Blessed Duns Scotus

Not Rated

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3 of 5

For those who don't know, Duns Scotus was a Franciscan theologian, who argued for the immaculate conception of Mary; eventually overcoming the intellectual difficulties which had once prevented even Saint Thomas Aquinas from acknowledging the notion.  This eventually became a doctrine of the Catholic Church; an everlasting testament to the success of this great man.

However, historically, Scotus is know primarily for his accomplishments in theology.  Little is known about his friends, his feelings, his motives (apart from holiness,) and so forth.  Because of this, I was expecting a rather dry movie about theological truths, but at the very least, something different from the norm.

However, what I got instead was a sort of midway point between what I was expecting (and hoping) to get, and your average, run-of-the-mill studio flick.  There are things this movie does, which it shouldn't.  Regardless, I think I should talk about the good parts first, before moving on to the bad.

The costumes in this movie are excellent, for what they're intended to depict, and much of the acting is very good as well, though I thought the main lead was a bit too melodramatic; particularly when the situation didn't call for it.  It's a minor gripe at best, though.

The scenery is a little lackluster.  It seems that they had an abbey and a countryside to film in, and that's just what they did.  Still, the story doesn't call for much else, and I was never expecting the film to dazzle me with its visual panoramas.

Much of Scotus' theology is faithfully depicted in this movie, just as I was hoping it would be.  However, there's one scene where, rather than discussing things like formal distinction or haecceity, he talks about "the eucharist being for the purpose of uniting everything."  I'm not convinced that he would ever say it as imprecisely as this.  The Eucharist is for the purpose of uniting people to God, not to one another, and certainly not to the world.  Still, again, a minor gripe.

The one thing that I don't consider minor, and the one thing that I refuse to let pass is the truly awful subplot about a seminarian who learns theology under Scotus, leaves the seminary to get married to a flower girl, and is encouraged in this by Scotus using, it must be admitted, no coherent reasoning at all.  Stupid, empty-headed romances pop up like daffodils in the modern moviescape, it seems, and no film featuring such will ever get a perfect score from me.

This movie tries to stuff a romance into a story about a great theologian, but it's a very badly-written romance, so it won't really appeal to the romantic.  It tries to depict a debate on theology, but you have to get to that debate by skipping over a horrible romance subplot, so theology students would be better served by just reading a book.

I want to give this movie a good grade, because at least 75% of it is spent discussing theology and holiness, and that's a rare thing these days.  Still, I need to acknowledge its failings as well.  This movie wasn't terrible, but it could and should have been better than it was.

Courageous

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This review is a bit delayed, since I actually saw this movie when it was first out in theaters.  However, I'm writing the review on same night I saw the film, so I still remember it perfectly well.  I just didn't want to post it until I could provide a link to it.

It's a film about four deputies, working to bring the hammer down on a drug ring, while simultaneously struggling with their family issues, and their incomplete commitment to God and those they care about.

Of course, this comes from the same group who brought us "Fireproof," so we know two things about it from the get-go.  One good news, and one bad.  The good news is that the movie is beautiful and has a very strong story about its characters.  The bad news?  It's essentially a protestant movie.

I'm not going to hide this; there are three scenes with a "pastor," who doesn't wear a collar, and one in a "church" that just lets anybody get up and speak to the "congregation;" a church that looks, for the most part, like an auditorium.

This fact is solely responsible for the one cross down.  When a film is strongly and overtly protestant, as this one is, it gets four out of five crosses from me.  As much as we might want to be virtuous and good, and to face our responsibilities with courage and boldness, without the rock of God's inerrant will to ground ourselves to, we'll never succeed, and that rock can be found only in the Catholic Church.  Everything else is man-made.

Like the other films made by this group, this film is very real about its characters, and very grounded in reality.  It's very strong in its integrity, but it doesn't stroke the imagination, so I'm afraid that there's only so much enjoyment I could get out of it.  I'd much prefer to watch a substantive piece that also has some supernatural or imaginative dimension to it, because I feel it holds the attention much more strongly.  However, I understand and respect those who want to see a movie taking place in a world identical to their own; those who think it's easier to relate.  As a man, I don't think like that.  This is the reason for the 1 star down in enjoyability.

Now, with all that dealt with, I really liked this film, in spite of its somewhat mundane premise and under-the-top delivery.  It had a good heart and a strong message with a lot of characters (perhaps too many, but perhaps not,) who all get the chance to show who they are.  The main character seems to be Adam; one of the deputies, who suffers a horrible tragedy and must gradually cope with it.  His integrity shines through the strongest, and he and his team go through a lot of soul searching (as well as a brief adventure or two,) on their route to a lifelong commitment that they have to make; to live with integrity and courage.

Adam's partner Shane struggles with his own issues, and Nathan; another deputy, needs to face the fact that he's been focusing too much on being better than his father, and not enough on being the best father he can be.  The rookie, David, has an old shame to confront as well.

Over the course of the film, Adam also makes the acquaintence of an out-of-work, but hardworking family man named Javier.  I would say that he has some of the strongest faith in the film, as well as being one of the most welcome additions to the cast.  He adds some much-needed comedy to the proceedings, but not by being foolish, or a stereotype, the way less-complicated movies probably would.  Javier adds many laughs to the movie, while facing his own difficult situations with honor and integrity, and I honestly found him one of the movie's most likable characters.

This was a really good film.  It doesn't look like much, but it's got the right things in the right places.  Is it perfect?  No, but it's easily one of the best films released all year.  It's involving, substantive and severe.  Most of the movie is spent getting serious and doing what needs to be done; an attitude that we really need to bring back.  This is certainly not my favorite of the films made by this particular group (that honor still goes to Fireproof,) but it stands head and shoulders over its competitors.  Watch the film.  Take your teenagers.  Parental discretion is encouraged, but I'm sure you'll get something out of the experience.

The Mass of the Early Christians

By Mike Aquilina

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I'm really learning to enjoy Mike Aquilina's writings, and I've yet to read anything of his that I don't like.  He's very faithful, very thorough, and very consistent.  His strong suit seems to be research and the faithful study of Catholic History, and that's just what this book is as well.

This time, the topic of study is the mass.  What did the mass look like to christians of the first few centuries after Christ, and what was its structure like?  What did those Christians believe about the mass?  How was it perceived by the rest of the world?

These are all topics of this book, and it covers them quite fairly, including exerpts from some of the best historical sources on this topic.  What surprised me, though, was that the book contains exerpts, not only from Catholic sources, revealing what the mass was really like, but also from pagan, heretical and secular sources, each attempting to paint the mass as what they wanted it to be.  Heretics wanted the mass to be something they had thought up and designed, and the secular authorities wanted it to be an atrocity, so they'd have an excuse to arrest its adherents, who refused to pay worship to caesar.  It's easy to see why these writings were condemned as incorrect by the church when they were written.  Their motives are like glass.

At first, in fact, I was a bit taken aback by Mike's choice to include quotes from those sources; not really sure what he was planning or why, but he puts the quotes in their appropriate context, and that's enough for me.  Far from being unfaithful to the church, the re-presenting of these quotes helps us to get into the minds of those roman empire folks and see just how they saw Christianity from the start.

