|
 |
|
|
|
This
document, with the subtitle, “The Biblical roots of Christian
behaviour”, was published on 11th May, 2008, solemnity of
Pentecost.
This reflection appears
very much opportune in theological and pastoral sense. It is known that
the Christians have been submitted by their pastors, at all levels,
(this is valid for the humblest country parish priest as well as for the
official voices of the Church Magisterium) to a real bombardment of
recommendations and prohibitions of moral character, up to the point of
giving the impression that the entire substance of being Christian
consists in behaving well; the individual, rather the individualistic,
detailed, clearly demanding and strict morals, at least as principle,
were once accompanied by vague, approximately social morals. perhaps
also too much accommodating. The consequence of this hypertrophy of
prescribing morality, even today and among well disposed faithful, is an
almost heedless conviction that to be Christian is first of all a moral
affair, while morals (as wisely the given document states) come
“second”. The tendency to approach the Scripture in a “moralistic” way
derives from this equivocation, leading us inevitably out of the context
and therefore being scarcely significant, sometimes also leading us
astray: when they read a biblical page, many good-willed faithful seek
in it moral indications, often in the negative (a classical question,
expressed in words or implicit, is “Where do I make a mistake? Which
behaviour should I correct?”), forgetting that the first thing I should
look for is the newness of God, even to draw from it moral consequences;
we cannot understand the value of a gift by considering it as a contract
or a code. In the Middle Age we often find the tendency to support
theological convictions and ethics already stated philosophically,
habitually or disciplinary. In other terms, they enunciated the already
defined or indiscussable idea or prescription; only “later” they went to
seek a verse ad hoc (which often could not be found and often they found
something that seemed to be adaptable, tending to something else as far
as content and context was concerned. The closer we come to our epoch,
the more we grow in the awareness that this system is insufficient and
contra-producing: sometimes it seems to force the Scriptures within
philosophical categories stranger to them. On the other hand, the
little sympathy that contemporary men nourish for a normative ethics,
and the growing awareness of the various conditionings influencing the
behaviour of human beings –together with the increased awareness of the
historical and contingent character of certain Biblical prescriptions-,
make it practically difficult, the research of the Biblical foundation
of our Christian morals.
The work
of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
The theme was entrusted
to the Commission in 2002 by Joseph Ratzinger, the then Prefect pf the
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. It may not be useless to
remember that the Pontifical Biblical Commission (from now onward PCB)
is a Vatican organism of a consultative character; founded by Leo XIII
in 1902 with a defensive finality, namely to contrast what was
considered to be the dangerous influence of the “innovators”, it was
re-ordained in 1971 by Paul VI, to the end of promoting the study of the
Bible according to the auspices of the Council, as well as to contrast
with scientific means the erred opinions on the Sacred Scripture; more
generally to study and to illumine the debated questions in the Biblical
field, offering, in other words, a special contribution to the
magisterium of the Church.
A significant detail is
that the PCB is not presided by a Bible expert: the president by right
is always the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of faith.
However, it is the secretary that presides the sessions technically (the
actual secretary is Fr. Klemens Stock, Jesuit).
The 19 members of the
Commission met in the Vatican for the annual plenary Assembly in April
16-20, 2007, to the end of discussing the proof of the document and to
deepen its contents. After two distinct ballots (one on the single parts
and one on the document in its whole), the document passed through a
phase of correction-integration and, surprisingly, for a further
revision of the correct Italian forms; finally it was forwarded to the
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal William
Joseph Levada.
A
panoramic vision
The document is of more
than a considerable extension, a specific little volume of 239 printed
pages; it presents, laid upon the usual scansion in numbers, an
extremely precise and detailed structure, up to 4/5 levels of
subdivision in chapters and paragraphs, which is brought to evidence by
an exam of the index more than by a simple fluent reading.
After the forward by
Cardinal Levada and after the “Introduction” (nos. 1-6) which clarifies
the reasons and objectives of the document, its background lines and
addressees, the first part treats “Revealed morals: a divine gift and a
human response” (nos 7-91), the second one treats “Some Biblical
criteria for the moral reflection” (nos. 92-154). Then, there is a
general “Conclusion” (nos. 155-160), which takes back in a somehow
different perspective some themes enunciated at the beginning, in
particular the one on the revealed morals –the true late motive of the
document- underlining that it is about morals seen not from the
viewpoint of man, but totally from the viewpoint of God. The first part
moves again along the history of salvation in the main phases attested
by the Bible, according to the scheme God’s appeal/man’s response. The
approach follows a historical-narrative iter (which does not mean
historical-chronological, though it is configured as a historical
journey) about the canonical succession of the Biblical books, from
Genesis to the Apocalypse, therefore without the historical-critical
approach, which is indispensable in the area of theology and exegesis.
