless we truly hope at last to be united with him forever. These
theological virtues are in the strictest sense the gifts of God, who loved us first and
made it possible for us to love him in return.
Yet faith, hope, and love cannot flourish in the human person unless that person is also
endowed with virtues that discipline her or his various voluntary powers to pursue the
goal of love of God and neighbor and true love of self. These are required in the natural
order, but if they are to strive for the ultimate goal of grace they must also have a
supernatural, graced aspect. First of all we need to be free of addiction to those
biological pleasures that destroy so many human lives food, sex, drugs, comfort,
greed and for this we need the virtue of moderation (temperance). The Bible does not
teach a stoic morality. It praises the physical joys that God has given us to facilitate
us in satisfying our necessary biological needs, but Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount said
not to be overly concerned about such matters. So do not worry and say, What
are we to eat? or What are we to drink? or What are we to
wear? All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows you need them
all(Mt 5:31-32). Christians should seek a simple lifestyle that will leave them free
to pursue greater goods.
True love, moreover, requires great courage (fortitude) that is willing to make
sacrifices, as Jesus did, for the sake of fidelity to God and the welfare of ones
neighbor. That requires a spiritual warfare (Eph 6:10-17) that is non-violent, and hence
consists first of all in patience and endurance of the Cross (Rm 15:1-6). Thus the virtues
of moderation and courage enable us to control our emotions of desire for pleasure and
fear of difficulties, so that we can truly believe, hope, and love.
Moderation and courage, however, pertain primarily to control of bodily emotions. We also
need to control our spiritual intelligence and free will that enter directly into free
choice where good actions take place but where also sin is most profound and destructive.
The virtue that puts the human will to the service of God and neighbor is justice, often
called righteousness. We all love ourselves because God made us that way, and
thus the commandment is love your neighbor as yourself. But, of course, our
self-love is often foolish and destructive. To love our neighbor and to fulfill our duties
to our Creator we must have a firm will to think not just of our own good, but also of the
good of others, and this is far from easy. Justice is that virtue that respects the rights
of others. It leads us to prefer the common good to our private goods. Because we realize
that our private goods, though more evident to us, are actually less important for us than
those common goods that we can share with others, we must have this will to solidarity
with others, but to do so we must be mindful of them and of our own true good. We must be
able to say as St. Paul did (1 Cor 2:16), We have the mind of Christ. This
requires the virtue of prudence or, as the Old Testament often calls it,
wisdom. It is that thoughtfulness that keeps us from acting under impulse and
addictive compulsion and helps us consider realistically what is truly good for ourselves
and others and most expressive of a sincere love of our Creator.
The New Testament, like
the Old, constantly contrasts the way of the fool to the way of the
wise as the way of death and the way of life. Both
Testaments assure us that this wisdom can be found even in simple persons who are often
regarded as of low intelligence, yet who by the gift of the Spirit exhibit a clean and
true conscience. Thus the wisdom that comes from God is not the privilege simply of an
educated elite, but of those whose faith teaches them to follow the guidance of God
himself given through the Bible and the Church. It is this prudence or wisdom, this effort
to learn what is truly good by listening to God in his biblical and traditional
revelation, that makes all the other virtues work. Even love, if it is not prudent, is
foolishness not true love, and often is destructive of others and ourselves. It is a kind
of practical atheism, since it rejects the wisdom of God who is Wisdom.
Thus Dei Verbum, in reaffirming for our own times and circumstances the divine, inerrant
inspiration of the Bible as it is united to the living Tradition of the Church guided by
the Holy Spirit, points the way to the solution of the many moral questions that confront
us in our society today. All of Scripture is inspired and contains for us, when properly
understood, a sure and detailed guidance for our lives and the acquisition and development
of the virtues that can make Christian life a success. But we must be willing to learn
from it, even when we find the sayings hard, as the Apostles found the
teachings of Jesus himself. We must not substitute for these teachings the foolishness of
our own times, although they may enable us to find in our own times things that enable us
to understand Jesus teaching more profoundly.
[This article originally appeared in the January/February 2000 issue of
The Catholic Dossier.]
Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles:
The Bible Gap: Spanning the Distance Between Scripture and
Theology | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
Who Is A Priest? | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
Pope John Paul II and the Christ-centered Anthropology of
Gaudium et Spes | Douglas Bushman
Going Deeper Into the Old Testament | An
Interview with Aidan Nichols, O.P.
The Pattern of Revelation: A Contentious Issue |
From Lovely Like Jerusalem | Aidan Nichols, O.P.
God, The Author of Scripture |
From God and His Image | Fr. Dominique Barthˇlemy, O.P.
Origen and Allegory | Introduction to History and Spirit:
The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen | Henri de Lubac
How To Read
The Bible | Peter Kreeft
Sacred Scriptures | Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch
Authority of Scripture vs. the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion"
| James Hitchcock
to The Meaning of Tradition | Yves Congar, O.P.
M. Ashley, OP, is a priest of the Dominican Order, Chicago Province.
He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Notre
Dame and has doctorates in philosophy and political science, and the post-doctoral
decree of Master of Sacred Theology conferred by an international committee
of the Order of Preachers. He was formerly President of Aquinas Institute
of Theology, St.Louis, Professor of Theology at the Institute of Religion
and Human Development, Houston, TX, and Professor of Theology at the Pontifical
John Paul II Institute for Studies in Marriage and Family, Washington, D.C,
and Visiting Lecturer in Humanities at the University of Chicago (1999).
At present he is Emeritus Professor of Moral Theology at Aquinas Institute
of Theology, St. Louis and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Health Care
Ethics, Saint Louis University. He is a Senior Fellow of the Pope John Center
of Medical Ethics, Boston. He is the author of numerous books and articles.
the Insight Scoop Blog and read the latest posts and comments by
IgnatiusInsight.com staff and readers about current events, controversies,
and news in the Church!