Though I scratched my head once or twice, I really liked this book, and I would definitely read Mike's work again.  He's a fine, faithful and competent author in his field, and I feel he's really helped my understanding of liturgical history.

The Fathers of the Church

By Mike Aquilina

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Of course, over the centuries, many people have made fine contributions to the church, but some of the finest were those of the early church fathers; Augustine, Ambrose, Leo, Gregory, Origen, Tertulian, Polycarp, and so forth.  That's what this book is about.

It's a fine and well-researched book, presented well with good exerpts from their writings, quotes and summaries of their lives, all of which makes it even easier to read.  It even goes somewhat into their personalities.  I found myself even more drawn to Ambrose and Jerome, and even to Augustine, even though he's already my favorite of the church fathers.

This book is all about the lives, works, and in some cases, about the deaths of many of these great men.  In fact, it's something of an overview of the subject, since it's a relatively short book, and huge volumes could have been written about most of these men.  It has information on the start of the benedictine monastic orders, the early development of theology, of scripture canons, of the persecutions suffered by the church, and so on.  It's all fascinating, and a little humbling, because it's a firm reminder of just how much our own culture has lost.

So many people think their generation is superior to all previous ones; that they're somehow more intelligent, or more "evolved," but a cursory glance at the writings of someone like Aristotle, Augustine or Thomas Aquinas proves that to be a ludicrous claim.  I found I got the same kind of impression from reading about the lives of these great Catholics from the early days of the church, and of course, I don't even need to say that it was faithful and orthodox to a T.

If you have any interest in the early development of the Catholic Church, but don't want to spend years studying, then this book will be a very good starting point.  It's a simple introduction to the fathers of the Church, and what they did, said and accomplished, and it's done well.  I suppose that's really all there is to say.

150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know

By Patrick Madrid

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I've really read very little of Patrick Madrid's work in the past.  I think the only thing of his that I'd read from cover to cover was "the Godless Delusion," which, if I recall correctly, was the work of two authors.  It wasn't perfect, but it was faithful enough, so I was eager to see what else he had to offer.  This book of spiritual reflections on a number of scripture passages (guess how many...) seemed like just the thing.

Boy, was it ever.  Covering a wide range of church teachings like the sacraments, divine revelation, the communion of saints, the sanctity of life, the escaton and so forth, the verses chosen in this book are spot on, and, I have to admit, some of the ones I've found most useful for reinforcement in my own faith journey.

In reflecting on these verses, Madrid shows a strong understanding of the culture of Jesus' time, of the doctrines of the church, sacred tradition, and especially theology.  I tend to latch on to any imperfections I find in a book (as readers of some of my other reviews can attest,) and the fact that I have little to say in that respect about this text says something by itself.

To give you some idea of just how I pleased I was with this book, however, I'm going to tell you my biggest problem with it.  On page 148, Patrick Madrid claims that Matthew 7:3-5 implies that we should mind our own business unless we're somebody's parent/teacher/coach, etc...  I don't agree.  Prohibitions against gossip, slander and condemnation are not alien to the bible, but I don't feel this particular verse is such.

As I said, this is the biggest issue I had with this book, and I hestitate to even call it an issue, because it fits so well into the "we can agree to disagree" category.

I think what impressed me most was his solid, scriptural support for all seven sacraments, as well as for the conclusion that faith and reason are entirely compatible, and in fact, totally connected, but it was all good.  Check it out.  As a scriptural reference text, and a modern one at that, I've seen very few books that can top it in terms of faithfulness -or- insight.

Word on Fire

By Robert Barron

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I once again find myself forced to make a hard choice.  Whenever I see a problem with faithfulness to the church, or with inadequately explaining the church's teachings, I have a tendency to explain it to death; a practice that I intend to continue, because these things need to be clarified by someone.  The question really winds up being "is this serious enough to merit a whole star down?"

In this case, the answer is "probably not; no."  Father Barron has put together a most impressive series of homily transcripts, which actually amazed me by the depth of their understanding, and their clarity of teaching.  That, by itself, becomes slightly less surprising when you learn that, like myself, Father Barron is something of a Thomist, and treasures the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

I was very impressed by several points in this book.  In particular, he amazed me with the clear messages that he drew from Nehemiah, his defense of the real presence, and his descriptions of the theological dilemmas of the recent past and how they were solved; particularly the ones relating to glory; who gets it and why.  I can also say with absolute confidence that I have never in my life heard anyone sufficiently describe the notion of catholic "worship" in the normal work of a lawyer, a doctor, etc, until Father Barron did it.  In nearly every objective sense, this book is truly excellent.

I have only one issue to bring against it.  More than once, as an example of the good work done by holy men and women, Father Barron mentions Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, and the organization which they founded; the Catholic Worker Movement.

I don't know nearly as much about Dorothy Day as I would like to, but Peter Maurin held a radical belief, which he implemented into the Worker Movement; he believed that evildoing or immorality on the part of a government official removed their God-given authority to govern their citizens, and that therefore, it was perfectly acceptable for people to ignore the rules of a corrupt government and form their own communes, making up their own rules for social collaboration as they went along.  Today, we call this by the popularized name of "liberation theology," but perhaps it would be easier to understand if I just sum it up by saying that it's basically Marxism with a cross on top.

The Worker Movement has a number of other problems as well, but I target its involvement in liberation theology because that's a belief that has been specifically condemned by at least the last two popes.

Father Barron's understanding of Catholic theology is truly amazing, and for the most part, I was astonished by the quality of his book; almost to the point of refusing to believe any ill of him.  For the moment, therefore, I will simply assume that this one aspect of the book was probably just imperfectly-researched, and I'll give it the best score I can.

Understanding the church's position on social teaching isn't really so difficult.  It's all about loving God first, then our neighbor second.  We love them by doing what's best for them; putting them first and ourselves afterwards.  However, let's not deny that many agencies claiming to be Catholic subsist only by lying about church teaching; claiming that the vatican never specifically condemned communism, socialism, marxism, liberation theology and so forth.  This is a technical tidbit of the faith that anyone could be forgiven for overlooking, since it's not out there in the culture like it once was, but that doesn't negate church teaching.  Until further evidence comes up, this is all I'll say for now.

Who Needs God?

By Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn and Barbara Stockl

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 2 of 5

This book makes me sad, because I don't like having to choose between supporting a Cardinal of the Church, and supporting the truths of Jesus Christ.  That said, I can and will make such a decision in the only way possible.

However, before I begin, I feel I should point out that this book is essentially a long interview in book form.  Because of this, the Cardinal probably didn't have the time he needed to think through his responses well enough, and this may have lead to some of the problems I'm about to mention.  I can't prove it, but it's a viable explanation, I think.

This book is full of mistakes; more than I have time to describe in detail, so instead, I feel I should mention its overarching problems.

Firstly, the interviewer is either very opposed to Catholic morality, or very sympathetic to those who are.  At every turn, she seems to take the tack of "the church should be questioning itself," "we should be able to oust the pope," "the church's stance on x needs to change," etc, etc, etc, and the Cardinal gives her altogether too much legroom with his responses, which in general, come across as weak, flimsy and pseudo-subjective.  Numerous times, he suggests that she be careful what she means when she says "church," but doesn't clarify the point, only making the Q&A even more confusing.

