Rosary by Garry Wills

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cestusdei

Guest
I just saw a new book on the rosary out authored by Garry Wills. Nice pictures in it, but I haven’t read the text. Frankly I love books like this about the rosary, BUT I don’t trust Wills. He has lost any respect I have had for him as a scholar. I am afraid it might turn out to the usual ie. a book that looks nice but is chock full of dissent. I hate it when that happens. Any one read it yet?
 
Is this the “Papal Sin” guy?

Hmm. That could go either way. I understand- and agree- with your distrust of Wills, but the fact that he even wrote and published a book on the Rosary (and the editorial reveiws I found on Amazon all say that it is a respectful and devotional book) may be a step in the right direction. Maybe it’s a change for the better.
 
I just received next weeks issue of Our Sunday Visitor. It’s not up on the website yet, but it includes a review of this book.

The review if titled:

Love for the Beads?
Garry Wills’ latest book on the Rosary reveals
author’s deep-rooted dislike of the Church
 
No surprise there (Wills’ dislike of the Church).

I’ve started reading What Paul Meant (WPM) by Wills and it’s a continuation of his sola scriptura philosophy in the other companion book, What Jesus Meant (WJM).

Of course, Wills does not see priests, bishops, popes, or sacraments mentioned in the Bible. To his credit, in WJM, his point of reference is ‘what Jesus said.’

WPM is a bit more interesting. I’ve run across his comparison of several accounts of Saul/Paul’s conversion. He points out how they vary. He conjectures that Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus is a fake, by the evangelist Luke, as is Luke’s account of Paul’s journeys in Acts, which do not correspond to the statements in the most authentic of Paul’s books in the NT.

I have seen encyclopedic volumes on discrepancies in the Bible. So, I don’t know if Wills’ insights are original. Certainly, Wills echoes the dislikes of the Church that are so obvious in the writings of Raymond E. Brown. They both seem (to me) to eschew the magisterium and Tradition of the Church.
 
a self-defined Catholic like wills who makes a career of attacking the Church does far more harm than an avowed anti-Catholic like Jack Chick. make note of his publisher and file for reference. Andrew Greeley does the same thing, just when you think he is mellowing and going to say something that is actually true, he bites you again. Infinitely sad in my mind is a Catholic, who basis his career on trumpeting his Catholicism, who at heart believes neither the Scripture nor the Church, by his own testimony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top