True, and well taken.
I might like again to steer you away from that word “rash,” however. The word implies impetuosity, which doesn’t apply to the man in question. Intellectuals don’t sentimentalize their passions; they overthink them. (But this is really just a petty debate over semantics. I don’t care what word you use, honestly.)
True enough, but the word is used in a theological context in the manner above. Granted, I don’t have magisterial authority, but I can still say a certain opinion seems this or that way. But I grant that since it might cause needless offense I can steer away from the word.
Where is an English translation for the 1905 document you’re citing, De narrationibus specietenus tantum historicis? I’m guessing this is the one you mean. There were two that were published by the Commission in 1905, according to the Roman Curia’s website.
A translation appears here: catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm. This website, alas, is a traditionalist Catholic that seems to dissent in other areas, but I can assure you that these translations, at least, are correct (as you may have guessed from my name, I’m a fairly proficient Latinist).
Barron’s imploration not to read Genesis as literal history is simultaneously an affirmation to read the book in the light of salvation history, in accordance with Dei Verbum, which states:
But the dichotomy is false. Salvation history is literal history, not some mythic past created by the Church. It’s similar to the way that American history is literal history. In fact, the 1909 decree of the PBC concerning Genesis 1-3, explicitly condemns those who deny the literal historical sense of the passages, at least concerning the fundamental truths of faith contained therein:
[quote](in Latin)I. Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum
trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur?
(in English)1. Whether the various exegeitcal systems thoughout and defended under the guise of science, to exlcude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of the book of Genesis, rest on a solid foundation?
Resp. In the negative.
The emphases are mine, as is the translation.
In the way that His Excellency and others mean this, it’s okay, but it’s poorly stated. That, for example, God literally created all things from nothing, and made them good, that he made man in his image, etc., these facts, which are real historical events, are truths of faith. They cannot be disputed with.
Also, I said earlier that “Origen’s emphasis on the allegorical nature of the biblical text is not in competition with Augustine’s more literal approach.” I meant John Chrysostom and the Antiochene school, not Augustine. I may have gotten “Antiochene” and “Augustine” mixed up; I don’t know. My bad.
I had a feeling that’s what you meant, and I can understand this. Of course, we must be careful that the literal sense is not pitted against various allegorical senses. The catechism excplicitly notes that all senses hinge on the literal. In other words, a literal reading and an allegorical reading need not be opposed to each other per se, as long as it is recognized that the allegorical is a distnct sense. Now, of course, sometimes, as in the Song of Solomon, the literal sense is an allegory, and the allegorical sense, is an allegory of an allegory. But this is not the case in the books and passages mentioned above.