We, perhaps, should underline that the historical-critical method,
though not directly applied, remains on the background and its
evaluation results implicitly positive. The fundamental observation,
which inspires the work of the Commission is that a moral dimension is
found in the Bible –which is something different from moralism-. but
that morals in the Scripture appear always as “second” reality, which
does not mean secondary: the first reality is the initiative of God who
asks the human beings to live in communion with Him. The single moral
precepts, the dispositions and prohibitions never appear isolated and
have no value in themselves: they must be read in the context of God’s
gift who reveals himself and asks for a human response, in the logic of
covenant. The three fundamental gifts are: creation, the covenant in its
various phases, the event of Jesus as the supreme gift of God and the
supreme example of moral behaviour in relation with God.
Criteria
for moral discernment in the light of the Bible.
Today, somebody may
think that it is impossible and a foolish ambition to found the
Christian ethics on the Scriptures (according to the auspices of Vatican
II, see OT 16): in fact ethics rests on the Revelation of God –a
perennial “teandrica” reality, but in a constant becoming as far as
understanding and expression on behalf of the human beings is
concerned-, on the other side it rests on anthropology and human science
in general, which are rightly in a constant evolution, under the push of
historical an unpredictable happenings. The normative material offered
by the Scripture often seems to be unfit, too much culturally
conditioned, inapplicable in our deeply changed situation, anyhow
insufficient, seen that many areas of the ethical reflection which are
fundamental for us (for instance: politics, work, economy, love and
sexuality, bio-medical ethics and scientific research…), do not appear
at all in the Scripture. Two almost opposite consequences may derive
from this, equally mistaken and full of risks: the consequence of
considering the Bible not influent, or almost, to the ends of moral
life or, on the contrary, to consider immediately and universally valid
the ethical content stated in the various Biblical books or that it
seems to be deduced from them (it is surely not a theoretical risk: the
new-fundamentalism, in fact, is one of the problems our time will have
to face). In reality, the Bible has an ethical value also in the books
and pages which apparently have no prescription; surely, this cannot be
faced as a collection of indications to act, universally valid and
ready for use. We would add that even the approach, the way of making
the question has its ethical valence. The PCB document enunciates first
the two main criteria that illumine the solution of modern problems
(obviously not faced in the Scripture): “the conformity with the
Biblical image of the human person” (nos. 95-99); “the conformity with
the example of Jesus” (nos. 100-103). They are the enucleated –and
perhaps they constitute the major interests of the document- six more
specific criteria, which we feel right to enunciate with attention and
extensively:
1. In the Bible we find
in many cases a certain affinity with rules, laws and moral
prescriptions of other peoples, above all of the nearby old Eastern
countries (criteria of convergence, nos. 105.110). It is an initial
observation important also today to the end of communicating the ethical
talk enlarged as much as possible also outside the Judeo-Christian
tradition and the circle of believers.
2. However, we find in
both Testaments a “specificity” of the people of the Covenant, a clear
distinction between what was expected from the people of God and what
went on outside (criterion of contra-position, nos. 111-119): this is
the same as to say that the fidelity of God may request in some cases
the courage of acting against current.
3. Passing from a phase
on to the other, from some Biblical books to the others and to the New
Testament, we observe also a development of the moral rules towards a
more demanding direction, a more interior one (criterion of progression,
120-125).
4. The person to whom
the hidden or explicit message is addressed is never an isolated
individual, but a member of the community, which determines also the
rules of conviviality (criterion of communitarian dimension, nos.
126-135).
5. The life of man does
not get exhausted in the human dimension (though, as we know, in certain
phases of the Biblical reflection we find no clear idea of life after
death). In particular for us Christian the earthly life is inscribed in
an eschatological horizon opened by the resurrection (criteria of
finality, nos. 136-149). This criterion is developed with a particular
amplitude and brings to light the centrality of hope in the Christian
ethics.
6. When we meet moral
prescriptions in the Bible, it is necessary to evaluate correctly the
context in which they have been shaped: we have to apply the same
attentive discernment to the daily decisions (criteria of discernment,
nos. 150-154). The conclusive criterion is fundamental because it
underlines the role of the Spirit and the awareness of moral acting,
besides the communitarian dimension of the ethical choices.
Jesus,
continuity and fulfilment
We bring to memory that
also in the latest document of the PCB, with the Hebrew title of “The
Hebrews and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible” the relation
between the two testaments is described as a relation of continuity –
discontinuity – progression. In particular it insists on the fact that
the new covenant brought by Jesus does not blot out, does not substitute
or devaluate the first covenant in any way. The event of Jesus is the
permanent and decisive fact also from the moral viewpoint, though its
message is not primarily a moral fact, but the proclamation of the
nearby Kingdom of God. The new element brought by Jesus is identified
with His very person, with his example which He himself refers to
casually. He who accepts the communion of life with the God brought by
Jesus cannot help accepting the following of Jesus, therefore living in
such a way as to follow his example, in particular renouncing to egoism
and reserved attitude of heart.
