Good Thief

I'm going to steal an idea, so here ya go.

Some of you might know that Human Events issued a list of 10 Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Century, much discussed around various blogs. Jimmy Akin was one of the Catholic bloggers who ran a thread on it.

What I'm stealing is this blogger's idea of a "bottom ten list" for the Church. He's (as far as I can tell) a convert from the Episcopal Church to Eastern Orthodoxy, and his list is rather Protestant-skewed. I don't know if I can come up with 10, and I doubt I have enough energy to justify them at this time of night, but here goes. Oh, and mine's going to be popular and pastorally-oriented, and not particularly scholarly. And in no particular order, either.

1. Catholicism by Richard McBrien. Good historical material, and useful for that, but definitely harmful in the way McBrien evaluates the material and the context in which he places it all - a big grab bag of Catholic Stuff, in which nothing is really more true than anything else. A great irony of Catholic Life in the 90's was that the same people who hated, hated, hated and decried The Catechism of the Catholic Church pushed Catholicism on every would-be catechist and heck, Catholic, who came down the road. It wasn't a catechetical compendium that was the issue - it was whose.

2. Christ Among Us by Anthony Wilhelm. My primary, foundational text for all four years of Catholic high school, as it was for many of you, I imagine. Very much in the "Many Catholics believe" genre of catechetical writing.

3. Environment and Art in Catholic Worship   'Nuf said about that around here.

4. Human Sexuality by the CTSA, edited by Anthony Kosnik

5. The Sexual Celibate by Daniel Goergen and The Wounded Healer by Henri Nouwen. I have much admiration for Nouwen, but I am sorry to say that I think this book had seriously negative, completely unintended consequences for those engaged in ministry in this country, and combined with the impact of the first title....disaster.

6. Sexism and God-Talk by Rosemary Radford Reuther. I'm not ashamed to call myself a feminist (on my own terms), and I'm quite interested in issues related to women and religion (the subject of my MA thesis), and while interest in women's issues and perpsectives have revealed much of importance, the whole direction taken by the early thinkers like Reuther ended up throwing things off track and wasted a whole lot of time and energy. IMHO.

7. The Joshua books by Joseph Girzone. In this review , I relate asking Michael why he thought they were so popular. He said, "Because people don't read the Gospels, that's why." Why are they damaging? Because, in essence, they concretize the supposed opposition between spirituality and organized religion, in which the latter always comes out as the bad guy, made it immensely popular and beloved among ill-educated catechists of all ages.

8. The Da Vinci Code. Okay, I had to throw that in there. Even though I really don't know if I'd put it on the list. Yeah, maybe I would.

9. The works of Malachi Martin (Thanks to Tom for the suggestion)

10.....You fill in the blank. And argue intensely about it.

Comments

[Kenny]

A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter. How many different synonyms can you think of for "drivel"?

Sheer Joy: Conversations With Thomas Aquinas on Creation Spirituality by Matthew Fox. If for no other reason that it fooled a nice Lutheran friend of mine into buying it for me for my birthday ("Catholic priest, Thomas Aquinas on the cover, I thought of you!")

[SiliconValleySteve]

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels because people I'd thought would no better have been led astray.

[SWP]

Anything by Hans Kung

Hitler's Pope

[john]

Why didn't you mention any of the books, including the fiction, of Andrew Greeley?

[Eric Giunta]

I thought Pagels's "The Gnostic Gospels" was a very fair historical overview of Gnostic beliefs and of the Church's struggle against Gnosticism.

Yeah, she clearly symppathizes with the heretics, but she goes out of her way to be fair. A book need not be pro-Catholic in order to be fair and balanced.

[Jim]

Most of John Dominic Crossan's work, except for his autobiography, which explained why his other works were so skewed. Nothing explains why he puts so much stock in the Gospel of Thomas.

[HP]

Fourty years ago, the Council yet in session, "The Prophet" by Khalil Gibran(spell check) was all the rage. I know it doesn't qualify as a supposedly Catholic book but I did witness it at that time being used for a reading at a nuptial mass...can't blame the book for being in the sanctuary but some urge to be trendy or in what came to be called the spirit of Vatican II...which spirit was misdiscerned and probably needed and exorcist.

[Donald R. McClarey]

Constantine's Sword, by James Carroll, which would have been more accurately entitled, "Dad, I Still Hate You and Your Filthy Church!".

Why I Am Still a Catholic, by Gary Wills, which explains why we, and the rest of the Catholic Church, are wrong, and Professor Wills is right.

[Jeff]

Protestant pastor perspective: thanks for putting "Wounded Healer" out there. I've watched 25 years' worth of clergy on my side of the aisle, at least, fall in love with their wounds and talk incessantly about theirs, not Christ's wounds. I've been very ambivalent about Nouwen outside of the L'Arche interpretation, and i appreciate the affirmation that it isn't just obtuse crankiness to be a Nouwen agnostic.

(OK, and his "Praying With Icons.")

[charles R. Williams]

Maybe the Dutch Catechism belongs on the list. It is unfortunate that instead of condemning this book outright they made the authors put some old-fashioned stuff in an appendix in a corrected edition.

This book solidified in many people's minds the idea that Vatican 2 changed Church teaching.

[K Hammer]

I see this one at a lot of used book sales:

"A Modern Priest Looks at His Outdated Church" by James J. Kavanaugh

[Desert Chatter]

Re: "Wounded Healer"

Unfortunately, becoming a wounded healer has become a goal for many ministers of the Gospel, which is supposed to be the Good News. It's supposed to be about healing, not about wallowing in woundedness.

[Mike Walsh, MM]

The Dutch "New Catechism" would be a good example of the genre. There have been a lot of terrible books written for our edification, but I think it's hard to say if these things are causes or symptoms. Even if they have been in print for years, is it because of their own intrinsic, if malign, power, or because the "68-ers" (my term for them) who originally promoted them persist long after their moment has passed?

Regards

[GFvonB]

I'd be hard pressed to limit it to just two books -- we've burned so many heretical works lately, it's getting hard to remember them all. Anything by Ray Brown or Teilhard "the blowhard" de Chardin definitely qualifies though.

[Dad29]

"Music in Catholic Worship" by USBishops' BCL.

Written by and for antinomians.

[Desert Chatter]

To GFvonB:

You obviously haven't read much of either Ray Brown or Teilhard de Chardin.

Teilhard de Chardin and Marshall McLuhan had a common prophetic vision which is literally coming true as we blog.

