BOOKS: The Shack by William B. Young

[ATL_Granny]

---

I would like to ask a few questions:

1. Could you put words to your assertion that the book contains offenses against the Trinity?
2. I don’t recall any mention of Mary in the book!
3. The phrases ‘all we believe’ and ‘well-catechized’ mean something specific only to the writer of these phrases. I, as a reader, have no way to know what exactly is in the writer’s mind as to their content. What do you mean???
4. In what way has my ‘faith family’, church family’, ‘God family’, or ‘whatver? family’ been slandered. Which family are you talking about? The accusation of ‘slander’ is a serious one since it is on the list of serious sins. Please clarify how the author did that!
5. Which truth is being assailed?
6. How is ‘faith’ (whose?, yours? mine? ???) being endangered by this book?
7. Please help me to understand the depth of my deception? Be specific! Help me!
   Love to all who are actively engaged in reflecting on this bood and its challenges.

mbmjane: There are now fourteen pages to this thread and many have given specific references showing where the book is in error. If you are sincerely asking where there are errors, they would be good points to look at. One of the most important “truths” that have been assailed in the book is that of the author (speaking in the first person as though he were God) outright rejecting organized religion. He espouses a very dangerous theology wherein each person should follow God on his or her own terms. You can see specific examples in earlier posts.

I wanted to address something a little different here. I did something I rarely do – since you are so new I went back to see your original post in the “Meet and Greet” section and noticed you mentioned your desire to learn more about “forgiving the unforgivable.” I think that would be a great title for its own thread. In that regard, The Shack did an admirable job of helping people get past horrible, “unforgivable” things in their past. I’ve had several such instances in my own life and have had to work hard at forgiveness. If you start a thread on that topic, I’m sure you’ll get a lot of wonderful and heart felt responses.

 

[mbmjane]

mbmjane ~ I think you are missing the point. Yes, of course, our world is full of mine fields to spiritual growth. It doesn’t mean we promote tainted material. THAT is the issue here.

The analogy spoke specifically about the pre-teens’ father refusing to let them go to a movie which “everyone” else was seeing because he will be held responsible for their spiritual formation. In the same way, Christians who hype *The Shack *are all too eager to paint those who see the dangers in the book as not appreciating the “inclusive” nature of this man’s story. By dismissing the heretical – *and yes, I do mean heretical *-- way that the author portrays the Trinity and the Church simply because the author paints the Trinity as warm and loving, those who promote *The Shack *are effectively handing people a plate of tainted brownies, expecting that they will be able to navigate through the heresies without any damage to their spiritual growth.

And, for that, the real Jesus says that it would be better to have a millstone tied around our necks.

Thanks for your specific reference to a challenge in the book the Shack. So far, among those who spoke at the various reviews of the book (a total of 200 catholics at a few forums) there were over 30 individuals (all RCs) who spoke, and perhaps 3-5 were challenged by the representations of the Father (Mother), Son, Holy Spirit. Most of the speakers had read past this part of the book and focussed on the parts which provided a spiritual depth / challenge to them. Among those who spoke about the representations, a few mentioned that they had never attempted to visualize or speak of the Trinity as other than 'GOD, or Jesus, or Holy Spirit conceptually rather vaguely - thinking about these persons as individuals but never personified as human persons, as was done here.​

In my prayer, I always pray individually to each person of the Trinity. This book has challenged me to think about how I would share my faith in Father,Son,Holy Spirt - how do I talk about / share this prayer experience? I am usually speechless and bumble along almost incoherently as I try to explain what this prayer is like.​

Perhaps I should not look to myself in this! About 2 years ago I read about a number of women mystics who experienced a ‘mystical marriage’ with Jesus. Nuns take vows like this - to make Jesus their ‘spouse’. There is a lot of ‘spousal’ language used to describe union with God. There was a time when I found this language abhorrent! I could not stomach it! It grossed me out! It was a great temptation to call it ‘heretical’ except that the church has historically always used this language.​

Why do I say this? It is because the accusation of ‘heresy’ is very very serious! I wonder whether any body of Catholic reviewers has done this (perhaps even those officials who ultimately could officially decree that it is or is not heretical) - it seems that we need to have this kind of review before we throw out the word 'heretical! It is a very emotional word! It is also an extremely strong word that states that those who do not ‘submit’ are ‘out of the RC Church’.​

Love to all who are contributing to this key part of the response to the Shack.