Jesus does not put
himself as an alternative or in conflict with the law of Israel: he is
sometimes against a certain way of understanding and practising it, by
making the external precepts absolute, to the disadvantage of
interiority, of the heart. Actions and intentions must correspond to the
will of God. Jesus says that he has not come to abolish the Law and the
Prophets (these terms in his time meant the area which we call the First
Testament), but to complete it. Thus, he puts himself on the line of
deepening, interiorising, without refusing the Torah of Israel or the
fundamental understanding of the Covenant. Questioned on the greatest
commandment of the Law, he answers with the “symmetric” precept of the
love of God (Matthew 22, 37; see Deuteronomy 6, 5) and of our
neighbours (Matthew 22, 39; see Leviticus 10, 29b), thus He answers
smashing in, literally, the traditional categories of neighbourhood
(neighbour is each member of one’s own people), and stating, with the
Parable of the good Samaritan, that neighbour is any person in need and
whom we can help. The Bible is fundamentally the testimony of
Revelation: God reveals himself as love. ‘Living morally’, being able of
right behaviour from the Christian viewpoint means to be aware of
welcoming this love and of becoming progressively able of radiating it.
Inclusive Evaluation
The document, as we have
seen, meets an effective pastoral demand; doubtlessly it must be
considered as the product of good theological and scientific quality.
Even its expressive style, on the whole, is appreciable, though some
points are expressed in a somehow obscuring prolixity, which might have
been determined by the exigency of doctrinal completeness. It is true
that, in this as in many more appreciable documents of the ecclesiastic
authority (as well as in the texts of Vatican II), two “souls” can
co-exist, without fusing, and two languages referring to them. In other
terms, at least two layers seem to be very much recognisable together
with other more occasional things. We have the impression of an initial
draft made by a single author who, besides secure Biblical competence,
which we obviously expect from a PCB member, reveals noteworthy
qualities as writer, pastoral sensitivity and communicative attitude;
transparently, however, with not always a happy polyphonic effect,
another layer is distinguished –work of revision-correction?-, often
with recognisable variation of style. Obviously, we cannot know if some
part of the preparatory drafting has been suppressed; however, we have
the impression that some part has been added, due to
pastoral-disciplinary considerations, sufficiently external to the
document. It must be due to the exigency of doctrinal wholeness, such as
the worry of making the ethical foundations absolutely clear (such as
the unity of marriage or the respect for the human life from conception
to the natural end), which today are at the centre of pastoral
solicitudes of the Magisterium, but that they do not seem to have the
same centrality in the Bible, even less in the same angle of
perspective. Out of the positive aspects of future perspectives, we
would like to underline again the importance of what has been said about
the discernment, both personal and communitarian. “Every epoch, in its
way, must try to understand the Sacred Books”, the then Cardinal
Ratzinger wrote in the forward of a previous document of the PCB, “The
interpretation of the Bible in the Church”. Fr. Stock, secretary of the
PCB. in an interview by the Zenit agency, April 2007, soon after the
plenary session from where it substantially came out, said something
similar, “…Even the Scriptures are a historical phenomenon. The Old
testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek, and to read
and understand the original texts of these writings we need a historical
commitment to learn these old languages. The simple philological study,
as a research of the real meaning of words, seems to be endless. Then,
the concrete economic, social and political circumstances require a more
adequate understanding of the situation in which Jesus carried on his
ministry. In this sense study is endless”. However, he underlines that
“there are constant realities above all the historical conditionings”:
such as our constitutive, and not accidental, constant reality with God
and all other human beings, or the appeal that Jesus addresses to us to
enter in communion with him. We would add that the necessity of
discernment brings to the first level the necessity of study (in the
persuasion of clarifying all that is anyhow present in the document). It
is not the matter of an intellectual fact, but of an exigency of the
same quality as faith. In fact, study is not an absolute value, it is
not an idol but an instrument; it is essential for the reflection on
faith, at least as far as it concerns of making a purifying distinction
between what is essential (inherent to the salvation of God and the
logic of the Covenant) and what seems to be accessory (inherent to
culture and contingent historical circumstances). We do not feel to run
any risk by stating that with difficulty a person who is ignorant of the
most elementary matters of history and biblical theology, as well as of
the fundamental principles of the historical-critical method, can make,
in a limpid way, the due discernments in the light of the Word of God
and in the concrete situation; we go on understanding always better that
also the fact of acquiring some serious Biblical competence is a
responsibility of the believers, especially today when culture is no
longer a privilege.
Lilia Sebastiani
Articolista e conferenziera in materia teologica
Via Isonzo, 9 – 05100 Terni
 |
