Rating: 
Summary: Overall, a thoughtful and passionate book
Review: James Carroll seems, if anything to pull punches in his account of the troubling history of the Church and anti-Semitism. Reading this book and the many reviews of it, I did not feel that it sprung from a kneejerk rejection of his father's church, but through a dedicated, impassioned attempt to come to terms with the legacy of Catholicism in its entirety.It seemed to me that his portrayal of some Catholic figures was sympathetic: Paul and Augustine emerge fairly well under the circumstances. Carroll's treatment of the infamous Pius XII seems abbreviated, not drawing fully from John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" - which his citations otherwise endorse. His answer to the central question of the Church's role in causing the Holocaust belongs to the sensible middle (unlike a recent rash article by Daniel "Broadbrush" Goldhagen): the Church's reactionism in the 19th century, the Inquisition's obsession with bloodlines, and traditional supersessionist tradition facilitated the eventual emergence of Nazi racism. But along the way, Popes and thinkers who sought to protect the Jews are named and credited. The genius of this book is its constant and often anguished contemplation. Carroll writes with great empathy for his subjects: Catholics and Jews alike. His emphasis on stressing counterfactuals is refreshing - it is good for all of us to know that a better history could have happened. And he is ultimately hopeful. He recognizes in John XXIII and John Paul II the seeds of reconciliation. His call for Vatican III is interesting. This is not an event that we can see in the immediate future, but the reforms he proposes are sensible and perhaps inevitable. Reading this book was a refreshing look at the subject of Jewish-Catholic relations, in spite of all the terrible events Carroll chronicles.
Rating:
Summary: Read this book
Review: Constantine's Sword is a wonderful readable, engaging story of Christianity, Judaism, the Church, the Nazis and us. It is told in the first person of James Carroll who agonizes over every new revelation. He takes on the guilt for the church and its antisemitic behavior and this is present as you read each chapter. Historians might object to this technique but this is a very important story and the many reviews which are all very good and also readable tell us that the book is being read by large numbers of people and it causes a reaction. There is no excuse for any religion preaching hate which can lead to persecution of those of another religion. Please read this book even if you borrow it from your neighborhood Library.
Rating: 
Summary: too long but I learned something
Review: I certainly agree ... that this book contains too much dull discussion of the minutiae of intra-Catholic politics and of Carroll's own personal journeys, and that his view of pre-Christian Rome is probably a bit too colored by his 20th-century politics (shaped by anti-Vietnam liberalism). But having said that, this book is worth reading, both in its description of the Catholic Church's history of anti-Semitism and in its fairmindedness in praising the Church's lapses into sanity (which, if anything, were more common than I had thought before reading the book). I was also intrigued by Carroll's discussion of Christianity's emphasis on Jesus's gory death, and how that might have warped medieval Christianity.
Rating: 
Summary: A brilliant, yet flawed, treatise
Review: There's a lot to recommend about this book. James Carroll, a former priest, focuses an intense analytical gaze on the Church's early history and its more modern doctrines in an attempt to discern events and ideas that may have fostered persecution of Europe's Jews throughout the millennia. Carroll's thesis, while not entirely novel, is studied in depth: That the hostility of the early Church toward the Jewish population stemmed in large part from sectarian strife between early Christians (who were themselves, by and large, Jews in Roman Judea and Samaria) and competing Jewish sects which, due to a mixture of politics and social tension in the late Roman Empire, became amplified into a deep-seated animosity enshrined in the doctrine propounded by Ambrose, Augustine, and many others. Constantine's fusion of the tottering Roman political structure with the organization of the young and vigorous Church, Carroll believes, was an act of "imaginative genius" which crucially reinforced the late Empire and fundamentally altered the course of history. But over time, it entangled the ancient sectarian conflict with recurring political challenges, confusing the original context. This by itself did not instill the deep-seated anti-Semitism that would lead to pogroms and persecutions later; but as Carroll argues, many twists in history which could have easily turned out otherwise, wound up reinforcing hostility within Europe to its Jewish population. It's a variant on the old idea that feuds among estranged members of the same family can be the most bitter, except that the original feud and its bases were forgotten as the church structure and doctrine developed. A fascinating idea, and a reaffirmation of the need to remember the context in which ancient disputes may have arisen-- perspective is gained from this. There are some accusations that the book is an anti-Catholic diatribe, which I don't think is fair; there are several instances when Carroll defends the Church, for example when he notes the Church's protection of Europe's Jews during the bubonic plague epidemics (actually clearing up a misconception commonly held). But Carroll also commits errors of omission and sloppiness in many