Review: Why I Am a Catholic
Why I Am a Catholic
by Garry Wills
Houghton Mifflin, 2002
I used to think that the importance of religion was the personal, spiritual relationship with the Almighty, and that the various forms of organized religion were various forms of BS standing in the way. Lately, however, I've reversed this formula: I think that public, collective ritual is more important; a mystical relationship is secondary or, perhaps, delusional. For this reason, I thought it would be interesting to dabble in the Catholic Church. The saints, the rosary, no meat on Friday--Catholicism is rich with ritual. But after reading Garry Wills's Why I am a Catholic, I've decided to stick with boring old Methodism. This is not to say that I disagree with any of Wills's points; his goal here was not to convince me why I should be a Catholic. Rather, given the long list of papal abuse and misconduct, one would have to be a very loyal son, as Wills seems to be, to stick with the Church. In short, this book was no Catholic screed.
Wills begins with a biography of his spiritual life, beginning with Catholic grade school and boarding school, then Jesuit seminary. He eventually dropped out of seminary and pursued a secular academic career--he is a history professor currently at Northwestern. He has nothing but good things to say about his upbringing (no sexual abuse; only a little corporal mortification as a Jesuit novice). His teachers were all sincere and knowledgeable. He is arguing, as we soon see, that the average Catholic life differs wildly from, and is much more wholesome and worthwhile than, the exploits of the Pope.
The bulk of the book is a sprawling history of the Catholic Church, beginning with Peter and Paul. Do not use this book as a primer on church history, however: very little space is given to, for instance, the conversion of Constantine or the Reformation. Wills directs his focus on the papacy throughout. In the beginning, he demonstrates, there was no pope and Peter was not a bishop of Rome since there was no such office at the time. As the church organized and developed, the pope in Rome played second fiddle to bishops in the cosmopolitan, academic cities like Alexandria, Antioch, and later Constantinople. It was not until a millennium after Christ, once the west and the east were completely separate and the church began playing politics in Europe, that the papacy gained its primacy. This was done well outside the mandate of scripture, Wills claims. Although Peter was given authority over the church in a much-quoted passage in Mathew 16, this does not imply the necessity of the strict hierarchical structure that Rome established. Rather, Wills argues, this authority is merely a defense against the dissolution of the Church.
The history culminates in the Vatican II council which took place from 1962 to 1965. Wills calls this the "great rebirth" of the Catholic Church, finally eliminating some of the strictures that set Rome apart from the international Catholic community--especially the American Catholic community. The largest change effected was the recognition of the laity as the "people of God", a step up from the governed sheep they had been officially thought of before. Also important was the status given to Protestants and believers of other religions: "Baptized Protestants are members of the Body of Christ....Jews, too, are 'the people of God,' and not mere pre-Christians or Christ-slayers." Finally, Vatican II recognized the legitimacy of the separation of church and state. Five years after the election of John Kennedy, the Catholic Church officially declared that the American democratic system was not blatantly sinful.
Wills then heaps criticism on John Paul II--and his "doctrinal alter ego" Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now know as pope Benedict XVI)--for not only his subtle rejection of Vatican II and his opposition to contraceptives, female clergy and married priests, but also his support of Opus Dei (of Davinci Code fame), his canonization of Juan Diego, a man "who seems to never have existed", and his claim of martyrdom after an assassination attempt. But John Paul represents a small step backward for Wills. Vatican II cemented his belief that the sensible Catholic masses can correct any blunder, however ghastly, that the pope can make.
If Wills pulls no punches when it comes to the popes (leaving aside John XXIII, who presided over Vatican II), he ultimately defends the papacy. He claims that the Christian church should be a single community, and that the papacy, by way of Peter, represents the Christian church on earth. "Peter is not the master of truth or power or government. He is the center around which the other parts of the church cohere." Wills seems, finally, to have bought the line that the pope stands in for Peter.