 

[peggytas]

I agree with ATL Granny that you should open a thread on forgiveness and would add that you should pick up a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and begin an intensive study. The Shack is in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which you state you belong. It contains heresy.

 

[mbmjane]

mbmjane: There are now fourteen pages to this thread and many have given specific references showing where the book is in error. If you are sincerely asking where there are errors, they would be good points to look at. One of the most important “truths” that have been assailed in the book is that of the author (speaking in the first person as though he were God) outright rejecting organized religion. He espouses a very dangerous theology wherein each person should follow God on his or her own terms. You can see specific examples in earlier posts.

I wanted to address something a little different here. I did something I rarely do – since you are so new I went back to see your original post in the “Meet and Greet” section and noticed you mentioned your desire to learn more about “forgiving the unforgivable.” I think that would be a great title for its own thread. In that regard, The Shack did an admirable job of helping people get past horrible, “unforgivable” things in their past. I’ve had several such instances in my own life and have had to work hard at forgiveness. If you start a thread on that topic, I’m sure you’ll get a lot of wonderful and heart felt responses.

Thank you for this kind and gentle response.
You are right about the many pages of responses in this thread. I have read through a few pages. I gave up, unfortunately, trying to find the ones which were calm, respectful, challenging and insightful.​

I do agree with you that the page where the author has Jesus saying that ‘he did not come to create an organized church’ - sent me through the ceiling! I had to remind myself who the author is and what his christian experience had been! First it was not a Catholic church experience! Given that his religious training and experience included extreme abuse and totally false moral teaching, his church was not a ‘church’ worth creating. Jesus surely did not want to create such a church.​

I found his views on this topic to be ‘Protestant’. There are no Protestants that I know of that believe that Jesus intended to create a church. If they did - then they would have to accept the 12 apostles and Peter as their head - and that would lead directly to a Pope, if they followed through. Thus, I see ‘rejecting the creation of a church’ to be, at the core, an anti-Catholic belief / statement.​

Love to all who are contributing specifically and kindly. I love the conversation and the challenges.

 

[mbmjane]

I believe that the author is the son of a protestant pastor, so he is likely well versed in arguments against the Church. The issues I cited appear to me to be the things that lead people away from the true Church when they are not well grounded in the Faith. Whereas, I agree that his church is one to be avoided, I would disagree that his church is the bride of Christ and the one that Jesus would consider the one that he founded around 33 A.D. Therein lies the problem, in my humble opinion. The church this “jesus” speaks of as his bride is a perversion and irrelevant. This resonates the Baptist tradition that all we need is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. While I don’t disagree that we need a personal relationship with God, the Church teaches that the Church and sacraments that Christ gave us are the best means to that relationship. This “jesus” disagrees. I do not recall which character states that Jesus is the only sinless human being. This statement denies that Mary is sinless. We should make reparation to her especially today for this affront against her Immaculate Heart. I think that the person who wrote this is well aware of the Church’s teaching on the Last Supper and the Eucharist and has chosen to attack this truth through this last supper of bread and wine with no ritual–no meaning, no significance even. This “jesus” is saying that bread and wine is just that. I have not picked the book apart. These are the things that leapt out at me. The trifecta of heresy and the most common protestant attacks on the church. Coincidence? I think not. I agree with mbmjane, that we do not promote tainted material.

I read the book on a yearly camping trip with treasured friends. One friend is a Baptist, who was raised Catholic. She suggested that we read and discuss on our vacation. Another friend, her sister also raised Catholic, started going to the Methodist church when her children were little because of her husband’s wishes. I believe that she will revert eventually, but she is not well cathechized (by cathechized I mean having a thourough understanding of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church) and I fear that reading these kinds of materials will infiltrate her heart and mind and lead her further in error. Unfortunately, the book discussion never occurred because not all finished the book on the trip.