places, which is unfortunate; it does a disservice to his readership on such a sensitive issue, and it is perhaps the main reason that so many reviewers have responded with such excoriating criticism, not without some justification. In too many places, Carroll relies on discredited or patently biased secondary sources that propound questionable or unsupportable theories, and totally fail to back up their claims with evidence. He offhandedly cites a source that compares ancient Rome to a modern totalitarian state, an appallingly false misrepresentation of history that fails to consider how much Rome differed, as in its wide granting of citizenship; its promotion of a responsible civil service; its vigorous provision (since the reign of Augustus) for the well-being of the provinces via roads, aqueducts, steady grain supply, postal service, and many other innovations. It could be a brutal and violent place, like anywhere else at that time, but it was definitely not totalitarian. There are simply too many places where Carroll facilely inserts such rubbish, and it hurts his efforts. Furthermore, I do have to agree with some of the critics that Carroll's use of primary sources was rather selective; there were many occasions when the Church behaved far more responsibly than might have been indicated from Carroll's citations. One other issue here-- Carroll's portrayal of Emperor Constantine is in the traditional mold, derived from Eusebius's ancient biography and carried forth. But there's quite a bit of modern scholarship to show that, if anything, Constantine was a master of compromise and tolerance. He himself did not impose his faith on the Roman citizenry, and during his rule the Empire enjoyed a period of religious toleration. Constantine himself saw to it that slavery would decline as an institution, and he introduced many genuine reforms that helped the downtrodden within the Empire's borders-- gladiators, plebians, and the people in the provinces. Read Constantine and the Bishops by H.A. Drake for a much more nuanced history of this period. So Carroll's book is recommended, but with an asterisk; read it with some skepticism and a grain of salt, and you'll learn quite a bit.
Rating:
Summary: A thoughtful account by a Catholic writer
Review: Overall, this is a highly readable and well-researched book, containing elements of history, journalism, and autobiography. The reviews posted so far to this site are clearly and evenly divided into two camps: those who found it enlightening and moving and those who regard it as anti-Catholic diatribe. While the book has some minor flaws, I direct most of my comments to statements made by the latter group. First of all, Mr. Carroll, is still a devout Catholic: he was not "defrocked" (he left the priesthood on his own accord), and he was never "excommunicated" (this statement, repeated by many customers, is malicious--and sinful--slander). Second, many of the reviewers refer to "fabricated quotes" without ever citing any examples. In fact, the Church Fathers--John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and others--and later Catholic leaders all said the horribly anti-Semitic things Carroll attributed to them and, furthermore, most of the Church Fathers did advocate the forcible conversion and/or slaughter of the Jews. (All of Carroll's quotes--most of them from primary sources--can be found in the standard Catholic reference works that he cites in the bibliography.) Third, like most historians, Carroll relies on a mixture of primary and secondary sources that shows a strong command not only of the history but also of the historiography of his subject. The statements by several commentators that Carroll does not use primary sources simply shows those readers did not bother to look at the notes. (His notes often present beliefs and arguments that run counter to his own.) And, fourth, while Carroll is often critical of the Church, its history, and its teachings, his criticism can hardly be called "anti-Catholic"--unless, of course, you believe, the Church is above any criticism whatsoever. Finally, this book was clearly written by a man who loves his religion and his Church, but continues to believe that both can evolve into something better. Yes, it is true that Carroll emphasizes the horrible things that Christianity and its followers have historically done to Jews; it is also true that he tends to ignore the good. But his goal is an attempt to understand how the long and sordid history of Crusades and pogroms and the horror of the Holocaust could have happened in a Christian world. Carroll correctly focuses on the bad because, when all is said and done, all the good teaching disseminated by Catholic leaders did little or nothing to save the Jews from two millennia of persecution by Christians.
Rating: 
Summary: Unfortunate distortion of history
Review: Mr. Carroll wrote his version of history which differs considerably from that of more authoritative authors. The book is perhaps best understodd from a psychologic aspect. The Irish Catholic son of an Air Force general and a devout mother, finds out that he has misinterpreted a story about his great-uncle, rebels against his father by opposing the Viet Nam war and accepting as his hero Father Berrigan, and subsequently rejecting the Church as the ultimate symbol of paternal/ maternal authority. The occupied Irish are equated with the persecuted Jews and the British become the evil Romans. This is the tenor of the book. Jesus is being turned into a pharisee and the gospels are myths. These are, of course, opinions to which any author is entitled but factual errors should not be as prevalent when one calls one's book "A History."
