I 11 i~ ism and Justification 13

. J . Criticism against CCC's use of the spin'tual sense I(c\:lcting against the preeminence of the spiritual sense over the

IIII.I:II sense, Sloyan claimed that the first method is conveniently 1 1 II,:OI tcn in favor of the second method or the spiritual approach to '

I 1 1 11 LWC. '~ In the same way, Boys pointed out how CCC stresses the ' 1 11 I I I I 1:\1 approach to Scripture.

I ~ I ,ys noted that in CCC's attempt to pay attention to the content I I I I I lit y of Scripture, CCC was led to assemble Scripture texts with

1 1 0 I I r.,::~rd for the theological perspective of the particular source. I 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1.i1crion tends to obscure the distinctiveness of the various I ,II ,111 :II 1,ooks. Sloyan argues that the principles for interpreting the 1 \ 1 1 11,. (IIIC. intentions of the authors, the conditions of their time and

I 1 ( 1 I I I., I IIC types of literature found there) are subordinated to the 1 1 1 I 11 \ I I l' t lic Scriptures "as if all its books had the same purpose." I 1 1 1 r. ,II'I. nlso subordinated to "the reminder that the Holy Spirit I .I. III~:III i t ;\I1 about."'O He observed that this is the way Scripture has I . * II (.111ldoycd throughout CCC. Sloyan declared that it is nowhere

t o 1, I IV:II. that Scripture text can best be understood in context- I I # s * # $ I I I t in whlch the text occurs and its place in the whole of

I I ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ' .

, tI1t.11 Ily the principle of totality, whch the Fathers and the medieval 1 1 , I 1.1 wc l l recalled."

I I ( itrr:trning the Historical Truth o j the Go~pels (1964), Scripture and : I()!(.5) and Joseph Fitzmyer, "Bible and Christology," Theologial I1jt\')) 408-43 (this article was later published in book form with a \ I Jr ) ~ r l ) k Iiitzmyer, JmPture and Christology: A Statement of the Bib- II~IN I J ~ / / ) N Commentay [New York: Paulist Press, 19861). The docu-

1 r I I I I r ;inti (:hrisrology" emphasizes that the truth of the biblical ,111 I r - i ~ l s Christ can be fully grasped only in the full scriptural wit-

1 1 111 I I 111 l I 01' , j rst is Christ, that is, an "integral Christology" can be , Iy 11, t l i c . "1:1~)1):~1 wi~ncss" of the whole Bible, including'the most

I $11 1 1 1 1 1 11 I,,I ( Ic.vr lo l)(~l stnj:cs of christology in the New Testament MI .II 11 III ill IIIC ( )It1 01. Iiil.:~~ 'li-s~;ir~lc.nr. lloch I<crcszty, "The 'Bible 8 1 ~ ~ I : \ l ' I r , l l ~ ~ ~ ~ l l l ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ 111~. Ilil)lic.;ll (:c~tnt~iission," Comm14nio 4 (Winter Ill

I ' ~ i ~ i c i s m and Justification 15

I I I : I ( ~ C to the people of the Old Testament as merely foreshadowing I I I ( . Christ-event.23 Thus, the revelation in Jesus Christ is taken as 11.111lcring the revelation to Israel obsolete. In CCC, the Old Testa- I 11c-11t text is often viewed merely as a promise fulfilled in Jesus Christ, I 1 1 1 % ccnter and summit of revelation.

