Why I Am a Catholic

Rating:
Summary: Why Garry Wills Is A Catholic...In Name Only
Review: A non-papist Catholic is an oxymoron; it's the equivalent of announcing one's vegetarianism, and then ordering the prime rib. A Catholic, by definition, must recognize the inarguable legitimacy of the Magisterium -- i.e., the teaching authority of the Church, which is invested in the Holy Father (usually with the bishops in conjunction with him; but with or without them...). It is the Pope who teaches Catholics on all matters pertaining to faith and morals, and his teachings must be accepted by all of the faithful. In rejecting this teaching authority, Garry Wills has spiritually separated himself from Holy Mother Church. In seeking to Protestantize the Church, he's condemned himself as a schismatic and a heretic. Despite the damage that he and others of his ilk have already inflicted, and will no doubt continue to inflict, Our Lord has promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church. All good and true Catholics can take much comfort from that promise.

Rating:
Summary: Mislabeled but not mistaken
Review: A proper title for this book would have been "The History of Papal Aggrandizement in the Catholic Church." As such few would have bought it. The title as given implies a discussion of Wills' reasons for being a Catholic; this is not the subject of the book. The book is an historical account of how the Roman papacy has usurped power, has built itself into a monarchy, and has violated the spirit and often the letter of the faith. It could have been called "How to be a Catholic without the Idol in the Vatican." That might have sold. In any case, the book is an effective defense of those who from the beginning until the First Vatican Council of 1870 have resisted papal supremacy and arrogance. It is totally convincing and should be read by Catholics who think that their Church as it has been over the last 130 years is all there is to know. Wills deserves praise and respect for his defense of true Catholicism -- one which would lead to a union of the Roman and Orthodox churches if taken seriously. One wishes he had not mislabeled the book. Those not liking the book will be the ultramontanists -- those who think the pope is closer to God than to man. Protestants will learn something valuable: that being an historic, traditional Catholic does not mean worshipping the person or allowing the inordinate power of popes.

Rating:
Summary: Nonfiction at Its Best
Review: A stunning sequel to "Papal Sins." Obviously, only someone who cares about the Catholic Church could write these two volumes. The history is always engaging, his reflections on the Creed insightful and exciting.

Garry Wills always teaches me new facts about the Church. In "Sins," it was that the Jewish Christians rolled over on the Greek Christians after Nero's fire. Here, it was that Rome wasn't really a major player in the early Church, separated by geography and language from everyone else.
His exegesis on the Lord's Prayer was tremendous, elaborating on themes he approached in early writings.

Often, when I look around as some of the rightwingers who rule my diocese, I feel like a stranger in a strange land. Wills just tells me I'm in the right place.

Rating:
Summary: Book Written by A Sick Catholic
Review: A) Throughout this book, by criticizing the Catholic Church, a human and divine institution on earth which includes Garry Wills himself, Garry wills, without he realizes, tells us about his own craziness. Garry Wills is one of the sick people in the Catholic Church. He himself says in his book that when he was a child he liked to do weird and crawy things. He was never satisfied with everything. He moved from one school to another school. He says when he was in seminary he was known as a trouble maker. He was a defiant person. If today Garry Wills is till a trouble maker and a defiant person, well, he has been a trouble maker and defiant person since he was a child. That is Garry's uprooted nature that he can not change. Garry's book is good for those who is mentally sick like him.

B) Is Garry Wills a proffessor? I doubt his quality. His understanding of the Bible is very shallow. Quite often understands the Gospel literally like the fundamentalists embracing cults. That is not the way the Catholic Church approaches the Bible.Look at this for example. Garry Wills says that the pope (papacy) from its very nature is fragile and weak. If the pope is the successor of Peter, hey look! Peter was a weak person. He was wishy-washy.
Or in other words, Garry will simply wants to say that if Peter was a wishy-washy and weak person, all his successors, the popes, are wishy-washy and weak too. Isn't this an example of a banal understanding of the Bible by a proffessor?

B) In order to explain the dissent in the Church, Garry says that such a thing is not new in the history of the Church. Since at very beginning the Church has not been not one and has not bee harmonious. Even Jesus's own disciples were not one and were not harmonious. Look! Garry says, the disciples of Jesus squabled over who was the greastest among them. The same disharmony and dissent still carry on in the Church today, Garry says. Alas, in fact, the squable among Jesus's disciple had its very own context and message at their own time. We can not just take it and put it on the frame of the dissent existing in the Church today.

C) The way Garry Wills approaches the history of the Church is also very biased. It is very true that the Catholic Church, like any other religious institutions or political organizations,made many mistakes in the past in dealing with the history of the world and of the life humankind. But at the same time, the Catholic Church has done and contributed and will continue to do and contribute so many good things to the world and to the human family. But Proffessor Garry wills in his book is interested only in bringing up the mistakes of the past and he ignores the good things the Catholic Church has done and has contributed. Why? The answer is clear: because he is sick. Naturally, evil people are interested in evil things. REad this book. But please, don't be sick like Garry Wills.