[F. C. Bauerschmidt]

Re: Human Sexuality by the CTSA, edited by Anthony Kosnik

My old teacher, Stanley Hauerwas, wrote a hilarious piece on this (it's the one entitled "Sex in Public" in his A Community of Character). The best paragraph:

In fairness it should be said that the CTSA report is not always so tentative as it states clearly that there is no question that bestiality “renders impossible the realization of the personal meaning of human sexuality” (230). I question, however, if this is consistent with the Report’s methodology, as such a summary judgment has all the appearance of the biased judgment of city people who have had little experience with country life. At the very least it seems as though the report could have suggested that in these matters, like other forms of sexuality which seem to these writers unusual, we simply need more “data” before we can make a summary judgment.

A large selection of the essay is online at:
http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/THM_544_Marriage/02_Pres_Crisis/04%20hauerwas%20sex%20in%20public.htm

[sharon d.]

Jesus Freaks: DC Talks and the Voice of the Martyrs--Stories of Those Who Stood For Jesus, the Ultimate Jesus Freaks

This books is so popular with teens (including one who is very dear to me) that a sequel is now out. It's deeply, fundamentally anti-Catholic. Nothing like striving to undo the gains of Catholic-Protestant understanding of the last few decades for the next generation.

[Chris]

Papal Sin, by Gary Wills.
Hitler's Pope, by John Cornwell.

Indeed, anything by those two authors.

[amy]

Sharon:

Are they? I've heard of/seen them all over the place, of course, but didn't know they were anti-Catholic. How?

[DarwinCatholic]

Hmmm. I'd nominate the religious ed books I encountered in CCD in LA Archdiocese back in the mid 80s, but they were honestly more forgettable than dangerous.

Indeed, so much so that I can't remember their names... The problems is, that most of my fellow sufferers forgot Catholicism around the same time they forgot the books.

It may not be dangerous, but I'd be happy if no priest were ever allowed to read and base a sermon on a Chicken Soup For the Soul series of books again.

Now that I think about it, maybe such thin gruel really is dangerous, in that it weans us off real food...

[MrsDarwin]

Books that leave a bad taste in your mouth: In high school I had to read Christ the King, Lord of History, and I've seen many homeschoolers use it as their primary history text. I don't think it exactly counts as a dangerous book, but it's catholicentric to a fault. Thomas Bottenkotter's Concise History of the Catholic Church is misleading in a bizarrely sixties-ish liberal fashion, and Christ the King throws itself overboard in the other direction.

[Anthony]

Jesus Symbol of God by Roger Haight and What Do We Really Believe by the aforementioned Fr. McBrien.

[David Pearson]

"The Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Sexuality" by Eugene Kennedy. As maddeningly wrong-headed as it gets from the progressive side of the house.

[Rich Leonardi]

Robert O'Gorman's "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Catholicism" - An awful at best "many Catholics believe" sort of book. It casts doubt on Christ's divinity, the Virgin Birth, and countless other doctrines and dogmas. It was panned so severely by reviewers on Amazon that O'Gorman penned a response trashing "neo-conservative" (read: believing) Catholics. (Get Fr. John Trigilio's "Dummies Guide to Catholicism" if you like the Idiot's/Dummies formats.)

Fr. John Dietzen's "Catholic Q&A" -- Read my review on Amazon (where I also review Bokenkotter's "Concise History"). Though he includes interesting historical details on certain teachings, overall the book is Catholic "lite" at its glib worst.

Michael Francis Pennock's "The Seeker's Catechism" -- a slim little "pocket catechism" that manages to list Christ's divinity dead last in a list of dogmas in its chapter on Jesus.

"Catholic Updates" -- Not really books, but these pamphlets litter parish literature racks and confuse the faithful. A perfect example is Rochester's Fr. William Shannon and his Update "The Resurrection: How We Know It's True". In it, he claims that the Resurrection can only be appreciated as "an experience of faith":

"The mortal Jesus—the Jesus before his death—could, like the mortal Lazarus, have been experienced as a fact of empirical data; the risen Jesus, however, could only be experienced by faith. For resurrection is not returning from the dead. It is a leap beyond death to an entirely different kind of existence. Such a leap cannot be empirically verified."

Produced by Cincinnati's ('natch) St. Anthony Messenger Press.

[Eileen R]

Books that leave a bad taste in your mouth: In high school I had to read Christ the King, Lord of History, and I've seen many homeschoolers use it as their primary history text. I don't think it exactly counts as a dangerous book, but it's catholicentric to a fault.

I'll go a step further and say it's dangerous. I plan to one day piss off all my relatives and friends (as well as random St. Bloggers, I suppose) by writing a chapter-by-chapter analysis of that book and why we're destroying our children's critical faculties and opening them up for a loss of faith, by using that book as the basis of their history education.

[c matt]

There was some book written by a Jesuit priest, I want to say about early 70's maybe. Dealt with the Eucharist. It was relatively short (150 pgs or so) and essentially made the argument that what is meant by real presence is that it is a real symbol and important, not that it is literally and physically the BBSD, but that even symbols are real, and therefore this is a real symbol and real presence. I don't know how widely read the book was, so hopefully it did not do much damage.

DVC? I don't know. People are extremely ignorant and credulous when it comes to believing things about Christianity that they wish were true as opposed to actually true. It is obviously an entertaining and engaging book given its popularity (haven't read it, so am going on sales figures). It does not seem able to stand up to much scrutiny, but the coming movie will make its error even more widespread.

Oh yeah - what about the Left Behind series, or are we sticking to strictly Catholic books (which DVC is not)? To those that believe it, it leads astray in another direction from DVC. To those that don't, it reinforces the ignorant, anti-intellectual, superstitious Christian stereotype.

[thomas tucker]

Dang- I wanted to nominate "A Modern Priest Looks at His Outdated Church." OK- how ahout "Did I Say That?" by Fr. John McKenzie, S.J.
It's hard to beat anything by Hans Kung, though.

[c matt]

Oh, I see - LB was number one on his list. Hard to disagree.

[Andrew]

Re: Elaine Pagels.

I haven't read her books, but part of the reason for this is that I heard her speak at my alma mater a year or so ago on the subject of the Gnostic gospels. It struck me that her level of scholarship is very low (but then, I don't have a particularly high opinion of the "religious studies" field to which she belongs). She may be impartial, but impartial and ignorant is still biased.

