home page links quotes statistics mission statement success stories resources Lighter Side Authors! Search Page
Posted May 2, 2007

Pope's new book addresses key concerns for this pontificate: Christ is key

Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr.


When people pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV news, they generally aren't looking for a Sunday school lesson. This creates a challenge for journalists covering religious leaders, since most of their public utterances are devoted either to expounding their faith, or urging people to behave. The way reporters solve the problem is by combing through those utterances to find statements presumed to have broad, non-sectarian significance, normally because they apply to matters of politics or culture.

Friends of NCR

Dear Reader of All Things Catholic

We need your help. We are pleased to make available -- at no charge -- All Things Catholic by John L. Allen Jr. But we cannot do all we need to do without your financial assistance.

Please take a moment to consider contributing to the Friends of NCR campaign. National Catholic Reporter is a nonprofit organization. Contributions are tax-deductible in the United States.

Contributions can be sent to: National Catholic Reporter 115 E. Armour Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64111 USA Make checks out to: NCR

The result is that the real concerns of religious leaders, and the priority they assign to those concerns, often don't come across terribly clearly -- not because reporters aren't doing their jobs, but because of how the news business works in a secular world. Recent coverage of Benedict XVI's new book, Jesus of Nazareth, offers a good example.

The first wave of stories focused on comments in the book about Africa and capitalism, even though they amount to asides in a 448-page treatise on the Gospels. Other stories styled the book as a rebuke to The Da Vinci Code. (That red herring was encouraged by an indirect allusion to Dan Brown's potboiler from Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna in a Vatican news conference.) Still others seemed charmed by the fact that the pope wrote that because his book is not a magisterial act, "everyone is free to contradict me." Beyond those angles, there was little interest in follow-up, in large part because a pope discussing Jesus strikes most people as the ultimate in "dog bites man" developments -- that is, the most normal thing in the world.

By the time anyone had actually read all 448 pages of Jesus of Nazareth, the moment for further analysis had already passed. Passed, that is, everywhere but here, where papal analysis never goes out of fashion.

I'm in Rome this week, and, among other things, I set myself the task of studying Jesus of Nazareth. The key question is, "Why this subject, and why now?" Yes, a pope talking about Jesus is hardly a thunderclap -- but a pope talking about prayer or morality would be equally par for the course. Given Benedict's fascination with liturgy, one might have expected him to turn his pen to that theme if it were purely a matter of indulging his own interests, or settling old academic scores. Yet the pope himself hinted that something more urgent is involved in Jesus of Nazareth, writing that he devoted "all his free moments" after his election to finishing the book. To be honest, that's a bit of misdirection; popes don't really have "free time," and in any event, how they fill the moments in their day which are not formally scheduled usually is a good indicator of their real priorities. Thus the choice to write on Jesus, striving to put the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith back together again, is hardly casual.

What seems clear is that the motive for the book is also emerging as the core doctrinal concern of this pontificate: Christology. Put in a nutshell, Benedict's thesis in Jesus of Nazareth is that there can be no humane social order or true moral progress apart from a right relationship with God; try as it might, a world organized etsi Deus non daretur, "as if God does not exist," will be dysfunctional and ultimately inhumane. Jesus Christ, Benedict insists, is "the sign of God for human beings." Presenting humanity with the proper teaching about Jesus is, therefore, according to Benedict, the highest form of public service the church has to offer.

The English edition of Jesus of Nazareth goes on sale from Doubleday May 15, and an excerpt will be carried in the May 11 edition of Newsweek. (That should make the pope, for at least a week, no longer "invisible," as Newsweek described him April 16.) Jesus of Nazareth is the first installment of what Benedict has projected as a longer work; he decided to publish the first 10 chapters now, he wrote, "because I don't know how much time and how much strength will still be given to me."

* * *

Intellectually, the aim of Jesus of Nazareth is, in the first place, to defend the reliability of the gospel accounts; and secondly, to argue that that gospels present Christ as God Himself, not as a prophet or moral reformer. Over and over, the pope uses phrases such as "implicit Christology," "hidden Christology," and "indirect Christology," to argue that even where the gospel accounts don't draw out the theological consequences of stories and sayings of Jesus, their message is nonetheless discernible.