Rating:
Summary: Answer: Born & raised Catholic
Review: At bottom, I think Wills argument boils down to that the best reason for remaining (as distinguished from becoming) a Roman Catholic today is that one was born and raised a Roman Catholic. He continues to base his faith on the Creed (Apostles' Creed, the baptismal creed), and after all, anyone born & raised Presbyterian could probably say the same. So Will's book may be an apologia pro vita sua, but no argument for some one who wasn't born & raised in the Roman Church. Perhaps the title should have been "Why I am Still a Catholic."

He states that the papacy is a "sacrament of the unity of the Church." At most, he must mean sacrament equals symbol. Certainly not sacrament as generally understood in classic Catholic terminology, which defines a sacrament as "the outward sign of an inward grace", or as a symbol or symbolic action that actually has the power to achieve what it symbolizes (e.g. baptism actuates the salvation of the baptized.)

Far from being a sacrament of unity, or actuating the unity of the Church, the papacy has been from its beginnings, and continues to be today, one of the most divisive institutions or ideas in Christianity, compared to which the ancient theological arguments over the filioque pale to a semantic quibble. The current occupant and his Curial cohort of papal absolutists continue to issue pronouncements dividing the Roman Catholic remnant into sheep and goats (right thinkers and deviants, obedient children and heretical rebels), and erect new barriers to inter-faith understanding (e.g. the recent canonization of a priest who saved Christian European Civilization from the infidel Turks.) The papacy can't even unite the Roman Catholic "Church", let alone Christians (the bibical meaning of "Church"). It would have been more plausible to cite Baptism, or even the Creed, on which Wills pins his continued self-identity as Catholic, as symbols ("sacraments" in the classic sense) of the unity of Christians.

Thirty years ago, when I was a newly minted American Roman Catholic (from a devout and educated Protestant background), an elderly Irish Catholic neighbor profoundly shocked me by informing me that I would never be "a real Catholic" because I wasn't born and raised one. I have been coming to the conclusion that she was right after all. There are just too many issues that would require me to (in Wills' phrase) "check my brains at the church door" and out of some kind of misguided loyalty force myself to give "religious assent" to concepts that fly in the face of reason, history and reality. Speaking only for myself and no one else, as long as the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church continues to foist such propositions on the rest of the body, I find it increasingly difficult to view silent acquiescence as faithful loyal opposition instead of self-delusion or hypocrisy.

That said, Wills' book makes a good read, interesting stuff in there about the history of the papacy, and his understanding of the Creed and Lord's Prayer, arising from his knowledge of Greek.

I was also intrigued by his account of Jesuit education; it went a long way toward explaining something that puzzled me when I was a new convert, namely why a young Jesuit priest I approached with theological questions and a desire for spiritual direction (expecting from the Jesuit reputation for education and Ignation spirituality that any Jesuit would be expert in such matters) instead fled like I'd made an indecent proposal. The poor man had probably not advanced to the stage where theology is studied, and his spiritual training probably didn't go beyond the Jesuit boot camp run through of the Ignatian Exercises.

Rating:
Summary: Wrong Premise, Garry. (SIC)
Review: But Garry you're not Catholic and a misrerable historian as well.

Rating:
Summary: Please do not confuse Wills with Catholics OF FAITH
Review: During times like this, with the horrifying priest scandal, papal fragility and charges of anti-Semitism, Catholics obviously can't be pleased to hear more (unnecessary) media attention given to such an insufferably arrogant and hypocritical individual like Garry Wills. But, always the opportunist, Wills recognizes that anti-Catholic sentiment can turn into dividends for his shallow and repetitive assessments of the Vatican and people of shared faith. Yes, FAITH -- that one word that Wills continuously tap dances around because the true meaning of the word still alludes him. Being an intellectual, he knows that the media worships his type and will publish his "declarations" (devoid of solutions) as the "final word." But when will Wills and the media finally acknowledge that the Catholic faith is not simply an intellectual pursuit? It is not just about praying and attending church (and thereby declaring yourself a "devout Catholic," as Wills does). It is not about simply carrying on a religion you were born into, even though you no longer believe in much of it (e.g., Wills undermines the importance in worshiping Mary, yet continues to pray the rosary, which signifies . . worship of Mary). It's not an issue of IQ or theological expertise. Faith must be felt, experienced, continually cultivated and deepened, and approached with HUMILITY (another word obviously foreign to Wills).