The biggest way this manifested itself to me was that she started off her speech bad-mouthing St. Irenaeus - he was a very dirty polemicist, according to her. And she mocked a certain criticism the saint had made of the Gnostics - namely that their writings were full of philosophy. But then, as she described the doctrines she drew from the Gospel of Thomas, it became very clear to me that she was describing a thinly-veiled version of Stoic fatalism. In the Q&A portion, I asked her about this, and she sort of stared at me with a blank expression on her face. Her answer had nothing to do with my question. She basically just threw out the religious studies catch phrase that, of course, Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy.

Later, one of my former professors spoke with her, and explained why I had asked the question I had asked. She said she had thought of Irenaeus's accusation as a claim that the Gnostic writings were full of sophistic arguments. In other words, she revealed the startling depth of her ignorace concerning a period of history that she claims to speak of authoritatively.

I can't claim to speak on historical issues generally, but I can say with some amount of authority that to make such a mistake, one would have to be almost entirely ignorant of what Greek philosophy was. As Pagels presents it, St. Irenaeus is just a crabby bishop using libel to get rid of a religious opponent, but it is quite clear that, in fact, St. Irenaeus understood the Gnostics far better than Dr. Pagels.

Bottom line: I don't know how much influence Pagels has had. My sense is that she has mostly been popular with her fellow Episcopalians, and I frankly don't see much harm in that. I mean, preaching the Gnostics to Pagans might actually be bringing them nearer to the Gospel. However, objectively speaking, her ideas seem ill-informed and pernicious. I have no problem with scholarly study of the Gnostics, but Pagels is more a popularizer than a scholar to my mind, and that I do have a problem with.

[Andrew]

Re: Elaine Pagels.

I haven't read her books, but part of the reason for this is that I heard her speak at my alma mater a year or so ago on the subject of the Gnostic gospels. It struck me that her level of scholarship is very low (but then, I don't have a particularly high opinion of the "religious studies" field to which she belongs). She may be impartial, but impartial and ignorant is still biased.

The biggest way this manifested itself to me was that she started off her speech bad-mouthing St. Irenaeus - he was a very dirty polemicist, according to her. And she mocked a certain criticism the saint had made of the Gnostics - namely that their writings were full of philosophy. But then, as she described the doctrines she drew from the Gospel of Thomas, it became very clear to me that she was describing a thinly-veiled version of Stoic fatalism. In the Q&A portion, I asked her about this, and she sort of stared at me with a blank expression on her face. Her answer had nothing to do with my question. She basically just threw out the religious studies catch phrase that, of course, Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy.

Later, one of my former professors spoke with her, and explained why I had asked the question I had asked. She said she had thought of Irenaeus's accusation as a claim that the Gnostic writings were full of sophistic arguments. In other words, she revealed the startling depth of her ignorace concerning a period of history that she claims to speak of authoritatively.

I can't claim to speak on historical issues generally, but I can say with some amount of authority that to make such a mistake, one would have to be almost entirely ignorant of what Greek philosophy was. As Pagels presents it, St. Irenaeus is just a crabby bishop using libel to get rid of a religious opponent, but it is quite clear that, in fact, St. Irenaeus understood the Gnostics far better than Dr. Pagels.

Bottom line: I don't know how much influence Pagels has had. My sense is that she has mostly been popular with her fellow Episcopalians, and I frankly don't see much harm in that. I mean, preaching the Gnostics to Pagans might actually be bringing them nearer to the Gospel. However, objectively speaking, her ideas seem ill-informed and pernicious. I have no problem with scholarly study of the Gnostics, but Pagels is more a popularizer than a scholar to my mind, and that I do have a problem with.

[Andrew]

Sorry. What a comment to double-post.

[MrsDarwin]

Thank you, Eileen R.! I've always wondered if there were others out there who felt the same way...

[Richard]

Wow. I'd have to think about this one.

Amy has some nice candidates to launch the discusssion.

I would add some more to think about:

* STRUCTURES OF THE CHURCH or THE CATHOLIC CHURCH by Hans Kung.

* CHURCH: CHARISM AND POWER by Leonardo Boff.

* JESUS: SYMBOL OF GOD by Roger Haight.

* SHE WHO IS by Elizabeth Johnson.

* A MARGINAL JEW by John Meier.

* A NEW LOOK AT CHRISTIAN MORALITY by Charles Curran.

And I could just go on and on. This would be a tough list to narrow down. There's so much material to work with.

I do not include anything by Garry Wills, Andrew Greeley, James Carroll, or John Cornwell because they aren't worth taking seriously enough for such an august list. Though it might be said in fairness that their stuff gets read by more people than, say, Roger Haight's.

And I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not.

[Rich Leonardi]

Though it might be said in fairness that their stuff gets read by more people than, say, Roger Haight's.

That's why I included the books on my list, i.e., they're the ones that get read.

[Tom]

What's the significance of the fact that, as far as I can tell, every book mentioned so far (except for Teilhard's) was published since 1965?

And should Michael Davies or Malachi Martin be represented?

[DarwinCatholic]

What's the significance of the fact that, as far as I can tell, every book mentioned so far (except for Teilhard's) was published since 1965?

I like to think that a lot of these books have a fairly short half life. I ran into a bunch of circa 1940s and 50s bad Catholic books (mostly of the strange, unapproved, personal revelation variety) when cleaning out my grandmother's house after she died. But it was all stuff I'd never heard of before, and is (so far as I know) OP. Truth is timeless, but heresy is often very much of it's own time.

[Julia]

"Teilhard de Chardin and Marshall McLuhan had a common prophetic vision which is literally coming true as we blog." Add Walter Ong, S.J. and his breakthrough work on "orality" and the word. Changed how a lot of people look at history and developing countries and culture and . . . well, everything.

I had the pleasure of meeting Fr. Ong at his peak when he graciously appeared at our little book club to discuss his work. Then I happened to meet him again at Jesuit Hall in St. Louis very shortly before he died. Such a courtly, kind man.

I used his insights in analyzing "100 Years of Solitude" as a tale told as if it had been tald by Garcia Marquez' illiterate Indian grandmother to her people around a campfire.
Professor used it in his next textbook, I'm proud to say. He changed how people understook the Illiad, the Old Testament, the 100 plus words for snow (among other things) that pre-literate people have for important things in their lives. Reading John's emphasis on the Word/Logos becomes so much richer.

Check out anything Fr. Ong has written. You will be much richer for it.

[amy]

Tom, thanks for that. Malachi Martin is an excellent and accurate addition.