'I'hese Scripture scholars have great reservations on CCC's pre- I 11 1,111>ation with the meaning of the text drawn from typological in- 1 1 . 1 1~x:tation. They claim that the Old Testament is viewed only as a I I I I I I I I ~ S C compared to the fulfillment in the New Testament. They : + , I I I ~t lc1: why typology should figure so prominently in the CCC when I I I l i l b r ccclesial documents manifested its problematic character. Pius ' I I ':; Iliitino Afflnnte Spi~t14 exhorted exegetes to "scrupulously re- I I I I I 1 I'r.oin proposing as the genuine meaning of the Sacred Scripture

b I I I I ( - I , fijprative senses" (DAS 27). The Old Testament seems to be I 1 1 1 1 ) ( . ( I of its own intrinsic value as God's revelation when it is seen I l~ l l v :I:; R source book of the types or preparation or prefiguration of I 1 1 1 Nvw Testament.

lir..q/:l,onses to the criticisms 1 ' 1 1 1 )sc who justify the way CCC used Scripture assert that inter-

1 a I I I I , ) r l o f the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament a I ) I I I s : well with the unity of the &vine plan in the two Te~tarnents.'~

, I n I I [ . I I \ I ( . I . , Catholic scholars recognize that hermeneutical theory jus- I I I 1 1 ' , , . I I I ( I illdeed dctates, going beyond the literal sense of an in&-

I S I I I I I I v s I .?' 'l'hey sttess that inherent in a Scripture text is an excess . I I I I ( ~ . I I I ~ I ~ ! : 1)cyond its literal interpretation, and the new hermeneu-

I I * I I I l 1 r . l )l.ic.s justify this. Furthermore, the incorporation of the text

I , .I!{, ~l~- I ' i~ lc>s ~111,(.rsrssionis111 2s thc notion that the revelation in Jesus I t l v ~ ~ ~ : . l ~ : ~ t l ~ , w : ; I I W ~ .c-vc. l ;~r iol~ to I s r ~ c l thilt the prior revelation has I t I,, 1 1 . 1 1 -11 1 1 l l ~ ; l l I 1 ~ 1 1 ~ ,

1 , 1 1 11 1:im and Justification 17

1 1 1 :111 people. The meaning of Old Testament texts independent of I 1 1 1 s Nc:w Testament realities is ignored. CCC has contrahcted in prac- I 1 1 I. what it affirmed in theory.

' I jrpological reading of Scripture was common during the patristic I I 11 I 111c:dieval periods. But when a catechism uses this as the main 1 1 1l1111:tch to reading a Scripture text, the meaning of the text can

I I 1 , I ) ) ( : distant from the present experiences of today's readers and 1 1 1 I I 1.1,:;. The exploration of the text's meaning has to take into ac- 9 I I I I I I I IIC minds and hearts of people today.

1 N, I trlre and goals of catechesis and reldous education ( .~l~~chesis and religious education have to recognize the salvific

1 1 1 11 I , I r l ~ e Old Testament, independent of, as well as in relation to, I I t t 1 11.w 'Vestament. The Old Testament in itself bears witness to 1 1 1 ~ 1 I I ~rlorny of salvation. The Old Testament as part of God's rev- . I I I I , # I I I I I the sacred text is viewed from the perspective of its conti- I I I I 1 1 \, I I I (liscontinuity with Jesus Christ who is the center and summit

I I I V I . I : I I ion. Readers and hearers of the text have to realize that I I I I I I I I I ICC: which attributes messianic themes or meanings to Old I . I I I I 11.1 11 t C X ~ did not stem from the pre-Christian Old Testament

I I I ' 1'11 c.y have to recognize the intrinsic value of the Old Testa- 1 1 1 I , , I ~ ; I I ~ I of God's revelation.

\ ' ' I 1 1 1 , . I t is true that certain Old Testament persons, places and I 1 I I I 1'1 11 fillcd in Jesus Christ, who is the definitive revelation of

.. I I I 1 1 I I I I:I I I his revelation "will never pass away and no new pub- I I I @ $ 1 I I I 11 , I I is to bc expected before the glorious manifestation of

I # I I 1 G I 1 1 I P , I I - ; (:hrist," nevertheless God continues to reveal himself I 1 1 I I I I I - , I I - ; ( :llrist through the Holy Spirit in the Scripture (DV 4).

