Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5
This book was a bit of a puzzle, and even now, it's difficult to grade, because I can't guage the intentions of the writer. I've heard good things about him, of course, but actually reading this book felt, if you'll forgive this, like running through a busy intersection at rush hour.
There are times when Mister Kreeft strikes me as being a very strong Catholic and thinker; analyzing terms brilliantly, clearing a path to the truths of the faith, and even pointing out things that I'd never heard said before in Catholic theology (though I have no doubt they were true.)
Then there are times when it seems like he's jumped back off the train tracks onto protestantism again, or overgeneralizes about the faith.
In the end, I gave this book a fair score on the Catholic-ometer, because these slip-ups are relatively rare. So rare, in fact, that I can count the book's mistakes on my fingers, and for the sake of helping to keep new readers from being accidentally mislead, I'll deal with three right now, which really jumped out at me.
Midway down page 23, Mister Kreeft quotes Pope John Paul II, claiming that Martin Luther was "profoundly right" about his beliefs regarding justification. This is not true. Martin Luther's beliefs, early on in life, were as Catholic as anybody's, but when he broke off from the church, it was his heretical views on justification that did the most damage.
In "the Smalcald Articles," Luther wrote the following...
"All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits... ...Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us"
-Martin Luther-
The bible says...
"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
James 2:24
This latter is, and has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yes; God's grace does much more to save us than our works, but that doesn't mean that works are not needed.
"Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works."
James 2:18
To say that the grace of God comes first in attaining salvation is the truth, but this does not mean that Martin Luther was "profoundly right" in his beliefs regarding justification.
The second point that needs clarification is that he speaks at least twice of being "possessed by God," and this imagery is not theologically honest, to say nothing of being needlessly terrifying.
God does not "possess" people. Possessing someone means taking away their ability to make decisions, and if God was going to tamper with our free will, he would have done it already.
"So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God."
Galatians 4:7
God doesn't want to enslave people. He wants to free them, by giving them perfect things, so that they can be happy. Therefore, no matter how closely your will may conform to his, he will not possess you. I really don't know why some modern evangelists seem charmed by this idea. I find it revolting and blasphemous.
However, unquestionably the worst mistake made over the course of this book is found by reading the whole last chapter; "God's Love in Political Theology." Mister Kreeft goes out of his way to avoid saying anything specific or useful about politics in this last chapter, and even makes several false assumptions, which show a lapse of understanding in several key areas.
First, he says that neither "the right" nor "the left" is sufficiently upright for God, which, while true, sounds more like a cop-out than anything else, since he doesn't define what he means by "right" and "left." People? Ideologies? Political affiliations? He also claims that the secret to finding Christian truth in politics is to question our own uprightness; a useful piece of advice in any context, but a big time-waster if you're trying to make a point about politics. Then he makes the ridiculous claim that "the left" is less truthful and "the right" less loving, and ends the chapter by saying that he doesn't know the answers to several moral conundrums; implying that no such answers are clear or available. I was furious when I read that.
Supposing that he's referring to "the right" and "the left" in terms of people, then he's wrong about that, since most of those among "the left" shun the very concept of the truth, and fall victim to an onslaught of lies, even when they don't. And without the truth, there is no love. I'd now like to quote a very great man of the 20th century on this topic.
"In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."
Pope John Paul II, "Veritatis Splendor"
In short, love without truth is impossible, because love is honest by its nature. You can be sentimental without any access or desire for the truth, but you can't be loving.
If he's referring to the political structures, that's even worse. In that respect, the left is certainly not more loving, just because many left-leaning politicians use compassion as an excuse to cover their rampant lies, propaganda, mass-murder, sexual perversions and utter loathing towards the church and all she teaches, nor do I suspect that anyone who buys into all that leftist tripe about "freedom" and "non-judgmentalism" will pick up your book or leaf through it. Are you seriously proposing, Mister Kreeft, that the murdering of over fifty million americans is more loving than letting them live? Are you suggesting that it's not loving to want to save all of those innocent victims, too small to even stand up and speak for themselves? I dearly hope you're not, especially after having defined "Christian love" so well otherwise.
He goes on to compare "the right" to rock and "the left" to sand, but seems more interested in claiming that one side is too hard, and the other too soft, (in short, that we're all wrong,) to remember what Jesus said about these two types of terrain.
"Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
Matthew 7:24-27
For the record, Mister Kreeft, "the right" and "the left" are not people. They're political ideologies, and ideologies are just incomplete and poorly-founded philosophies. Because they're not people, we're not obligated to protect them, defend them or disprove them, and we're certainly under no obligation to give them the benefit of the doubt. I wonder if you'd make the same claims about Communism; that it has some much-needed softness than decent people lack. Frankly, I think that all such ideologies, being man-made as they are, deserve no credence from anyone who professes the Catholic faith.
Bishop Sheen referred to this form of "love" as "false compassion;" showing pity to criminals and attackers, more than to victims, and I agree with him. The new testament tells us repeatedly that we must admonish sinners, and Jesus even gave us a blueprint for it (Matthew 18;15-17,) so in the words of Nike; "Just Do It."
I'd say that "Just Do It" covers a lot of ground with respect to our relations with other religions as well. Mister Kreeft meanders a bit near the end of the book's last chapter, as if thinking that we need clearer teachings on things like "the death penalty," "war," and other such things. Perhaps we do need something a little more specific than what we have, but we know that what we do have is the truth. We don't need to go to Buddhism or eastern mysticism to find out how to deal with these situations. The Catholic Church has very well-established teachings on all these subjects, and many more, and it's not our job to suggest that they should change them, in the hopes of convincing a few more people to join our worthy cause.
In the words of Mother Theresa; "Faithfulness, not success." We just have to do what God tells us to, through his one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church; the only church he ever personally founded for the salvation of souls; to which all men are called, and let the chips fall where God wishes.
As you might be able to tell, that final chapter got me really worked up, but I just don't like it when Catholic authors write in such a way that both faithful Catholics and baby-killers can hold it up in their own defense. It's not constructive, nor really, all that faithful.
However, most of the book is faithful, which is why I gave it such a good overall grade on the Catholic-ometer. There are slip-ups; bad ones, but don't let them bug you too much. Just keep the light of truth before your eyes, and your faith will survive the night.
Would I reccomend this book to a budding Catholic who's trying to start off learning the faith. No. Would I reccomend it to an experienced Catholic, who knows how to pan truth out from falsehoods, and is looking for a fresh perspective on God's love? Sure. I know it did that for me, even if it did tick me off a lot in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment