Can we hate religion but love Jesus?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                  and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Firstly, let me preface by saying, I am MAD, so probably I should wait 3 minutes before sending this...but here goes...

There's a video that's going around youtube that's titled, "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&sns=fb

Don't know why it's fueling such a reaction in me, but the more I digest and consider it..the madder I get.

And as I typed my response to this video, I came across this response by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin, which is infinitely better than anything I could ever have written (bold mine):

The video is painful to watch for a number of reasons. For one, the creator–Jefferson Bethke of Tacoma, Washington–is not that great a poet. He uses weak assonance when he should use rhyme. He has non sequiturs, so his thoughts don’t flow from one another. And he can be unclear in what he is trying to say.

I’m not so interested in critiquing what he has to say on an artistic level, however. The main thing is the painful content.

He starts by asking, dramatically, “What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?”

This is preposterous, of course. It creates an immediate reaction of incredulity, and it causes anyone who is religious to wince. Here we go with another self-righteous, religion-bashing session.

You often hear religion dissed by people who say they are “spiritual” rather than “religious,” which implies that they are on a higher plane. Being “spiritual” is set up as a good thing, in contrast to being “religious” which is either bad or inferior by comparison. For those of us who are religious, that comes off as an insult.

This kind of claim is often made by people who don’t explicitly identify as Christians. It’s something that the unchurched or people in the New Age movement say.

Mr. Bethke does not fall into either of those categories. He’s working the “religion = bad” concept from a different angle. I don’t know that Mr. Brethke identifies himself with the “Emerging Church” movement, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he does. His whole manner of presentation suggests it, and within that context, it wouldn’t be surprising to find this kind of “Jesus vs. religion” schtick. There have been elements of that before in certain Protestant circles.

Mr. Bethke’s poem goes down a number of rabbit trails that we won’t dwell on in detail. The first occurs in the second two lines of his poem, where he takes swipes at Christians who are also Republicans. He repeats the politically liberal cliche that they identify Christianity with Republicanism. While it’s certainly true that people have a tendency to identify their political affiliation with their religious affiliation (that’s a human temptation that has been around since the days of Pharaoh or Caesar, to name just two recent god-kings), his poem really isn’t the place to go into that.

A couple of sneer-filled lines doesn’t do the subject justice, but that’s all he gives it since he immediately ditches the political discussion in favor of his anti-religion rant.

He repeats the cliche that religion starts lots of wars, which is nonsense. Religion is a powerful motivator, and thus is often invoked in wartime, but the real reasons most wars have been fought have nothing to do with it. Instead, they have to do with political control–either allowing certain political leaders to gain or remain in power (e.g., who is the rightful heir to the throne) or they have to do with gaining political control of resources (e.g., land, money, food supplies, transportation and trade routes) or they have to do with a particular leader’s ambitions (i.e., being remembered as a great man, or not being remembered as a weak man). When leaders aren’t being totally naked about those things, they dress them up with national pride or religion, but ultimately they are not at the root.

The reason political leaders invoke religion when going to war is that religion is a powerful motivator that is built into human nature, which is why religion appears in all human societies. It’s a human universal, and religion in that sense is not something Jesus came to abolish. He didn’t come to root the religious impulse out of mankind but to shape it and channel it properly (e.g., “Blessed are the peacemakers”).

Bethke’s slam on religion as the cause of war is thus a shallow, sneering cliche that fails to get to the root of the issue.

He then asks why religion builds great churches but doesn’t feed the poor.

Excuse me?

Historically speaking, the Christian Church has been the greatest, most effective charitable institution in world history! It has fed more hungry, clothed more naked, and cared for more sick than any other institution!

And if you know your Bible, as Mr. Bethke seems to, given that his speech (including in other videos) is littered with insider Christian lingo, including numerous terms and phrases from the Bible, then you know that honoring God through architecture is important as well. God has some rather particular instructions regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and the Temple. Honoring God in this way is also built in to human nature.