On one level, Jesus of Nazareth reads like a running conversation with exegetes such as Adolf von Harnack, who argued that the Jesus of the gospels was not yet "the Christ," and that turning him into a deity was a work of later Christian theologizing. (Clearly, Benedict isn't buying it.) The book is sprinkled with references to writers such as Rudolf Bultmann, Joachim Jeremias, Pierre Grelot, Romano Guardini and Hans-Peter Kolvenbach (the Superior General of the Jesuits, whom Benedict obviously admires.)

The book also contains some characteristic literary flashes of Joseph Ratzinger, such as his suggestion that we can see a model of redeemed creation in the beauty of Benedictine monasteries, while the horrors of a world enveloped by the "obscurity of God" can be glimpsed in Chernobyl.

On another level, the book offers detailed commentaries on the Scriptures. Benedict, for example, complains that modern translations of Matthew 7:28, which in Greek says that the crowds were "frightened" by Jesus' teaching, often uses "astonished" instead, which he believes obscures the awesome character of an encounter with divinity. Likewise, Benedict doesn't like the way modern translations treat "Yahweh" as a proper name for God, when in fact the Hebrew means "I Am," which is almost a way of underlining the impossibility of naming God. Benedict also says that he would prefer calling the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" the "Parable of the Two Brothers" instead, because the older brother who resents his father's graciousness offers an equally important lesson, especially for pious religious people.

Yet Jesus of Nazareth is not just an intellectual exercise, or an attempt to offer grist for homilies, though there's material for that aplenty. Ultimately, the motive for the book seems to be deep concern for what the pope sees as the toxic consequences of flawed Christology.

Over the course of the book, Benedict critiques a number of popular modern interpretations of Jesus: Jesus as a preacher of liberal morality, Jesus as a social revolutionary, Jesus as an inspired prophet or sage on the level of other founders of religious movements. The pope is well aware that these interpretations usually arise from noble motives, which he also shares -- to affirm the primacy of human beings over the law, to combat poverty and injustice, to express tolerance for other religions. In the end, Benedict believes that all such exegesis puts the cart before the horse. Out of impatience to get to desired social outcomes, Benedict argues, revisionist Christologies subvert the only basis for real humanism, which is belief in God, and in an objective truth that comes from God and stands above the human will to power.

On page 56, reflecting on Christ's temptations in the desert, Benedict makes this argument. (The following is my translation from the Italian edition.)

"Whenever God is considered a secondary concern, which can temporarily or stably be set aside in the name of more important things, then it is precisely those things presumed to be more important which fail. It's not just the negative result of Marxism which makes the point. The aid given by the West to developing countries, based purely on technical-material principles, which has not only left God to the side but has also distanced people from God with the pride of its presumed superior wisdom, has made the Third World into the 'Third World' in the modern sense. That aid put aside existing religious, moral and social structures and introduced its technical mentality into the vacuum. Believing it could transform stones into bread, it has instead given stones in place of bread. What's at stake is the primacy of God. It's a matter of recognizing God as a reality, a reality without which nothing else can be good. History cannot be governed with merely material structures, prescinding from God. If the heart of the human person isn't good, then nothing else can be good. And goodness of heart can come only from He who is Himself goodness, who is the Good."

Benedict makes the same argument with regard to peace.

"Discord with God is the point of departure for all the poisonings of the human person; and overcoming that discord is the fundamental presupposition of peace in the world. . . . Standing in peace with God is an indispensable part of any commitment to 'peace in the world.' It's from the former that the criteria and the strength derive for this commitment. Where humanity loses sight of God, peace also falls away, and violence takes the upper hand with previously unimaginable forms of cruelty. We see this today all too clearly."

In that sense, Jesus of Nazareth expresses in an exegetical key the same concern with Christology that drove the interventions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger with regard to theologians such as Jesuit Frs. Jacques Dupuis and Roger Haight, as well as the most recent notification on Jesuit Fr. Jon Sobrino. In each case, the concern was with what Joseph Ratzinger saw as a faulty Christology in the name of some presumed good -- inter-religious tolerance in the case of Dupuis and Haight, social liberation for Sobrino.

