[Editor's Note: This will conclude letters on the flood debate we have serialized over the last few weeks.]
Dear Mark Shea,
Praise be to Jesus living in Mary! The answers you gave to the letter on 01/02/04 There Must Be More to the Flood Story leave the impression that you do not have a complete understanding of the Church's teaching regarding the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. The Church teaches, contrary to popular opinion, that whatever the Sacred author intends as true is the true meaning of scripture, not only regarding those things that are for the sake of our salvation, but also regarding historical facts, science, etc. That is because the history of salvation is part of God's revelation of Himself to us. In fact, since God is the primary author of Scripture, there can be no error in the text. I think you will be hard- pressed to discover in the Genesis text evidence that the author means anything other than the entire world was flooded. If we are skeptical based on modern science then I think we should question our science since truth does not contradict truth.
The best book I can recommend to you and your readers is Fr. William Most's Without Error. Dr. Scott Hahn also has an excellent tape series about the inerrancy of scripture. Here is a link to one of Fr. William Most's articles about the topic.
There are very few scripture scholars that interpret Sacred Scripture with the mind of the Church these days. It makes me wince to think that even you would hold that scripture is only inerrant regarding those things pertaining to our salvation.
In Jesus through Mary,
Blake Helgoth
Indianapolis, IN
Dear Blake:
I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. What I do not believe in is the inerrancy of Fundamentalist-influenced Creationist theories subscribed to by a tiny minority of Catholic biblical interpreters who can point to no magisterial authority which imposes a belief in a global Flood on the faithful.
It is quite true that whatever the sacred author intends to assert as true is true since God is the primary author of Scripture. My point is that I am not persuaded in the least that the author of Genesis means to assert a global flood, just as I am skeptical he means to assert the universe was created in six 24-hour days. Since the Church does not bind us to any particular interpretation of the Flood narrative, I opt not to bind anybody else either — out of the respect for the Church's latitude with the text. Personally, I think there is a historical basis of some kind to the Flood story, though what that is, I have no idea. I am not as quick as some to simply sweep away the testimony of Science against a global flood, precisely because I do affirm that all truth is one and I therefore conclude that when the Church does not insist on a global flood and Science finds no evidence for it, then the likeliest explanation is that the tiny minority of biblical interpreters who insist on a global flood are probably wrong.
So to summarize: I quite agree that Scripture must be interpreted with the mind of the Church. The Church tells us that we must pay attention to what the sacred author is really asserting, the way he is trying to assert it, and what is incidental to the assertion. I am not at all persuaded that the sacred author is trying to assert the entire globe (of which he knew nothing) was deluged. The mind of the Church, in this particular case, tells me that the Church binds us to no particular theory at all about the historicity of the Flood story, much less about a global flood. Since the Church allows liberty here, I hold my own opinion that the Flood has a historical basis of some kind (possibly rooted in one of the many Floods which have struck that part of the world (click here). But I have no dogmatic beliefs in this case, precisely because, in addition to the Church's latitude, the sciences have only the sketchiest picture of things. Given a small enough population of humans, a local flood would destroy “the world” as the biblical authors understood it. Until we know more (and new evidence is not likely to be forthcoming), I think it's best to acknowledge that the Scripture is inspired and inerrant while remembering that our personal ability to understand it is not. Should the Church bind us to more than this concerning the Genesis flood, I will cheerfully comply.
But I think I'm safe in saying She won't. So neither should we bind one another to particular interpretations.
In essential things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Hi,
Does the Church recommend tithing? Also, if we want to tithe, do we consider our net or gross income? We are making a decision on financial issues, home improvements, etc. and want to be sure we are giving enough.
Thank you! We love your website. Please continue the excellent work.
In Christ,
KK
Dear KK:
The Church recommends tithing, though there is no law about it. Obviously, God commends generosity and just as obviously, the Church stays afloat financially primarily because of giving. But the Church more or less trusts that God will provide.
The recommended typical is 5% of your net income to the Church and another 5% to some other charitable causes. But that's just a rule of thumb. We are not under the law here.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email href=”mailto:faithquestions@catholicexchange.com”>faithquestions@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