I find this position, given the other arguments in the book, to be very weak, for three reasons: 1) Peter, when he was "running" the church, claimed no authority whatsoever. He was an expert go-between, a negotiator, a friend to all, who helped to knit together the Apostolic churches using not coercion or decree but patient conversation. This is what the leader (or leaders) of the Christian church on earth should look like. This is the heritage left to us from Peter. Others were able (and certainly not all of them were based in Rome), using similar techniques to hold the church together for a millennium without papal primacy. 2) The papacy's first act of primacy within the church was to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople, causing the schism between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. (This was done by Pope Leo IX in 1054.) Is this the kind of unity a church with papal primacy provides? Moreover, the popes' abuses of privilege were the primary reasons for Luther's split in the the sixteenth century. Would we have to contend with the Protestant/Catholic divide if not for the papacy? 3) Finally, until Vatican II, Catholics were officially dissuaded even from entering into organizations with non-Catholics, and freedom of religious expression was officially heretical (Leo XIII's Longingua and Pius IX's Quanta Cura, respectively). How can unity be possible in these circumstances, even within the Catholic church? Many Catholics disobeyed these dicta, to be sure, but how then is the papacy responsible for cohesion withing the church? Wills asks us to consider "just how much worse things would have been without [the papacy]." I'm not convinced things would not look a whole lot better.
Finally, Wills lays bare his own beliefs by way of the Apostles' Creed. He explains that the Creed is the core of Christian doctrine, the set of propositions you must believe if you call yourself a Christian. He dives right into the trickiest aspects of the faith and explains how he was able, in his own small way, to come to an understanding of them. For instance, his discussions of the Trinity and the Lord's Prayer are deep and wide-ranging; he does justice to the rich theology and history they embody. This is really the heart of the book, and a worthwhile read for anyone. In fact, it is striking how little of Wills's core belief is Catholic, as opposed to some other sort of Christianity. When Christians honestly sit down and compare notes, we all believe pretty much the same thing.
So, although I do not buy Wills's claim that the Pope represents Christian unity, I do agree that Christian unity would be a good thing. And I respect the sincerity, thoughtfulness and candor of his beliefs. So perhaps my criticisms have been too harsh. Rather than remain a Methodist, I'd prefer to just be Christian. If only Wills--and others--were willing to make a similar concession.
by Garry Wills
Houghton Mifflin, 2002
I used to think that the importance of religion was the personal, spiritual relationship with the Almighty, and that the various forms of organized religion were various forms of BS standing in the way. Lately, however, I've reversed this formula: I think that public, collective ritual is more important; a mystical relationship is secondary or, perhaps, delusional. For this reason, I thought it would be interesting to dabble in the Catholic Church. The saints, the rosary, no meat on Friday--Catholicism is rich with ritual. But after reading Garry Wills's Why I am a Catholic, I've decided to stick with boring old Methodism. This is not to say that I disagree with any of Wills's points; his goal here was not to convince me why I should be a Catholic. Rather, given the long list of papal abuse and misconduct, one would have to be a very loyal son, as Wills seems to be, to stick with the Church. In short, this book was no Catholic screed.
Wills begins with a biography of his spiritual life, beginning with Catholic grade school and boarding school, then Jesuit seminary. He eventually dropped out of seminary and pursued a secular academic career--he is a history professor currently at Northwestern. He has nothing but good things to say about his upbringing (no sexual abuse; only a little corporal mortification as a Jesuit novice). His teachers were all sincere and knowledgeable. He is arguing, as we soon see, that the average Catholic life differs wildly from, and is much more wholesome and worthwhile than, the exploits of the Pope.
The bulk of the book is a sprawling history of the Catholic Church, beginning with Peter and Paul. Do not use this book as a primer on church history, however: very little space is given to, for instance, the conversion of Constantine or the Reformation. Wills directs his focus on the papacy throughout. In the beginning, he demonstrates, there was no pope and Peter was not a bishop of Rome since there was no such office at the time. As the church organized and developed, the pope in Rome played second fiddle to bishops in the cosmopolitan, academic cities like Alexandria, Antioch, and later Constantinople. It was not until a millennium after Christ, once the west and the east were completely separate and the church began playing politics in Europe, that the papacy gained its primacy. This was done well outside the mandate of scripture, Wills claims. Although Peter was given authority over the church in a much-quoted passage in Mathew 16, this does not imply the necessity of the strict hierarchical structure that Rome established. Rather, Wills argues, this authority is merely a defense against the dissolution of the Church.