Thus we come to what the pope wrote about Africa, in the context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

"The actuality of the parable is obvious. If we apply it to the dimensions of globalized society, we see how the population of Africa, which finds itself robbed and pillaged, concerns us closely. We see how much they are our 'neighbor;' we see also that our style of life, the history in which we too are involved, have despoiled them and continues to despoil them. In this regard, what's understood above all is the fact that we have wounded them spiritually. Instead of giving them God, the God who is close to us in Christ, and thereby gathering from their traditions all that is precious and grand and carrying it to fulfillment, we have instead brought them the cynicism of a world without God, in which only profit and power count; we've destroyed moral criteria so much that corruption and the will to power deprived of scruples become something obvious. This doesn't apply just to Africa. Yes, we must give material aid, and we must examine our kind of life. But we give too little if we give only material things."

To be clear, Benedict XVI is not minimizing the importance of both direct aid and structural justice with regard to the poor, above all in Africa. On April 23, Benedict wrote to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, current president of the G-8, demanding the "the rapid, total and unconditional cancellation" of the external debt of poor countries, describing it as a "grave and unconditional moral responsibility, founded on the unity of the human race, and on the common dignity and shared destiny of rich and poor alike."

His argument is rather that any such act of justice, shorn of reference to God, is destined to be a partial remedy to the wounds afflicting the human family. Only a renewed focus on Christ, and on the plan for human life marked out in the example of Christ, he believes, offers hope of a lasting cure. According to Benedict, efforts to cut corners, to recast Christ in ways that seemingly promote progress more directly, always end in ruin.

I had an unexpected confirmation of this analysis last week.

Last Thursday, I attended the annual Rector's Dinner at the North American College, the residence for American seminarians in Rome. While there, I was pulled aside by a Vatican official who wanted to comment on what I had written some time ago about the Sobrino notification, where I made the point that it wasn't really about liberation theology but about Christology.

"That piece was widely noticed here," the official said. "Christology is the key for this pope." The official then added: "And it's not over."

That comment suggests there may be additional investigations, additional notifications, additional teaching documents and papal messages, circling around the themes laid out in Jesus of Nazareth.

* * *

I'll add four vignettes from the book which don't necessarily illustrate larger themes, but which are nevertheless of interest.

First, Benedict tackles the question of calling God "mother." In a nutshell, he affirms that God is beyond gender, and that Scripture often uses the image of a mother's womb to express the intimacy of God's love for humanity. Yet, he says, "mother" is not a title of God in the Bible, and hence the church is disqualified from using it.

Benedict notes that there were a number of mother-gods in the religious traditions of the cultures surrounding the Israelites, and speculates that perhaps it was only by excluding that sort of language in the Bible that the sovereignty and the "otherness" of God could become clear. While the pope acknowledges that theory may not be completely satisfactory, he says we're nevertheless obliged to follow the Bible's lead.

"Even if we can't give absolutely cogent reasons, the language of the prayer of the entire Bible remains normative for us, in which, the great metaphors of maternal love notwithstanding, 'mother' is not a title of God, and is not an appellation with which one may address God. We must pray as Jesus, on the basis of the Holy Scripture, has taught us to pray, not as it might strike us or please us. Only thus do we pray in the right way."

* * *

Second, in light of recent controversies in Catholic-Jewish relations, including a dispute in Israel over the presentation of Pope Pius XII at Yad Vashem and concerns related to the renewed use of the older Tridentine Mass, it's interesting to note the way in which Benedict refers to Judaism in Jesus of Nazareth.

In keeping with classical Christian exegesis and theology, Benedict is unabashed in asserting that Christ was the fulfillment of the promises and longings expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet he is deeply impatient with suggestions that Christ rebelled against, or transposed to a merely metaphorical plane, the demands of the Jewish law. Yes, Benedict says, Christ "universalized" the law, making it applicable not just to Israel but to all peoples, but he also insisted repeatedly that it was not his intention to cancel anything from the Law and the Prophets. Benedict rejects any attempt to minimize the importance of the Old Testament for Christianity.