# I I . I I I ( I , I I I I ( i l 11 ... 1aug11t that the Holy Spirit is active in continu- . a , I a a I I I I I I I I I I I I i(.:l I c* I lie r(:v(.lation already given."28 Hence, "God's 1 I I I I I I I ~ I I - \ ~ ( * ~ : I I ~ ~ I I i l l J(-SIIS Cllrist did not stop with Christ's ascen-

I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ , I\/o,/,~I (11 I < ~ ~ I ~ I / I ~ ~ I (( ; ; I I , I ~ I * I I ( ; i l y , NY: I ) ( I I I I ) I ~ x I ; I ~ , 1983)

8 4 1 1 I , I , , I I I and Justification 19

8 I I K 11s implementation of thls criterion. She remarked that the Uni- I , / / (,atechism was not faithful to the Church's tradtional teaching

I ( I I .~.ritcd in Nostra Aetate 4 on the relations of the Catholic Church I I I I I ( l:iism." She also observed that although the Universal Catechism

1 1 1 1 1 1 I Y I sources from Scripture and tradtion, such as Qoheleth, Au- 1 , ~ I . I 1 1 I ( * and Joan of Arc, it appeared as though all were of one univo- G 1 1 111i11cl.

1'1 ) I . example, while CCC's main reference in explaining the I 1 I I I I 1 11's teaching on the person of Jesus Christ (CCC 457) is the

t I 1 1 11 I I ~ C , particularly the Gospels and the Pauline letters, it also draws I I 1 1 I I ) I llcr sources such as citations from other New Testament texts, I I I ~ ~~ , :~c . l i ings of the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Fa- I I l l I t . I 1 1 t l meheval theologians like Gregory of Nyssa and St. Tho-

I \ I I 'inas, the Roman Catechism, the liturgy of the East and the a I . I I I C I from Papal statements. There is a marked conflation of

1 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 I cxts with patristic and conciliar teachings.

a I I I I i I ;) rly, Catechism for Filipino Catholics has been criticized for giv- a , I I 1 1 I r I 1l)cr of summaries of official Church teaching. These sum- $ * , 1 I 1 1 , . . I I.(. expressed in a technical language belonging to a distant

. 1 1 1 I I( .( . they need some "exegesis" to be understood, A profes- I . I I 1 1 1 I mined theologian can handle them, but is it necessary to

a a I I l I 1 1 . I I lc.111 in a catechism that is addressed primarily to committed I I I I I I I I , ( ::I I holics? Wostyn's review shows that he did not deem nec-

I I 1 I I OH; 314. The introduction to ND 1019-1022 states that Nostra Aetate I 1 I 1 1 , . I ~.oliciliar document (1965) that deals directly and explicitly with

1 1 1 I L I 1 . 1 1 1 ~.(-ligions. The title of this document is "Declaration on the Re- ) 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' I I ~ ( - Ch~irch to the Non-Christian Religion." Nostra Aetate no. 4

~ ~ , I I I I I I I I . 11iystcry of' Juclaism and the Church's close relationshp to it; it I $ 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1:11 S I I ~ > ~ ) O ~ I (~s~)c:ciaIIy in 1)iblical studies, and condemns all forms

1 1 1 I I I I I ~ ! ; I ~ I , " ' I ' l l(* illsij:llcs o r his conciliar document have been devel- 1 1 111'1 I ~ I . I l ( . i : l l ( I O ( . I I I I ~ I . I I I I ; : ''( ;~li(l(.li~ics 2nd Suegcstions for the Imple-

1 1 1 , , I I I I I I I I I ~ I ) I . I . I : I I : I I ~ I 111 1 1 1 ' N11:;rr;1 AI - I ; I I ( . (11. I ) i l l Rcl:l~ion to the Jews" I I 1 1 ~ ~ 1 " t ~ . I l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 . I ' I I I I I I - I \Y!I\I 1 0 1 ) 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ; 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 3 j(.u~isIi li:lilll i l l Ro111an

- 1 1 , I ' I I . , I I 1 1 1 1 1 ~ : , 1 1 1 ~ 1 ' I ' I - . I I I I I I I ~ ~ , " (l1)!{It), ' I ' l l ( * I ; I I I ~ ' I ~ I I ) I . I I I I I I ~ I I I is f i ) 111 i ( l i l l

, , ( ! , , l;,lt*!,,//,l It, ( I ~ 1 1 1 l l J ! l l l ) 11 1

I I I I 11 ism and Justification 21

I I I I I I ~ : ~ ~ experience to achieve an integrated use of the sources of I I 1 i .1 .hcsis and religious education.