However, this over-permissiveness seems to be a two-way street, since Barbara also comes across as too forgiving whenever she asks the Cardinal a yes-or-no question, and his answer contains neither of those words, and generally lasts several paragraphs.  He uses terminology which is not nearly specific or direct enough, and often makes claims that are simply untrue.  A list of these claims is as follows.

1. Job's friends were like theologians.
2. We shouldn't judge other religions.
3. The Vatican is just a symbolic nation.
4. Religion isn't for intensifying conflict.
5. The Holy Trinity is not logically-verifiable.
6. The Church is part of this world.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it should do to start.  All of these are false.

1. Job's friends were not using logic to try to understand God, meaning they're not like theologians.
2. It's part of Catholic doctrine that all religions except the Catholic Church involve some element of falsehood.  This is a judgment that we're obligated to make about other religions.
3. The Vatican is definitely a real nation.  That's why the pope is considered a head of state.
4. Jesus himself said that he had come not to bring peace, but a sword, and that families would turn against one another on his account.  Doesn't sound like he wanted a worldly peace.
5. We can use logic to determine the oneness and the multipleness of God, thus proving the trinity,
6. and finally, the Church is Jesus Christ, existing both in this world, and in the two higher ones (Purgatory and Heaven.)  It's more like Earth is a part of the Church in that sense.  Oh, sure, you can say the church -militant- is a soujourner in this world, but that's not the claim he made.

He also says early on in the book that he thinks urbanization is largely responsible for the declining mass attendance, and later remarks that the loss of the church's holdings, and its role in global power are good things.  Admittedly, on these issues, we can simply agree to disagree.  As I see it, urbanization was around long before the 1970s, when the steep decline began, so it's unlikely that was the cause of the plummeting mass figures (other likely causes include; the first generation raised on television being old enough to make their own decisions, the rise of the hippie, widespread drug use and hedonism, or any of the other grave evils that washed over the world during the 70s.)  As for the rest, I just don't think it's quite as good for the church, or for Catholics, when the church becomes so weak and defenseless that she can't in any way influence the way the faithful are allowed to live.  As I said, though, these aren't mistakes; just disagreements.

Several times throughout this book, Barbara questions a teaching of the church, and the Cardinal sort of tiptoes around the issue, without really saying yes or no, or implying that the church has any sort of right to teach infallibly in these matters.  The weakness is so thick, at times, that I could cut it with a machete.

However, he also said something that hit much too close to home for me, in terms of reminding me just why I once lost the faith for so long as a teenager.  At the top of page 53, he said that Jesus' only answer to the question of why God allows evil is to suffer with us, and that if that image doesn't move us, there's not much he can do for us.

Well, that image does move me, but not in the way he hopes.  You see, as a teenager, I was convinced that anyone responsible for evil had to be punished somehow, and justice restored.  I saw God in this way; as being responsible for all evil, and for every second of suffering that I went through, I felt that the imbalance was growing worse.  Whenever others suffered with me, that only doubled or tripled the injustice of it all.  Using this line of reasoning, when God suffers with you, that makes the injustice infinite, and therefore, infinitely unacceptable.  This is the reasoning that I originally used to reject the faith.

What brought me back to the faith was just what the Cardinal so cavalierly dismisses; solid reasoning, used to properly explain the teachings of Catholicism; delivered by one of the greatest intellectuals of all time; Saint Thomas Aquinas.

He proved, using logic, that God does not create evil, because evil is merely an absense of good, and requires no creator.  He also established that God can have morally-sufficient reasons for allowing evil (namely, because he is capable of undoing the evil and bringing even greater good out of it in the end, without the evil needing to remain in order to support the good.)  This argument was thoroughly logical, and it convinced me to come back to the faith.

Let me end this review by saying the only thing that really matters, and appropriately, it's the one thing you won't read anywhere in this book.

Jesus Christ was the only Son of God.  God is eternal, which means that his nature is perfect and unchanging.  It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for one iota of the law of God to pass away.  Therefore, we cannot change God's law.  I can't, you can't, and certainly the Church and the Pope can't.  Even God won't do that.  I'm not even sure he could.

As for the Catholic Church, it is the one, true church of Jesus Christ, founded personally by the son of God upon blessed Peter, and protected forever from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit himself.  Because of its divine origins, it is inherently superior to all other religions, and therefore, all men are called to it.  Without it, there would be no salvation.

I would hope that the Cardinal still agrees with all of these basic teachings of the church, and I won't say a word more than that.

Arise From Darkness

By Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

This is the first book by Benedict Groeschel that I've ever read, and it probably won't be the last.  I started reading without a whole lot of knowledge about him.  All I knew was that, like Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft, he was one of the "modern apologists" who've written and popularized the Catholic faith in the current age.  I mention Hahn and Kreeft for a specific reason.  One of them, in my mind, is magnificently knowledgable and faithful, and the other tries to be, but sometimes winds up making mistakes that don't get filtered out in the proofreading stage.  In short, I suspected that Father Groeschel would be similar to at least one of these two.  I just didn't know which one.

Regrettably, if this book is anything to go by, I'm afraid he'd closer to Kreeft than Hahn.  I get the impression that he's doing his best to be faithful, and yet, there are mistakes here or there; often merely as a result of not being clear enough in his wording on a particular subject, or tiptoeing around serious moral issues, as if trying to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  This approach will make you more popular, but it won't make you holier.

Case in point; the chapter on what to do when the church disappoints us.  He says (correctly,) that we need to understand what we mean by "church;" that "church" can mean a group of people, a group of bishops, a heirarchy, a specific diocese, or even a specific person who's a baptised Catholic.  He also says (again, correctly,) that it's our obligation to exercise loyalty to our church.  The problem is that while he advocates care in defining "church," he doesn't explain which definition is correct.

The correct definition of "church" to use is "the teachings and authority of the bishop of Rome and the magisterium, and the holy writings and decrees which they have approved."  It does not mean an independant conference of bishops set up in an individual nation, it does not mean your particular diocese, and it certainly doesn't mean a feminist nun who happens to run the religious education program at your local parish.  Even to these figures, we should prefer loyalty, but only on issues that don't go against the will of legitimate church teaching (Pope, Magisterium, traditions, scripture, etc...)  If there is a conflict between the pastor of your parish and the teachings or authority of the church of Rome (such as; he wants to support the CCHD, and you know for a fact that they defie church teaching,) then your obligation is to the Pope, and as such, to ignore the authority of your pastor in this matter.

That really doesn't take too long to explain, yet he doesn't explain it, leaving the doorway open to be misinterpreted.

He also says in at least one point that the Council of Trent forbade people from taking about Purgatory in terrifying terms.  This sounded false to me, so I looked it up.  I admit, I still haven't finished reading all of the council documents, but thusfar, the closest I've been able to find to this claim is the decree at the beginning of the 25th session of Trent, concerning Purgatory, which prohibits subtle, difficult discussions of Purgatory, which don't edify and don't increase piety, from being discussed with the less-educated public.  It also forbids silly superstitions about Purgatory, and uncertain guesses or theories about Purgatory also shouldn't be matters of general discussion, but there's nothing in there about not "making it seem terrifying."

