What Does the Bible Really Say?
A group of friends and I were recently discussing scriptural interpretation. How do we know that, for instance, getting a tattoo is moral or immoral? Jewish law fairly clearly condemns tattoos, but the Catholic Church’s teaching is more nuanced. It seems that both can’t be correct, so it apparently comes down to a matter of interpretation. However, if the Church can interpret away God’s commandment regarding tattoos, what is to stop someone from interpreting away God’s Church? Furthermore, if the Church’s teaching regarding faith and morals is infallible, why do we see the Catholic Church evolving over time -- the latest example being the new English Mass translation.
One problem here is that the word interpretation here is a bit ambiguous. Handel’s Messiah is a musical interpretation of the Gospel, but nobody would argue that Handel’s Messiah renders other musical renditions of the Gospel story invalid. Similarly, with the Mass, there are certain necessary elements, but the way we choose to express our piety may change over time. Latin was once a nearly universal language throughout Europe. Even after the fall of Rome, Latin continued to be used as a sort of international language. For this reason, it made sense to conduct the Holy Mass (not to mention diplomacy, scholarship and so on) in Latin. Nevertheless, the Latin Mass does not necessarily preclude Mass in English, French or German.
This does not mean that every Catholic is free to celebrate Mass however he or she wishes. We have been handed to the care of the Church just as the Apostles were handed into the care of our Lord (cf. John 17:18-20). As such, we are bound to obey the Church. This does not mean that every rule given by the Church will last forever. At times, married men in the Latin Rite were allowed to become priests. Some married men -- often times former Anglican ministers -- still are given dispensation to be ordained priests despite being married. The Church has the authority both to impose and to rescind rules that we as Catholics are required to obey.
This creates some confusion with regards to Tradition versus tradition and Doctrine versus discipline. Tradition (capital T) and Doctrine are unchanging. The fact that God is three persons will not change. After all, God is eternal and unchanging. The fact that Jesus Christ chose twelve Apostles and that their successors are our bishops will not change. This is an immutable historical fact. Murder is an intrinsic evil and the Church does not have the power or the authority to reorder the universe to change absolute moral truths. In contrast, how we respond to God, whether it is at Mass or elsewhere, may change depending on our cultural context (see Catechism paragraphs 1204-1206). The Church still has authority in such matters, but the precise liturgy of the Mass is not a matter of Doctrine and thus is subject to change.
To get back to the topic of tattoos, the Catechism does not address the issue directly. What the Catechism does say is that we are forbidden to mutilate ourselves or others -- that is to say, modify our bodies in a way that threatens our lives or our health and the normal functioning of our bodies. For example, using an unsterilized needle may expose you to disease. In short, tattoos are tacitly allowed by the Catholic Church whereas under the Jewish Law where tattoos are strictly forbidden. (Catholics United for Faith has a more complete discussion of this particular topic.)
However, didn’t Jesus say that he came not to overturn the Law but to fulfill it? Who is the Pope to overturn the Jewish Law? This objection was raised in the book, A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, by Rabbi Jacob Neusner (a personal friend of Pope Bendict XVI, by the way). It is interesting that Neusner, in quoting Matthew 5:17-20 uses the word Torah rather than Law. This is a valid translation, as the first 5 books of the Bible -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy -- are often referred to as the Mosaic Law and it is where the rules regarding keeping Kosher and many other rules that Christians do not follow are contained. To a first century Jew, Christ’s use of the phrase, “the Law,” -- especially since it precedes “and the Prophets” -- would have meant “the Torah.”
The Catholic response to Neusner’s objection would be that the Jewish Law -- that is, the specific legal code given to Moses -- was a temporal expression of the Eternal Word of God. Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word, the Logos is the Law incarnate. Christians are not required to eat Kosher foods, but we are still required to not kill, not commit adultery and so on. We keep the Law in an even fuller sense by conforming ourselves to Jesus Christ. The difference between Jews and Christians on this issue is not a matter of interpretation, but rather the Christian understanding that the Old Covenant has passed away.
How do we know, though, that our interpretation of scripture is correct? How do we know that Kosher laws do not apply to us as Christians? The Church does not, typically, hand down authoritative doctrinal interpretations of Scripture. There are exceptions. We believe that Jesus Christ was speaking literally when he said, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” (John 6:56) The Real Presence is a doctrine, and it precludes other interpretations of John 6:56. On the other hand, the Church does not endorse a single interpretation of the Book of Revelation even though many people find Revelation terribly confusing. There are interpretations which contradict Church Teaching and Doctrine, but there is no one approved interpretation.
The reason is that to attempt to condense the Book of Revelation to a single interpretation would be to rob it of its inexhaustible depth and complexity. The Catechism gives the four senses of scripture (see Catechism paragraphs 115-118). The literal sense asks, “what is being said?” The allegorical sense asks, “what does this tell us about Christ?” The moral sense asks, “what does this say about how I should live?” Finally, the anagogical sense asks, “what does this say about our eternal destination?” Certainly, there are other paradigms, lenses through which we could see scripture, but these four senses have stood the test of time. They demonstrate how scripture is both coherent and works on multiple levels simultaneously. The Book of Revelation, which baffles many of the most brilliant theologians, is a perfect example of how scripture is an infinitely deep well of meaning from which we draw.
The important thing to remember is that there are both valid and invalid interpretations of Scripture. There are valid and invalid interpretations of Holy Tradition. Jesus Christ gave us the Catholic Church to guide us away from false interpretations and toward valid ones. Similarly, the Church attempts to look at our changing spiritual needs and meet those needs appropriately. Church leaders may be in error in how they decide to tend their flock. However, we can rest assured that the Church is always protected by the Holy Spirit from error in teaching unchanging Doctrine.