Book recommendation

  • Thread starter Thread starter wmz13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wmz13

Guest
I haven’t had time to ask for details yet, but a fellow Catholic I see once a year says his intellect is interfering w/ his faith. I was hoping I could get a book recommendation to address this. He attends Mass weekly. He is an attorney who loves to read …

Any suggestions based on this limited information?

Thanks

Matt
 
The Catechism. 😃 Always a good place to start.
Or try the Catholic Truth Society, they have some excellent stuff.
 
Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas, or, if he has no background in Classical philosophy, Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide and The Last Superstition for specifically Catholic defenses. Real Essentialism by Oderberg for a general introduction to realist philosophy in general, if a more solid convincing is needed for the correctness of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Secondly, I would recommend The Christian Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and God and Philosophy by Gilson. Paley’s Evidences for the Christian Religion. Theology for Beginners and Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy. If his problem is with Church authority, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their Theology and History by Leo Donald Davis. CS Lewis’s The Abolition of Man. (The rest of CS Lewis’s arguments are developed and defended at a much higher level in something like The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, which develops and defends the best known versions - at least the best known to me - of every argument that’s been yet developed for Theism, and Christianity in particular. It even includes one Bayesian statistical probability argument for the Resurrection which astounded me, in addition to the standard round of Theistic proofs, such as the various cosmological arguments, the teleological argument, principle of sufficient reason, transcendental argument, moral argument, ontological argument, etc. in their most refined and scholarly form, although it doesn’t give proper time nor do justice to those arguments which rely on Aristotelian metaphysics, such as the Unmoved Mover and First Cause.)

The standard works (Peter Kreeft, etc., most stuff put out on a popular level) hold absolutely no water for someone who knows good argumentation from bad, as I assume a lawyer does: the popular Catholic apologists are not good dialecticians. The best currently working are all Protestants: William Lane Craig, so he won’t help with belief in specifically Catholic doctrines, but for a defense of Christianity, he’s unbeatable. Alvin Plantinga is also well-respected, and comes at the problem from a new angle, but is strongly Reformed in his religious epistemology, essentially writing a new kind of presuppositional apologetic. JP Moreland is also decent. I don’t think the Catechism is going to do much good: it’s for educating the faithful, not convincing the doubting.

It would be much easier if I knew what he was having intellectual trouble with: i.e. God, the unique nature of the Church, the Sacraments, etc.

If his problem is with belief in God, Reasonable Faith or The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
 
Our Lord rather famously said that His Father has hidden the truth from the wise and learned and revealed it to the children. I most certainly do not consider myself superior in intellect or philosophical ability to Professor Peter Kreeft, so I would recommend the Handbook of Catholic Apologetics if he is not familiar with it.
 
Peter Kreeft, like Josh McDowell, is only going to help convince those who already want to believe: for those with doubts, especially those with a knowledge of logic and critical thinking, such works can give the door necessary to say, “I thought so, this argumentation is weak, the Church must be false”, much like the notes in the New American Bible can be used, to rationalize unbelief by undermining faith in Scriptural inspiration, authority, and continuity. The fact is that if someone bothered to become a Biblical scholar, they’d find their reason for unbelief unfounded: but most are looking for an excuse not to believe - as the Lord said, narrow is the road that leads to life, and wide is the road the leads to Hell - and will have had a handy justification handed to them - they’re not going to look further trying to disprove the conclusion that they wanted to reach.

Poor or weak apologetics, or good apologetics presented poorly, do more harm than no apologetics: someone’s not going to hear a poor apologetic, feel justified in unbelief, and then continue searching for stronger apologetics to de-justify their unbelief and accept the hard truth and the yoke of Jesus Christ. Remember, when one feels justified in unbelief, there is no such thing as sin! They’ll let the matter rest, as a matter of human nature. All apologetics must be airtight, presented well, and the strongest possible: one doesn’t build up from weak to strong, one starts out strong and then builds a cumulative case after the existence of God has been proven.

I do a bit of a disservice to Peter Kreeft: he’s a good deal better than Josh McDowell, but he’s nowhere near the defensible, powerful William Lane Craig level. However, in his professional work, he is on the scholarly level: this doesn’t shine through very well in his popular works. He’s probably on a level with Edward Feser.