It's interesting in this regard that the exegete whom Benedict quotes at greatest length, and with most evident fondness, is Jewish. The pope devotes pages 129-140 to reflections on the book A Rabbi Talks with Jesus by Jacob Neusner, whom Benedict calls a "great intellectual." Benedict writes at one stage that he wants to insert himself into their conversation. He praises the "great love" with which Neusner writes of Jesus, and applauds him for seeing clearly what Benedict believes too many Christian exegetes, in their passion for dissection, fail to grasp: that the Jesus of the New Testament is precisely the Christ of Faith, one who claims for himself the authority that belongs only to God.

"Jesus was not simply another reforming rabbi," Neusner writes, in a passage Benedict cites with approval. "What's in discussion are the claims of authority on the part of Jesus." In that sense, Benedict claims, Neusner "liquidates" the image of Jesus as a preacher of liberal morality promoted by Harnack and others.

Benedict adds that he also wants to walk along the same path with Neusner in order to better understand "our Jewish brothers."

Another insight into Benedict's attitude towards Judaism comes in his discussion of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (or, as noted above, as the pope prefers, the "Parable of the Two Brothers."). Benedict notes that ancient Christians tended to see in the two brothers representations of the Pagans (the profligate brother who saw the light) and the Jews (the earnest older brother who stayed home and followed all the rules).

"This application to the Jews is not unjustified," the pope writes, "if we leave it as we've found it in the text; as a delicate effort of God to persuade Israel, an effort which is completely in the hands of God. We should certainly note, in fact, that the father of the parable not only does not contest the fidelity of the older brother, but expressly confirms his identity as a beloved son: 'My son, you are with me always, and everything I have is yours.' Such an interpretation would be wrong, however, if it were transformed into a condemnation of the Jews, which is not what the text is talking about."

* * *

Though Benedict is a gracious figure, sometimes in the thrust-and-parry of academic argument, one can feel the iron fist beneath his velvet gloves. There are passages in Jesus of Nazareth where his frustration with exegetes who cast doubt on the reliability of the gospels becomes especially clear.

Perhaps the best example is Benedict's discussion of the temptations of Christ. In the gospel accounts, Satan supports his offers by quoting the Psalms, and Jesus responds by quoting Deuteronomy. Benedict says the conversation reads like a debate between two experts on the Scriptures, and notes approvingly a passage from Vladimir Solov'ëv, a 19th century Russian philosopher, in his book on the Anti-Christ. Solov'ëv wrote that the Anti-Christ "received a doctorate honoris causa in theology from the University of Tübingen; he's a great expert in the Bible."

"With this account," Benedict writes, "Solov'ëv wanted to express in drastic fashion his skepticism with regard to a certain kind of erudite exegesis of his time. It's not a matter of rejecting scientific study of the Bible as such, but rather a very healthy and necessary warning regarding erroneous paths that such study might take. Interpretation of the Bible can, in fact, become an instrument of the Anti-Christ. It's not only Solov'ëv who says so, it's implicitly affirmed in the account of the temptation itself. The most destructive books on the figure of Jesus, which dismantle the faith, are interwoven with the presumed results of exegesis."

* * *

Finally, anyone who knows the thought of Benedict realizes how strongly he recoils from charges that Catholicism went wrong by "Hellenizing" the faith of the Bible.

In fact, Benedict has argued that the encounter between Christianity and the thought world of Greco-Roman antiquity was providential, and that Christianity cannot simply shuck aside its Hellenistic inheritance, like a snake casting off an old layer of skin, without losing something essential. (That formed part of the argument in his now-famous address at the University of Regensburg, which few noticed because of controversies over his comments about Islam.)

In that light, it's interesting that the very last paragraph of Jesus of Nazareth aims to exonerate the church from the charge that by adopting Hellenistic philosophical concepts, it betrayed the message of Scripture. Instead, he argues, Greek concepts allowed the early church to explicate more clearly the claims implicit in the Bible about what it means for Jesus to be the "Son of God," and to save those claims from misinterpretation.