Ultimately, though, what disturbed me most was Father Groeschel's claim, near the very beginning of the book, that "the human mind can't understand the reason for suffering," and "we just have to accept the existence of this mystery."

While I agree with him that there are mysteries which we have yet to unlock, and can't unlock by our own power, making the claim in these terms does nothing to help make him look educated, and even makes the church look clueless and helpless in the face of this "unsolvable puzzle."

In reality, of course, the "mystery" is not "why is there evil?" but rather "what are -all- the reasons why there is evil?"  This last question is the one that has an infinite answer, which we can't fully comprehend, because God is infinite, and so are the number of reasons he has for what he does and allows.  Still, if you're only looking to find out one of those reasons, then the answer is simple.

God allows evil because he is a God of love.  Love requires a loving response.  A loving response can only be made freely by a being that possesses free will.  Free will can only be exercised by the freedom to make choices.  Choices involve something to choose between.  Therefore, in order for God to be loved by us, we must have the opportunity to refuse his love.  This is one key reason for the existence of evil, and it's certainly not beyond the ability of human intelligence to grasp.

The book itself is about the variety of situations that can make us feel most lost and abandoned, and how we can emerge from them; undefeated, holy and stronger from the experience.  When seen in this light, it's still far from the best book on the subject, nor does it reference other great books of the past.  The impression I got was of a modern book, written for the modern audience, which, for the most part, refuses to read anything more than a century old.

Is this book good?  Sure.  Is it neccesary?  Probably.  Is it particularly outstanding in any area?  Yes; the motive to be virtuous drove this book's creation, and that is certainly outstanding.

However, if you were to ask me for my favorite books on the subject of enduring suffering, this (and for that matter, most modern books) would fail to make it into my top ten.  It's not a weak book, but it could stand to be a little stronger, a little wiser, and a little clearer on some of its points.

Where We Got the Bible

By Henry G. Graham

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Step by step, and point by point, this book makes its message perfectly clear.  The bible comes from the Catholic Church; nobody else, and certainly not the other way around.

This is a very well-researched and strongly-written book.  It makes no compromises, and no mistakes in its conclusions, gradually describing the origins of the bible among ancient Rome and the early church fathers, the preservation of the bible by Catholic monks, the copying and reading of the bible into vernacular languages several dozen times prior to Martin Luther, and how those same scriptures were so badly mistreated by the "luminaries" of the "reformation."

The book succeeds wonderfully in addressing and exposing the many lies surrounding the notion that the Catholic Church has in some way prevented people from reading the bible, or tried to keep them ignorant in some way; a popular notion in protestantism, unfortunately, to this very day.

Of course, if you're a protestant yourself, and you read this, you may come off feeling deeply-insulted.  Mr. Graham's wording isn't always the most gentle, but he gets to the point, and in a somewhat-amusing way at times, I think.

This book won't be the one to convince your protestant relatives to suddenly give up and become Catholic, but it's as faithful and accurate as any book I've read on the subject, and that's plenty good enough to earn it a perfect score.

The End of the Present World

By Father Charles Arminjon

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5

I started reading this book because of the good review it was given by Saint Therese of Lisieux.  A lot of good books have been written by the saints, and I generally prefer to trust their opinions.  However, Saint Therese said that reading this book was one of the greatest graces of her life.  I'm sure it was, for her.
I must respectfully disagree with her as to the quality of this book.  I found it enlightening at certain points, genuinely helpful at others, but certainly far from perfect.

Father Arminjon starts out with the premise of trying to explore the eschaton; or the "four last things;" death, judgment, Heaven and Hell.  Regrettably, he begins by straying a bit from those four things, and into the domain of the end times and the antichrist.

I say this is regrettable, not because I find the subject uninteresting, but because it's one of those subjects that needs to be treated with care.  You see, it's a teaching of Jesus that we can't know the day or the hour of his return, so following from that, all attempts to pin down or forsee the time or era of his arrival must be viewed with a grain of salt.

This wouldn't be so jarring, but Father Arminjon more than once refers to China as a likely place for the antichrist, or one of his predecessors to arise, and even claims that "any serious student of history will admit that this is obvious."

In philosophy, this is called an "ad hominem" argument; attacking a person instead of their argument.  I was very displeased with this when I read it, and it took effort to continue reading past it.  He does this twice; both pertaining to guesses about the time and place of the antichrist.  You know, maybe he's right.  Or, maybe he's not, but to say that people who disagree with you aren't serious scholars is poor form at best.

On the whole, this is all that really bothered me until the chapter on Purgatory.  Now, it's a time-honored teaching of the church that only one thing obstructs our ability to crave and unite our wills to God; sin.  I'm afraid I may be a bit fuzzy on some particular definitions with respect to what makes a sin a sin, but I'm certain that sins are always acts of the will, and always related to a failure to exercise virtue.  These virtues are chastity, charity, self-control, diligence, patience, kindness and humility.  Some lists of virtues contain others, but most of them are just other words for these seven.  Still, one can decide to do something that won't increase their diligence over something that will, and that doesn't neccesarily make it a sin.  I've never seen a document that outlined the precise difference between legitimate choices and venial sins, and if the subject were truly so earth-shaking as Father Arminjon makes it out to be, I would expect to hear about it at least once; at least in a papal encyclical written sometime during the last century.  His point seems to be that it is "faults and imperfections," rather than venial sins that need to be paid for in Purgatory, which, as far as I know, is a claim found in no genuine doctrines of the church.

He goes into great detail about the suffering in Purgatory, and how much sacrifice is required to redeem a soul in torment there, but he fails to mention the amazing power, which the living possess, which allows their prayers, fastings and sacrifices to count for so much in this respect.  I take some offense at this, though it's probably a minor fault.

The last problem I saw with respect to his treatment of divine punishment was that he seemed to imply that temporary punishments are never sufficient to deter people from sin, and on this, I must heartily disagree with him.

Apart from this, he lists two large contradictions in his descriptions of Heaven.

I admit to having never been to Heaven, but it makes a religion look silly when its best descriptions of its own afterlife contradict one another.  It makes a writer look silly when he professes those contradictions together on the same page, insisting that both are true, but offering no explanation of how the apparent contradictions can be reconciled.  This, I feel, deserves to be addressed.

Heaven Contradiction 1: Father Arminjon claims that with respect to rewards, punishments and feelings, many things in Heaven will be the opposite of what they were on Earth.  However, he also overtly says that in Heaven, people will shun tangible things, pursuing only God.  The contradiction is this; if the situation is reversed, then wouldn't pursuit of God alone bring -less- joy, rather than more?

Heaven Contradiction 2: This is to do with the nature of eternity.  He makes the claim that Heaven is a constant, contiual, infinite increase in the delights experienced through God.  He also claims that Heaven is a single moment.  But no single moment can ever experience continual increase; hence the contradiction.

