Rating: 
Summary: Vote early and often! Bill Clinton for Pope!
Review: The dust jacket calls this book an "intensely personal examination of conscience"; rest assured, as an angst-ridden middle-aged, white, male product of the 60s, Carroll's examination finds him feeling very guilty indeed: guilty that he was healthy while his bother had polio; guilty about slavery, at the tender age of 10; guilty about Vietnam ("the anguish of my own unhappiness as a young American at the mercy of that conflicted age" p50); guilty that as a boy he "knelt with mom before the Pieta, secretly, shamefully aroused by the swan-like neck of the mother of God" (p225); guilty that he had to break his bonds with his mommy and "marry a woman who was not a mother." ("My joy was shameful to me, but also it was precious, as were my unleashed unbelief and the lust I was determined to act on . . . Of all this, my mother, in whom it was my solemn duty to confide everything, knew nothing." p225) Carroll even feels guilty for not having felt guilty enough earlier. I'm serious. Note the "unleashed unbelief"-yes, Carroll makes clear that he does not believe that Jesus had a divine nature, which makes him a bizarre sort of "Catholic"-one who thinks that all other Catholics are wrong to believe as they do. (It's odd how excessive guilt so often breeds skepticism and/or heresy, as with Luther.) What's this got do with Christians and Jews? Well, it seeems Carroll feels guilty about the Jews-hard to tell through the sentimental self-righteousness. ("Although I self-consciously refused to reject Jews, I was still defining them by my refusal." Huh?) Carroll, having looked inside and found things he doesn't like, does what every self-un-respecting child of the 60's does: he looks outward to find a culprit. (The latest therapy, and journalism, "Pointing Your Way to Guilt-Free Self-Righteous Happiness!") Carroll's been sort of anti-Semitic, and sort of a "Catholic", ergo Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Hmm. There's so many silly, wrong points in this book--Carroll has fallen prey to all sorts of theological quacks. Rather than beat up on his numerous historical and theological errors, there's only space to focus on one ludicrous leitmotif that reaches a crescendo in the chapter, "The Holiness of Democracy" (a hilarious oxymoron that demonstrates ignorance of both). The claim is that Christianity is anti-Semitic because it believes its doctrine to be true and contrary doctrines to be in error. This is not nice. The Church's adherence to its doctrines could be eliminated if Catholics embraced skepticism. Since truth is "elusive," we need a "community of conversation" that is "respectful of all opinions" and proceeds in "creative mutuality"; rather than an emphasis on elucidating and preserving reliable doctrines, the Church should be open to all viewpoints in a democratic process. Sadly, three obstinate facts escape Carroll's teary gaze. First: Believing that the doctrines of Judaism are less true than the doctrines of Christianity, Buddhism, or any other doctrine, is not anti-Semitism. Second, humans are by nature tribal. If their own ethnic affiliations are weak, they manufacture tribes of fraternity brothers and sorority sisters, lodge members, fellow Yankees fans. (It still mystifies moderns that the workers of the world didn't unite--see post-Soviet Yugoslavia.) Tribalism is not the fault of a pope or of Christianity. Christianity is the most universalist of major religions-"go forth and teach the nations." But the tribal patients do not always take the universalist medicine. Thus people in Christian cultures still suffer from spasms of tribalism (sometime of the anti-Semitic variety) though typically to a far lesser degree than in non-Christian cultures. But don't blame the medicine for the disease. Some may accept Carroll's view that one gentle old man in Rome is the source of humanity's problems, but if Hutus and Tutsis, and Hatfields and McCoys, like to kill one another for sport, it's sure not the pope's fault. Third, if Carroll pulled his head out of his guilt and read his own facts, he'd realize that the authority he wants to eliminate has been the only check on the bloodthirsty mob to whom he'd give the vote. When panic-stricken mobs attacked Jews thought to cause the plague, the pope firmly forbade violence against Jews. Would Carroll engage the mob in a "community of conversation" on the matter? In the Incident in Trier (Ch.25) when the bishop tried valiantly to restrain errant thugs marauding against Jews, should he have taken their votes in a mutuality of respect instead? One could list examples for pages. Carroll's