It reflects the love of God, just as helping the poor reflects love of man. These two goals are not at odds with one another. The Church must pursue both.

Then Bethke says “religion” tells single mothers that God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce.

HUH???

I’d like to hear Mr. Bethke name one person who has done that. I bet he can’t. And I’m quite sure that he can’t show the existence of enough people to warrant making this a general slam on the religious community, which–to the contrary–has been instrumental in setting up crisis pregnancy centers, creating homes for unwed mothers, providing assistance to single mothers, and extending care and compassion to countless individuals who have had broken marriages–and reassuring them of God’s love!

It is unfortunate, but Mr. Bethke has chosen to repeat uninformed cliches as a way of adopting the pose of a prophet. He comes across as a spiritual poser who does not know what he is talking about as he sneers and looks down on others.

There are simply too many things in Bethke’s rant that call for a response to give them each an individual treatment, so let us look at the big picture.

What we have here is a rap-battle-inspired slam on the concept of religion in favor of what Bethke considers to be the truth, the authentic cause of Jesus.

Unfortunately, the sneering, self-important, self-righteous tone of a rap battle does not lend itself well to this purpose (not that he’s actually rapping, but that’s what he’s aping).

It’s true that Jesus did have some stinging things to say about the hypocrites of his day. St. Paul was similarly harsh with his opponents. But it’s all too easy to justify our own self-righteousness and arrogance by appealing to these passages. One is playing with fire when one goes in this direction.

Mr. Bethke’s rant against the judgmental who put on an artificial show of piety is filled with both judgment and affected piety. There’s a moment in the video where he says, “Now I ain’t judging, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look.”

Bethke, let’s be honest. You are so totally judging.

Your whole video is filled with scorn and sneer. Each line drips venom on other people.

And as for “putting on a fake look” (a clumsy set-up for a rhyme on the word “Facebook”), your whole schtick–the rap-battle insults, the disjointed poetry, the awkward assonance, the attitude of the earnest, hip nonconformist–the whole thing is as artificial or “put on” as one could wish.

This isn’t who you really are. Not at your core. This is you giving a performance.

And it’s a performance that, just coincidentally, shows how pious and “real” you are compared to your religious peers.

Who is putting on pious show here? You’ve got some mighty wide phylacteries, Mr. Bethke.

But let’s move past that and get to what really sets people off about your video: The dissing of religion.

What is religion?

Bottom line: Religion is a set of beliefs about the divine and/or the afterlife. All religions (atheism included) make some kind of claim about one of those two subjects. Most make claims about both.

But Jesus didn’t come to abolish beliefs regarding the divine and the afterlife. He came to proclaim them.

In another sense, religion is the life and the actions that flow from those beliefs. So what did Jesus think of religion in that sense?

Well, according to the Bible (James 1:26-27),

²⁶ If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. ²⁷ Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Notice that here religion is spoken of as something positive, as something to aspire to, and something that can be pure and undefiled before God.

And it requires things of us. Bridling our tongues. Visiting orphans and widows. Keeping ourselves unstained from the world.

We needn’t quibble about these points, and we all fail in all of them, but they are things we are supposed to undertake, by God’s grace, in order to please God.

Jesus did not come to abolish these things.

And because he didn’t, the word “religion” has become part of the Christian heritage. It is something that has become part of how we as Christians identify ourselves–something that goes to the core of who we are.

We Christians have a religion. We Christians are a religion. We Christians practice religion.

So if you are a Christian, Mr. Bethke, if you love the Bible and the Church the way you say you do in your video, then who are you to overturn 2,000 years of Christian history and start ranting about how Jesus came to abolish religion and that religion and Jesus are contrary to one another.

What arrogance!

And what ignorance of the Christian heritage that has been bequeathed to you!

Now, I can’t blame you for some of that. If your YouTube username–bball1989–is any indication, you are 22 or at most 23 years old.