Nrrtuxe of catechism 'I'llose who justify the route CCC takes in the use of Scripture,

I - I I I I I I w t that a Scripture text must go beyond the originating histori- '

I I c.11rnstances and be read as integrated within the whole of Scrip- , I 11' r radition, and in the whole of r e~e la t ion .~~ A catechsm, how- , II:I:; to lmk and integrate the sources of catechesis and religious

. 1 1 1 , . I I lorl,-namely, Scripture, Church's teaching and liturgy-to the 1 . 1 . 1 I I I ( . on text of the reader whom it wishes to address. The use of

, 1 1 1 I'~.c,rn tradition has to communicate faith not as dead and 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 111 living and alive in the lives of the great majority of con-

a k , I I , I . I I y 1.c.aders and hearers.

! \! r i r r t ~ . of catechesis and reLigious education * I I ~ ~ I I I I . ~ . , tradition and human experience are the sources in

. a . 1 1 , , , I , , : I I I ~ I religious education. Thls critique against CCC's weak , I I I 1 1 I I I i c ,11 is helpful in stressing the urgent continuing need for

I I I I I I I I I I I I:, rltcdly improved use of tradtion not only in CCC but 1 I a I I I 1 . 1 I l(.:;is 2nd religious education. Admittedly, there is a cer-

1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 y i l l ming trahtion together with Scripture in elucidat- I a - # - 1 1 1 , ( I , ,c:t.rinc, morals and worship in CCC and in catechesis

I.tI~lc.:~Iion, but this must not be an excuse to drop tradi- I I 1 1 I I (*:~(:hi~il;s altogether.

I I l ' m o ~ ~ o I I , , " 1 ' 1 1 1 3 ( . : I I ( ~ I I I ~ . ; I I I 111. I I I ( . (::1111oIir ( : I ~ I I I . c ~ T : '1'11~ Scc- 5 8 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 ," f ~ ~ ~ ~ l f ~ l l ~ ~ l l ~ l .' 1 ( 1 i i ~ l l 1 ')')'I) '1 'il) ( 1 0 , SC.~' :11!<1) ~ < ' ~ I O I ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ! ' I I ,

a. Ciiticisms against proof-texui-g in CCC The last criterion for interpreting Scripture in conformity wit?

the Holy Spkit is to "be attentive to the analogy of faith" (CCC 114). Boys questioned whether the Universal Catechism actually ex- hibits such a coherence of truths because it seems more like a col- lection or a compilation of scriptural citations rather than a synthe- sis of faith. In her conclusion she judged that the compilation of scriptural citations to explicate doctrines gives the impression t h~ : Scripture exists primarily to verify doctrinal assertions of the ca:- e ~ h i s m . ~ ~ Boys declared that Scripture has apparently been used as "prop and proof." She asserted that this is not at all surprising since the same charge had been levied against previous Church document:

Johnson went further and pointed out that the UniversaI Catechisr constructed doctrinal propositions upon biblical texts that canno: support them.35 Buckley alleged along the same h e s that CCC's use of Scripture is not kerygmatic; rather, it is a "confirmation of some doctrine already decided upon."36

b. Response to the ~~~'ticisrns Sloyan, however, with more experience in religious educatior

rightly disagreed with those who say that CCC's use of Scripture is c < proof-te~ting."~' He stated that CCC proclaims what the Church

has believed and points to scriptural texts that gave rise to these beliefs rather than explore Scripture to discover what it contains tha: led to the Church's faith and practice. He concluded that Scripture i:

35Johnson, yesus Christ in the Catechism," 208.