For instance Hitler did not regard everybody who had one Jewish grandparent as a Jew. These Mischlings, I as one of them, ended up in the Wehrmacht to be killed at the front rather than in concentration camps. Pompey conquered Jerusalem only after he had been asked to settle a fratricidal war between two Jewish pretenders to the crown, and when one of the parties subsequently reneged and shut the gates in his face. Two thousand Jews were not crucified in front of the walls of Jerusalem after Herod's death but these were the sum total of crucifixions in Judea as a result of uprisings. Animosity against Jews in antiquity was not initiated by Christians but had been preexistent before Jesus'death. The origins of the Jewish war against Rome are distorted and the destruction of the Temple was not "a Roman war crime." The zealots had turned the Temple into a fortress and refused to surrender, so that the building could be saved. On the contrary they kept bombarding not only the Romans but other Jewish factions, with which they were simultaneously at war, from the Temple precincts. Throughout the entire book no reasons are given why the Church turned against Jews.
Finally the author relies nearly exclusively not only on secondary but sometimes even tertiary sources, thereby perpetuating misconceptions. It is understandable that when dealing with ancient history secondary sources are at times unavoidable, but Josephus could have been quoted directly and so could have been Philo or Eusebius.
If one wants to read about the travails of a troubled soul in order to to find one's private Jesus then this a book which fits this bill. But one should be aware of Voltaire's dictum: God has created man, and man has never ceased to return the compliment. In this instance it is not God who is being remodeled but Jesus.
Rating: 
Summary: An anti-catholic diatribe by a former priest
Review: The former Fr. James Caroll, now simply James Caroll, has set out to mess up the record of history. His invectives against the crimes of Christianity, are sometimes justified, but overall groundless. It's amazing that he was able to write such an enormous book, a book that had such potential and say nothing at all. Mr. Carroll was a Paulist priest and he left the priesthood after his first assignment which was to Boston University. shameful. He claims to be a devout Catholic, but the way he tears the church apar unjustly and without foundation seems very unfair. Carroll could have written a great book, instead he wrote one that is only good if it's being used as a door-stop
Rating:
Summary: Most Provacative Book I Have Read
Review: I have had great concern about Christians' anti-semitic teaching and atrocities. I had to read this book. I may love this book because it tracks my thinking in tandem with incredible depth of scholarship. But, for someone who does not come to this book leaning in the directions Caroll suggests, you will find yourself violently pulled toward his conclusions. You will have to work very hard to escape his logic, beautiful prose, gripping spiritualism and profound Christianity. Despite my deep love of the New Testament, I will never again read that wonderful collection without the mediation of Carroll's work and passion. You may not like this book, but you must deal with it; answer its indictment and intentionally fight off his compelling argument and historic foundation.
Rating:
Summary: A Disappointing Book
Review: I bought this book because I thought it was a history book. The book does contain some history but it is mostly about the author's own life and his own intellectual journey. This might interest some people, but it is not what the title implies. Now and then the author covers general history, but he quickly lapses into personal recollections. For example, he starts Chapter 51 (p. 511) with a discussion of Reichstheologie, a position of the church that welcome totalitarian regimes. But then he lapses quickly (on p. 514) into chilhood memories of a trip to Rhineland. The book is also full of other peripheral material, so that it is almost 800 pages long. A good editor might have brought it down to less than 200 pages. Besides the scarcity of general historical material, I have problems with some of the authors interepretations of history. He poses the question on why the Jews survived the persecution by the church, while other religios (e.g. the pagans) or sects (e.g. the Cathars) did not. His explanation is a writing by St. Augustine who stated that the church needed the presence of the Jews. I find that awfully naive. Maybe the Jews themselves had something to do in being able to survive. It seems to me that ancient Jewish communities in the center of the Roman Empire were indeed wiped out and Jews survive either in the periphery
(e.g. Spain, Iraq) or in non-Christian lands such as Persia and Lithuania (which did not accepted Christianity until the 13th century). There are also several other theories about the reasons for the survival of the Jews that this book ignores completely. In short, there is very little non-personal history in this book and what there is, it is rather superficial.
Rating:
Summary: What you won't learn in Seminary, but SHOULD!
Review: It is disheartening to talk with Seminary students, who are training to become pastors, who's roots in faith begin in the 16th century. With Pastors who are not rooted in the realities of Jewish-Christian history and the real roots of faith, the grass-roots church goers they will eventually lead have no chance of finding a firm faith based on truth. It is time for the Christian church in all its forms to read Mr. Carroll's book. "...Sword" is a difinitive hitorical treatise that all truth based Christians MUST absorb. A belief in Yeshua without the repentant perspective this book generates is a shallow and ultimately powerless faith. Pastors, read this book if you care about truth. Seminary professors, teach this book if you care about integrity. Church goers, take this book to heart if you care to truly represent God in Jesus meaningfully.
|