[Nancy]

- Anything by Teilhard de Chardin

- Anything by Matthew Fox, and any book that even mentions Matthew Fox except to condemn his ideas.

- Another vote here for Wounded Healer.

- Another vote for Papal Sins.

A note here on The Prophet. This thing is bigger than VII. This book is now quite old, and maintains its outrageous popularity with young women of ages, oh, 15 through 25 (about) even unto this day and unto generations to come probably. (The illustrations, full of a blurred sort of dreamy nudity, add to its popularity with this age group.) I recently found it under the pillow of a friend's daughter of about this age (the room was being temporarily used as a guest room, the daughter being out of town).

In my view it is not harmful unless cotton candy is harmful, which it is...sort of. Cotton candy, while appearing substantial, isn't, and probably rots your teeth. Luckily most people outgrow it. Living on it exclusively probably would kill you, but this seldom happens, in either case.

The Prophet's popularity with this age and gender results in its frequent inclusion among the readings at weddings. I have the idea that young men hate it, but of course at weddings no one asks them for their opinion.

[bruce]

Not to change the nature of this thread (an excellent one) but could someone in one posting give me the deal on Malachi Martin? I remember liking a couple of his books maybe 30 years ago, before he seemed to go off the deep end (I knew a priest who characterized those "inside Vatican" books as "what one cardinal said to the other while they're taking a pee"). I thought he'd been laicized int the 60s, but now his fans say he was some sort of secret priest with Vatican approval. Is that true? Also, there are these accusations that he seduced some socialte and lived off her. (Also, the accusations regarding his seduction of a journalist's wife during Vat 2). Anyone care to clear this up?

[chris-2-4]

I don't have a nomination although I second, or third or whatever the nomination of the Wills books.

Catholicism by McBrien was the required textbook of a class I took called, "Basic Catholic Beliefs" in 92-93.

I actually enjoyed the first Joshua book although I didn't agree with all of its Church bashing and fuzzy theology. Maybe if you stop after one it's not so bad... The limited release movie was better in some respects.

[Neil]

Andrew: Agree with you about Pagels. 100%.

Amy, funny you would mention McBrien. Ron Rychlak has an article in the new (July/August) "This Rock" magazine called "Dealing with Dissent: Fr. Richard McBrien". He says it is a lot worse than "a big grab bag", as you say. McBrien (in "Catholicism" & elsewhere)argues that the "historical Christian position on contraception is fundamentally wrong", the miracles in the Gospels were "invented", original sin is "a rationalized myth", Christ didn't always know who He was (the Son of God), "the idea that the Catholic Church is the one true religion no longer exists", etc. Standard destructive Jesus Seminar fare, yes, but particularly pernicious coming from a priest, in a book called "Catholicism", under the mantle of the theology department at Notre Dame.

[Mary Kay]

Quick driveby post for now, will come back later when I have more time.

I'll cast a minority vote against including Wounded Healer and Bokenkotter on the 10 worst list.

Bokenkotter because before Triumph was published, it was the only Church history that I could find and filled a gap for me. So maybe it's not the best, but I wouldn't put it as worst either. Not when you have the likes of Matthew Fox and Andrew Greeley.

Wounded Healer because the concept has been a valid and valuable one for me. Yes all healing comes from Jesus (by his stripes,we were healed Isaiah 53:5), but also the idea that our afflictions are to help others (2 Corinthians 1:4) always reminds me of the serpents in the desert (Numbers 21:4-9). That some forgot the healing part of it by "wallowing in their woundedness" does not invalidate the idea itself.

(I don't usually back up a post with Scripture, especially a driveby one, by the references just sort of popped up.)

[julie]

Books that leave a bad taste in your mouth: In high school I had to read Christ the King, Lord of History, and I've seen many homeschoolers use it as their primary history text. I don't think it exactly counts as a dangerous book, but it's catholicentric to a fault.

I'll go a step further and say it's dangerous. I plan to one day piss off all my relatives and friends (as well as random St. Bloggers, I suppose) by writing a chapter-by-chapter analysis of that book and why we're destroying our children's critical faculties and opening them up for a loss of faith, by using that book as the basis of their history education.

Eileen R. and Mrs Darwin
I have not reached highschool yet with my son, but was pretty sure we would not be using Christ the King for the above reasons and just the sheer boredom factor of the book. We've got a couple of years to think about highschool---any suggestions for good Catholic history books in a homeschool setting?

[bruce]

Some stray thought re Pagels and McBrien. Elaine Pagels is any interesting example of someone who definitely has the academic credentials (fine degrees, languages under her belt, etc.) but whose mind and sensibility is still so suburban-vulgar that she can perpetrate things like the Gnostic Gospels (and the others) and be satisfied as an author and scholar. I think that explains her popularity - she is speaking to a sensibility very much her own, but with the "authority" she carries. A similar thing with O'Brien. When his C-ism book came out I remember the excitement when it came out among, well, some types of people (I'm thinking, particulary, of a friend who ran a Catholic bookstore). This seemed to them such a compendium, it just must be the biggest, smartest, scholarly thing, just the one big book to exlain it all...or explain it away. And a lot of the book reads as Theologians I Have Known or At Least Have Read. Very impressive to that suburban-vulgar sensibility. Not well versed theologically or (above all)historically...but somebody with credentials is thinking like I do!!!!

[saint]

Spot on about Elaine Pagels, Andrew.

[Rich Leonardi]

julie,

Ignatius Press released Martha Rasmussen's "The Catholic Church: The First 2000 Years" a year or so ago and it's well done. Written at a "Reader's Digest" level of sophistication (and, at times, "dryness"), it's a good choice for high school students.

[Gerard E.]

A number of repeat offenders showing up on this thread- Pagels, McBrien, Kung, Boff, Greeley. Let me pull out an oldie-but-stinkee from the GoGo60s- "Are You Running With Me, Jesus?" by Malcolm Boyd. Before he came out of the closet.

[Samuel J. Howard]

I think we're probably leaving out some of the books of the "liturgical renewal" (not the liturgical movement, which was early and good).

[Samuel J. Howard]

The Deputy -- by Rolf Hochhuth is the Ur-text of bad Pope in the holocaust volumes.

Also, we shouldn't leave out the Jesus Seminar.

[James Englert]

While not Catholic, Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell encouraged a lot of fuzzy thinking by Catholics of a certain age.