own skewed account of history details the dynamic that any intelligent and objective historian knows, with the Church hierarchy acting as a check on the excesses of crazy local preachers inciting mobs, witch-burning local magistrates, etc. (Even the Inquisition was a reform to prevent local princes from branding rivals as heretics and executing them, a popular technique until the Church stopped it.) In the 1800s the first American black to be ordained as a Catholic priest had to go to headquarters in Rome to do it. The Vatican should have engaged in a "conversation" with American racists and respected their opinions? Is Carroll's "community of conversation" to include Nazis? Hitler was elected. So was Governor Wallace. The idea that a democracy generates truth, much less holiness, is simply ridiculous. Imagine Jesus sitting around with his apostles voting on whether he should go forward with "the crucifixion agenda"-or the Buddha, Dalai Lama, Moses, or Mohammed taking a vote among their adherents on what their teachings should be. Presumably Carroll's democratic church would count only the votes of hyper-sensitive non-believing angst-ridden journalists with 60s sensibilities. (If the world's 1 billion Catholics really could vote, I'd take odds that a strong majority would vote mushy agnostics like Carroll right out the door.) Does Carroll think that we should hold elections for Supreme Court judges? If we did, the jurisprudence of the Court so constituted would not be to Carroll's liking. (Hey, maybe we should!)
Rating: 
Summary: Constantine's Sword
Review: Heart felt book that examins the necessity of an on going struggle for justice founded on true humanity. The problem of anti-Semitism will not simply go away by wishing it never happened. It is deeply central to European history and Christianity. Until we confront it in a way the offers real hope for a world in which diversity is understood as the norm, and superiority of Christianity is unacceptable, it will continue. Christian's anti-Judaism is everywhere in its message of preeminence. This is a must read for any real understanding of on going struggle for all our basic humanity.
Rating: 
Summary: Great history but too much autobiography
Review: There are tons of gems in this book. I learned all kinds of very cool things. Some of my favorite passages (please excuse my paraphrasing - limited space doesn't allow me to completely do the book justice): Pg 39 where the gospel of John identifies the enemies of Jesus as the Jews. Pg 74 where he talks about how Chrisitianity is revolutionary in that it encourages thinking about God in an intimate way. Pg 138-139 where he talks about Paul - how his letters are the oldest existing Christian writings (this was news to me) and about how the name change from Saul to Paul was more to appease the Romans than it was to signify his departure from Judaism. Pg 169 where he talks about why, before Constantine Jews were more popular than Christians. Because Christianity was so exclusive. Only the baptized could be saved. Many pagans saw this as religious intolerance and resented it. Jews were much more tolerant and did not imply that pagans were damned. Pg 174 where he talks about how the cross became the symbol of Christianity. Pg 188-89 Discussion of heresy - the Greek word for choice. Pg 374-380 where he talks about Paul IV (creator of the first Jewish ghetto) and Pius IX (beautified by John Paul II - referred to Jews as "dogs"). (there were many more - the above are just some examples) I didn't particulary enjoy the parts were Carroll goes into his own history. The first few chapters were full of this. It was difficult for me to identify with him. I'm glad I got through that part because I enjoyed most of the book and learned a lot from it. I recommend this book for folks looking to learn something about the relationship between Jews and Christians as well as something about Christian history. Just skim over the autobiographical stuff. Most of it's in the first 50 pages anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but not a textbook
Review: I originally ordered this book in hopes that it was a textbook or guideline for studies on the subject of Anti-Semitism in the Roman Catholic Church throughout history. It seems to me that the RCC has succumbed to Matthew 5:19ism up and down history. It did not take long for me to realize that it is far from it. Furthermore, there is not much evidence that the Pope during Hitler's day had anything to do with anything related to Anti-Semitism. As a Protestant Apologist, I would know...trust me. However, there is some interesting tidbits in this book none-the-less.