Wills can indeed offer much history (and a rather unhealthy obsession) regarding the papal hierarchy. But there are other sources for that information than this book. You don't need the baggage that Wills brings with it. You don't need to read about the many, many doctrines he rejects and writes against, only to be followed by hollow declarations of his loyalty to Catholicism (hence, the ridiculous title of this book). Wills' true character came into clearer view recently with his damning piece for New York Review about the Passion of the Christ film. It was very clear that Wills rejects the significance of the Lord's Passion (THE true core of Christianity), the importance of Mary, the truth and relevance of historical Passion accounts, and the inclusion of any form of guilt or responsibility when considering the extent of Christ's sufferings. Instead of acknowledging the obvious (like a truly humble, honest, caring religious gentleman would) -- that he cannot find a spiritual connection to the story beyond his cold, detached scholarship -- he then proceeded to demean the intelligence, tastes, character, gullibility and religious interpretation of Mel Gibson and all Catholics who derived something far deeper from the film than he could. Nothing about Wills' attitude and manner (as well as respect/consideration for his fellow human beings) represents the ideals that TRUE "devout Catholics" follow in their daily lives.

Simply put, we're all well aware that the Catholic Church has made many mistakes, is currently facing some serious problems, and has many more changes and issues to deal with in the future. You don't need to buy a Garry Wills book to tell you these things. You'll never see the secular media directing you to books providing multi-dimensional understanding of the Vatican and the Catholic faith, but such authors DO exist.

Rating:
Summary: So much fantasy - so little reality - no real answer
Review: Following upon the interesting and entertaining "Papal Sin", Gary Wills wrote an attempt to explain why he remains a Catholic in this book. However, his book is not by any means what its title would suggest. Most of it is a rehash of "Papal Sin" and is often even stronger in tone - not necessarily a bad thing, but by no means useful in the context of Wills' extended sequel.

It is true that we manage to learn a few things that were not discussed in the book "Papal Sin", but they are facts that are not by any means novel to students of the papacy. Even the serious and sensible doubts about Leo XIII's papacy I have heard before, and the only thing remotely interesting - for the future at least - is his quote of Joseph Raztzinger about how the existence of priestesses in pre-Christian religions precludes the question of female ordination in the Catholic Church. However, his description of how lacking in holiness and ethics most Popes have been is so much of a rehash nothing need be said.

After Wills moves beond the Modernist crisis, he looks at the current Church in the typical "progressive" manner, thinking in a stupid way that there will be further liberal reforms after John Paul II. However, it is clear that liberal reforms have caused irrepairable declines in mainline Protestant churches because these churches have become clearly too worldly and secular - the papacy is right on this count.

The way John Paul has used his power to prevent any discussion of female ordination is quite unlike anything seen before, and those won over to Christianity today are those who want a solid tradition and something antithetical to the "free sex, drugs and rock'n'roll" culture that developed in the 1960s. Some young people feel that only highly orthodox faith can give an abundant and meaningful life, whilst most others are recognising the shallowness of trying to adapt secular conventions to Christianity and the consequences.

Wills argues that theologians censured by the CDF since 1979 might become thinkers for a new revolution. Given that John Paul II, unlike Saint Pius X before him, has been able to nominate almost the entire electorate for the next conclave so that, clearly, only a conservative can win this conclave, Wills' idea is fantasy, especially given trends since "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". The many theologians censured by the Wojtyla papacy will be forgotten and forever relegated to the realm of secular academia and specialised historical scholarship. Wills' arguments about what Catholicism is really do not make sense in the light of the attitude of Cardinals like Ratzinger and Schönborn who wish for a Church with a smaller and more committed membership - firmly loyal to everything taught by John Paul and his successors.

What one might say is that, given that mainline Protestantism clearly is dying, Wills wants a Church that has a viable future, and at the same time to be able to think freely. Whether this is possible is a worthwhile question, but its occurrence is the utterest impossibility. The difficulty of moving back to the ideals that Wills develops is patent and makes this book almost worthless given that he cannot offer any suggestions.

Stick with "Papal Sin".

Rating:
Summary: Garry Wills passionately defends his Catholic faith
Review: Garry Wills is a bonafide intellectual, with a lot of prestigious book awards as proof --- but don't let that scare you off. There are no long passages here in other languages without translation, and no footnotes to stumble over - though, if you're interested in reading further and knowing sources, there are endnotes, plus an index for ease of later reference. But mainly there's a lot of the same clear writing and passionate belief in his subject that won Mr. Wills those awards, like a Pulitzer and a couple from National Book Critics, and the National Medal for the Humanities (1998).

I first became aware of Garry Wills when I read BARE RUINED CHOIRS back in the early 1970s. I read (and write) mostly fiction, and I admit I was drawn to that title because I'm a certifiable Gothic nut. But no matter what attracted me, I stayed with the book and have always been glad I did. A couple of years ago I read PAPAL SIN, which, as Wills says in his introduction, directly inspired the writing of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC. The present book stands very well on its own, and you don't have to be a practicing Catholic to appreciate it. The book gives to its reader on a lot of different levels, depending on what experience you bring to your reading, and what you want to get back.