37Proof-texting is a fundamentalist way of using Scripture. The Scripture text is cited as "proof" in explaining some points in Catholic doctrine, morals. or worship.

- . . _-.>m and Justification 23

::t? as an originating source that justifies already known doctrines -z ethical teachmgs.

Following Vatican 11, CCC affirms that Scripture should be read : -I?e framework of the Church's faith. CCC makes no claims that .- i.= - Scripture texts it cites are "proofs" of the Church's doctrine. They

.xed as indcations pointing toward what the Church, with the ixnce of the Holy Spirit, has come to believe in the course of 3rv.38

.As in any catechism, Scripture texts are cited as the basis and lgclmg of what the Church believes whde explaining the doctrine -.e Church. The critique of "proof-texting" ignores the way Scrip-

-15 has actually been used by the people down through Christian . _ = - . - " -.- :) "It equivalently rejects the actual role and impact of Catholic - -:-don on the use of Scripture, while demanding the exact oppo-

?-a highly informed sensitivity for the Scripture texts' Sit? im -:.I--for their proper use."40

3 n the other hand, there are other critics who raised the point --:: CCC refers to scriptural citations to explicate doctrines. They - - 5 a t Scripture has apparently been used as a "prop and proof."41

. . - r -ever, CCC does not use Scripture in a fundamentalistic way nor

- ->roof-texts." "Scripture text is cited while explaining some point :~tholic doctrine, morals, or worship-the "proof" dunension is td gratuitously by the critic."42

?-Ales, "The Challenge of the Catechism," 51.

.I- example of historical work in this field is Pamela Jackson, "Cyril of . _, Lem's Use of Scripture in Catechesis," Theological Stgdies 52 (1 991) 43-

-.xhe, "Evaluating CFC's Pastoral Validity," 19.

I. similar criticism that Scripture is used as proof has been raised against - - - ..- - -- "hcriptural texts tend to be used as mere proof-texts for the articles of i Irced." Wostyn, 140. .. --.T =he, "Evaluating CFC's Pastoral Validity," 18-1 9.

24 Natividac

A catechism proclaims what the Church has believed and be- lieves, and points to scriptural texts that gave rise to these beliefs. It cannot enter into detail to explore Scripture in order to discover whac it contains that led to the Church's faith and practice. Scripture is brought in as an originating source that has grounded the Church's doctrine and ethical teachings. The catechsm's use of Scripture is not "proof-texting." Citing Scripture to c o n f ~ m and verify doctrinal, moral, and worship assertions in the catechism is a practice that has

- - actually been used by the Church down through the centuries.

Avery Dulles states that

the Catechism (CCC) makes no claim that the biblical texts it cites are proofs of the Church's doctrine. Rather, they are seen as indlca- - -

tions pointing toward what the Church, with the assistance of the - Holy Spirit, has come to see in the course of centuries. Often enough ~. -

the biblical grounding consists in the convergence of many texts, - - . . - - - - .

no one of which is decisive in itself.43 . -- ~

. - - ~-

c. Criticism against CCC's citing of Scnpture texts in foot- notes

Buckley raised another point regarding CCC's use of Scripture. He observed that CCC draws heavily from Scripture texts which are referred to only in the footnotes, whde full Scripture texts are rarely given. For example, CCC 652 attempts to elucidate the Resurrection as the f u l f h e n t of the promises in the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life by citing and referring to the following texts: Matt 28:6; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:6-7,26-27,44-48.

d Nature of a catechism While the nature of a catechism necessitates citing Scripture texts

as a source of what the Church has believed and held, however, in general the full text should be given in order that the readers and hearers see the link of the text to the doctrine of the faith. Further- more, citing just one or two parallel texts may be more beneficial k

"3Dulles, "The Challenge of the Catechism," 51