Rating: 
Summary: Tabloid History Concerning Papal Origins
Review: This book raises plenty of controversial issues. But I will pick one significant issue to make my point that the general reader should be very careful in relying on Mr. Wills' version of the Church's history.In an effort to undercut the traditional Catholic view of papal origins, Mr. Wills insists that the Apostle Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. He states flatly, with what appears to be ironclad certainty, that there were no bishops of Rome until well into the second century A.D. Yet, contrary to Wills' insistence, there is indeed a reasonable and persuasive basis for viewing Peter as the founding bishop of the Church in Rome. What Wills fails to mention to the general reader is that the Greek word translated as bishop, episkopos or overseer, appears several times in the New Testament itself. In the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy 3:1,2; Titus 1:7), episkopos is prominently used to refer to local church leaders. In addition, there exists a letter written around 95 A.D. by St. Clement of Rome, on behalf of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth, which also refers to overseers or bishops (1 Clement XLIII.4 & XLIV.1). The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) is another early Christian document that many believe dates from the first century. It also refers to bishops. The fact that the term "bishop" was thus in early circulation as signifying church leadership and oversight, plus the generally accepted fact that Peter was indeed active in and martyred in Rome provide a sure foundation for asserting that the Apostle Peter was considered a bishop while active in Rome. And even if, as many critical scholars speculate (though not without some challenge), the title bishop might have been applied to several church leaders simultaneously in Rome, it is reasonable to conclude that Peter as leader of the Apostles would have been considered the preeminent overseer or bishop while he was active among the Roman Christians, due to his indisputable leadership role in the New Testament and his personal connection to Jesus' earthly ministry. (In a way, modern American Catholics can relate to such a situation since many American dioceses have several bishops who assist the bishop holding ultimate authority in the diocese.) Thus, contrary to the impression given by Mr. Wills, there is a strong case to be made for viewing Peter as the founding bishop of the Church in Rome due to his preeminence while working in Rome. In fact, this view is precisely what early Church tradition holds. A better, more objective historical source than Mr. Wills for those interested in early church history is the first volume of the Penguin History of the Church entitled The Early Church by Oxford and Cambridge scholar Henry Chadwick, especially chapter 2 (pp. 45-49) of the revised edition (1993). His treatment of the early emergence of bishops is consistent with the argument I set forth above. The foregoing detail is necessary because Mr. Wills' presentation of his own view as an ironclad certainty is unfair to the general reader who will likely not research the question independently. So a warning to the wise: beware of tabloid history written for a special agenda.
Rating: 
Summary: Papal change needed
Review: This is an excellent review of the current situation in the Roman Catholic Church. The same opinions are presented in the form of a novel in another book, "The Humanity of Their Discontent." "Humanity' gives these ideas a more common touch and includes a little humor. "Why I am a Catholic," has greater depth. It is a more serious analysis.
Rating:
Summary: Why I am a Heretic?
Review: This should be the true title of this book. In Gary Wills book his lack of history, reason and the true nature of the papacy are evident to anyone who is not come with a anti-catholic bias. Wills contends that he is a catholic but by even 21st Century standards her is a true heretic in every sense of the word. His only purpose in writing the book is obviuosly to show how much he hates catolicism and is upset that it is not a democracy that allows you to take the pill, have an abortion or get a divorce. He fails to mention that the church has never changed its teaching on faith or morals on any teaching despite how bad or weak a pope may have been in 2000 years. Anyway, like others I bought the book because the title seemed to be a positive one, like many I was tricked into reading a sad account of personal gripes from another "cafeteria" catholic.
Rating:
Summary: Problem is, he's not Catholic.
Review: Unfortunately, Mr. Wills truly isn't Catholic, given the Church's definition of one who practices its faith. ... Read anything by Kreeft, C.S. Elliot, Chesterton ...gentleman who actually were fond of the Church, warts and all.
Rating:
Summary: overwhelmingly anti-Catholic
Review: Upon reading the book it is hard to figure out why Wills is a "Catholic" because he doesn't profess the Catholic Faith. There are many Protestant faiths to choose from - it seems like he could find on which agrees with him, or invent one!?!
Rating: 
Summary: Why he is not Catholic
Review: Will's seems obsessed with proving he belongs to a Church he apparently despises and whose doctrines he largely rejects. I see no love here. The only thing he proves is that he is not Catholic.