B-16's Introduction to Christianity is kind to Teilhard. In a section of the book devoted to Jesus as the last Adam, the "exemplary man," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: "It must be regarded as an important service of Teilhard de Chardin's that he rethought these ideas from the angle of the modern view of the world and, in spite of a not entirely unobjectionable tendency towards the biological aproach, nevertheless on the whole grasped them correctlly and in any case made them accessible again." (Ignatius, 1990 ed. at page 177; see also page 232 using Teilhard terminology to discuss the resurrection)

This was written in 1968; I don't know if he later revised his estimate of Teilhard.

[Melinda]

Ron Rolheiser's Simplicity - or anything by him actually...

[Andrew]

The Spirit and the Liturgy (which is a book everyone should read) by then-Cardinal Ratzinger also has momentary praise for Teilhard. It baffled me when I saw it, for I was under the impression that Teilhard was something of a pantheist, but I trust the Holy Father has a more subtle and precise view of the situation.

[Septimus]

"...but I trust the Holy Father has a more subtle and precise view of the situation."

Kudos, Andrew!

I've read SO many posts from people who present themselves as faithful, "traditional," Catholics, who manifest the most appalling arrogance toward bishops and even the successor to Peter -- rashly judging them, second-guessing, bashing them, describing their motives (how do they know?) in harsh terms...

It's easy to salute and follow our shepherds when we entirely, utterly, understand and concur with them. But that's not the point. Sometimes we have to have some trust and some humility.

Before the sharks circle, I'm not saying one puts ones brain and conscience in sleep mode.

I'm saying, "have some trust and some HUMILITY." Oh, and St. Ignatius of Loyola's rule of generosity towards ones opponents (i.e., always ascribe to ones OPPONENT the best possible intentions and meaning) ought to apply to our own people, shouldn't it?

[Richard]

Hello folks,

There is a kernel of a great idea taking shape here.

The problem is: what are the criteria for this list? If we go off Human Events' list all we have to go on is trying to identify the ten written works which have done the most damage to the Church and the faith of its people over the last two centuries.

That helps. Especially since it makes clear we've perhaps not looked hard enough at earlier works, like those by Loisy or Tyrell. But it's compounded by the fact that there's such a fragmentation in publishing now. We have academic works, inspirational works, education works...you name it.

In my brief list I stuck to academic works by Catholic authors. Is that fair? Not many people read Roger Haight or Elizabeth Johnson, though the ones that do exercise a disproportionate impact on academia and catechesis in this country. How does that compare to the damage done by a Matthew Fox or a Garry Wills or Thomas Cahill?

And then there's the DaVinci Code. The author, Brown, ain't even Catholic. But in many ways this book has done enormous damage to the faith of badly catechized Catholics across the land. So maybe that one has to be considered as well. Or for that matter works by other non-Catholics which have been so powerful in their impact that the Church has been damaged as well - and that could include everyone from Rudolf Bultmann to Elaine Pagels.

What we might end up with is a nice mix. It would be a fun game to do what Human Events did and organize a big vote on this in St. Blog's after taking nominations - and see what we end up with.

[Septimus]

Oh, I meant to nominate some titles:

*Human Sexuality* by Kinsey
*Art and Environment in Catholic Worship* by renegade USCCB bureaucrats
Luther's three works, the names of which escape me at present

[Melissa B]

"Books that leave a bad taste in your mouth: In high school I had to read Christ the King, Lord of History, and I've seen many homeschoolers use it as their primary history text. I don't think it exactly counts as a dangerous book, but it's catholicentric to a fault.

I'll go a step further and say it's dangerous. I plan to one day piss off all my relatives and friends (as well as random St. Bloggers, I suppose) by writing a chapter-by-chapter analysis of that book and why we're destroying our children's critical faculties and opening them up for a loss of faith, by using that book as the basis of their history education."

Those of you who made these comments, can you comment further on your criticism of this text? I have always had the impression that it was a good text to use for high school, though I have never actually looked at it myself. What do you mean by catholicentric? How would the book destroy children's critical faculties?

[Andrew]

Septimus:

Thank you for your kind words. I especially echo your point concerning generosity. I earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and one of the most important things I learned in that discipline was that it takes a long time to even begin to understand where someone is coming from. And in addition, it takes time and humility to make an informed opinion. Even the pagans know these things...

I will admit, however, that I find it much easier to be charitable to His Holiness than to some I meet since I have a deep personal affection and admiration for him. I long for the day when I am holy enough to be patient with, say, Matthew Fox of John Shelby Spong.

[Henry Dieterich]

Ah, The Prophet! What fond memories from my Unitarian childhood in the 1950s and 60s, where it was raised to the level of Scripture! So profound-sounding, so utterly meaningless! The more recent imitators can't hold a candle to it. The "christening" service by which children were dedicated in our church was cribbed almost entirely from "On Children." If it is harmful, it is because it provides such a comforting substitute for religion; brass, as C.S.Lewis points out, is more easily mistaken for gold than lead is.

[Mary Alexander]

What in the world is wrong w/ Fr. Malachi Martin's books?

[Rick Lugari]

It would be greatly appreciated if someone would explain why Malachi Martin should be on the list. I read Hostage to the Devil and found it a well-written and informative book.

Keys of this Blood and The Jesuits were both recommended to me in the past. One of the people who recommended them I know to be quite orthodox and reasonable.

Thank you.

[Rick Lugari]

It would be greatly appreciated if someone would explain why Malachi Martin should be on the list. I read Hostage to the Devil and found it a well-written and informative book.

Keys of this Blood and The Jesuits were both recommended to me in the past. One of the people who recommended them I know to be quite orthodox and reasonable.

Thank you.

[sharon d.]

Ooooh, while we're dissing Christ the King, Lord of History, can I invite flaming by nominating nearly everything I've seen of Seton Homeschooling, including the wretched book Catholic Homeschooling? A book so paranoid it recommends you sell your house and move if you aren't absolutely sure you're in a neighborhood filled with orthodox Catholics.

Maybe I've just lucked out and seen the worst of Seton, but the uber-Catholic attitude of "we're so persecuted" horrifies me.

Okay, let me have it, all you Seton hs'ers. ;-)

[sharon d.]

To clarify why I nominated Seton: IMHO the curriculum and the Seton book Catholic Homeschooling have done inestimable damage to the Catholic hs'ing movement. Someday the kids will figure out that history and their faith are just a little less one-sided than it's presented (kind of the opposite of the DC Talk book), and may well decide they've been deceived. And Catholic Homeschooling just confirms for DREs and pastors that Catholic hs'ing is all about paranoia, distrust of your parish, and vilification of parochial schools.