You haven’t been alive long enough to get a broad perspective on history, and you may well not have been exposed to or encouraged to read broadly in the history of Christianity.

Being angsty and wanting to rant against the religious hypocrisy you perceive around you is also often part of being 22. I mean, a lot of us have been there.

And many of us look back on that time in our lives with a bit of embarrassment. I know I do. As I’ve gotten older, I continually realize all the more just how much I don’t know, and how I need to be more careful in what I say and what I claim.

You are also likely to look back with embarrassment on this, only on a larger scale since you now have almost 10,000,000 hits–and undoubtedly will have far more than that by the time your video’s popularity is played out.

Things may seem awesome now. For example, you have a recent Facebook post saying:

My buddy just called me and said he was driving 60mph down the freeway and a car came up along side him and on the entire back window in shoe polish was written “YouTube the video ‘Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus” LOL God is good! Man. It’s a craze right now but He is faithful and He is my judge! It’s all Grace!

But already you are seeing some of the harm that your video can result in, as you quickly followed up with a post saying:

If you are using my video to bash “the church” be careful. I was in no way intending to do that. My heart came from trying to highlight and expose legalism and hypocrisy. The Church is Jesus’ bride so be careful how you speak of His wife. If a normal dude has right to get pissed when you bash His wife, it makes me tremble to think how great the weight is when we do it to Jesus’ wife. The church is His vehicle to reach a lost word. A hospital for sinners. Saying you love Jesus but hate the Church, is like a fiancé saying he loves his future bride, but hates her kids. We are all under grace. Look to Him.

Just as you can’t separate the Church from Jesus, you can’t separate religion from Christ and his Church.

It can’t be done, and it’s foolish to try.

If you want to rant against legalism and hypocrisy then call them by their names. Don’t go on a futile quest to get people to start using the term “religion” in an unfamiliar way that is, frankly, contrary to the way it’s used in the Bible.

Religion is something very, very important to people, and telling them that Jesus opposed religion is not only preposterous, it’s offensive–particularly the way the claim is presented in your video.

So ditch the sneer, ditch the mocking, self-righteous attitude toward your fellow believers, and show some consideration for them and for their feelings regarding the word “religion”–feelings which are, frankly, more attuned to the way Scripture uses the word than yours apparently are.

May I suggest an apology?

source:  Jimmy Akin, as cited above.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Youtube response to "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus"

Another Youtube response

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Can Catholics attend seances?/Why can they pray to dead saints?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                  and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Short answer: no, Catholics cannot attend seances. 

Slightly longer answer: Seances are an attempt to conjure the dead, which the Catholic Church has always condemned.

From the Catechism:

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

Peter Kreeft in his book Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven says the reason for “this stricture is probably protection against the danger of deception by evil spirits. We are out of our depth, our knowledge, and our control once we open the doors to the supernatural. The only openings that are safe for us are the ones God has approved: revelation, prayer, His own miracles, sacraments, and primarily Christ Himself…The danger is not physical but spiritual, and spiritual danger always centers on deception.”

So the question may arise:  how is it that the Church does not condemn praying to saints?  Is that not "conjuring up the dead"? 

The answer lies in our intentions.  If we are intending to conjure up the dead through, for example, a seance, or the Ouija board, in an attempt to manipulate knowledge and gain information, we are forbidden to do this. 

Praying to saints is simply giving honor to one of God's friends and asking for their intercession. Not to mention, in praying to saints we do not have the expectation of hearing from them and enjoying a dialogue with those who have passed on; while in conjuring up the dead, there is that expectation.

That provides a nice segue into another objection to praying to saints made by some Protestants:  how can the saints hear millions of prayers at the same time? Doesn't that make them omnipotent?  And isn't only God omnipotent?

The simple answer comes from Scripture: "For nothing is impossible with God!"--Luke 1:37. If God wishes to give the saints the power to hear millions of prayers, why couldn't he?  God can empower his saints in heaven with knowledge beyond their natural abilities.  He has done this on earth multiple times (see the numerous Scriptural references* to God granting human beings with supernatural knowledge); he can certainly do it for his beloved saints in heaven!

*Daniel in the OT was given "special knowledge" of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream
*Peter in the NT was given the gift of knowing that Ananias had retained part of his alms-giving for himself, and was struck dead.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

30 second apologetics: What does the word "until" mean in Scripture?

So we're going to hear it sometime during the Christmas Masses:  St. Matthew's gospel says that Joseph "had no relations with her UNTIL she bore a son."

And it will inevitably prompt the question from those who object to the Church's teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity:  why does the Church teach that Mary remained a virgin when it says specifically in Scripture that she and Joseph "had relations"?

In light of  the second reading a few Sundays ago, I thought I'd revisit  this question.

From 1 Corinthians:  For he must reign UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Clearly, when we read this verse we understand that the Scriptures are not saying that Jesus reigns at one point, and then when he has "put all his enemies under his feet", he reigns no more.  There's not a Christian around who believes that the word "until" here indicates a change in an event subsequently. 

Thus, this verse demonstrates that the word "until", at least in Biblical language, is not an indicator of anything happening subsequently, but only verifies a statement before the preposition.

And that is how we are to understand the verse in Matthew. St. Matthew was illustrating a very important point:  Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph.  That is the point of the verse. Not what happened between Joseph and Mary after Jesus' birth.

Revisit: Why do Catholics call priests "Father" when Scripture specifically says, "Call no man father!" (Matt 23:9)

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                 and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

In light of this Sunday's Gospel which proclaims Matthew 23:9:  "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven," this is a re-visit of a previously posted discussion.  New/updated comments in green.

This is an odd objection to Catholicism, in my humble opinion.  Clearly, those who criticize the Catholic Church's tradition of calling priests "father" because it seemingly contradicts Matt 23:9, do not take it literally in other contexts.  That is, we never hear non-Catholic Christians objecting to "Father's Day".  We often have heard a Christian say, "My father used to read the Bible to me."  Indeed, some even teach their children a Bible song about "Father Abraham".

So it does seem inconsistent that there is an objection to the Catholic tradition of calling priests "father".

It appears that the objection is to calling a living man a spiritual father, as it equates a priest with God the Father.

Clearly, when Catholics call priests "father" we are acknowledging his spiritual fatherhood, i.e. his spiritual leadership, to us.  We are not elevating the priest to the level of God the Father.  Catholics, of course, recognize the sovereign Fatherhood of God alone!

There are many, many verses in Scripture in which the inspired writers call spiritual leaders "father".
Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel  -1 Cor 4:15
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one. -1 John 2:13

Incidentally, in Matt 23 Jesus also invokes us not to call anyone "teacher" or "master".  "As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers." Yet many non-Catholics have no problem calling someone "teacher"; and use the word "doctor", which is Latin for "teacher". 

If you want to interpret the above verses to mean that Catholics are woefully sinning by calling their priests "Father," and that Jesus meant we are to never literally call anyone "father," "rabbi," "master," or "teacher," then for consistency's sake you'd better stop using the following words and phrases: Mister (means "Master"), Master of Ceremonies, Maitre d', master of the house, master sergeant, magistrate (from the Latin "magistratus" for "master"), Master of Arts (M.A.), founding father, city father, snake doctor, and witch doctor, teacher, substitute teacher, student teacher, and so forth. And you'd best never let me hear you calling your Dad "father" and you'd better start addressing the guy who works at the synagogue as "hey, you" and wax as indignant toward Jews who won't buy your ideas as you are toward Catholics. You might also want to start getting extremely indignant at the forced blasphemy every time you fill in a government form asking for "Father's Name." source.

