_Letters___________________________________________________

Archbishop Pell’s theology

As an expatriate Australian, I share the enthusiasm and optimism of all those Catholics “down under” who have been heartened by the Vatican’s transfer of Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne to the nation’s primatial see of Sydney (“A New Face in Sydney,” May 2001). Archbishop Pell is certainly the best man available to undertake the urgent and Herculean task of leading the pallid and sickly Australian Church back toward her former strength and vigor.

But—alas!—Archbishop Pell’s own orthodoxy is not as untarnished as readers of Michael Gilchrist’s article would be led to suppose. In his Melbourne Catholic publication Kairos (June 28-July 5, 1998), the archbishop shocked many of his staunchest supporters by asserting: “It is certainly true that our Lord is not physically present” in the Eucharist. But in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei (1965) on the Real Presence, Pope Paul VI affirmed that in the Blessed Sacrament, “Christ is present in his physical reality” (“in sua physica realitate”).

In the same article Archbishop Pell—a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—goes on to affirm that the Scriptures “contain historical and scientific errors and misunderstandings.” On this issue, therefore, he stands with the most liberal wing of the Vatican II fathers, whose spokesman, Cardinal Franz König of Vienna, publicly expressed the same opinion about Sacred Scripture and sought, unsuccessfully, to have the words “without error” removed from the Council’s passage on biblical truth in Dei Verbum 11.

The idea that Scripture can err in matters of science and history was explicitly condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu. Both these passages are referenced in the footnote to Dei Verbum 11, in order to make it clear that the Council’s teaching on biblical inerrancy is to be understood as fully in line with this previous teaching of the ordinary magisterium. In any case the main text of Dei Verbum leaves no room for doubt. It insists that “everything affirmed by the sacred writers must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit.” Since “everything” obviously includes the Bible’s numerous affirmations about history and natural phenomena, and since the Holy Spirit cannot affirm error, Archbishop Pell’s opinion conflicts with Catholic doctrine. 

—Father Brian V. Harrison, OS Ponce, Puerto Rico

St. Ignatius, in his Spiritual Exercises, counsels that “every good Christian ought to be more willing to give a good interpretation to the statement of another than to condemn it as false.” In the case of Archbishop Pell’s statements, this entails no great difficulty.

1.The word “physically present” is ambiguous. No one claims that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist in the same way as he was on the paths of Galilee. He is really, truly, sacramentally present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. But his physical presence, in this sense, remains a mystery of faith and cannot be univocally described as “physical” without distinction.

2. Father Harrison quotes only part of a sentence from Dei Verbum, and in a way that makes a dependent clause seem to be a complete statement. The full sentence reads: “Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures” [my emphasis]. The word “nuance” has been abused; but this is a case where it is properly used. Many scholars of unquestioned orthodoxy consider that not all references in Scripture to history or natural phenomena are part of “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation,” intended. Fortunately, we do not have to depend on scholars alone to make this discernment in individual cases. The Church’s Magisterium is there to provide authoritative guidance where necessary.

Archbishop Pell’s orthodoxy, I believe, remains as untarnished now as it has always been. 

—The Publisher

More than neutrality
We wanted to write and compliment Matt McDonald for the excellent job he did in reporting (Special Report, May 2001) on the status of Catholic health care. 

What a shame that heroic shepherds like Cardinal O’Connor are not emulated more frequently—shepherds who would stand up to the government and say No. We must pray very hard for our bishops, and for the Catholic people of this nation. 

Perhaps it is time for the US bishops’ conference to take a stand that government must not be “neutral” on evils like contraception but rather strongly opposed, for the public health and welfare. The evidence to support such a position is certainly abundant. What a blessing it would be to hear such resounding demands! Oremus.

—Judie Brown American Life League, Stafford, Virginia

Generosity and priestly vocations
Michael Rose’s essay in the February issue (“A Self-Imposed Shortage”) was truly excellent. But I don’t recall that he ever mentioned that one reason for the shortage of priests and nuns is the small family, which today averages 1.8 children in the US. There has been much evidence that large families are the seedbed for priestly and religious vocations. In my view the chief reason for the shortage of priests and nuns is the selfishness of parents, who choose not to be generous before God by having children.

—Father Paul B. Marx, OSB Collegeville, Minnesot

Back to Catholic World Report - July 2001 - Table of Contents

Back to Catholic.net Magazine Rack