Worst "Catholic" book EVER!

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWBetts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LilyM said:
Indeed.

Not to be confused with ‘Catholicism for Dummies’ by Fr John Trigilio, which is an excellent and highly-recommended book.
Click to expand...
Dittoes on Catholics For Dummies. i gave it to my wife when she was considering converting(she did) later i read it myself and found it to be excellent.
 
Just_Lurking said:
It depends on your view of ecclesiology. If you think that the only relevant person in the Catholic Church is the pope and what he writes in his encyclicals, and that every other Catholic is merely a robot to be judged by how closely he or she obeys every word that falls from the pope’s mouth, then the Dummies book is definitely for you. If you think that the Catholic Church consists of more than just the pope, and that the Holy Spirit inspires the witness given by every single Catholic, not just the pope, then the Complete Idiot’s Guide has useful information for you.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide contains information about Catholic dogma and Catholic practice, whereas the Dummies book contains only dogma.
Click to expand...
Whenever I see someone deriding faithful Catholics as being "robots i know they Support at least one of the following;

1, Pro-abortion Canidates
2. Female priests
3. Homosexual marriage
4. Sola scriptura
5, Contraception
 
estesbob said:
Whenever I see someone deriding faithful Catholics as being "robots i know they Support at least one of the following;

1, Pro-abortion Canidates
2. Female priests
3. Homosexual marriage
4. Sola scriptura
5, Contraception
Click to expand...
Very true. The “robot Catholic” barb is most often a smokescreen used to divert attention from the real issues. I suppose it’s easier to dismiss Catholics who support all Church teaching as robots rather than to justify taking a position contrary to Catholic doctrine.
 
estesbob said:
Whenever I see someone deriding faithful Catholics as being "robots i know they Support at least one of the following;
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you have it backwards. It is the other posters who are deriding the so-called non-faithful Catholics as “bad robots” who shouldn’t be mentioned in public.

Let’s face it, all the Complete Idiots book does is present facts about the real-world Catholic Church, as opposed to only talking about the ideal, perfect Church that only exists in imagination land. So if someone has a problem with that, I know they have a hidden agenda that involves covering up things they don’t want others to know.
 
Just_Lurking said:
I’m afraid you have it backwards. It is the other posters who are deriding the so-called non-faithful Catholics as “bad robots” who shouldn’t be mentioned in public.

Let’s face it, all the Complete Idiots book does is present facts about the real-world Catholic Church, as opposed to only talking about the ideal, perfect Church that only exists in imagination land. So if someone has a problem with that, I know they have a hidden agenda that involves covering up things they don’t want others to know.
Click to expand...
Lurking,

First, if your doctor told you that your health was at risk and he advised you to go on a diet and exercise program…who would you look to for guidance? Would you go to an expert and have him provide you with meal plans and workout schedules, that you would attempt to follow with your best effort…or would you ask your neighbor who has the same health problem as you, but cheats on his diet and skips his workout? How would someone like that provide the guidance and inspiration you need to get healthy – particularly when you WANT to make your best effort and not be like your neighbor?

Second, what exactly are you saying here:
“So if someone has a problem with that, I know they have a hidden agenda that involves covering up things they don’t want others to know.”

Speak plainly. What hidden agenda might such a person have and what are they covering up that they don’t want others to know?
 
How can accurately describing Church teaching be dishonest and falsely identifying Ted Kennedy as an obedient Catholic be honest?:confused:
If a subject is important, it’s worth getting a book written in a spirit of respect for the reader, the subject and the truth.
 
survive said:
How can accurately describing Church teaching be dishonest and falsely identifying Ted Kennedy as an obedient Catholic be honest?:confused:
Click to expand...
Which page in the Complete Idiots guide uses the adjective “obedient” in reference to Ted Kennedy?
 
jpjd said:
First, if your doctor told you that your health was at risk and he advised you to go on a diet and exercise program…who would you look to for guidance?
Click to expand...
Given a choice between (1) a book that described only the diet and exercise program, and (2) a book that not only described the diet and exercise program, but also gave real-world figures about how many patients were actually able to follow that program and get healthy - I would choose book (2).
jpjd said:
Speak plainly. What hidden agenda might such a person have and what are they covering up that they don’t want others to know?
Click to expand...
Do have another explanation as to why so many posters are panning the Complete Idiots guide as inaccurate, when on closer examination it appears that the problem they really have with the Complete Idiots guide is that it is too accurate in regard to how Catholics who aren’t the pope think and feel about Church teachings.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Do have another explanation as to why so many posters are panning the Complete Idiots guide as inaccurate, when on closer examination it appears that the problem they really have with the Complete Idiots guide is that it is too accurate in regard to how Catholics who aren’t the pope think and feel about Church teachings.
Click to expand...
Can you understand the desire that some people have to know what the Church teachings really are rather than what a few random laypeople “feel” about Church teachings? That’s how I feel anyway. Maybe I’m odd. 🤷
 
Just_Lurking said:
I’m afraid you have it backwards. It is the other posters who are deriding the so-called non-faithful Catholics as “bad robots” who shouldn’t be mentioned in public.

Let’s face it, all the Complete Idiots book does is present facts about the real-world Catholic Church, as opposed to only talking about the ideal, perfect Church that only exists in imagination land. So if someone has a problem with that, I know they have a hidden agenda that involves covering up things they don’t want others to know.
Click to expand...
You might have that backwards.