Finally, just a little off-the-subject comment related to an earlier passage in this Sunday's Gospel:  "Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example."  This verse, I think, speaks volumes about the command Jesus gives us to obey our leaders (that is, our priests, bishops and pope)--even in their great sinfulness, even if they are as hypocritical as the pharisees.  We understand that they may be great sinners, and perhaps even mistaken, but as the Israelites followed Moses into the desert, even when he was often going the wrong way, we, too, as faithful sheep, must follow the visible Shepherds (the pope/bishops) here on earth. (Note:  this is within the purview of faith/morals.  If a bishop, even in his role as a successor to the Apostles, were to, say,  command us to give him the keys to our car, well, of course we need not obey!)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home 
Catholic Bible online
Catechism of the Catholic Church online
Catholic Answers tract:  "Call No Man 'Father' "

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Why are we not bound by all the laws in the Old Testament? Doesn't it seem arbitrary that some of the things in there we follow (i.e. "Thou shalt not kill"--Exodus 20:13) but not the other things ("Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor spoil the edges of your beard."--Lev. 19:27)

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                                  and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

So this question arose out of a discussion one of my daughters was having with a neighbor's daughter, who are evangelical Christians, regarding tattoos.  The neighbor's daughter said, "The Bible says that tattoos are wrong." 

And indeed the Bible does say this regarding tattoos:  "Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves.  I am the LORD."--Leviticus 19:28.

Yet the Catholic Church does not forbid tattoos. 

Is this a case of:

a)the Church teaching something contrary to the Scriptures?

or

b) the Old Testament admonitions needing to be understood in light of the New Testament?

Of course, as the Church cannot teach anything contrary to Scripture, the answer is B.

The precepts given in Leviticus (regarding tattoos as well as the example of not clipping "your hair at the temples" given in the original question) are part of the Mosaic Law**.  We are not bound by the Mosaic Law.  The Mosaic Law was given in order to separate the Israelites from their pagan neighbors.  They were required to eat a certain way, look a certain way, worship a certain way in order to say, "We are NOT like the others!".  It was a way of making the Israelites culturally distinct from the Canaanites and other pagan tribes.  There were ceremonial laws, dietary laws, sacrificial laws and moral laws, all designed to separate and elevate God's Chosen People from the rest of the world.

Those laws in the Old Testament which transcend culture and time--that is, the moral laws--are the ones to which we are bound.  Thus, the OT injunction to "Keep holy the Sabbath day" is binding to all Christians, even if it would have been mentioned only in the OT and not the NT.  The OT law "Thou shalt not kill" is binding on Christians as it is a moral law, not a ceremonial or dietary prohibition. 

So how do we discern which prohibitions/law are still binding on us and which are part of the Mosaic Law which have been fulfilled (not eliminated) in Christ?  Firstly, I think some common sense would apply.  Thus, the injunction in Deuteronomy 22:8 that states, "When you build a new house, put a parapet around the roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt upon your house if someone falls off" can reasonably be determined to be a cultural prohibition that is not applicable to us today.  However, "Keep Holy the Sabbath day", is indeed binding on all Christians.  It proclaims "the moral obligation to set aside adequate time for the purpose of divine worship. This could never be abrogated, as it is rooted in the natural law." source

In the end, if we are unsure whether a verse in the Old Testament is binding or not, all we have to do is seek counsel in the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).  It's nice that when we don't really know, we can indeed be assured that someone (that is, no less than  a successor to the Apostles--the bishops of the Catholic Church) has made the correct decision and pronounced it authoritatively for us.

So, for example, in this Sunday's responsorial psalm we proclaim from Psalm 96 in the Old Testament:  Worship the LORD, in holy attire; tremble before him, all the earth.  There may be a Christian who reads this verse and decides that it's a command from God for men to dress in suit/ties and women in long-sleeved dresses when worshiping. He feels so strongly that the Holy Spirit is commanding him to start a new church, "one that actually follows the Bible", that he leaves his current congregation and becomes pastor of a his own church.  According to the Protestant paradigm, he's certainly right to do this.  He is simply following his own interpretation of the Bible.  According to the Catholic paradigm, he is separating himself from the One Flock, creating disunity and splintering among the Body of Christ.  For there is only "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5).

