John Hardon (1914–2000)

This is definitely a "Pope Benedict" sort of book, not a "Pope Francis" sort of book. By that I mean that it is deeply involved in the niceties of doctrine, and not at all concerned with the history, effects -- or side effects -- of this doctrine.

I often like to read reference books, in times when I have a few minutes to spend and don't want to get too deeply into something. So, when I get a new dictionary or encyclopedia, I usually glance through it to see what I could look for if I read it consecutively. So imagine my surprise to randomly flip to the entry on "Investiture," the practice of a lay ruler appointing senior church officials such as bishops. The book correctly says that the Papacy forbid this practice early in the second millennium. But there is nothing at all about the investiture controversy, which was the long conflict between Kings and the Papacy over this practice, which by no means was resolved by the Second Council of 1139 -- monarchs continued to insist on their own candidates for many years after that, and they often got their own way by the simple means of not letting the Vatican candidate enter into the office.

That absence made it obvious to flip to the entry on "infallibility," which is interesting in a number of ways, such as under-stressing the role of the rest of the church in advising the Pope on moral pronouncements. But what is truly fascinating is that the entry completely ignores the fact that this was an ability the Pope took to himself -- in the nineteenth century. I have never quite understood how (say) John Paul II -- who certainly never met Jesus -- could be more infallible than Peter, who was obviously a fallible man but who knew Jesus and (tradition says) was the very first Pope.

Or take the very first entry I saw in my random flipping, "Onanism." The book defines Onanism to include "birth control, contraception, planned parenthood and Neo-Malthusianism" (!). Which is fascinating, because the actual crime of Onan was coitus interruptus, and I've never heard the term used any other way. Admittedly Onan did it for purposes of contraception, but even the Catholic Church permits family planning by means of the rhythm method. To my way of thinking, Onanism ought to be another legitimate birth control, rather than a term for all the forms of birth control which result in the death of a fertilized embryo. Of course, that's just me using logic -- but the point is, the book has redefined the term in a non-English way, and in a very, very aggressive way, and never admits the distinction.

On the other hand, when I looked at the Benedictines to find out whether they were the "Black Monks" or the "Grey Monks" or the "White Monks" (useful for historians, and certainly something one might wish to know about Catholic monks), there was a substantial (and fairly useful) description of their history, but no mention of the nickname.

Bottom line: If you want to understand the viewpoint of a fanatical Catholic -- fanatical to the point of self-deception, sometimes -- this is a useful book. There is certainly a lot of useful information in here if you are careful to ignore its extreme ability to confuse facts with opinions. But if you just want to know things about the history of Catholicism, it's a lot less useful. It feels very much like the strict, utterly authoritarian, non-rational, non-charitable Catholicism. Speaking personally, it frankly makes me feel as if I never want to have anything to do with Catholicism ever again. Certainly it is not something I would trust for anything other than a statement of doctrine. Your theology may vary.… (meer)