I would not recommend the Collegeville Bible Commentary for any Catholic desiring accurate information. It is characterized by one-sided, liberal Bible scholarship and lack of fidelity to the Church's teachings. In one area it has a pro-homosexual agenda.

For instance in one area, the commentary on Romans 1:18-32. In that passage of the Bible Paul states that because pagans worshiped creatures rather than the Creator, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26-27).

But the author, states "'natural' and 'unnatural' should be more accurately translated 'culturally approved' and 'culturally disapproved.'" In other words, if homosexual behavior is culturally approved, which it is to the homosexual community, then it would not be a sin, rather it would be culturally approved. This is bunk!

This is linguistic nonsense and does not deserve a response but, the Greek word for "natural" is the adjectival form of phusis, from which we get "physics." The term means "according to [a thing's] nature." It has absolutely nothing to do with society's approval or disapproval. In fact the phrase for "unnatural" (para phusin) was found in the Stoic philosophers well before Paul's time and clearly indicated something that was out of accord with nature, i.e., Sickness which is the teaching of the Catholic Church. (cf. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p. 265).

The fact that the Collegeville Bible Commentary would go so far as to say that the terms "should be more accurately translated" as "culturally approved" and "culturally disapproved" shows the lengths to which the author(s) and those approving the author(s) of the commentary are willing to go to push their social agenda of homosexual acts. (In the case cited the commentary gives what I consider to be a pro-homosexualist interpretation.) This is not in my opinion scholarship, but the antithesis of it, where a scholar's personal social or political views are allowed to dominate the data which is what the homosexual community has been attempting to force on society for a decade. Seems now they have the blessing of an Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur to confuse the faithful
! What a shame!

I am quite sure other areas are just as suspect and if this one instance was permitted, no telling how much more is permitted. I threw my copy in the trash can! I am sorry I wasted my money.