Note: I’m keeping the thought of a lawyer in mind. Normally, I’d recommend Peter Kreeft with great enthusiasm, but I am worried that a lawyer, with extremely acute critical thinking skills, is going to notice some of the fast and loose argumentation and use it to put an atheistic foot in the door, if he’s already leaning towards unbelief: as such, my recommendations are different than they would be for the layman, and are the recommendations I’d make to someone with an education in philosophy.

As someone said, something like, “An argument convinces the reasonable man: proof convinces even a fool”, proof is needed, a solid foundation from belief in God on up, like building a pyramid, with the Resurrection of Christ as the capstone.

I may be over-reacting, as many of what I call “fast and loose” in Peter Kreeft is not necessarily obvious at first sight, and is only necessary in the face of objections raised by some of the more brilliant atheists of the past century - objections which may never occur to the average reader, no matter their skill in dialectic, if they’ve not been introduced to the argumentation and objections in the course of philosophical education. However, it should be known that Peter Kreeft doesn’t always defend the best and most airtight, up-to-date forms of what he’s arguing for - he often uses the classical form of argument - and that a well-educated atheist with a philosophical bent can punch holes in it. This is the strength of William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga: they’re up to date with the latest atheistical objections, and incorporate them into their modified forms of classical argumentation, rebutting them successfully in the process.
 
This is a little known but 100% true story of a saint.

St. Thomas Aquinas was brilliant intellectual, and has been a famous theologian in Catholic Church history. But in his last days, he completely abandoned theology. Here’s a quote about those last days: “When Reginald begged him to get back to work, Thomas replied: ‘Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me’.” It is believed that St. Thomas had a direct experience of God, which caused him to see all this intellectualizing ABOUT God to be worthless as straw. The last thing St. Thomas did was dictate some meditations about the “Song of Songs,” a Biblical book which is ALL about the experience of passionate love between a man and a woman, which is often viewed as a model for the experience of passionate love between God/Christ and the human believer.

“God is love.” 1 John 4:8. Nowhere is it written that “God is theology” or “God is philosophy.”

The late Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) frequently recommended the Mystical Path as taught by St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. The current Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) recently recommended the Mystical Path as taught by St. John Climacus. St. Ignatius of Loyola is also in this same tradition. Dante’s “Divine Comedy” (all 3 parts, not just “Inferno”) is also in this mystical love tradition.

When you read the New Testament, you see that people did not THINK there way into the Faith, or use complex theology to keep themselves in the Faith. For the person who intellectually inspects and scrutinizes everything, there will never be any security, peace or rest.

I know that there is the whole field of apologetics. Catholic Answers, the host of this discussion site, is mainly about that. To me, apologetics, if useful at all, is useful only in very limited circumstances. The way of Jesus Christ is the way of love, not the way of reason/rationality.

“God is love.” That is verse from the Holy Scriptures, in 1 John 4:8. Contemplate love. Love is all. “God is love.” “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” That is from the Holy Scriptures, Romans 13:10. When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus said it is to love God and to love neighbor. See Matthew 22:38. He did not say that the greatest commandment was to study theology, or to compare the doctrines of various churches, or argue about religion, or carrry out a “culture war.” Read more about love in Chapter 13 of the First Letter to the Corinthians. Nowhere is it written “God is Reason,” or “God is Logic,” or “God is Argumentation,” or “God is Philosophy” or “God is Apologetics.”

Love is the answer. No one has faith in God except that they first feel the love of God, and no one feels the love of God except that they first have faith in God. A statement like that one may seem like an “intellectual problem,” a paradox, a conundrum, but in the realm of the Spirit of God the logic that we little humans cling to may end up seeming like the worthless “straw” that St. Thomas Aquinas spoke of at the end of his life.

So, to your lawyer friend you could recommend writings by Pope John Paul II, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, Pope Benedict XVI, St. John Climacus, St. Ignatius of Loyola and Dante. Anything that helps him develop the emotional side of his relationship with the Great Lover, Jesus Christ.

There are many Catholic books that affirm that the phenomenon of Faith in God and Christ is not wholly or primarily an intellectual, logical, rational phenomenon.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote this in his first encyclical: “Being Christian is NOT the result of an ETHICAL choice or a lofty IDEA, but the ENCOUNTER with an event, a PERSON…”

I wrote all this out of firm convictions, and many observations, and personal experiences. I don’t claim to be 100% correct, however. I don’t even claim to be 50% correct. I respect opposing viewpoints. Best wishes.
 