Such conversations turn out quite differently than expected - it is too bad that it never happened.​

On the issue of Mary: A Protestant of any ilk will not ever think about Mary at all. For any non-RC, to say that Jesus is the only sinless person ever - is exactly what is taught. Mary never enters into their thought at all. We cannot hold anyone other than an RC to that standard of recognizing the sinlessness of Mary.​

I doubt that the author has any direct knowledge or understanding of the RC teaching on the Eucharist. It is unfair to him to criticize him about his ignorance.​

It might be interesting to try, ourselves, to spell out, as RCs, what this ‘relationship with Jesus’ is like. What language do we as RCs use to communicate our experiences of this relationship?​

More to the problem that the book poses is this: We are being encouraged to be more silent in our prayer; so spend time ‘listening’ to God in our hearts. When we do this, who is it that speaks to us? God the Father? God the Son (as divine or human?), God the Holy Spirit? When we try to talk to others about what we have heard, how do we express it? Unfortunately (or not), I find myself speaking about God’s words to me. It surely sounds to my hearers that I am putting words in God’s mouth. Yikes! How do we do this sharing of prayer experiences without doing this?​

With deep gratitude for the insightful contributions. Thanks.

 

[hopefull]

Four points I’d like to make.

One is wondering where all this “RC” stuff is coming from. I don’t know any Catholics who call themselves “RC’s”. It sounds like a cola. More to the point, it doesn’t acknowledge the more than 20 rites in the Catholic Church who believe the same things that Roman RIte Catholics do. We should be careful not to exclude our brothers and sisters who are members of those rites, fully in union with the pope, but of different rites.

Two is regarding the Eucharist, I DO think we can hold other Christians responsible for what they don’t do. When they really begin to look into their faith they find that the early Church Fathers fully believed in the Eucharistic Presence. It was only 1500 years later when at least Protestant revolters knew they had no power to confect the Eucharist that they began to say it wasn’t a Real PResence. If they said it was, they’d either be in sacrilege or have to send everyone back to the Catholic Church. For people who depend so much on Scripture without Magisterium, it is amazing how they can just gloss over John 6. One would think they’d pay attention to that chapter, and feel the need to understand fully what Christ meant, and not just what some human pastor who has no powers of consecration wants to say about it.

Three, The Trinity is a mystery and always going to be a mystery to us. But Christ isn’t “separated.” His Human and Divine are fully and completely united in the Hypostatic Union. When we address Christ, He is fully human AND fully divine.

Four, I don’t understand the issue about sharing prayer either together with others, or sharing what we understand and learn from our prayer. However, no one is obligated to accept any private revelation. Also, no bonafide “private revelation” will ever contradict Scripture, Tradition or the Teaching Magisterium. Those are good tests of whether or not it is genuine, and what kind of Spirit is behind it.

Hope this helps someone! God bless!

 

[ATL_Granny]

Thank you for this kind and gentle response.
You are right about the many pages of responses in this thread. I have read through a few pages. I gave up, unfortunately, trying to find the ones which were calm, respectful, challenging and insightful.

Don’t give up! Though some may be heated, there are many which make direct quotes from the book and represent a good perspective of what is wrong with the author’s position.

I do agree with you that the page where the author has Jesus saying that ‘he did not come to create an organized church’ - sent me through the ceiling! I had to remind myself who the author is and what his christian experience had been! First it was not a Catholic church experience! Given that his religious training and experience included extreme abuse and totally false moral teaching, his church was not a ‘church’ worth creating. Jesus surely did not want to create such a church.

Don’t fall into the trap of Moral Relativism which tries to say that all moral decisions are equal and that someone’s personal experience of “God” is just as valid as another person’s experience. Moral Relativism comes close on the heels of the Eleventh Commandment – “Thou Shalt Not Be Intolerant” whereby anyone who dares to challenge someone’s belief system is accused of being intolerant. We are called to sift out untruth and name it as such. Attacking their position is vastly different than attacking them personally!