"It was necessary," he writes, "to clarify successfully this new significance through complex and difficult processes of differentiation and through pain-staking research, in order to protect it from mythico-polytheistic and political interpretations. This was the motive for which the First Council of Nicea (325) employed the adjective homoousios ('of the same substance'). This term did not Hellenize the faith, it did not burden the faith with an extraneous philosophy, but rather it fixed precisely the incomparably new and different element which appeared in [the Bible's] speech about Jesus with the Father. In the Credo of Nicea, the church once again says together with Peter, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' "

The e-mail address for John L. Allen Jr. is jallen@ncronline.org

Paul George John Allen's

Paul George John Allen's review of Pope Benedict's new book "Jesus of Nazareth" is very insightful. He notes quite appropriately that "What seems clear is that the motive for the book is also emerging as the core doctrinal concern of this pontificate: Christology." I see in this a strong line of continuity between Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. JPII began his ministry with "Redemptor Hominis" (1979) and followed it through with other magisterial documents such as "Redemptoris Mater" (1987), "Redemptionis Custos" (1989), "Redemptionis Missio" (1990), etc. At the heart of his ministry was "the abundant riches of redemption effected by Jesus Christ." "Our spirit is set in one direction, the only direction for our intellect, will and heart is - towards Christ our Redeemer, towards Christ, the Redeemer of man" (Redemptor Hominis, # 7). Similarly, B16 seems to view Christ as the focal point of his ministry.

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE, though. While JPII spoke as successor of Peter, and so issued encyclicals and apostolic letters and exhortations, thus producing documents of the magisterium or official teaching, B16 prefers to write a series of books on Jesus Christ. It is reported that B16 welcomes criticism ("everyone is free to contradict me").

So, is "Jesus of Nazareth" a book of theology or magisterium? Are theologians expected to comment on it as they would criticize their peers or what is demanded of them is rather an "adherence with a religious assent of soul?" (Lumen Gentium, # 25)? Where is the line of demarcation?

There is a deep ambiguity here. Edward Schilleebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Jon Sobrino, Jacques Dupuis, John Meyers, Elizabeth Johnson and numerous others have published excellent works on Christology. Is "Jesus of Nazareth" of B16 to be counted among those writings as another scholarly work of theology?

Will major theological journals take up this issue for discussion?

I do appreciate that the

Submitted by AnnieO on April 30, 2007 - 5:35pm.

I do appreciate that the pope understands that these are not definitive statements he is making, but rather trying to influence our thinking to be like his thinking. I had the sense that he was trying to get into some of our blogging without really signing in...now wouldn't that be interesting!

In the Bible, someone called

Submitted by Cobalt on April 30, 2007 - 3:46pm.

In the Bible, someone called Jesus "good". Jesus responded with "Why do you call Me good, only God is good." All of the "good" attributes of fathering and mothering are what God has given to us with which we are to love one another. We share partially, in what He is completely.

We are to continually have as our focus, helping each other into eternal life with God. The duties of fathers and mothers are to lead and guide their children to God.

We have an incomplete understanding of what the Fatherhood of God means. I believe it is so much more than the encompassing of earthly parenting. Let us not reduce God to our understanding of "biological roles" of parenting, but let us accept what Our Lord and Saviour taught us, "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name...", and live in Jesus' Peace.

Didn't Rahner do it better?

Submitted by Rev Dr Elaine McCoy on April 30, 2007 - 8:45am.

Didn't Rahner do it better? i.e.: with greater humility and a finer intellectual sensibility ...

When did apologetics replace theology ... let alone as council to/for Faith? (was that when dicta replaced discovery??)

For less self-enhancement try two Edwards, one contemporary, the other, an older American saint:

Denis Edwards. JESUS, THE WISDOM of GOD; AN ECOLOGICAL THEOLOGY (Orbis 1995)

Jonathan Edwards. "A Divine and Supernatural Light" a homily om Mt 16:17 (1734)

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:5)

The leaps of logic--the

Submitted by Hoping vs Hope on April 29, 2007 - 4:12am.

The leaps of logic--the leaps OVER logic--in Benedict's argument about using the term Mother to address God interest me tremendously.