The Faith Explained, by Leo Trese

He then needs to connect with a men’s group that meets periodically to discsuss the faith, including a doctrinal component.
 
He should encounter the intellect of the Holy Father; suggest the books by Benedict XVI.
 
Excellent suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Matt Z
 
I would recommend Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of Faith by Father Robert Barron. It is a companion to the just released TV series. It is not just theology or apolgetics or history but all of these and more. It is wonderfully written and will engage the intellect and the heart.
 
Thanks… any more? I will speak w/ him soon and am grateful for all your suggestions.
MZ
 
Well, this isn’t a book, but…

Anything involving Fr. Robert Barron seems to be pretty good. He has a website. He’s the one who did that recent DVD on Catholicism that’s supposed to be very good. Anyway, I was looking at his website, wordonfire.org and watched a couple videos. He’s pretty intellectual, I think. Your friend may like that about him.
 
If he is interested in science, I would strongly recommend Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr.
 
Before you spend the money on a book, why don’t you get to know him a bit otherwise it will look weird if you suddenly say: “hey here is a book for you.” That way, you’ll know what he reads and you won’t look like a fool.
 
wmz13 said:
Thanks… any more? I will speak w/ him soon and am grateful for all your suggestions.
MZ
Click to expand...
My suggestion would to rely on Mary for the graces and direction he will need.
She raises her child from one level to the next thru her oneness with her Son.
She will be happy to give him some help. Just listen to her and tell him.
Here is some important info about the Miraculous Medal, one of Mother Theresa’s
favorites.

“Have a medal struck… All who wear it will receive GREAT graces; they should wear it
around the neck. GRACES will ABOUND for persons who wear it with CONFIDENCE.”
From the mother of Jesus spoken to sister Catherine Laboure 1830.

“Great graces are often attached to what seems trifling.” St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

“The devotions we practice in honor of the glorious Virgin Mary, however trifling they be,
are very pleasing to her divine Son, …” St. Teresa of Jesus

During this apparition, Mary’s hands had 3 rings on each finger. Each ring gave off
rays of colored light. A few rings did not. Mary said that the lights radiating from
the rings are graces that people ASK for. The rings that didn’t radiate she said
were graces not given because they were NOT asked for.

Have it blessed. The devil hates blessed objects. Keep it on all all times.
Wear her medal in her honor because the devil can’t stand her either.

Then say, “Mary I am asking now for great graces which
you promised to those who ask and believe in what you said.”
Trust her, it works. She is the mother of God. Would she lie?
Your mother wants to help you. It is her gift to you. She promised and she will diliver.
“Great graces are often attached to what seems trifling.” St. Margaret Mary Alacoque
Code: 
 legionofmary.org/miracmedal.html
=============================================
“Yes, blessed is she who BELIEVED that the PROMISE made her by the Lord would be FULFILLED.” (Lk. 1;45) St. Elizabeth
 
FCEGM said:
He should encounter the intellect of the Holy Father; suggest the books by Benedict XVI.
Click to expand...
I’m currently reading Introduction to Christianity and would recommend it to everyone.
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
When you read the New Testament, you see that people did not THINK there way into the Faith, or use complex theology to keep themselves in the Faith. For the person who intellectually inspects and scrutinizes everything, there will never be any security, peace or rest.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree here because atlhough I was cradle catholic fell away in college, but I actually used logic to think my way back into the truths of Catholicism and now am very passionate about it simply because it make the most sense and is most logically consistent. I find you need much less mental wrangling then the other denominations etc.

You may not always like where the logic of the Church takes you but you cannot deny that the positions are consistent.
 
Logic and philosophical apologetics are what got me to Christianity and to Catholicism as well. Appeals to emotion and “personal relationships” did nothing for me: cold hard facts did.
 
Tradition and the Church By Msgr George Agius.

This is an explanation of why “church” and “tradition” are important and that the Catholic church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

I sent a copy of this book to some big shot evangelical cousins of mine. Have to admit, I glanced in the book again. The first example of “tradition” was the celebration of Christmas on Dec 25.

I don’t see that as an especially important part of church tradition, tradition in the sense of something revealed by God. I don’t think that DEC 25 is the best opening example of the sacred tradition of the Church.

Otherwise, the book is a solid explanation of tradition, in a step-wise and logical fashion. the intended audience for this book includes Catholics and stubborn protestants. Having been first published around 1928, it’s rather an in-your-face explanation of Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top