Worst "Catholic" book EVER!

[novaslasher]

I read some of the reviews on the website, and it was generally scathing. The author’s reply to the negative reviews was interesting (thanks for informing us about his post Just Lurking):

amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Understanding-Catholicism/dp/1592570852/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I just loved the conclusion of the author’s defense: “Reader, be aware there are organized forces who speak against the spirit of reformation of Vatican II.” Man, if that doesn’t betray his agenda I don’t know what does.

The author also made the mistep of justifying his section title, "“Abortion, It’s a tough choice” by noting that all Catholics have free will to make choices (as taught by the Church), and that:

“The individual is obliged to think about his or her action and freely make a choice according to conscience. So yes, for many Catholics, abortion is a tough choice—it presents a moral struggle.”

But as one commentator on Amazon pointed out, what if the section had been about the morality of wife beating, murder, or theft. These are all grave sins as defined by the Church and are subject to free will choices. Would the author have dared create a section title called, “Wife Beating: It’s a Tough Choice”?

 

[Joe_5859]

But as one commentator on Amazon pointed out, what if the section had been about the morality of wife beating, murder, or theft. These are all grave sins as defined by the Church and are subject to free will choices. Would the author have dared create a section title called, “Wife Beating: It’s a Tough Choice”?

Good point. In my experience, it’s usually not so much what the person presents but how they present it. IMHO, that’s why there aren’t more censures being issued by the Holy See. These people know what they’re doing. They’ll present the Church teaching alright, but they frame it in such a way that leave’s the reader with a clear impression that they are free to disagree with it so long as their conscience tells them it’s okay. It’s quite a disservice to the Church.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

The left’s answer to every problem: You mean, evil pre-Vat II right-winger!

As though Vat II was to blame for Satan’s agenda.

 

[estesbob]

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.

The “Dummies” book has it. I suspect the idiots book doesnt have one because he couldnt get one.

 

[manualman]

You’ll note that the author totally confirms my summary of him as a “hermeneutic of rupture” Vatican II guy. Look at what he says in his response to criticisms. Just like I said, the new protestantism. Instead of “Sola Scriptura” their only authority is “Sola Spiritu Vactican II”.

In fairness to ‘Just Lurking’ the book may be useful as a guide to how your typical American views his catholic faith. One can argue that it is useful for that. It’s even forgiveable for an American to make the mistake that the catholic faith IS what the majority of its current living membership SAYS it is. But that is not so. Catholicism is not what the people vote it to be, it is what God revealed to us over the course of history.

The truth never changes, even if our perspective on it does. Vatican II cannot be viewed in a vacuum, it is only helpful viewed in continuity with the OTHER 1,900 years of the catholic faith.

The author’s feeble excuse for lacking an Imprimatur is ridiculous. He is clearly writing a book intended to summarize catholic teaching. Such teaching texts are precisely the kind of thing that is supposed to seek an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Popular devotionals, lives of saints, that kind of thing don’t need it. Texts seeking to explain the faith do.

 

[CWBetts]

The author’s response was illuminating. He has revealed himself as a rediculous fool who has no idea what happened at Vatican II. He seems to think it erased the previous teachings of the Church. It did not.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

The Complete Idiots… series is a knock-off of the For Dummies series, so I pretty much pretend the Complete Idiots books don’t exist.

 

[Rose_Commander]

I bought a book several years ago called Catholicism by Fr. Richard McBrien. It was very heterodox and I eventually threw it away.

What is heterodox about Catholicism by Richard McBrien? I am curious. I see that book at my local library and I am curious about it.

 

[distracted]

The Complete Idiot’s book tells the reader what the Catholic Church is really like in the real world, whereas the Dummies book tells the reader what two priests think the Catholic Church should be like.

i admire anyone who can, unlike me, do math…

what’s the deal with that bunny thing, though???

anyhow… it doesn’t sound like (what u say in 1st sentence)

sounds like propoganda… and anti-Catholic bs…

anyone really searching for Christ will probably see through it…

 

[CWBetts]

The key phrase of the book seems to be “in the spirit of Vatican 2,” which simply means that the author is clueless about what happened at Vatican 2

 

[buffalo]

Burn it so it does no further damage.

 

[CWBetts]

Burn it so it does no further damage.

It went in the trash dumpster long ago

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Complete Idiot’s book tells the reader what the Catholic Church is really like in the real world, whereas the Dummies book tells the reader what two priests think the Catholic Church should be like.

I thought they were the same book ​

I much prefer to know “what the Catholic Church is really like in the real world”, because that way one is fore-warned of the evil in both. The danger with the other approach - which has its place, even though it is, of necessity, one-sided - is that to be told only “what…the Catholic Church should be like” does not prepare one for the collision between what should be, and what is; and that is dangerous. It can lead to terrible disillusionment; to distrust, cynicism, and to similar evils. The Church has nothing to fear by being being honest about its flaws - all it will lose is “face”. But if it is Christian, as it would have people believe: why should that matter ? Only those who have an undeserved good reputation need worry about losing it; a Church that grovels in the dust because of its failings can only go up - not down. The RCC cannot be too grateful for its present disgrace - successful hiding of wrong would have been a horrifying scourge.