The history culminates in the Vatican II council which took place from 1962 to 1965. Wills calls this the "great rebirth" of the Catholic Church, finally eliminating some of the strictures that set Rome apart from the international Catholic community--especially the American Catholic community. The largest change effected was the recognition of the laity as the "people of God", a step up from the governed sheep they had been officially thought of before. Also important was the status given to Protestants and believers of other religions: "Baptized Protestants are members of the Body of Christ....Jews, too, are 'the people of God,' and not mere pre-Christians or Christ-slayers." Finally, Vatican II recognized the legitimacy of the separation of church and state. Five years after the election of John Kennedy, the Catholic Church officially declared that the American democratic system was not blatantly sinful.
Wills then heaps criticism on John Paul II--and his "doctrinal alter ego" Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now know as pope Benedict XVI)--for not only his subtle rejection of Vatican II and his opposition to contraceptives, female clergy and married priests, but also his support of Opus Dei (of Davinci Code fame), his canonization of Juan Diego, a man "who seems to never have existed", and his claim of martyrdom after an assassination attempt. But John Paul represents a small step backward for Wills. Vatican II cemented his belief that the sensible Catholic masses can correct any blunder, however ghastly, that the pope can make.
If Wills pulls no punches when it comes to the popes (leaving aside John XXIII, who presided over Vatican II), he ultimately defends the papacy. He claims that the Christian church should be a single community, and that the papacy, by way of Peter, represents the Christian church on earth. "Peter is not the master of truth or power or government. He is the center around which the other parts of the church cohere." Wills seems, finally, to have bought the line that the pope stands in for Peter.
I find this position, given the other arguments in the book, to be very weak, for three reasons: 1) Peter, when he was "running" the church, claimed no authority whatsoever. He was an expert go-between, a negotiator, a friend to all, who helped to knit together the Apostolic churches using not coercion or decree but patient conversation. This is what the leader (or leaders) of the Christian church on earth should look like. This is the heritage left to us from Peter. Others were able (and certainly not all of them were based in Rome), using similar techniques to hold the church together for a millennium without papal primacy. 2) The papacy's first act of primacy within the church was to excommunicate the patriarch of Constantinople, causing the schism between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. (This was done by Pope Leo IX in 1054.) Is this the kind of unity a church with papal primacy provides? Moreover, the popes' abuses of privilege were the primary reasons for Luther's split in the the sixteenth century. Would we have to contend with the Protestant/Catholic divide if not for the papacy? 3) Finally, until Vatican II, Catholics were officially dissuaded even from entering into organizations with non-Catholics, and freedom of religious expression was officially heretical (Leo XIII's Longingua and Pius IX's Quanta Cura, respectively). How can unity be possible in these circumstances, even within the Catholic church? Many Catholics disobeyed these dicta, to be sure, but how then is the papacy responsible for cohesion withing the church? Wills asks us to consider "just how much worse things would have been without [the papacy]." I'm not convinced things would not look a whole lot better.
Finally, Wills lays bare his own beliefs by way of the Apostles' Creed. He explains that the Creed is the core of Christian doctrine, the set of propositions you must believe if you call yourself a Christian. He dives right into the trickiest aspects of the faith and explains how he was able, in his own small way, to come to an understanding of them. For instance, his discussions of the Trinity and the Lord's Prayer are deep and wide-ranging; he does justice to the rich theology and history they embody. This is really the heart of the book, and a worthwhile read for anyone. In fact, it is striking how little of Wills's core belief is Catholic, as opposed to some other sort of Christianity. When Christians honestly sit down and compare notes, we all believe pretty much the same thing.
So, although I do not buy Wills's claim that the Pope represents Christian unity, I do agree that Christian unity would be a good thing. And I respect the sincerity, thoughtfulness and candor of his beliefs. So perhaps my criticisms have been too harsh. Rather than remain a Methodist, I'd prefer to just be Christian. If only Wills--and others--were willing to make a similar concession.
Labels: book review, religion
posted by Brian at 9:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home