To the editor:
Father Richard McBrien never ceases to surprise readers. His column (April) dealing with the Resurrection of Christ is a typical example. He refers to Christians whose faith “should not be troubled if, in fact, Jesus’ bones had been discovered more than 20 centuries later,” but he does not bother to discredit such an absurdity. Nor does he bother to refute the absurdity of those “Christians ”who think “the resurrection may have been a ‘miracle’ that ‘happened’ only to the disciples, not to Jesus himself.” The modern theories held by unbelieving theologians that Christ’s bodily resurrection was an illusion, an hallucination, the result of auto-suggestion, or were visionary subjective experiences are not forcefully excluded by Father McBrien. One can only wonder why, since the Catholic faith holds as a dogma of faith that Christ rose from the dead in the same physical body that was slain on the cross.
Doubt concerning Christ’s real physical, bodily resurrection is even furthered by Father McBrien’s ridiculing the idea that His appearances “could have been filmed or photographed.” The Resurrection accounts of the now glorified Christ were indeed mysterious but they constituted quite real historical events and involved visible and tangible realities grasped by the senses of selected eyewitnesses. Our Lord Himself though now glorified insisted, ”Feel me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” A camera would have had no trouble in capturing on film Thomas placing his finger in Christ’s wounds and Christ’s eating fish, a honeycomb, and bread with His disciples. His historical appearances were not the result of the faith of His disciples but rather caused their faith.
Contrary to Father McBrien, a purely spiritual pseudo-Resurrection results in no authentic Christian faith whatsoever.
James Likoudis
Montour Falls, N.Y