Benedict "affirms that God is beyond gender," and grants that Scripture often uses maternal images to refer to God.

Yet he denies that the church can pray to God as mother, basing his argument on the tenuous proposition that Jewish tradition resisted that term in order to resist surrounding cultures that had female deities.

In the cultural milieu in which the Israelites lived, slavery was normative. It was taken as normative by all the peoples surrounding Israel, and it was taken as normative by the Jewish people as well. It was accepted by the Jewish scriptures as a social arrangement that the people of God could endorse and employ, even as they were urged to mitigate its most cruel aspects.

At the same time, as scripture scholars and theologians have long noted, there are in both Jewish and Christian scriptures important strands of thought that have led us eventually to discard slavery as incompatible with authentic faith. No one today seriously argues that, because the scriptures permit slavery, it is an acceptable social practice or one compatible with Jewish or Christian faith.

Can the same argument not equally well be applied to Benedict's refusal to allow God to be named as Mother? Is he not implicitly defending a mutable cultural practice (patriarchy) in the name of scriptural evidence that--as he himself admits--ultimately overturns patriarchal traditions in the name of the full equality of all God's children in the reign of God?

If God is beyond gender, and the scriptures employ maternal images to describe God, then the logical conclusion to be drawn from these recognitions--particularly when one couples them with all the strong prophetic strands of Jewish and Christian scripture--is that one can and perhaps must call God Mother with the same fervor one uses in addressing God as Father.

William D. Lindsey

Submitted by klisa on April 28, 2007 - 9:24pm.

klisa

I admire the Pope for being able to spend his time writing a book. But while reading this article, I just wonder why do the catholic magisterium called "vatican" have always to defend its doctrine of God and Jesus...

There are many people who worked for the human dignity of People all over the world who are not necessarily Catholic and does not even embrace a religion specifically but I don't think that they are not close to God just because they don't believe in the blah blah of the Catholic church.

It is time to stop defending giving lectures. Ordinary people are a lot more simpler and cannot even have the money and time to exhaust themselves to these things...

P.S. And about the First

Submitted by Cobalt on April 28, 2007 - 5:11pm.

P.S. And about the First Council of Nicea (325) employing the adjective homoousios ('of the same substance'), in the Bible, Jesus said "I and the Father are One." How much more concretely could He have expressed 'of the same substance'?

If the the divinity of

Submitted by SJ on April 30, 2007 - 7:10pm.

If the the divinity of Jesus, his relationship to the Father, the Trinity, etc. are so clear in the New Testament, then why was there any need for the Christological councils at all? Couldn't the bishops have simply said "Read the New Testament" and left it at that? Would you not agree that there existed some ambiguity about what exactly the statements of Jesus meant?

I am so glad to hear of Pope

Submitted by Cobalt on April 28, 2007 - 4:59pm.

I am so glad to hear of Pope Benedict's new book!! Thank-you for your review!!

Maybe I am so simple, but it seems that if the Bible was taken for just what it says, then it would be known that one would not address God as mother, but as Father, for that is how Jesus taught us to pray.

Also, that when Jesus was asked if He was the Son of the Highest, that He said and meant Yes, I am - and so on. None of the points above are mysteries to understand, if, one does not go all intellectual about what is written in the Old and New Testaments.

And for the relativity of the Old Testament, Jesus Himself quoted from it and appeared at the Transfiguration with Elijah and Moses, clearly given God's own credence to the continuing importance of the Law and the Prophets, plus He said He had not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them.

And lastly, I like Pope Benedict's larger take on The Prodigal Son. I am also reminded me so clearly of the scene in the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, in which Jesus is telling the story, and by His love, He moves Peter and Matthew to accept each other. God always has room for one more!!

"Maybe I am so simple, but

Submitted by SJ on April 30, 2007 - 7:05pm.

"Maybe I am so simple, but it seems that if the Bible was taken for just what it says, then it would be known that one would not address God as mother, but as Father, for that is how Jesus taught us to pray.

"Also, that when Jesus was asked if He was the Son of the Highest, that He said and meant Yes, I am - and so on. None of the points above are mysteries to understand, if, one does not go all intellectual about what is written in the Old and New Testaments."