[Desert Chatter]

I find nothing in modern American Catholicism quite so disturbing as the notion that we are being persecuted. My ancestors used to sneak off on Sunday to attend a Mass said on a rock in the woods, because the Churches had been closed and the clergy suppressed. That's persecution.

Being denied admission to top of the line country clubs or being glared at for saying grace in a restaurant doesn't rise to the level of persecution. A false sense of persecution is, however, a powerful aid in coalescing a religious sect.

[MrsDarwin]

Melissa B--

Christ the King Lord of History is passionately devoted to a Catholic interpretation of all events of world history, but in her zeal to set straight many of the prevailing errors perpetrated about the Church throughout the years, Anne Carroll herself presents a vastly one-sided, distorted view of the Church's influence upon the world stage. Her central thesis is that "the Church [is] the central figure of all history" (from the website for Tan books, the publisher), and in order to make world history fit this concept she glosses over central events (the discovery and founding of America), and distorts others (the French Revolution, Spanish conquest of Central America.)

Who can deny that the Catholic Faith has been a major influence on many people throughout history? But other factors must be taken into account as well, and as Catholics there's no reason why we should be afraid to confront the fact that sometimes, people who were Catholic acted wrongly. A rosy glorification of the Church's active role in history does a real disservice to those students trying to develop critical thinking skills through examining the motives (both right and wrong) of historical figures, as well as those non-Catholics who are looking for a balanced Catholic perspective on world events.

[Rich Leonardi]

And Catholic Homeschooling just confirms for DREs and pastors that Catholic hs'ing is all about paranoia, distrust of your parish, and vilification of parochial schools.

Sharon: Is it fair to say that Catholic homeschooling has grown in popularity largely because of problems associated with those listed above?

[MrsDarwin]

Sharon D, as a student who suffered through several years of Seton in high school, I have to agree with you. We ended up using the good stuff and discarding the more wacky products, which included many wretched Protestant science texts devoted to creationism. Are there no good Catholic science textbooks? (And I mean "science books", not Intelligent Design propaganda.)

[sharon d.]

Rich,

If I'm understanding you correctly as saying that Catholic hs'ing has grown in part because of problems with parishes and parochial schools, yes, that's true. But you have to read Catholic Home Schooling to appreciate the excessive levels of paranoid accusation. Clark comes very close to saying that a Catholic parent commits a mortal sin by choosing any other educational path.

I don't know a single Catholic hs'er off of the internet who homeschools because she regards the parochial schools as dangerous. More likely it's a family that wants a Catholic education but they just can't afford the parochial school; or is hs'ing for reasons not primarily religious, and wouldn't have her kids in even the best of public or parochial schools.

[Rich Leonardi]

Sharon,

Thanks for your explanation. We send our children to Catholic schools and are blessed that we currently can afford to do so.

The school they attend is fairly "lite"-weight (to use a Weigelism) but at the lower grades there's nothing taught that is contrary to the Faith. From talking to other parents, the level of catechesis gets worse in the upper grades. And some of what I hear is 'dangerous' spiritually.

So hs'ing has an appeal to me, and were we take that path it would be somewhat in reaction to the aforementioned 'danger'.

[Donald R. McClarey]

I find it interesting that Christ the King, Lord of History has inspired such passion on this thread. I confess to not having read it, although I own a copy, and my wife did use it with our kids when they were younger. The author's husband, Warren Carroll, has published a multi-volume history of the Church, the History of Christendom, which I have read and consider to be excellent. The four volumes I have go through the Reformation to the end of the sixteenth century. The books are written on a college level, but an intelligent high schooler could handle them. Each volume has an annotated bibliography, and the end notes for each chapter are useful. Daniel-Rops multi-volumed History of the Church of Christ isn't bad either.

[MrsDarwin]

Sorry about being so off-topic...

Rich, aren't you in Cincinnati? There's a huge Catholic homeschooling presence there (I know; that's where I grew up) full of wonderful families, most of whom aren't really paranoid. :)

[Ellyn]

What - No Mary Daly? What about "Beyond God the Father?" Or is that so far out that it doesn't even count?

[Rich Leonardi]

MrsDarwin: Good to know. And yes, I live in Cincinnati.

[Septimus]

Rick:

I don't know why others put Malachi Martin on the list; I didn't, although I do have a serious concern with him.

I think he's an example of --for lack of a better description -- a pseudo-traditionalism that lapses, and/or draws others, very nearly into despair and I think certainly far afield from the posture of hope and confidence -- without any pollyanna mindset -- which we are called to have.

The farther you go down this road of negativism -- in the name of fidelity to tradition -- you find yourself in the midst of those who see the world through the dark glass of suspicion and fear; then, those who find less and less to affirm about the Church; beyond "Vatican II was misimplemented or misinterpreted," comes "Vatican II was "wrong," then "evil" then, the pope is a heretic, then "we have no pope" and so it goes.

Somewhere along the line, a willingness to believe the worst, and even to believe in conspiracies, can come into the picture.

Somewhere along the way, people you might think would know better, are believing reported apparitions over and instead of the Magisterium given us by our Savior himself, along with his pledge to safeguard that Magisterium.

There is a German expression, "schadenfreude," which means taking joy in the troubles of others. I don't know if there's a German word for taking pleasure in the misery of a group, of which one is a part, but there ought to be, because it would describe the mindset I'm referring to.

Ellyn: The only Mary Daly book I've ever seen was "Gyn-Ecology" which was so bizarre, and so unreadable, that I suppose its danger is self-limited. I tried, but not only couldn't I get the gist of anything she was saying; I literally did not find a single sentence I could comprehend.

[Rich Leonardi]

The farther you go down this road of negativism -- in the name of fidelity to tradition -- you find yourself in the midst of those who see the world through the dark glass of suspicion and fear ...

And these folks are out there. Since I've had a few pieces published by Catholic Exchange, my inbox is occasionally hit by a prayer request concerning some dark private revelation that this time, really, the end is nigh.

[Rosemarie]

+J.M.J+

Darn, I was gonna suggest Beyond God the Father :-) It was probably Daly's last intelligible book; accuses Christians of "Christolatry". A truly vile book.

In my high school Christology class we had to read an awful book called Jesus Before Christianity by Albert Nolan. Unabashed "rethinking" of Jesus based on liberation-theology. What a drag.

