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.