Perhaps God shouldn't be called "Mother," and we as Christians certainly believe in the divinity of Christ, but I can't help but question the idea that the Bible is immediately understandable to modern readers. We quickly forget that most of the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew by Jews for a Jewish audience. We're Gentiles reading the Bible in English nearly two millennia later. It's not a stretch to suggest that when we imagine ourselves to be taking the Bible at face value we'll often end up with results that are quite different from what the author intended. It's often necessary to get "all intellectual" if we want to have a serious understanding of the Bible. This may mean trying to gain some knowledge of the historical, cultural and literary contexts of its various books.

We ought not to pray using

Submitted by Luke 4 18 19 on April 28, 2007 - 8:28am.

We ought not to pray using titles for God that are consistent with but not used within scripture??? umm...how 'bout "Trinity?" I also like how Roger Haight gets silenced for Rome's misunderstanding (intentional misrepresentation?) of the assertion that "Jesus is the symbol of God," yet Benedict XVI can use the much more facile phrase Jesus Christ "is the sign of God for human beings!"

As this book touches on very contentious issues, I hope that it generates renewed passion for reflection and discussion. I only hope that the book does not get confused with church teaching, as so often happens when a pope articulates his personal theological reflections (see the Theology of the Body). I also hope that Benedict XVI does not discipline those who take up his invitation to disagree with his assertions. This would reveal not only a poor understanding of the relationship of the bishop of Rome to theologians around the world, but would also illustrate a very uncharitable "invitation."

John, Thanks for this

Submitted by jkp135 on April 27, 2007 - 10:41pm.

John,

Thanks for this insightful review of Pope Benedict's book.

I am awed by Benedict's lucid Christology and have a better understanding of his concerns that led to criticism of so many writers. I agree especially with his emphasis that God cannot be "named" because of the Semitic tradition replete in the Hebrew Testament that the act of naming implied a dominion over the named person or object. Yet, I cannot share his dismissal of the notion of God also as mother, recognizing that this too is a partial and inadequate analogy. For I recall from Thomistic philosophy (Hellenization to be sure) that nothing exists that does not have its formal cause in God. Thus all maternal virtues have their formal cause in God. Benedict's argument that we are constrained by the images given to us in the Hebrew Testament seems to contradict his later argument that the Church was justified in adapting the Greek philosophical framework in understanding Christ as Son of God. Recall that the Semitic culture did not accord much value to women, and it was Jesus and the early Church that raised the stature of the personhood of women. Certainly, we do not subscribe to the tribal culture of Leviticus which would have us stone the sinners to death. Jesus assertion that he did not come to change the Law or the Prophets, is to be understood in the sense of the underlying foundation of love of God and love of neighbor.

Ken Poggenburg Encinitas, CA

Fr. Juan Romero Palm

Submitted by juanrvi on April 27, 2007 - 3:44pm.

Fr. Juan RomeroPalm Springs

I look forward to reading Pope Benedict's book. The title "Jesus Nazareno" has a specific connotation among Latin Americans and Hispanics of the Southwest USA. It refers to the suffering and bloody Jesus who sweat blood in the agony of the garden, dripped his blood upon being scouraged and crowned with thorns and spilled it during his falls, the nailing of His hands and feet, and the piercing with a lance. The Jesus of many in our time and culture is much more anaceptic. Durwell in the sixties helped make a correction in the piety of the 14th century and onwards that focused maybe too much on the sufferings and cross of Jesus. The Vatican Council II steadied the pendulum at Crist crucified and risen in glory. Jon Sobrino and Liberation theologians re-affirmed the importance, if not the centrality, of the bleeding Jesus.

The image of Jesús Nazareno is clothed in purple, red, or white; head bowed down before Pilate and bleeding from the thorns; hands bound. He is a central figure of devotion for the HERMANOS PENITENTES of New Mexico. (Cf. Marta Weigle, Brothers of Blood - Brothers: Penitentes of the Southwest - UNM Press, 1976.) May Jesus of Nazareth lead us successfullth through His cross to the fulness of glory.