In a first and perhaps too brief section, Mr. Wills gives a barefaced, affecting account of growing up Catholic in a working-class family, going to Catholic schools and being taught by nuns and priests, of what happens and doesn't happen when you're a really smart kid who thinks maybe too much. His memories are sharp, poignant, and evocative of a time not long ago, yet now gone forever. (Confession: I'm about a decade behind him in age, and my eyes were moist more than once with remembering things like how we girls in the choir used to play canasta behind the organ during certain long sections of the solemn high masses of Holy Week.)

Given that he skipped a grade of elementary school, Garry Wills couldn't have been much more than 17 when, in the early 1950s, he graduated high school and went immediately into the novitiate at a Jesuit Seminary. There he had difficulties, which he tells with courage and candor. He lets us see how the problems of his early years gave rise to the man he became. Certain themes, and the admiration of certain men and their minds (Chesterton, Augustine, Aquinas), began then and have been worked, reworked, refined into the vision he presents later in this book --- and in fact, in all his books.

The middle section of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC is the book's longest and most scholarly. The material is essentially the same as in PAPAL SIN, yet it is presented differently. As fascinating as it is to have read the earlier book too, I think the presentation here is more meaningful in some ways. Wills spells out the history of the errors of the papacy --- including the whole "I say to thee thou art Peter and upon this rock" thing. Wills wants us to understand that the papacy is not the Church. Popes do make mistakes (gross understatement). You can be a good Catholic and disagree with what's coming out of Rome; in fact, you might be a better Catholic for having reasoned out for yourself, and for having expressed your disagreement, in whatever way you chose. You could even write a couple of books about how you disagree, yet still go to Mass every week and say the rosary every day --- as Wills himself does.

The concluding section, an analysis and defense of The Credo, AKA the Creed, AKA the Apostles' Creed, I thought was something of a letdown. I believe my reaction was a personal one --- even though when I'm reviewing a book, I try to read more objectively than I otherwise might. But WHY I AM A CATHOLIC had become personal to me by that point, I can't deny it. I cared, I was examining myself and my own vacillations and permutations of faith, I was taking it all to heart. Other readers may find this third section to be, as Wills appears to have intended, a natural, moving, affirming outgrowth of the previous two.

Originally scheduled for publication about now, WHY I AM A CATHOLIC was moved up to mid-July 2002 because of the conference of Catholic bishops called in the United States for that same time --- the conference that developed groundbreaking policy for dealing with priests accused of sex abuse of minors. In October, the Vatican (i.e., the papacy) refused to accept the recommendations of the United States bishops. That news was pretty much obscured by The Sniper and Bush vs. Saddam, but I'm sure Garry Wills noticed.

I'm equally sure he was not surprised that the Vatican refused to accept the decision of the US bishops. He's disappointed, maybe, but he will still be a Catholic. His passion for his faith is a bright light, one that illuminates and does not blind.

--- Reviewed by Ava Dianne Day

Rating:
Summary: And Why This is Important Reading
Review: Garry Wills is an eminent "popular" historian. His
"Lincoln at Gettysburg" significantly altered my view of the Constitution, and the significance of the Civil War in defining who we are, today, as a nation. I also read his "Augustine." It was the first time I can recall reading about the philosophical pillars of the Church and actually understanding what I read.

So, when I saw his two recent books on Catholicism, I was immediately interested. "Papal Sin" presents an historian's view (i.e., based on fact and analysis) of some of the major issues in the Church today (celibate priests, female ordinations, contraception, gays in the church and their
ordination, papal infallibility, Vatican II, etc.). He does an outstanding job tracing the historical development of these concepts and events, and then (as the name of the book suggests) talks about the "structure of deceit" in place in the Vatican (read that to mean "the papacy") designed to hold the "party line", as opposed to searching for and speaking "the truth." This is an important book to read, especially for Catholics in the US today. But, it's not, by any means, exclusively for Catholics. I would say it's a "must read" for anyone interested in the history of Christianity, as well as anyone generally interested in understanding the conflict between and among the US Catholic layity, the US Catholic espiscopacy and the Vatican.

Apparently, Dr. Wills received a great deal of criticism after "Papal Sin" was published, and, in partial response, he then followed up with "Why I am a Catholic." Unfortunately, there are so many who believe one cannot criticize the Catholic
Church -- it's all or nothing -- and still be a "good" Catholic. This is also a fascinating book. It traces the history of the papacy as the "guiding force", for better or for worse (and, there's a great deal of the "for worse"!) in the Church and succinctly describes most of the major historical events (and fascinating people) that have influenced the development of what we know as Western Civilization over the last 2000 years. It's an outstanding book.