Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
45 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb examination of a bygone era in American Catholicism, October 22, 2004
Woods' book is an amazing display of erudition and insight in less than 200 pages. For too long, postconciliar Catholics have been led to believe that the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church in America was intellectually barren, reactively hostile to new ideas, and fully deserving of being labelled a "ghetto." Some scholars, such as historian James Hitchcock, had previously revealed problems with that view. But Woods has gone even further in exploring our not-so-distant past. He has systematically and thoroughly examined the American Catholic response to "Progressivism" and philosophical pragmatism in the early 20th Century and found that the response was cogent, coherent, intellectually sound, and orthodox. Not all Progressivist ideas were bad, and some of its "forms" could readily be assimilated, but the essential "matter" was rejected. The Catholic intellectuals of the time (to include the Jesuits at the magazine America) could tell the difference.
After reading this, one may feel that if the Church as a whole had taken a similar approach during the Second Vatican Council, and not simply kowtowed to modernity so much, the Church would not be in such a mess as it is now.
Put simply, this book is gracefully written, thoroughly researched, sober, and balanced--reminiscent of the great Catholic historian Christopher Dawson. Any American Catholic, seeing the disarray of a Church mired in scandal, dissent, and heterodoxy, and interested in the "old days" should pick this book up and read it. If he does, he may find himself asking at the end: "What happened to make it all go so wrong?"
|
|
|
18 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Scholarly, Balanced, Timely, March 23, 2005
This precisely written, well researched book compares and contrasts Catholic and Progressive intellectual thought during the early 1900's. On some issues, such as organized labor, Catholics and Progressives reached similar conclusions. On others, such as education, they could not have been further apart. On all issues, a great fundamental difference applied: does man exist to serve man, or to serve God? So, although both sides might settle on similar remedies for social problems, their underlying principles were so different that conflict was inevitable. Progressives viewed dogma of any kind as a social nuisance or something to be dispensed with entirely. Catholics naturally held dogma to be fundamental to a well-ordered society. Progressives (generally) viewed man as a servant of the state; Catholics viewed society as the servant of man. Progressives were primarily concerned with the advancement of the state; Catholics with the salvation of the soul. Woods does a thoroughly excellent job of articulating these and other philosophical differences. In doing so, he gives us a remarkably clear picture of that time in America, as well as allowing us to judge how things have progressed--or regressed--on issues like education over this last century.
|
|
|
23 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A must for every Catholic library, April 24, 2005
I have just finished reading THE CHURCH CONFRONTS MODERNITY - Catholic Intellectuals & the Progressive Era by Thomas E. Woods Jr., taking the time to highlight in detail this excellent work for future reference in the fight for the heart and soul of the Church being waged by Catholics who know their faith, as opposed to those who are having it subtly stolen from them. Before I was even a third of the way through the book I had gone through a highlighter, which gives an indication of the importance of what Dr. Woods is saying to what is left of the Catholic world, post the ambiguities of Vatican II, in particular, post the efforts of those who would destroy the Church from within.
To be technically correct, in THE CHURCH CONFRONTS MODERNITY, hereafter referred to as CCM, Woods not only tells it like it is, but how it used to be, and, if the Church is going to survive as a viable institution in serving as the world's repository of Perfect Truth, Who is a Someone, not a something for salvations sake, which is the only reason for the Church's existence, how it must be again. Woods is right to persuasively insist that looking back to how Catholic giants in America confronted the modernists in the progressive era in combating the work of the devil is our only hope of escaping the modern catacombs in order to convert the world to the one true faith, per Christ's admonition to His disciples in the last paragraph of the Gospel of Matthew. THE problem, as Woods so clearly points out, is that "how it used to be," in reference to the Church in America, was orders-of-magnitude better than "how it is now" with the prospects for "how it will be" no better, if the lessons from the past are not learned.
The focus for Woods is on the Catholic intellectual critique of modernity during the period immediately before and after the turn of the twentieth century where defenders of the faith were plentiful because they understood what it meant to be Catholic in more than name only. This is to be contrasted with an institutional Catholic Church today that, for all practical purposes, is unrecognizable as Catholic, as a direct result of the dissenters being given carte blanche to destroy it from within with impunity. Woods is talking about a Progressive Era where Catholics knew their faith well enough to use what good they could find in Progressivism for the greater Glory of God, in particular, the Church that He founded upon the Rock that is Peter. Catholics at the beginning of the twentieth century understood that discipline is one of the highest, if not the highest forms of love, which is something parents must come immediately to grips with; else, they cease to be responsible parents. Similarly, the Church under Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Saint Pius X, understood this seminal Catholic Truth, which is a Someone, not a something. This was directly reflected in orthodox catechesis which helped formed the consciences of a generation of Catholic leaders like Thomas Shields, William Kirby, and Edward Pace, who fought the good fight against the likes of James Dewey, and other representatives of Pragmatism as it played out in ethics, education, and nationalism. These were not the unencumbered autonomous consciences of Kant but rather those of an economic and political philosophy rooted in the natural law as articulated by Catholic giants like Thomas Aquinas, consciences which were informed in accord with the infallible teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church on faith and morals, consciences which understood that faith and reason are married, not divorced, with faith enabling a reason, which, in turn, reinforced faith.
Woods in The Church Confronts Modernity describes how decidedly nonpluralistic Catholicism responded to the modernist assault on faith and reason, and, moreover, must continue to respond, to an increasingly hostile pluralistic intellectual environment. Catholicism insisted on the uniqueness of the Church and the need for making value judgments based on what it considered a sound philosophy of humanity.
Woods recognizes that the reason Catholics no longer know their faith is that the prime catechetical tool for teaching it to them, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, has been watered down such that many of the immutable truths of the faith are no longer a part of that sacred liturgy. Woods concurs in his Epilogue that Lex credendi, lex orandi, is more than just a pithy phrase. It is a foundational axiom for survival of the faith.
I highly recommend THE CHURCH CONFRONTS MODERNITY- Catholic Intellectuals & the Progressive Era, by Thomas E. Woods Jr. as a necessary addition to any Catholic library. - Gary L. Morella
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|