Just because the author suffered a dysfunctional childhood and religious experience does not excuse him from putting words in God’s mouth which clearly go against what we know to be true. (i.e., God tossed out the Ten Commandments)

I found his views on this topic to be ‘Protestant’. There are no Protestants that I know of that believe that Jesus intended to create a church. If they did - then they would have to accept the 12 apostles and Peter as their head - and that would lead directly to a Pope, if they followed through. Thus, I see ‘rejecting the creation of a church’ to be, at the core, an anti-Catholic belief / statement.
.

I agree – his views are most decidedly Protestant, but we must be clear in our understanding that the Protestant sees the word “church” and thinks “all people who are Christians” while we Catholics see the word “church” and think of the “Catholic Church” with Peter as the first Pope. The author is most definitely against a “heirarchical” Church, but he is also against all organized churches – consistently putting out the belief that you can/should follow God on your own terms. In THIS regard, understand that almost all Protestant denominations (most notably excluding those who call themselves “Non-Denominational”) have a heirarchy of some kind. They have pastors, assistant pastors, deacons, etc., as well as a set of core beliefs which they must follow in order to be considered part of that denomination.

Since this author writes in the first person, as though he is God, his words appear to carry a lot of weight and can easily mislead those who are not well grounded in the Christian beliefs.

Notice I did not say “Catholic” beliefs.

Those who attack the book based on things like the absence of Mary are grasping at straws. It is not meant to be a Catholic book and getting hung up on the missing Catholic doctrines dilutes the real argument – specifically, the author gets basic Christian teachings wrong and those wrong-headed teachings are what we need to call out. You will find that many other Christian religions have attaked this book, too. (Not just Catholics.)

 

[peggytas]

Such conversations turn out quite differently than expected - it is too bad that it never happened.​

On the issue of Mary: A Protestant of any ilk will not ever think about Mary at all. For any non-RC, to say that Jesus is the only sinless person ever - is exactly what is taught. Mary never enters into their thought at all. We cannot hold anyone other than an RC to that standard of recognizing the sinlessness of Mary.​

I doubt that the author has any direct knowledge or understanding of the RC teaching on the Eucharist. It is unfair to him to criticize him about his ignorance.​

It might be interesting to try, ourselves, to spell out, as RCs, what this ‘relationship with Jesus’ is like. What language do we as RCs use to communicate our experiences of this relationship?​

More to the problem that the book poses is this: We are being encouraged to be more silent in our prayer; so spend time ‘listening’ to God in our hearts. When we do this, who is it that speaks to us? God the Father? God the Son (as divine or human?), God the Holy Spirit? When we try to talk to others about what we have heard, how do we express it? Unfortunately (or not), I find myself speaking about God’s words to me. It surely sounds to my hearers that I am putting words in God’s mouth. Yikes! How do we do this sharing of prayer experiences without doing this?​

With deep gratitude for the insightful contributions. Thanks.

I did not understand your first comment about conversations turning out differently than expected, but you make my point. This book is nothing that we should study. Study the cathechism. Spend time in silent prayer anywhere, but especially before the Blessed Sacrament as millions do. Read the lives of the saints. Start a post on forgiving the unforgiveable and and ask for catholic reading on that topic. I do not speak for all protestants (who does and isn’t THAT the point), but Scott Hahn comes to mind and how it was so easy for him to “shoot fish in a bucket” in leading people away from the true faith. Attacks on Mary, the Eucharist, and the Church were easy targets. So, I think you underestimate some protestants. I recall that at my friend’s father’s funeral (the one who married a Baptist), she thanked her in-laws for teaching her that we don’t need a church, which begs the question of why Our Lord established the church on the Rock and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it in Truth?

 

[ATL_Granny]

---

I doubt that the author has any direct knowledge or understanding of the RC teaching on the Eucharist. It is unfair to him to criticize him about his ignorance.