I hope you see the problem with writing like this.  It feels as though the good father had a lot of excellent sources to draw from, but failed to understand some of them, or to criticize his own work after he was done quoting the saints.  Maybe he was motivated by a pious refusal to critique the writings of the saints.  If so, I feel he made a mistake.  The objective here shouldn't be just to support people who were holy, but to present the strongest, united proof of Christ that we can, and faithfully representing the views of holy people in a way that makes them seem to contradict doesn't do that.

There are, of course, multiple explanations for each of these "contradictions," but the father includes none of them.  However, I will include one for each, if only to make it easier to come away from this book feeling justified, instead of confused.

Solution to Contradiction 1: God has within himself the true fullness of goodness; and thus, pursuing God in Heaven is like pursuing everything we ever pursued here on Earth, and a great deal more besides.  The "reversal" is only a reversal insofar as this pursuit on Earth leads one into sin, while in Heaven, it leads one deeper into righteousness.

Solution to Contradiction 2: We often make the mistake of thinking that eternity must be either -entirely- unlike time in any sense, or -entirely- identical to it; just longer.  It is much more likely that eternity has aspects of time, but does not impose those aspects on the blessed by force.  Thus, succession can exist, even in eternity, by the will of the blessed, to enable them to progress further and further into the infinite mysteries of the divine.  As for the "one moment" thing, eternity is not one moment, though intelligent beings moved into eternity experience a "constancy of nature," which makes it impossible for them to turn to good, if evil, or to evil, if they're good.  We know this because of the way the angels behave.  The good angels never do evil, nor do the evil angels do good, yet they can do different things from one moment to the next, depending on the circumstances.  Eternity is the same.

As you can see, these are things that really aren't so difficult to work out, and I'm a bit disappointed that these flaws exist in a book with such a good reputation.

All that having been said, it really was a very good book for the most part, though not to be used if one is already very strong in the faith, or if one is looking for complete arguments to convince them that their atheist friends are wrong.  It's a sort of a "back to basics" book in a lot of ways, though in my opinion, the good father should have been a bit more careful of the sources he pulled from, and how he pulled from them.

The Emotions God Gave You

By Art & Laraine Bennett

Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5

Enjoyability: 2 of 5

I suppose I could say "here we go again," but while this book certainly doesn't come close to meeting my expectations, it would be unfair to say that it's quite as bad as the book "God Has Great Plans For You," which I also recently read and reviewed.  After all, that book dressed up "positive thinking" as though it and the Catholic faith were one and the same, and this one, at the very least, treats of emotions a bit more delicately.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't scads of mistakes and problem cases littered throughout.

The book claims to be a Catholic guide to dealing with and using emotions in our faith lives.  I'm afraid it doesn't quite measure up, however.

Firstly, it claims that intuition is a function of emotion, not intellect.  This is the sort of thing I'd expect to hear on Star Trek, but if this claim is being made by any real psychologists, I would expect it to be backed up with some examples, showing why intuition can't be considered a function of the intellect.  Regardless, I agree with the book that both emotions and intellect can be helpful in doing God's will.  I just don't think that using intuition as an example helps to build up that point.

On page 42, the authors cite a specialist, who claims that all humans are hardwired for compassion, meaning, I suppose, that they are naturally predisposed to compassionate behavior.  This is simply balogna, I'm afraid.  Human beings suffer from a fallen nature, which means that they are hardwired for Hell, not compassion, and it is only by the grace of God, as well as great effort, that we escape that hardwiring.

A couple of times in this book, the authors talk about a compulsive "need for perfection" being a bad thing that we need to overcome.  This, I think, may be just badly-phrased, because the need for perfection is what drives the pursuit of genuine holiness.  After all, that's basically what holiness is, right?  Being perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect?

On page 81, they take the tack of saying that people should be capable of unconditional gratitude.  Here, I'm afraid my own lack of experience may be to blame, but I've heard this claim from a number of Christian sources (both Catholic and protestant,) and not once has it ever been sufficiently explained, just how gratitude can have any value, if it can't be measured against its conditions.  Our gratitude towards God should be for clear reasons (like giving us life, Catholicism, a chance for salvation, etc,) not for no reason at all.

Page 83; a false conflict is set up here between the enjoyment of temporal goods and of virtues.  Certainly, there are times when giving up one's goods in order to be virtuous is important and helpful (like giving to the poor,) but the example cited (abstaining from cake) does nothing to prove the point.  It's just giving up one type of self-indulgence (food) for another (vanity,) so I don't see the purpose of this bit.

Page 85; he says that some psychologists think that a well-balanced emotional life may be a prerequisite for virtue.  In other words, he thinks that people with emotional difficulties can't be virtuous.  Needless to say, I simply disagree.

Page 87; the old, tired cliche about virtue being its own reward.  Virtue is a requirement, not a reward.  Also, on page 87, and into page 88, there's a sort of story about a nun named "Sister Lydia," who did good by commanding herself to, rather than feeling like she wanted to, because of some psychological trauma or something.  He seems to think this is a bad thing, but doesn't say why, nor cite any research to back up his claims.  This may be my biggest complaint against the book, because it feels like nothing more than an attack against those who don't have the grace to "feel" virtuous, and have to force themselves to be good.  If so, it's disgusting.  We should be showing these people our love and support in their difficult struggle, not condemning them as psychologically unhealthy.

Page 90; another broadside attack against those who have to struggle to be virtuous, because they don't have the psychological training or natural predisposition needed to deal with an emotional relationship.  The problem here is that when you use the phrase "relationship with Jesus," in this context, you make it sound like a lovey-dovey, let's-all-get-together-and-hold-hands-and-sing kind of relationship, which is a slap across the face of anyone of the masculine gender, whether they realize it or not.  There is no reason whatsoever why a man can't view his relationship with God as more like the "relationship" between a regional lord and the king he serves, or a soldier and his commanding officer.  It's still a relationship, but we need to do just a little, tiny bit more work in describing the breadth of that term these days.  By no means is it incompatable with the so-called "white-knuckling" of virtue.

I'm afraid the authors are a bit careless with their terminology as well, and one clear example of this is when they use phrases like "not to be completely in control of your emotions," or "not really in charge of them."  To the english-speaking ear, this makes it sound like the Catholic should not want the virtue of self-control.  Except, they then go back on that later in the book, saying that Catholics should be in greater control.  I can only guess that they meant these two types of statements to outline a specific distinction, rather than to contradict each other, but if so, that distinction just isn't outlined specifically enough.

Repeatedly, this book uses the phrase "professional help," when talking about unusual cases.  In the modern world, however, in eight cases out of ten, "professional help" means spending lots of money to sit and talk to a non-Catholic about how you feel, and this advice, firstly, is worth very little to the poor, secondly, isn't guaranteed to work anyway, since much "professional help" isn't really that professional, and lastly, admits or seems to admit to a lack of professional experience on the part of the book's authors.  So why read any further?

Numerous times, the book refers to situations like "Bob is upset because his dad wouldn't play ball with him when he was a boy, so he reacts badly, when his boss is just trying to help."  Yeah?  Well, what if Bob's boss is discriminating against him based on race?  Then, isn't his response a teensy bit more appropriate, or is it still inappropriate on the job?  If so, why?  You see, the advice we really need isn't how to deal with being unpleasant people in pleasant situations; at least not for the most part.  When we make a stupid mistake, many of us realize it almost immediately.  The problem is figuring out what kind of behavior is appropriate, and why when faced with mean-spirited people, cruel living/working conditions or shabby treatment by someone you thought you could trust.  To these difficult questions, this book offers no answer.

