Such a format may be politically useful, but intellectually it is useless. Many whose general convictions inclined them toward the Seminar's conclusions took the shortcut of quickly adopting them without argument. Conversely, one can find Catholics who are more rooted in the theological tradition quickly jumping on rather rickety exegetical bandwagons if they promise to support certain conclusions. For example, some Qumran scholars, whose expertise lies in Hebrew linguistics rather than in the study of the Gospels, have recently argued that the Gospels are translations from the Hebrew or Aramaic. Their views were all too quickly adopted by some because they hold out the promise of greater historical proximity to Jesus.
Prudence requires a conscious effort to avoid such shortcuts.
What is required is a longer way. The center of our attitude towards historical-critical exegesis and its practitioners should lie in prayer for those who practice it, in prayer for figures like St. Thomas and Heinrich Schlier. It should lie in a deep peace in God's truth made manifest in his Church. If judgment on a particular exegete is fed from this source, its tone will be charitable end patient, accompanied by openness when issues are at stake that do not endanger the essential content of the Catholic Faith. What can be avoided in this way is the tone of scathing attack, the tone of bitter nervousness, which tends to flow too much into the lives of us sinners.