I agree that he wouldn’t have any direct knowledge of Transubstantiation, and his portrayal of a memorial meal would line up with the Protestant belief of “communion” being a commemorative meal which brings Christians together.

It might be interesting to try, ourselves, to spell out, as RCs, what this ‘relationship with Jesus’ is like. What language do we as RCs use to communicate our experiences of this relationship?

This seems to be an odd request. We have thousands of threads just in this forum which speak of what our “relationship” with Jesus should be. The Catechism goes into great detail on what type of “language” we, as Roman Catholics, should use to communicate our beliefs.

More to the problem that the book poses is this: We are being encouraged to be more silent in our prayer; so spend time ‘listening’ to God in our hearts.

We are all called to “listen” to God in our hearts. BUT, if we are not properly “catechized” [read: have fully-formed consciences] we can easily be led down a rabbit trail and away from God. Whatever you “hear” from God must line up with Scripture and the Church’s teachings. That’s why it is important to KNOW what the Church teaches.

When we do this, who is it that speaks to us? God the Father? God the Son (as divine or human?), God the Holy Spirit?

Why does that matter? They are all one person.

When we try to talk to others about what we have heard, how do we express it? Unfortunately (or not), I find myself speaking about God’s words to me. It surely sounds to my hearers that I am putting words in God’s mouth. Yikes! How do we do this sharing of prayer experiences without doing this?

This is a very good point! There is a VAST difference between sharing what you believe God is teaching you on a personal level and telling people *“this is what God believes.” *THAT is what the author does. When you personally believe that God has given you a message or a teaching, it’s good to share it with those you look up to – those who are spiritually mature and able to help you discern whether that message or teaching lines up with what Scripture and The Church teaches. (One of the best places I know is the “Ask An Apologist” thread here on the forum!) In that way, you will be confident that you are not being led down a rabbit’s trail of error.

 

[peggytas]

I am a little slow today. I finally figured out what you meant by “those conversations.” Yes, I was anticipating and somewhat dreading the conversation with my friends about the book. I fear that I will not come across as charitable when I engage in fraternal correction, hence the anxiety. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the author of this book for writing about his beliefs. My concern is for those, especially Catholics, who pursue this book as spiritual study. It is not grounded in the Truth. Their efforts are better spent on the Truth as revealed to us by our Lord and Savior and through the magesterium of HIS church.

 

[mbmjane]

mbmjane ~ I think you are missing the point. Yes, of course, our world is full of mine fields to spiritual growth. It doesn’t mean we promote tainted material. THAT is the issue here.

The analogy spoke specifically about the pre-teens’ father refusing to let them go to a movie which “everyone” else was seeing because he will be held responsible for their spiritual formation. In the same way, Christians who hype *The Shack *are all too eager to paint those who see the dangers in the book as not appreciating the “inclusive” nature of this man’s story. By dismissing the heretical – *and yes, I do mean heretical *-- way that the author portrays the Trinity and the Church simply because the author paints the Trinity as warm and loving, those who promote *The Shack *are effectively handing people a plate of tainted brownies, expecting that they will be able to navigate through the heresies without any damage to their spiritual growth.

And, for that, the real Jesus says that it would be better to have a millstone tied around our necks.

Dear ATL Granny
Since I am new to Catholic Answers, I jumped right in on this thread without taking time to read through all of the contributions preceding this page. I apologize for that. I deeply care about the challenges that you raise (heresies as you put it). Others have also raised many of the same concerns.​

For statements that are wrong at the core! I simply thought - - 'ooooh ‘that’s wrong’, or 'that ‘s nuts’, or ‘I don’t think so’, and such - and moved on - these parts were quite peripheral to my main interest. The first trip through the book was more scanning than reading. I actually found all the ‘God talk’, ‘church talk’ rather tedious.​

My reflection: I read the book, as I do most books, from the back to the front. I usually check out the endings to see if I want to find out how that came about.​