Rating:
Summary: This is a deeply affecting work and statement of belief
Review: In a painstakingly researched work, James Carroll chronicles the occasionally ambivalent and often tragic history of the Catholic Church and the Jewish people. Yet, throughout the book, Carroll takes great pains to emphasize the relationship between the faiths that has inspired the Church's gradual steps towards atonement and hope in a fruitful relationship going forward. I understand Carroll's call for reform is rooted in the tragedies of the past. But I do not agree with some of his agenda as it relates to Vatican III. Indeed, I think much of what he is calling for has already been addressed. Nevertheless, his call for a "new Christology" cuts against some of the fundamental tenets of the faith, and I cannot accept them. One can reform without revoking core beliefs. I hope that my fellow Catholics will construe this impressive work in the spirit of learning about our history. If nothing else, it deserves a read.
Rating:
Summary: "....the truth shall set you free".
Review: I read this book as carefully as I have ever read any book. Like many others I have questioned the way and manner and history of how the Catholic Church has deceided to set itself apart as the "One True Faith". Conversations with fellow believers left me feeling that I was experiencing a type of Feudal Serfdom.....dont question the boss! Quite a few of the reviewers of this work by James Carroll,have belittled the book basically because the author has hit his target dead center. His recounting of the various genocidal campaigns planned by the powers in the Vatican throughout history should force all Catholics to stop looking at their leaders through "rose coloured glasses". The many obfuscations and pyramid schemes perpetrated in the name of Jesus, to enrich the coffers and increase the political power of the Roman Church, cannot all be lies. By focussing in on what was clearly a planned and executed program of anti-semitism, carried out over the centuries, Carroll exposes the hypocrisy hidden behind the veil of 'Holiness'. The author has obviously upset some of the entrenched Church Historians by giving his interpretation of the various episodes and incidences that defined Church Policies. He has further upset a number of Catholics who feel it incumbent on themselves to belittle his "struggle with Faith" as a 'sign' of his being unfit to comment on anything of this nature. To me, this book has served as an incentive to look at not just Roman Catholicism, but at all the major faiths of the world in a more cautious fashion. In a time where religious fanatacism has become an acceptable reason to commit murder and mayhem, where it espouses anarchy and bigotry, where its' ultimate goal is to control or exterminate all opponents, James Carroll's book leaves me wondering if we have progressed at all.
Rating:
Summary: vote Carroll for pope
Review: In my view, this book fails miserably as a memoir, as it just doesn't have anything very interesting to relate other than Carroll's suburban angst, sentimental skepticism, and middle class guilt leading to self-righteous and self-congratulatory observations and recommendations about things he knows little about. The book likewise fails as history, flagrantly so. It seems to tell us that it can get away with weak history because it is after all not really a history, but a "personal history." It's as if one can write bad history so long as one gushes with sincerity. Finally, Carroll's bitterness toward the Catholic Church, and his crisis of faith, generate some of the most bizarre writing I have come across in a while. First of all, Carroll does not believe what Catholics or even most Christians believe about Jesus-he is quite frank about the fact that his weak, sentimental faith did not withstand a run-in with the slightest of silly theologians like Crossan. Carroll is the sort of fellow who grew up in the Church reading things that explain faith to boys, and then when he became a man he read skeptical stuff written for men and then he lost the faith of his boyhood. His problem seems to be that never read much of the religious stuff that is directled towards adults. This is quite common among those who lose their faith-what they learn in college and thereafter trumps what little theology they learned in their youth, as naturally it would. But in their adulthood they never put down their childish notions and re-engage with the grown-up variety, so they end up like Carroll, who seems never to have realized that what he learned of Catholicism in high school is kid's stuff. Carroll's knowledge and understanding of matters Catholic remains at the level of a high school sophomore, and so, wonder of wonders, he finds Catholicism sophomoric. Carroll tells us that he "clings" to the Church out of "love"-I think that means he wants to feel like he belongs in the club. (It also seems clear from Carroll's writing about his mother, that his feelings toward her-even though Carroll's now in his 60s, would clearly not let him abandon an institution that meant much so her and a good number of Carroll's other Irish ancestors.) And, I am not exaggerating, he tells us this