And yes—we are surely required to make sound judgments on people’s ACTIONS.
 
Just_Lurking said:
I’m afraid you have it backwards. It is the other posters who are deriding the so-called non-faithful Catholics as “bad robots” who shouldn’t be mentioned in public.

Let’s face it, all the Complete Idiots book does is present facts about the real-world Catholic Church, as opposed to only talking about the ideal, perfect Church that only exists in imagination land. So if someone has a problem with that, I know they have a hidden agenda that involves covering up things they don’t want others to know.
Click to expand...
Real world Catholics I assume refers to catholics who do not adhere to the faith-I believe a better term is “cultural catholics”
 
estesbob said:
Real world Catholics I assume refers to catholics who do not adhere to the faith-I believe a better term is “cultural catholics”
Click to expand...
You know, the more that I think about it, the more I’m kind of offended (not by you estesbob, but by the comments which you are responding to). Why is it that those Catholics who fail to believe what the Church teaches are held up as being “real world Catholics”, while those who adhere to that teaching are pie-in-the-sky idealists chasing after something that exists only in the mind rather than reality?

If the Catholic Church were merely a human institution, then perhaps it would make sense to go by practice rather than belief. But She is not.
 
I bought a book several years ago called Catholicism by Fr. Richard McBrien. It was very heterodox and I eventually threw it away.
 
estesbob said:
Real world Catholics I assume refers to catholics who do not adhere to the faith-I believe a better term is “cultural catholics”
Click to expand...
It’s not as descriptive or accurate as ‘cafeteria Catholics.’
 
Just_Lurking said:
Given a choice between (1) a book that described only the diet and exercise program, and (2) a book that not only described the diet and exercise program, but also gave real-world figures about how many patients were actually able to follow that program and get healthy - I would choose book (2).

Do have another explanation as to why so many posters are panning the Complete Idiots guide as inaccurate, when on closer examination it appears that the problem they really have with the Complete Idiots guide is that it is too accurate in regard to how Catholics who aren’t the pope think and feel about Church teachings.
Click to expand...
Our problem with the book is that it does not acuurately represent authentic Catholic teaching. It is a piece of garbage written by someone with an agenda. The author seems to support a radical agenda that would ultimitely erase Catholicism and replace it with a watered-down mess that more closely resembles some variant of Protestantism
 
CWBetts said:
Our problem with the book is that it does not acuurately represent authentic Catholic teaching. It is a piece of garbage written by someone with an agenda. The author seems to support a radical agenda that would ultimitely erase Catholicism and replace it with a watered-down mess that more closely resembles some variant of Protestantism
Click to expand...
The author responds here (in part):

In the past several months negative reviews of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism have begun collecting on Amazon.com. They seem to emanate from the same neo-conservative position that would like to roll back the reforms of the Catholic Church made at Vatican II. Since these reviews are in such sharp contrast to the heart-warming reports received during the first three years of the book, and since some are simply incorrect, I would like to take the opportunity, as one of the authors to respond.

Most of these critics have asserted that the book does not represent Catholic teaching. I want to assure the reader that each and every teaching in the text and in the glossary of terms is correlated with the latest version of the Catholic catechism. Some have questioned the absence of the Catholic imprimatur, which is the Latin word meaning “let it be printed,” and is a bishop’s seal of approval reserved for official Catholic teaching. To have the imprimatur used for books published by a secular press and intended for the general audience, is not necessary or appropriate.
 
Lurking, I hope you never have a serious health problem.

I am astounded that you look to the people who choose not to follow the Church’s teachings as models of how to live the faith. The fault is not in the faith, Lurking, it’s in the people. These people choose not to die to self, but rather to live according to their own desires.

“…how Catholics who aren’t the pope think and feel about Church teachings.”

And so why are they Catholic?
 
Just_Lurking said:
The author responds here (in part):

In the past several months negative reviews of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism have begun collecting on Amazon.com. They seem to emanate from the same neo-conservative position that would like to roll back the reforms of the Catholic Church made at Vatican II. Since these reviews are in such sharp contrast to the heart-warming reports received during the first three years of the book, and since some are simply incorrect, I would like to take the opportunity, as one of the authors to respond.

Most of these critics have asserted that the book does not represent Catholic teaching. I want to assure the reader that each and every teaching in the text and in the glossary of terms is correlated with the latest version of the Catholic catechism. Some have questioned the absence of the Catholic imprimatur, which is the Latin word meaning “let it be printed,” and is a bishop’s seal of approval reserved for official Catholic teaching. To have the imprimatur used for books published by a secular press and intended for the general audience, is not necessary or appropriate.
Click to expand...
That the author resorts to refering to all those who disapprove of his book as “neo-conservative…that would like to roll back the reforms of…Vatican II” is not a good sign. It only underscores the fact that he simply does not understand the criticisms being laid against him.

I am all for authentic Church teaching, which is precisely why I’m also all for the teachings of Vatican II (as Vatican II is — surprise, surprise — part of Church teaching). As soon as someone with heterodox positions trots out the tired line about their opponents wanting to “turn back the clock to pre-Vatican II”, I find it very hard to continue to take them seriously. It’s indicative to me that the person is not interested in understanding my point of view (a point of view which I believe is shared by many other Catholics).

EDIT: By the way, thanks for sharing that author response. It is good to hear from him what he thinks of the whole controversy. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top