We also had to read another little turd of a book for the same class; I think it was called To Know and Follow Jesus. More crappy "reformulation Christology," trashing of Chalcedon and even calling for a redefinition of the Trinity along the lines of Karl Rahner (basically rehashed modalism).

That book confused and upset some of my classmates so much that they told their parents and their parents complained to the school chaplain! The teacher then had to tone down her anti-Chalcedon rhetoric.

More bad books:

Anything written by Miriam Therese Winter since the early 1990's, including WomanPrayer, WomanSong; WomanWord and WomanWitness. She starts out by calling God "She" and ends up invoking pagan goddesses.

The Maternal Face of God by Leonardo Boff. Claims Mary is hypostatically united to the Holy Spirit. 'Nuff said.

In Jesu et Maria,

[MrsDarwin]

How about anything by Jack Miles? He wrote God: A Biography, and Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God. Strange and bizarre stuff. I believe the LA Times was very impressed.

[James Kabala]

I'm glad to see someone mentioned Thomas Cahill. What an awful book How the Irish Saved Civilization was. The title, of course, was a deliberate attempt to lure Irish Catholic readers, and then they got a diatribe about bad St. Augustine and the anti-sex brigade. Fortunately, some in MSM seem to be onto him by now; the Atlantic mentioned his Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea in passing a few months ago as the sort of intellectually vacuous book that is not even worth the waste of time of reviewing in full. (However, I believe the New York Times did review it.)

[James Kabala]

Incredibly, the latest Joshua book got a good review from the Catholic News Service! Girzone is now drifting toward self-parody, as Joshua now has a mother named Miriam and attempts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ariel Sharon and other real-life people make appearances.

[Rick Lugari]

Septimus,

Thank you very much for replying. I know the mindset you refer to, but based on that info I still wouldn’t include him on the list either.

FWIW, I would still recommend Hostage to the Devil to anyone interested. Doctrinally, there is nothing untoward in it and it gives the reader some genuine insight as to what the enemy can do and how he is empowered.

Thanks again.

[Rosemarie]

+J.M.J+

>>>as a student who suffered through several years of Seton in high school, I have to agree with you. We ended up using the good stuff and discarding the more wacky products, which included many wretched Protestant science texts devoted to creationism. Are there no good Catholic science textbooks? (And I mean "science books", not Intelligent Design propaganda.)

Have you ever heard of Ye Hedge School? It's a Catholic homeschooling site which does not bash the theory of Evolution and points out certain problems with creationism:

http://www.hedgeschool.com/

Don't know if that's exactly what you're looking for, but it's the only such source I've found so far.

In Jesu et Maria,

[Mark Wyman]

I'm rather offended that Tom of Disputations nominated Michael Davies for this list. Of him, I just have to say:

I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.

who said that?

oh, no one important ... just ... POPE BENEDICT XVI!

[sharon d.]

While we're being off-topic, Mrs. Darwin... aren't you in Austin? Do you hang out with us granola hs'ers here, Keeping Austin Weird one family at a time? Feel free to send me a private e-mail, as I'm now wondering if we know each other IRL.

[Septimus]

MrsDarwin - oh, gee, I forgot about Miles! I bought "God: A Biography" because somebody recommended it, and I read about 50 pages, and tossed it aside. But I doubt he's had much influence.

James Kabala: I agree and disagree. I agree about your criticisms of Thos. Cahill, except I did think "How the Irish Saved Civilization" had a valid, true story to tell -- about the importance of the archipelago of monasteries across Christendom at a key period. And Cahill tells it well. Unfortunately, just as you say, he can't resist bashing the Church, or St. Augustine, mostly taking cheap shots as recall.

I read "Gift of the Jews," and found it about the same; I browsed "Everlasting Hills," at the bookstore, and seem to recall something like Cahill quoting our Lord using scatological terms, or something of the sort, and I thought, "Cahill's just being adolescent. No thanks." I didn't read "Wine-Dark Seas."

I think it's fascinating when folks like Cahill and Garry Wills -- who are talented people -- assume that the whole world is waiting with baited breath until they give their pseudo-catechisms. And they seem so angry that people don't care more than they do. So Cahill thinks women should be priests; whoop-de-do!

[Eileen R]

Donald, Warren Carroll's books aren't bad at all as a survey. I read them as a homeschooling teenager and they were quite a good overview of history from a Catholic POV. Like any big survey, there's stuff I disagree with, but I think it's worthwhile, particularly since Carroll is good at presenting history as an interesting narrative.

But his wife's high-school textbook on the other hand... I really need to get out that book and write up an explanation of what's wrong with it... Opening a page at random, I'll point out a sentence that has caught my eye. About Galileo Such punishment as hereceived he brought upon himself by refusing to moderate his statements or to take account of the dangers to the faith of ordinary people by widespread teaching of his ideas.

Contrast that to what Pope John Paul II's historical commission had to say about Galileo.

"This subjective error of judgment, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo 'had much to suffer,'" Cardinal Paul Poupard, the commission chairman, told the pope. "These mistakes must be frankly recognized, as you, Holy Father, have requested."

From Anne Carroll, one would get the idea that Catholics have always been in the right, everywhere.

Her explanation of the Inquisition has one sentence admitting torture is a bad thing and paragraph after paragraph praising the Inquisition, including the statement towards the end that, anyway, the Inquisition saved more lives than it took since because Spain was united religiously as well as politically, it did not suffer the religious wars which came when Protestantism began in other countries.

Oh gee, and that makes it all right, I guess. The Inquisition has got a worse rap that it deserves, to be sure, but Anne Carroll almost makes me want to run the other direction and join the "The Spanish Inquisition was Pure Evil!" types.

And that's the book's danger. It can do two bad things, and I've seen both happen. A young person can read the book, swallow all this triumphalism and then completely lose faith when confronted later on in university or ordinary life by the fact that so much they taught was grounded in wishful thinking rather than historical fact. Or they can continue with that brand of triumphalism, becoming the sort of Catholic who rejects the good in secular society, and alienates anyone with a bit of common sense from them.

Either way, giving a teenager a book like this is to lull their critical faculties to sleep. With this lack of training, they won't have any to confront secular sources.

And Mrs. Darwin, I looked up the settlement of the Americas in the book, at your memory, and sure enough... whoa! She fits in the entire events of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in a paragraph which praises Catholic missionaries to the sky. Well, so do I, but what exactly is the point of a world history book that omits some of the more importants bits of history. And flipping forward, I find that the American colonies aren't even mentioned till two paragraphs on the American revolution. And then, the United States ain't mentioned again until it joins WWI.