 

[Corki]

What is heterodox about Catholicism by Richard McBrien? I am curious. I see that book at my local library and I am curious about it.

Here’s a summay of a few of the points.

In 1981, the first edition of McBrien’s book Catholicism was published. Almost immediately the doctrinal committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out serious problems with it and asked him to make revisions. When those revisions had not been made by the time of the third edition, the conference finally released a statement indicating that the work was not a reliable guide to Catholic teaching and should not be used in theological instruction. The bishops said that Catholicism reduced the Pope’s and bishops’ teaching to “just another voice alongside those of private theologians” and that it minimized Catholic teachings and practice. “On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the official Church position as simply in error” (Today’s Catholic, May 5th, 1996).

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=954&CFID=9674359&CFTOKEN=40503347

Catholicism is in its second or third addition now and it still has no ‘nihil obstat’ or ‘imprimatur’. The Bishops’ Committee concluded it was inaccurate and misleading regarding Catholicism.

On a number of important issues, most notably in the field of moral theology, the reader will see without difficulty that the book regards the official Church position as simply in error.

as reported in catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507fea4.asp

 

[CWBetts]

I thought they were the same book ​

I much prefer to know “what the Catholic Church is really like in the real world”, because that way one is fore-warned of the evil in both. The danger with the other approach - which has its place, even though it is, of necessity, one-sided - is that to be told only “what…the Catholic Church should be like” does not prepare one for the collision between what should be, and what is; and that is dangerous. It can lead to terrible disillusionment; to distrust, cynicism, and to similar evils. The Church has nothing to fear by being being honest about its flaws - all it will lose is “face”. But if it is Christian, as it would have people believe: why should that matter ? Only those who have an undeserved good reputation need worry about losing it; a Church that grovels in the dust because of its failings can only go up - not down. The RCC cannot be too grateful for its present disgrace - successful hiding of wrong would have been a horrifying scourge.

Lurking’s description is inaccurate. The Idiot’s Guide portrays Cafeteria Catholicism as orthodox, and orthodox Catholicism as heterodox

 

[Just_Lurking]

Lurking’s description is inaccurate. The Idiot’s Guide portrays Cafeteria Catholicism as orthodox, and orthodox Catholicism as heterodox

I disagree. The Idiot’s Guide tells what the Catholic Church teaches, and also what real-world Catholics do. Here is an example, regarding contraception:

Following Vatican II, Pope Paul VI gave a strict interpretation of these teachings in an encyclical called Humanae Vitae (Latin for “of human life”). The pope declared, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” Humanae Vitae set the church spinning. There were questions from bishops, theologian, pastors, and congregations that still have not been answered.

Sociological data reveal that approximately 80 percent of practicing Catholics do not follow the church’s official and authoritative teachings on birth control. Catholics report that their parish priests support them in the decisions they make in this matter. However, abstinence and the rhythm method are the only acceptable forms of birth control.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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

unfortunately, i know several people who consider themselves faithful Catholics and they support at least one of the above.
i have heard that Catholicism for Dummies is good.
i don’t know if i have ever read a bad Catholic book.

 

[Eucharisted]

CWBetts,

Send a letter to the Complete Idiot’s Guide company. Complain. If enough people send letters of complaint, it’ll make a difference. Maybe even make a public announcement about it, just so others know about it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I disagree. The Idiot’s Guide tells what the Catholic Church teaches, and also what real-world Catholics do. Here is an example, regarding contraception:

Following Vatican II, Pope Paul VI gave a strict interpretation of these teachings in an encyclical called Humanae Vitae (Latin for “of human life”). The pope declared, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” Humanae Vitae set the church spinning. There were questions from bishops, theologian, pastors, and congregations that still have not been answered.

Sociological data reveal that approximately 80 percent of practicing Catholics do not follow the church’s official and authoritative teachings on birth control. Catholics report that their parish priests support them in the decisions they make in this matter. However, abstinence and the rhythm method are the only acceptable forms of birth control.

Yeah.

That’s like printing a book that says, ‘Don’t shoot heroin, but if you do, here’s a step-by-step guide AND a bunch of statistics proving how cool it is!’

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yeah.

That’s like printing a book that says, ‘Don’t shoot heroin, but if you do, here’s a step-by-step guide AND a bunch of statistics proving how cool it is!’

Actually, it’s more like saying, “The official Catholic Church teaching is that contraception is wrong, but almost everyone in the real world ignores it.” Which is, let’s face it, the TRUTH!