As some might realize who've read my past reviews, the mentions of Catholic "things," like sacraments, virtues, God, etc, really mean very little to me if the book's message isn't central to Catholicism, and frankly, I just don't think this book has enough to offer, that it could possibly be central to anything.  You might give it a look if you find it laying around in a library or something, but I wouldn't waste money on it.

God Has Great Plans For You

By Joseph Michael Tabers

Catholic-ometer: 2 of 5

Enjoyability: 1 of 5

I suppose I've been spoiled recently; reading magnificent novels, and the lives of saints and popes.  Many masterpieces, in many ways, which can easily impress.  Still, it had to happen sooner or later, that I'd run across a book I really couldn't stand.

Because the positive aspects of this piece are so few and far between, let me get them out of the way right now.  Firstly, the book offers some wonderful advice, in very general terms.  That advice, however, could be fit into one paragraph, and to demonstrate this, I will now do so.

"Read the bible.  Pray.  Fast.  Practice mortification and sacrifice.  Build a devotional life, and a firm relationship with Jesus.  Read the catechism, and read about the lives of the saints.  In short, get involved with your Catholic Faith."

All of that is, as I've said, good advice, and I mention this up front, because it's by far the best thing in this book.  If this was subtracted from the book, though, I'm afraid it would be little more than a glorified self-help book couched in religious vocabulary.

The second biggest problem with this book is that it's peppered with self-referencing, self-quoting, and self-writing of "inspirational" poetry on the part of its author.  If he's not egotistical, he surely gives that impression through these writing methods, and even apart from that, I'm afraid that I found him annoying.  The author's personality is, by his own admission, immensely-optimistic, energetic and based on positive input and output.  He's a little orphan Annie type, and never really gets around to explaining what God's plans for you are, though he could at least have written a decent book about the faith from this perspective, and I'd have overlooked it.  However, this leads me to the book's biggest problem.

The single biggest problem with this book is that it assumes that "faithfulness to God and the church" and "optimism and positive thinking" are one and the same; an attitude that actually drove me away from the faith for quite a while.  It doesn't give the impression that the faith can help you be more upbeat; it gives the impression that if you're not the kind of person who's upbeat already, the church must not be for you.  That's the problem with the church of feel-good.  It only lasts until you realize you don't feel as good as the church wants you to.  Then, you decide you can't sympathise with these people, and you leave.

Not content with this, however, the book offers some plainly stupid advice like "pay more attention to what people do right" and "always be affirming."  Why is this stupid?  Well, for the Christian, it means not being able to follow the example of Our Blessed Lord, who talked about Hell nine times as much as Heaven, when he wasn't calling the pharasees names or taking a whip to some irreverent money-changers.

This book, and others like it, do much harm, spreading the public image of a wispy, effeminate Jesus who just wants to make you feel good.  That's about as untrue as you can get.  What Jesus wants is to hurt your feelings, if it means you get to Heaven instead of Hell.

With a near-total dearth of any substantive advice on the faith, this book really does nothing to earn the word "God" in its title.  I think what disappointed me most was that if this author wanted to write a self-help book, he could have done so without misleading people about the goals and objectives of the faith, and if he'd wanted to write a guide to faithful Catholicism, he could have done his research better.  Either way, this book fails spectacularly, and I can't, in good conscience, reccomend it to anyone.

Top 10 Things Faithful Catholic Apologists Say, Even Though They Shouldn't

In my reading, watching and listening to claims of Catholic apologetics, I sometimes hear something that doesn't quite sound right, so I scratch my head and say "what?"  Later, I look the claim up, and discover that from a certain interpretation, there is some truth to it, but that the way it was phrased made it sound like some false claim.  Maybe the claim denies other, theological claims, but doesn't challenge the church on any doctrines or disciplines.  Maybe it's technically true, but just phrased very badly.

For whatever reason, it's been know to happen that an apologist will say something they really shouldn't.  Sometimes, these somethings are heresies or challenges to the faith, but I'm not talking about those.  I'm talking about statements which can be made in all honesty by a faithful Catholic, and still lead people into error.  In some ways, these kinds of statements can be among the most dangerous; hidden pitfalls, where discovering the truth is a challenge, and it's easy to lose track of the truth.  This is the main reason that I would now like to get into...

The top 10 things faithful Catholic apologists say, even though they shouldn't.



10. "We must decrease, so that God can increase."

What's really dangerous about this one is that it sort of sounds right, on the face of it.  After all, John the Baptist says something like this, and he surely knew what he was talking about.

The thing is, when John the Baptist said this about Jesus, he wasn't talking about the state of heavenly bliss; only about Earthly concerns.  In particular, he meant "I must decrease in the public eye" and "I must decrease in prominence at this point."  This is certainly true for all of us too.  We need to focus less on ourselves and more on Jesus as long as we're alive.

The problems only start arising when you try to apply this statement to the heavenly kingdom, and man's ultimate destiny in eternity.  I've heard people make statements like "we need to empty ourselves, so there'll be enough room for God," and that statement is, at best, misleading.

In the end, it boils down to a question of why God created human beings to begin with.  Did he intend for them, by design, to get out of the way and let him do everything, or did he create them to magnify and express his already-existing glory?

It's obviously the second for several reasons.  First, because Mary says as much in her Magnificat; that her soul magnifies the Lord.  Secondly, because God does everything for a reason.  If we're not designed for anything but to get out of his way, then we were created for no constructive purpose, which is like accusing God of creating us for no reason.  Third, Jesus says, quite clearly, that apart from him, we can do nothing.  It stands to reason, therefore, that with him, we can do much, and this wouldn't be the case if we were mere obstructions.

Lastly, since God is the source of all things that are good, and no things that are evil, it would seem to be impossible for him to subtract good things from us as we draw closer to him.  It makes far more sense, using just simple math, to conclude that God adds good things to those who are closer to him, rather than subtracting them.

This claim is dangerous to people in their spiritual journeys, because it can lead to a false sense of self-image; an idea that people are purposeless and insignificant, even in God's plan.  In cases where a person is strongly attached to themselves, it may even lead them to consider God as some kind of monster, eager to devour all the things about themselves that they like, and this just isn't true about God.  That's why "God decreases those closer to him" is false, and number 10 on the list.



9. "Claiming that you can understand part of God's plan is pride."

This one is patently false, and the only reason it gets thrown around is because English is such an impoverished language when it comes to establishing specific definitions.  So many words in english have over a dozen technical definitions, that we can almost say whatever we want, and have it mean over a hundred different things.

The objection here, is that the bible condemns pride as the greatest vice, and the source of all other sins.  Therefore, pride is neccesarily evil, and all the things that we refer to as pride are evil as well.  Since we refer to confidence in our knowledge of God's plan as being prideful, this must be bad, right?

There are two big problems here.  The first is that the modern English word "pride" carries a number of meanings that the bible never intended to condemn.