I mean, good grief.

Meanwhile there is page after page dedicated to scurrilous rumours about Catherine d'Medici. Not a nice woman, but Carroll is going rather over the line when she insists that Catherine's children were a result of her Satanic practices (no I'm not kidding) and the kids and France all suffered for her evil witchcraft.

[Lauda Jerusalem Dominum]

And should Michael Davies or Malachi Martin be represented?

Which books in particular did you have in mind?

[Whitcomb]

Would it be out of line to suggest that there are no dangerous or harmful books, just good or bad ones?

[DJ]

From what I've read, my own perspective on Fr. Greeley is he's a mixed bag. Some stuff he comes up with is very good, some of it is trite, and the rest is pure nonsense. Case in point is a very recent article: sounds like he just discovered that there is a worldwide problem with physical, sexual, and mental abuse of women, and that since the Vatican hasn't issued a statement condemning this sin within the past 5 minutes, well, by golly, that means it never has. Instances like this make me wonder, "OK, Andy, what's in the glass besides Guinness?" But his most annoying habit is the cheap shots - he'll attack someone without offering any substantial reason why he did it and sneer, sneer, sneer.

If you treat him as just some Joe spouting an opinion that you can take or leave, he can be interesting, entertaining, sometimes thought provoking. It's when you take him seriously as an authority for no reason but he owns a collar that he'll get you in trouble.

Sorry, Amy, but I gotta disagree with you on the Joshua books - it's been a long time but I remember that I liked the ones I read. The message I got was, even with 2K years of hindsight, would we recognize Jesus if He just dropped into town incognito, and how would we react when He started challenging our complacency?

Is Joshua the Gospels, or should it replace studying them? Certainly not, but in its own way it does remind us not to become like the seven churches in Revelations.

[diane]

Dear Rich Leonardi: I relished your review of Father John Dietzen's book. Our diocesan paper runs his columns regularly, and they have frequently driven me batty, especially when he starts sanctimoniously lecturing his questioners about their judgmentalism or troglodytism or whatever.

Our new bishop is solidly conservative; I hope and pray he will get around to overhauling the diocesan paper one of these days. Already, on one occasion, the paper published a rebuttal of a Dietzen column by a conservative young diocesan priest.

But we need more than rebuttals. We need to ditch Dietzen's columns altogether. The man is truly infuriating.

Blessings,

Diane

[Donald R. McClarey]

This is Don's wife Cathy writing. I have indeed used "Christ the King, Lord of History" as a read-aloud with the kids for several years now (we read a few chapters each summer as part of that summer's history unit study). However, it's certainly not the only resource we use for a given period of history, and not even the only Catholic resource. We've used it for an overview of the period in question (this summer we're reviewing ancient history through the fall of the Roman Empire in the West), but also read scads of children's books (secular, Protestant, and adult) and bits of adult books on the period as necessary.

(For example, this week we read the chapter on Moses in "Christ the King, Lord of History", did some map work on Middle & New Kingdom Egypt with a map from Knowledge Quest, and colored pictures about ancient Egypt in coloring books from Dover and Edu-Press. Earlier, we had read about the same period in "Timetables of History," "The Egyptian News," and "Pharoahs of Ancient Egypt." We've already been covering Imperial Rome with looseleaf saint biographies from "Ordinary People, Extraordinary Lives" and "Augustus Caesar's World," have previously read the Vision Books biography of St. Helena, and are currently reading the Landmark Books volume on Jesus of Nazareth (and my oldest son quickly spots any Protestant interpretations of events in the life of Christ there, too).)

We originally started using "Christ the King, Lord of History" to add a Catholic perspective to history unit studies based on the Greenleaf Press study guides, and finally abandoned the "Greenleaf Guides" altogether when it came time to study the Renaissance and Reformation.

Anne Carroll did write a companion volume, "Christ and the Americas," covering U.S. history; we don't own that volume yet, though.

[Tom]

Which books [by Davies and Martin] in particular did you have in mind?

None, in particular.

The overall impression the set of books that had been mentioned gives is that only "progressive" books have been harmful to the Church. I believe arch-conservatives and paranoiacs have also harmed the Church in recent decades. In my mind, Davies and Martin are respective representatives of these factions; hence my question.

And please note, it was a question, not a recommendation.

[Sandra Miesel]

In response for that request for evenhandedness, I would love to make a bonfire of Apparitionist tracts starting with the so-called Secret of LaSalette all the way up to revelations to John Leary, with special attention to THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD, which ough to be shredded before burning. And then we'd have another for the complete works of Fr. Denis Fahey, THE PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCH, and that major purveyor of paranoia, Ted Flynn.

[Septimus]

Sandra ...

I'd toss in all the Bayside crap.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

As for #10 on Amy's list, I'd have to add all the pastoral letters produced by the USCCB in the past 25 years.

Now, to something else. I've read Girzone's Joshua. No, it's not great literature but it does present an unpleaseant truth that many of you don't want to confront: the self-obscessed arrogance of the Catholic establishment and many who are loyal to it, including laity.

Frankly, I don't think Christ would behave much differently toward Rome (or Canterbury, Geneva and Wittenberg, for that matter) had He lived in the 20th century the way He did in the first.

Moreover, Malachi Martin is also very suspicious of many current Church developments. This is a man who refuses to limit himself into the "good Catholic" box. He has guts and a mind of his own, which too few Catholic bloggers possess.

[Tom]

Would it be out of line to suggest that there are no dangerous or harmful books, just good or bad ones?

I don't think it would be out of line. I think it would be incorrect.

[Lee]

I have two candidates:

1. Annibale Bugnini's "The Reform of the Liturgy" -- a manifesto for the liturgical Vandals of our time, and

2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira's Revolution and Counter-Revolution ... written by the founder of the Tradition/Family/Property cult, and proof that it is as easy for Catholics to fall off the horse on the right as they can on the left.

[Liam]

Oh, it would be wise not to forget anti-Semitic screeds by Catholic faculty, journalists and clergy (even more influentially, including prelates) that were once quite common, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The baleful effects of these (and hardly just in the material dimension) on ordinary people in the pews easily outweigh in influence many of the entries suggested so far.

It's good to avoid the Golden Old Days of Hazy Memory Syndrome.....

[Melissa B]

For Mrs. Darwin, Sharon D, and anyone else who recommended Anne Carroll's history book for this harmful book list, do you have a recommendation for a well-balanced history book for high school students?