I became interested in tracing what led up to Mack’s new found peace, the ‘lifting off’ of the ‘great sadness’ blanket along with Mack’s decision to actually do the forgiving of the unforgiveable. I tryed to follow through the guidance he received and the steps he took. I cherry picked my way through the book in this fashion. I found helpful processes. I also disagreed with the order in which he proceeded. But then everyone is different in this​

A person can speak with authority only about his own life’s experiences. His abuse-sadness-forgiveness - his own personal story. In this he is an expert and I can look to him for direct guidance, information, ideas, etc. If I need to do some heavy-duty-forgiving - his book would be a place to turn to for guidance.​

The other issues presented in the book - topics of Trinity, God, church, religion, God-talk, etc. - these are not his ‘experiences’ but rather his thoughts about deep issues - and thus quite fallible, incomplete, wrong, etc.
—.
Peace and love to all who are struggling with this book.​

 

[mbmjane]

I don’t know how anyone can miss that the argument is about the faith of innocent victims who will be drawn into the book and away from the faith – the CATHOLIC faith. We may never know who the nameless victims will be, until the next world. THen we will know who tried to do something about it, and who winked at their being caught in the net.

It is incredible that those who so support the book can’t see the danger to others, to vulnerable souls. That is the depth of deception of which I write. Hope it helps to clarify.

Thank you for being specific.
You are right that I am basically an analytical and critical reader. As a result the ‘worry about vulnerable souls’ is not on my radar screen - unless I am forced to look at it.​

It is true that by having the God characters of Papa, Jesus, Sarayu speak ideas that are not true does give a greater weight to the ideas than a discussion or essay would. These words do send a shock through our systems.​

On my 3rd read of the book, I allowed myself to sink into these troubling themes and I was so mentally and emotionally exhausted by this, that I only scanned the ending of the book - sort of saying 'ok with dad, ok with killer, ‘sadness gone’, good - these with no emotional involvement - I had used up all of my emotions on the God talk.​

No one can stop the steam roller of a popular book. It will be read. I am interested in being ready to discuss the issues raised. I want to prioritize the topics raised in the book. I want to find the good and useful and recognize the incorrect and bad. That is me!!! Analytical!!​

Love to all who are thinking their way through their reactions to this book.

 

[Abundant]

So seeing as how God is neither male nor female, does that mean that any portrayal of God as a male is Satan trying to distort and confuse as well?

I just finished reading another book where God was portrayed as a woman. It was Saving Faith by Jodi Picout. In it, a young child starts having visions of God, who is a female.

God portrayed as a woman - I think it’s just one more way that Satan tries to distort and confuse.

 

[Ryckie]

I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the author of this book for writing about his beliefs. My concern is for those, especially CathI’m not clear as to why anyone would even consider a book of fiction for Spiritual study?

olics, who pursue this book as spiritual study. It is not grounded in the Truth. .

I know different personalities perceive things in different ways so hence the conflicts of opinions. However I don’t understand why anyone would consider a book of fiction for a Spiritual Study?

If someone that doesn’t have a belief in God picks up this book because it is on the “Best Seller” list and comes to see God in a different light and wants to know him more, I say that is a good thing.
I mentioned before in a post that there are even clergy recommending this book!

 

[peggytas]

I know different personalities perceive things in different ways so hence the conflicts of opinions. However I don’t understand why anyone would consider a book of fiction for a Spiritual Study?

If someone that doesn’t have a belief in God picks up this book because it is on the “Best Seller” list and comes to see God in a different light and wants to know him more, I say that is a good thing.
I mentioned before in a post that there are even clergy recommending this book!

 

[peggytas]

I know different personalities perceive things in different ways so hence the conflicts of opinions. However I don’t understand why anyone would consider a book of fiction for a Spiritual Study?

If someone that doesn’t have a belief in God picks up this book because it is on the “Best Seller” list and comes to see God in a different light and wants to know him more, I say that is a good thing.
I mentioned before in a post that there are even clergy recommending this book!