**Mosaic Law:  The Mosaic law begins with the Ten Commandments and includes the many rules of religious observance given in the first five books of the Old Testament. In Judaism, these books are called the Torah, or “the Law.” source

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Didn't the Catholic Church used to forbid the reading of the Bible?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                 and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Short answer:  No, the Church never forbade the reading of the Bible.

Now, it is a sad testament that many a Catholic, prior to the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s, hardly ever opened a Bible. And I do remember a beloved uncle telling me, "No, we're not supposed to read the Bible because we may be danger of misinterpreting it."

So, somehow the message was getting out to the flock that we were forbidden to open the Bible, but it was never a teaching of the Church. 

And it's true that most of our Protestant brethren can run rings around Catholics when it comes to quoting Scripture--this is something we Catholics could learn from our Protestant brothers and sisters.  (That, and the wonderful, welcoming atmosphere many Protestant churches have in comparison to the often un-friendly faces that fill many Catholic churches.  I remember hearing Catholic apologist and convert Tim Staples say, when he first went to Mass, "Why does everyone look so mad??" Sadly, this seems to be quite common in our Catholic churches.)

However, it is also true that most Catholics who attend Mass regularly can quote Scriptures, even if they don't know they can, and even if they can't cite the chapter and verse--we know it through the beautiful hymns we sing, which are often taken directly from the Bible (i.e. "You shall not fear the terror of the night nor the arrow that flies by day"--Psalm 91).  And the prayers we recite at Mass ("Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth!"--Luke 2:14) are lifted from the pages of Sacred Scripture.  In fact, practically everything the priest and the laity recite at Mass comes from the Bible!

So why is there the misconception that Catholics aren't supposed to read the Bible?

Firstly, it's because from the earliest days of Christianity most folks were illiterate, so no one (relatively speaking) read the Bible.  The gospel was orally transmitted during the Liturgy and pictorially depicted through the beautiful stained glass windows, statues and other religious artwork that the illiterate masses could view.  Secondly, before the invention of the printing press most Bibles would cost up to 3 years' wages.  Thus, very, very few Catholics were fortunate enough to have a Bible in their homes.

Also, partially in response to the Protestant Reformation, many Catholics, rightly or wrongly, had a reactionary attitude about reading the Bible--"Protestants believe we're supposed to be able to read the Bible and interpret it ourselves.  Well, we're going to respond by saying, 'No, we can't interpret it ourselves' because we're stopping this Protestant movement in its tracks!"

And while the Church may never have banned the laity from reading/owning a Bible, perhaps a parish priest, in a misguided attempt to steer his parishioners away the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of Christian denominations that arose out of this error-saturated private interpretation paradigm, may have told his parish not to read the Bible. 

What the Catholic Church actually professes is Catholics see that the Scriptures as "strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Dei Verbum Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation  We can read and personally interpret what a chapter/verse is speaking to us. What we can't do, however, is interpret it independent of the voice of the Church.  That is, we are free to read about, say, the Multiplication of the Loaves and interpret it personally as saying, "I need not worry about having enough food for my dinner party.  God is telling me to chill out!" But not to read it and say, "Well, I now believe that the Eucharist is simply a symbolic multiplication of the loaves and Jesus was speaking only figuratively about the Eucharist." 

Here's some examples of the Church encouraging the reading of Scripture:

Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ--St. Jerome, 4th century
“Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.” --Pope Pius X
"...earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8).--Dei Verbum
 

In fact, the Catholic Church even grants indulgences for reading Scripture. The Handbook of Indulgences states, "A partial indulgence is granted the Christian faithful who read Sacred Scripture with the veneration due God’s word and as a form of spiritual reading. The indulgence will be a plenary one when such reading is for at least one-half hour" (p. 80).

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Papal Encyclical:  On the Study of Holy Scripture

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15