Rating: 
Summary: A Truly Great Book!
Review: It is difficult to believe that the negative reviewers actually read this great and stirring book.The author speaks for the millions of silent jewish victims of the past to all of us who live in the present.He is lucid and knowledgable about this weighty subject.I would urge all to read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Carroll Deserves An 'A' For Effort
Review: This author is certainly not averse to controversy. And he does manage to prove a number of his main points. There has been a long term antipathy on the part of the Church towards Jews. That's admitted by the Vatican itself. Carroll's search for the roots of this attitude is quite convincing, and with the title, he puts a good deal of the blame on Constantine and his iconography of the cross. Less convincing is his attempt to paint the Catholic Church as the originator of all anti-semitism, and a precursor to the Nazis. Sometimes, frankly, he just loses the thread of his argument in the attempt to prove nearly all Catholic leaders, at all times, to be in the service of evil.But you should read it anyway, Catholic or not. It does provide a guide to a number of fresh currents in theology, and an alternative viewpoint. Read it before of after Gary Wills' "Papal Sin." They cover a lot of the same ground in different ways. Wills, to his credit, at much shorter length.
Rating: 
Summary: Uncertain genre
Review: I actually enjoyed reading this book (Carroll's a fine writer), but I gave it a low grade because it's not what it's advertised to be. The entire book is the author's very subjective reflections on his moods, his beliefs, his New Age religious views. This is not a real history of the Church's teachings on the Jews. It is just a novelist musing over everything that comes into his mind. As stream-of-consciousness, it's great fun. But it's not a serious argument...
Rating: 
Summary: A History Worth Considering
Review: As a Jew, I found this book compelling. It is interesting to me that the critiques on this site have sited minutae and/or "liberalism" as criticisms. But the factual history of crusades, ghettos, yellow stars and the blood libels are not refuted. This is, I think, a book on which all people should give true reflection. On another front, however, this is not an easy book to read. Between a number of theological and philosophical propositions and Carroll's style of writing, which compelled me to re-read sentences from time to time, the reading was at times slow going. But perseverence won out and I'm glad it did.
Rating:
Summary: A truly great book!
Review: It is hard to believe that the negative reviewers actually read this book.It is a well written,moving and very logical analysis of the Catholic Church and The Jews.It seems that the disturbed readers don't like the conclusions and background of this very brave author.Yes,the book is weighty and yes,the author weaves in his life and background,but it is outstanding writing and needed to be written.I unhesitatingly recommend this book to every Jew,who yearns to know their sad and sorry past.
Rating:
Summary: Unbearable
Review: I had several serious problems with this book. First, the author's bias against the Church is so marked that he can't use historical evidence properly. He ignores or interprets away all the evidence of the repeated interventions of Catholic leaders to condemn anti-Semitism. He clearly bends his material to fit his thesis on Catholic anti-Semitism. This is not the proper way to present a historical problem. Second, so much of the book is the author's hazy autobiographical ruminations on his own spiritual journey. He minutely records his own reactions, his own conversations, his own religious questions, as if this had something to do with the question at hand. This distracts from the serious questions and in the book and ultimately trivializes them. Third, his real purpose is to attack the teaching of the Church on faith and morals. He launches into a tedious and perfectly predictable attack on Catholic morality, hierarchy, tradition. By the end the book is nothing but a howling philippic against everything Catholic.
Rating:
Summary: Jaundiced
Review: This work is not a plausible chronicle of the Catholic Church's position on Judaism. The writer distorts the Church's record by omitting many significant Church condemnations of anti-Semitism. A much more objective account of the history of Catholic attitudes toward the Jews is presented by the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz in his History of the Jews. Graetz concludes his work: "It is remarkable that the bishops of Rome, the recognized champions of Christianity, treated the Jews with the utmost toleration and liberality. The occupants of the papal throne shielded the Jews and exhorted the clergy and princes against the use of force in convertin them to Christianity."
Rating:
Summary: Beyond bias
Review: This book and the reaction to it have been stange indeed. It has in no way served to help the Cathiolic community comes to terms with its mixed and complicated history of attitudes toward Jews (some very positive and protective, others destructive and stigmatory). John Paul II, the French and German bishops have been much more truthful in their assessment of and repentance for the evil deeds of some Church members in this regard. For all of its length, the book refuses to deal with any ambiguity or complexity on this issue. The result is a cartoon that could have come out of a Jack Chick publication. But why is such an anti-Catholic, unscholarly screed meet with such glee by the liberal elite? Any other type of prejudice would be immediately condemned. The book itself provides the clue. The risible "scholarship" serves the polemic in the book's conclusion: abolition of the papacy; abolition of the Church;s moral rules; abolition of any claim of Christ to be redeemer; abolition of the Bible (both New and Old Testaments) as God's word. This is precisely the position of the elite media and academe. Better yet, although denying the most basic points of Catholicism, Carroll claims to be a Catholic who loves his church passionately. This is completely contradictory, of course, but as Cardinal Newman noted long ago, any stick can be used to attack the Catholic Church.
Rating:
Summary: Read and learn
Review: This is a difficult book to read (and review), for many reasons. It is quite long, and every page is densely packed with information, some of it unnecessary. The author uses his life to illustrate many of his points, a tactic I found annoying and intrusive. Granted, he is quite sincere in his positions and beliefs, but I could have done with the "personal touch". I felt that it detracted from his message. My Church, unfortunately, has a long history of intolerance, and I will not attempt to either hide, or whitewash, it. I agree with the author that Pope Pius XII could have been a more vocal moral leader during World War II, particularly when it came to the campaign against the Jews. Was he afraid of martyrdom? A brutal Nazi reaction to a moral stand might have made a lot of difference at that time, but we'll never know now. Should Pius XII be declared a saint? I have my doubts. One good thing resulted from my reading of this book: without ever reading anything written by Abelard, I find that his concept of a loving and forgiving God is the same as mine. Read this book to learn many things you probably never knew, but be prepared to disagree with some of its conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Tolerance and freedom
Review: Carroll has an interesting theory: that by teaching that Christ is the unique path to salvation, the Church inadvertantly encouraged the persecution of the Jews which it officially condemned. But the evidence in the book itself overturns what the author wants to prove. Carroll neglects to note that the Church has always taught that the act of faith in Christ must be a free one. Even in the Middle Ages, canon law (the code of Gratian) defended the freedom of faith and condemned as sinful any action forcing someone to become a Christian. As Carroll reluctantly notes, a series of popes, councils, and patristic thinkers condemned any use of violence against Jews or other non-Christians; in fact, any effort at forced conversion was condemned as gravely sinful. It's certainly true that the tolerance of non-Christian conscience defended by the Church was a limited one. The Jews had no right to give public witness of their beliefs; they suffered civil liabilities; occasionally, they were were forced to live in certain neighborhoods. But this policy of limited tolerance was completely opposed to the racist, exterminationist policies of the Nazi regime. Carroll's effort to combine the two is unconvincing. In fact, it is a moral outrage. It was at Vatican Council II that the Church moved to a fuller embrace of religious freedom and abandoned the old theory of tolerance. However, this stress on freedom is in no way opposed to the Church's gospel insistence that Christ died for all and that all are called to embrace salvation in Christ. But this act of faith must be made in a free act of internal assent, not coerced at the point of the sword.
| 