I am unimpressed that some clergy are recommending this book. Some clergy are recommending that we don’t kneel at the consecration and other astonishing things that are contrary to orthodox Catholic teaching. I don’t know why people are studying this book as spiritual reading. It is not founded in Truth and not worthy of study. I read the book and found some parts beneficial. However, there is danger of leading people into error. It is contrary to our faith and far too much time and energy is being expended on something contrary to our faith.

 

[Ryckie]

I don’t know why people are studying this book as spiritual reading. It is not founded in Truth and not worthy of study. I

Let me reword this, because I don’t think anyone understood my point. WHY would anyone consider ANY book of fiction for spiritual study? I did not look to this book for spiritual guidance and I think it is not going to be a book for spiritual study for most people. If someone considers it that they are looking for something in the wrong places. Most people would go to their church Sunday school or Bible study or something that is NON FICTION for that. Are you saying all fiction should be banned if it doesn’t teach the truth? [believe me when I say some books I would like to ban, but that is another subject]

I don’t understand the negative concern for a book that talks about God’s love and forgiveness and teaches forgiveness. It is not a Catholic book why so much fuss?

 

[peggytas]

Let me reword this, because I don’t think anyone understood my point. WHY would anyone consider ANY book of fiction for spiritual study? I did not look to this book for spiritual guidance and I think it is not going to be a book for spiritual study for most people. If someone considers it that they are looking for something in the wrong places. Most people would go to their church Sunday school or Bible study or something that is NON FICTION for that. Are you saying all fiction should be banned if it doesn’t teach the truth? [believe me when I say some books I would like to ban, but that is another subject]

I don’t understand the negative concern for a book that talks about God’s love and forgiveness and teaches forgiveness. It is not a Catholic book why so much fuss?

This thread has references to Catholics, including the posters, entering into weeks long study programs using this book as guidance. This book is not worthy of Catholic study. Seems that you agree with me. I would certainly not advocate banning books that contradict Catholic teaching. I see danger in Catholics studying a seemingly benign expression of the concepts of sacrifice and forgiveness housed within a book that is at best not in accord with the faith, at worst anticatholic. With so much spiritual reading available (more than I can read) why are Catholics studying this book? With so many opportunities to form Catholic conscience in this modern culture, why are clergy recommending this book? I think that these types of books can cause poorly cathechized individuals to fall (further) into error. These things become part of the fabric of our existence, desensitizing us.to attacks on the church and the truth. They infiltrate hearts and minds with suggestions like the church is an irrelevant perversion of the Lord’s intention.

 

[djeter]

On page 136 ~ “Evil is only the absence of good, like dark is the absence of light.” God is supposed to be saying this to the main character. No mention of satan anywhere in the book.

This a sneaky half correct rewrite of Thomas Aquinas. To see a true summary, read this:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/23/evil-and-joy-a-reflection-part-i/

It’s based on an article from the Catholic journal Communio; more to come but still working on it.

Another great article on evil is by David Bentley Hart, located here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/422/tsunami-and-theodicy-by-david-b-hart/

Well worth your time.

As an aside, I read The Shack and while it is decidedly not Catholic, I think it is important to know the secular attempt to coopt the divine. This is a good example of that. Atheists consider themselves very moral and are even forming “Churches” these days. I agree with the last poster that The Shack is not suitable for recent converts (I am one myself).

DJ

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Let me reword this, because I don’t think anyone understood my point. WHY would anyone consider ANY book of fiction for spiritual study? I did not look to this book for spiritual guidance and I think it is not going to be a book for spiritual study for most people. If someone considers it that they are looking for something in the wrong places. Most people would go to their church Sunday school or Bible study or something that is NON FICTION for that. Are you saying all fiction should be banned if it doesn’t teach the truth? [believe me when I say some books I would like to ban, but that is another subject]

I don’t understand the negative concern for a book that talks about God’s love and forgiveness and teaches forgiveness. It is not a Catholic book why so much fuss?

I think it’s a silly book, but unfortunately there are discussion groups in Catholic parishes reading this as though it’s something worthy of serious consideration.