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.
No comments:
Post a Comment