Rating: 
Summary: A Book of Hope
Review: Wills has written an essential book. It doesn't deal directly with the current Church scandals, but it's timely in that it gives us reason to hope for reform. Wills made a big splash criticizing the Church in his last book. He made it very clear how the Church fathers are more interested in protecting themselves than ministering to the faithful. One would have thought from that book that he was done with Catholicism, that he would turn his back on the Church. Here he shows why he hasn't run from his faith. The Church has incredible powers to regenerate itself in times of crisis. It can change, and still remain the Church. I have struggled with so many of these issues over my life. Repulsed by so much that is asserted under the banner of Catholicism, but also drawn over and over again back to its beauty and message of goodness. With this book I can begin to reconcile these inclinations. I don't think I'll ever throw myself wholeheartedly back into the Church (unless it truly changes), but I can with all my convicion say I am one of the faithful. I just wish those in the Church would heed Wills's message of reform. We would all of us--even non-Catholics--be better off. I highly recommend this important book. Thank you, Mr. Wills for being so brave and honest.
Rating:
Summary: former seminarian like Wills...
Review: Wills' ideas are untested and unoriginal. [Lack of originality got him the 1 star.] "Why I am a Catholic" Surely Wills or his editor understood and discussed how this redefinitive phrase adds tension...like the tension that an opportunistic news story does just before it sells us products it doesn't know we need. I doubt it coincidence that such a book appears at a time of popular media circus regarding the Church. I am a fairly young man but I am looking for an intellectual, not someone who appears just at a precise moment to stoke the flames of controversy. Wills' demands of the Church coupled with his definitive "definition" equates to a monolithic understanding of what a Catholic can be, so thereby he is hypocritical as he declares the Church monolithic. He demands his structure be established as he rejects the structure already established. Rather than simply offer his [unoriginal] views, Wills demands. He can only demand, as his ideas are simply a rehash of others'. I admit other than a few television interviews, I've only heard him talk at length about and debate his views with a Jesuit that seemed to expose Wills' confusion, reducing Wills to hems and haws and finally silence as he stared at the floor and thought. To slide by on the oil slick of temporal popularism is not the catholic way, and not a way to impress any but the impressionable. If we are to assume Wills is halfway smart as I do, then he has accepted this opportunism at the sacrifice of the impressionable. The true intellectual I will listen to writes quietly, and like Aquinas simply puts it down on record, to blossom as history lives through and discovers it's truth. I pray for Wills.
Rating:
Summary: former seminarian like Wills...
Review: Wills' ideas are untested and unoriginal. [Lack of originality got him the 1 star.] "Why I am a Catholic" Surely Wills or his editor understood and discussed how this redefinitive phrase adds tension...like the tension that an opportunistic news story does just before it sells us products it doesn't know we need. I doubt it coincidence that such a book appears at a time of popular media circus regarding the Church. I am a fairly young man but I am looking for an intellectual, not someone who appears just at a precise moment to stoke the flames of controversy. Wills' demands of the Church coupled with his definitive "definition" equates to a monolithic understanding of what a Catholic can be, so thereby he is hypocritical as he declares the Church monolithic. He demands his structure be established as he rejects the structure already established. Rather than simply offer his [unoriginal] views, Wills demands. He can only demand, as his ideas are simply a rehash of others'. I admit other than a few television interviews, I've only heard him talk at length about and debate his views with a Jesuit that seemed to expose Wills' confusion, reducing Wills to hems and haws and finally silence as he stared at the floor and thought. To slide by on the oil slick of temporal popularism is not the catholic way, and not a way to impress any but the impressionable. If we are to assume Wills is halfway smart as I do, then he has accepted this opportunism at the sacrifice of the impressionable. The true intellectual I will listen to writes quietly, and like Aquinas simply puts it down on record, to blossom as history lives through and discovers it's truth. I pray for Wills.
Rating:
Summary: former seminarian like Wills...
Review: Wills' ideas are untested and unoriginal. [Lack of originality got him the 1 star.] "Why I am a Catholic" Surely Wills or his editor understood and discussed how this redefinitive phrase adds tension...like the tension that an opportunistic news story does just before it sells us products it doesn't know we need. I doubt it coincidence that such a book appears at a time of popular media circus regarding the Church. I am a fairly young man but I am looking for an intellectual, not someone who appears just at a precise moment to stoke the flames of controversy. Wills' demands of the Church coupled with his definitive "definition" equates to a monolithic understanding of what a Catholic can be, so thereby he is hypocritical as he declares the Church monolithic. He demands his structure be established as he rejects the structure already established. Rather than simply offer his [unoriginal] views, Wills demands. He can only demand, as his ideas are simply a rehash of others'. I admit other than a few television interviews, I've only heard him talk at length about and debate his views with a Jesuit that seemed to expose Wills' confusion, reducing Wills to hems and haws and finally silence as he stared at the floor and thought. To slide by on the oil slick of temporal popularism is not the catholic way, and not a way to impress any but the impressionable. If we are to assume Wills is halfway smart as I do, then he has accepted this opportunism at the sacrifice of the impressionable. The true intellectual I will listen to writes quietly, and like Aquinas simply puts it down on record, to blossom as history lives through and discovers it's truth. I pray for Wills.
| 