"Pride" can mean arrogance, confidence, joy, determination or faith.  Of these five definitions, only the first is meant to be condemned by the bible.  The rest are actually good things, provided that they're used properly.

The second problem is that believing in the certain knowledge of God's plan is actually neccesary in order to properly have faith in God, and without faith in God, you can't accept his graces or pursue salvation.

Anyone who says that "claiming to possess certain knowledge of God's plan is prideful," therefore, is just wrong, but their argument isn't with me; it's with Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jonah, Paul, John, and every pope who's ever lived.  That's why this claim makes number 9 on the list.



8. "Eternity is like being frozen in time."

I've heard this claim more than once too; that being in eternity means lacking any presence in time, and that therefore, eternity is like one big moment.  Problem with this claim is, it's false.

It's true that there is a certain level of constancy to eternity.  After all, the angels don't get to change their minds about whether they want their natures to be good or evil, and God doesn't change his nature, because it's eternal.  However, the reason eternal natures are unchangable is that they're bigger than time; they see all of time at once, and react to it with a strength that can only come from inner constancy.

Actions are much different.  God is eternal, and yet, he takes different actions from time to time.  These actions are dependant on his nature, but it's equally obvious that multiplying loaves and fish, writing on a wall and causing a plague of locusts are different actions.  Therefore, God is not frozen in time, and if God is not frozen in time, neither are other eternal beings.  To reiterate, in eternity, natures remain constant, but actions are still free and changable.

The problem with claiming that eternity is like being frozen in time is that you're essentially saying that eternity is only one moment, while time is many moments.  That's ridiculous on the face of it, since eternity is bigger than time, not smaller.  Furthermore, it gives people the impression that the many moments they sacrifice in time for the sake of God will only be repaid by one moment in eternity, which is bad economics if you really believe that.  That's why eternity is not like being frozen in time, and why this claim is number 8 on the list.



7. "If you don't enjoy mass, you wouldn't enjoy Heaven."

There are people who say that if you can't enjoy mass, you wouldn't enjoy Heaven, because of the fact that the presence of God is as strong in mass as in Heaven, but while there is some element of truth to the claim that God's presence in the eucharist is just as great as in Heaven, claim number 7 doesn't follow from that.

You see, there are many reasons to not enjoy mass.  Perhaps the music director likes to play heretical hymns, or maybe the priest teaches heresy from the pulpit.  Maybe there's just an overall lack of reverence among the massgoers.  Ultimately, however, all these reasons for not liking the mass boil down to only one.  We cannot use our senses to see what really goes on at mass.  If we could, then the mass would effect us as if we had gone to Heaven for a brief period, and we would never want it to end.  However, it's not reasonable to assume that an unsensible delight will have the same effect on people as a sensible one.

As Saint Paul said; "We see now as in a mirror darkly, but then, face to face."  What really allows people to appreciate Heaven is that God gives those in Heaven the senses that they need to fully appreciate his actions and his plans.  This is a gift that we never get in this life, barring a very special gift of grace.  Therefore, even if you don't enjoy mass, you might still enjoy Heaven.  That's why this claim is number 7 on the list.



6. "If we want to get to heaven, we'll need to give up everything we knew in this life."

Getting to Heaven requires us to let go of a lot; our body, our wholeness, our comfort, our vices, our sins, our possessions and our temporary pleasures.  All of these things are left behind when you die, which is the doorway to Paradise for the saints.

However, to say that we must give up everything from this life is a lie.  There are many things we don't need to give up in this life, or the next.  Love, for example, generocity, charity, peace of mind, faithfulness to God and other virtues don't need to be given up.

Many other things that we need to give up in this life are only given up in the short term.  Money, for example, and wealth, friends and family members who shun us when we defend the Lord.  All of these things are given up in this life, and then restored to us a hundredfold in the next, just as Jesus said.  We just need to trust that God will fulfill his promise regarding that.  "Seek first the kingdom and its righteousness, and all these things will be added to you without the asking."

Therefore, it's never a question of giving up other things we want in order to get to God.  It's only a question of being patient and trusting enough to believe that God will give us everything else we want.  God isn't competition for our other desires.  God is our other desires.  That's why this claim is number 6 on the list.



5. "All desires are wrong.  We should be content with what we have."

This is so simple, I don't even have to waste two paragraphs on it.  If all desires were wrong, the desire for virtue would also be wrong.  Therefore, desires are not wrong.  What's wrong is the way we sometimes prioritize meager desires (like money) over very important ones (like self control.)  If we were truly content with what we had, there would be no reason to pursue Heaven.  That's why this claim is number 5 on the list.



4. "Suffering is good."

Any idiot knows that suffering is bad, and if idiots know it, God surely knows it infinitely better.  After all, he did say in the book of Genesis that suffering was a penalty for sin.  Why would he give people a penalty that was good?

The confusion here stems from the fact that suffering often makes us better people by training us in righteousness.  As it says in scripture, "Jesus, son though he was, was made perfect through suffering."  However, it does not say that the suffering itself was made good.

In order to properly tackle the subject of suffering, we need to be willing to draw a distinction between those who suffer, and the suffering itself.  One is made better, but the other one is still bad.  Therefore, no matter how much a person may benefit from suffering, their suffering is still a bad thing.

Making this claim is dangerous, because if suffering were a good thing, there would be suffering in Heaven, and people would lose their motivation to go there.  That's why this is number 4 on the list.



3. "Our goal is to become indistinguishable from Jesus."

There's a sense, especially in the writings of the saints, that we must become identical to Jesus in certain ways, and this sense has been expanded by some modern apologists, to make the claim that if we don't become indistinguishable from Jesus, we've missed the boat.

There are two big problems with this claim.  First, that many things that Jesus did during his life (such as spending years as a carpenter,) are clearly not neccesary for salvation, and if carpentry were important for a high seat in Heaven, I'm sure it would have been mentioned somewhere in the bible.  Instead, Jesus chose fishermen, a tax collector, a revolutionary and so forth to join his inner circle of apostles, and found his church.  Some similarities to Jesus are essential, but not all of his traits are required.

The other thing to point out is that among the 11 remaining apostles, even though they all wound up working for the same goal, they had vastly different personalities.  Peter was impetuous and bold, Thomas was a pessimist, John was very passionate and contemplative, etc...  Among the lives of the saints, this diversity of personality can be noted as well.  Yet, all of them were virtuous and holy.

The goal is not to become indistinguishable from Jesus.  Rather, the goal is to emulate his virtues, his commitment, wisdom, suffering, determination to doing right and so forth.

This claim is damaging because if we believe that we need to become identical to Jesus, we might fall into the belief that Jesus will eradicate all our individuality when we get to Heaven, and we'll all be a bunch of Jesus-clones, all walking around and talking about the same things all the time.  This belief would definitely decrease the desire for Heaven, and for Jesus himself.  Therefore, this claim makes number 3 on the list.



2. "Have realistic expectations."

In a certain sense, this claim is right.  We need to recognize that the gifts God gives us in this life probably won't involve too many miracles (although there is precedent,) and probably won't involve the total overturning of the world order (although there is precedent for that too.)

However, in the wake of the modernist heresy, the term "realistic expectations" has come to mean "desire only things that people can obtain in this life, such as money, fame, a good family life, etc..."  I can only think of one thing that would damage a person's desire for God more than this perspective (see number 1.)

The main reason why we need to follow God is that we know that there are things (lots of things, in fact,) which we can't obtain for ourselves, and need his help to acquire.  We dream of having total self-control, of teleportation, time travel, irresistable beauty, shapeshifting, immortality, a great, epic quest that never ends and gives eternal purpose to our lives...  All of these things are desired by human beings, and none of them are wrong desires, provided that they motivate us to follow God.  The moment that we give up on these desires, we've given up on a great many good reasons to follow God, and that's why this command is number 2 on my list.



1. "God possesses the faithful."

I really don't know why so many apologists say this.  It's a disgusting concept.  God may work through us, but he doesn't possess us.

The difference is this; when one is possessed, one's free will is taken away, and the possessed falls completely (or almost completely) under the control of the possessor.  When one obeys the will of God, one does not lose their free will, but rather, uses it properly.  Likewise, when God works through the saints, he doesn't take away their free will, but increases it, by allowing it to do what their free will was made for.

If God needed to take away our free will in order to do good, why would he have created it to begin with?  This goes right back to claim 10.  In the same way that we don't exist just to get out of God's way, neither does our free will.  Free will is good, and God doesn't need to take away good things in order to do good with them.  Therefore, God's action upon us is actually the opposite of possession.

This claim is most dangerous because it could actually lead people to feel terrified of God and his will, and to shun good works just because they're good.  That's why this is number 1 on the list.

The Godless Delusion

By Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

This is one of several books written as a direct response to the Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion."  In that book, Dawkins succeeded in showing that he had a very poor knowledge of Christian theology, restating the old atheist arguments in, if anything, a more high-vocabulary, but still less intelligent way.  By no stretch of the imagination is it the kind of book that could hold up under critical analysis, nor is it an intellectually-sophisticated or convincing argument philosophically or theologically.  For the most part, it was little more than a diatribe against religion by a very biased individual.

This book; the Godless Delusion does fare a bit better in that respect; giving fair arguments against atheism, which prove the logic incoherence of the position, as well as the damaging effect that widespread atheism is guaranteed to have on human society.  However, you need to be patient to get to the good parts.

When forming a logical argument against the view of your opponent, there are certain rules that it's usually wise to follow.

1. The first is to present your own argument with whatever positive proofs your possess.

2. The second is to criticise the logical fallacies which are or seem to be inherent to your opponent's position, always remembering to take into account the arguments that the opponent has brought forth as well, for the purpose of refuting them.

3. The third rule is that when citing sources for an argument against an opponent, if at all possible, try to be certain that the sources have no other reason for working against the opponent.  This is why, for example, Josephus' testimony on the life of Jesus is considered so important by historians.  Josephus was anti-Christian, and yet, his writings confirm many Christian claims.  Because of this, his words are that much more convincing to an atheist than, for example, the Gospel according to John.

In all three of these areas, there are slip-ups in this book.

1. With regard to the first, the book doesn't start out with a positive argument for Christianity, although there are certainly a great many defensible ones right now (the five proofs of Thomas Aquinas, the Ontological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument, etc...)  In fact, I don't think a single positive argument for God's existence is ever really proposed in this entire book, except that it's logically-dishonest to make use of faculties if you don't believe they have a source, which is a much weaker argument, and much more easily argued against.  Instead, the book simply takes it for granted that the reader believes in God already and doesn't need convincing, then goes on and on for over fifty pages about how dangerous and debilitating atheism is, as a worldview, making only a few good points in the process.  As I said, the beginning takes patience to get through, and comes off largely as a counter-diatribe, very reminiscent of the work of Dawkins in some respects.

2. The slip-ups in the second category are much rarer, fortunately.  The big one that I can point out right now is that midway through the book, the authors claim that the atheist argument of "evil exists, so God cannot" is self-contradictory.  Since "evil" is merely the absense of good, and good is the same thing as God's nature, for the atheist to make any claims about evil existing is a contradiction, in a certain sense.  The problem with taking this tack is that you run the risk of running into someone who really doesn't believe that evil or good exist, and is just "posing the question" in the framework of Christian thought, to try to imagine up a contradiction there.  When a person argues against their opponent from the perspective of their opponent, and does it well, that's not contradiction or dishonesty; it's a technique for remaining consistent in one's arguments against another worldview.  Unfortunately, it seems this pivotal point was missed by the authors of this book.

3. However, I think that probably the most damaging problems with this book arise from its tendency to incessantly quote the bible, the catechism, and other strongly Christian sources when criticizing atheism.  Of course Christian sources criticize atheism.  That's not news.  Atheistic sources criticize Christianity too.  So what?

All that having been said, while these weaknesses do exist, the book also has many strengths as well.  It points out several logical inconsistencies within the atheist worldview (such as the denial of, and simultaneous reliance on, the objective standard of right and wrong,) derives some of its arguments from strongly atheistic sources, pointing out the inconsistencies within them, and puts forth a fair number of logical methods that can be used by Christians to both defend their own faith and argue against the self-delusions of the atheist mindset.  I was also impressed that at no point in the book does it say anything contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which may have influenced the score I gave it somewhat.

On the whole, an interesting read, with strong logical grounding, though the book makes a few mistakes in using that grounding.  There are better books on the subject, but you could do a lot worse as well.

A Biblical Walk Through the Mass

By Edward Sri

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

I've heard a number of talks on the biblical roots of the mass, though I haven't read many books on the subject.  Of course, to tackle this subject only requires two main things; faithfulness to the truths of the Catholic Mass, and a willingness to describe the various biblical passages and interpretations from which the sacred tradition of the liturgy derives.

I consider this book perfect with respect to the first point; faithfulness.  It's a strongly-written book, and it's careful with its terminology.  Not once, for example, does it ever refer to the consecrated host as "bread" or "wine" after it's been consecrated.  The only mistake that I could spot was that it speaks of two separate points in the mass as being "the most sacred," and of course, only one of them was, but a mistake like that is easily overlooked.

The only other thing I noticed was something that no one can really help; not all valid interpretations of the Mass are included in this book.  I say no one could help that, because I personally believe that the sacred liturgy has a near-infinite number of valid interpretations, and that no one can explain them all on paper.  For example, when talking about the mixing of the water and wine in the mass, it doesn't mention how both blood and water spilled forth from the side of Jesus on the cross.  Still, these are, at worst, minor imperfections that keep the book from being entirely comprehensive.  By no means am I saying that the author of the book is wrong in what he says.

That's what really matters when you get down to it; is the book about the truth, or is it just a collection of unsubstantiated opinions by an author?  It's a question I've needed to ask myself a lot while reading Catholic literature, but fortunately, the answer to that question with respect to this book is easy as pie.  This is a book of Catholic truth, which may help to flesh out your understanding of the true meaning of the mass, and just why we do what we do there.  It could help people to realize the importance of their participation in the mass, and to increase in reverence for our Lord in the holy Eucharist, and if it does accomplish that, then that'll be enough.  I'm very satisfied with this faithful, Catholic book, and I hope you will be too.