as if we are to be proud of him for the heroism of hanging in there though he has long since lost any rational reason to be a Catholic. It is as if the Church is so lucky that he hasn't cast her out into the dark completely. I don't know if Carroll's adherence is a result of weakness or of sentiment, but it sure isn't heroism. So he doesn't believe that Jesus was the Eternal Word incarnate who founded the Church and promised to guide and protect it. Lots of people don't believe this pitch, and lots of people do. If one does not believe the pitch, the most basic tenant of the Catholic faith, one cannot be justified in attacking the Church for not being more open to his views. Carroll wants the Church to be democratic so that people that have lost their faith can have more of a say in matters of doctrine. He simply wants the Church to make it easier for them to feel comfortable as members not believing in what the Church professes. This does not sound like a recipe for success as a Church. Remarkably, Carroll proposes his agenda as if it is apparent that other Catholics want the same thing. Is Carroll so self-absorbed that he really thinks the rest of the one billion Catholics of the world really want the Church to be remade in the image of a faithless, angst-ridden Boston baby boomer? Does he think that if the Church held a vote today Crossan or Carroll would be elected pope instead of John Paul II or a guy much like him? That seems pretty unlikely. Only 6% of the one billion Catholics in the world even live in the US, and I would be that there are darn few outside the US who could read this odd book and have any sympathy whatsoever for Carroll's well tailored Ivy League angst. How anyone could possibly enjoy this guilt-ridden, slanted, self-centered, emotive, weak-minded, self-righteous rambling is beyond me. It's bad history, bad theology, and bad memoir. This guy needs to stop feeling like he's somehow being tortured by Catholicism. It's not the Church's fault that it hasn't conformed to his crisis. I don't think that Catholics that do believe the doctrine are going to be eager to abandon it to embrace Carroll's vision of a Church reconstituted on the basis of skeptical sentiment, that's for sure.
Rating:
Summary: A Truly thought Provoking Book
Review: The reviews of this book has been quite polarized. Either people hat ethis book or they admire it. There sems to be no middle ground. I found the book to be a comprehenisve and well organised histroy of hoe an anti-semitic theme permeated the history of Christan institutions that culminated in the Holocaust. The author makes a convincing case of how the Christian Institutions, especially the Catholic Church (and many others), abrogated there responsitbilities and allowed an aberrated form of the teachings of Jesus to permeate their theology. In the end, many Christian churches taught an abomination of the teachings of Jesus that perpetuated the hatred of Judaism and other faiths around the world. I must point out that this is not an easy book to read. The writing style is quite complicated and very "academic". His use of highly "philosophical and religious" terms and concepts will put off many who can not wade though to find the meaning of what he is trying to say. My recommendation is to push forward as he has much that needs to heard by many people.
Rating:
Summary: A sprawling ambitious narrative that mostly succeeds
Review: I found this book to be a tough read - it has a mostly chronological historical framework, but numerous personal digressions and references to modern-day implications made it hard for me to always keep track of the narrative thread. Still, I found "Constantine's Sword" to be extraordinarily compelling, particularly when Carroll identifies those momentous points in history when crucial decisions were made that sent Western civilization down calamitous paths. Some reviewers criticize the scholarship, and I am not equipped to evaluate this aspect of the book, but the overall weight of evidence is damning (both literally and figuratively!). One cannot walk away after reading "CS" and not understand the roots and sources of European anti-semitism that continue to plague this world. Carroll has a prescription to begin to address these grievous wrongs, but it made me want to laugh. The Church can't even figure out how to censure its own current crop of serial child-molesters, much less transform itself into an organization that has respect for other religions.
Rating:
Summary: Truly moving...
Review: Constantine's Sword is a truly moving and profound historical work that is also quite readable. Carroll puts his own personal search throughout the book, making it touch the reader all the more. He is very thorough, and speaks in balanced terms, neither vindicating nor condemning either side. One thing that might have been helfpul for the serious student of history was a better citation of primary sources (i.e. instead of citing a secondary source that cites the Bible or later Rabbibical writings, it would probably have been preferable to cite the original source). All in all, an extremely worthwhile read, for the historian or the layman, for the Jew or the Christian.
| 
