Constantine--s/o question re SOTW suitability for Orthodox Jews

[Pen]

That other thread seems done.  However, I still would like to understand more about Constantine the Great's place in history and the apparent change in Christianity from a Blessed are the Peacemakers type religion and his apparent relationship with that change, as well as the issue of how antisemitism was affected .

 

Is anyone else willing to discuss this further?

 

Suggest readings etc.?

 

I have SWB's first book for adults, but it ends right at about that stage of history, does the second book go into this?

 

I am wondering how Constantine would have gone from Edict of Milan, and apparently being more fair to all religions (?), to statements from letters of his to the Bishops of Council of Nicaea I saw quoted that were what I would call antisemitic.   And how would the Bishops have gone from being heads of an apparently peacemaking and persecuted religion to apparently being fine with a symbol for Christ being on battle helmets and part of warfare and militarism, as well as declaring some of those who basically believed as they did, but a little different, to be heretics and so on.   

 

I had the sort of world  history in school where one memorized facts and dates, as for the Council of Nicaea and regurgitated on an exam.   I am trying to think about this deeply now and to better understand it.

 

TIA

[Spy Car]

You might enjoy reading the book "Constantine's Sword" that was written by a former Roman Catholic Priest named  James Carroll. He deals with most of these issues (and related others) in the book.

 

There is also a documentary (loosely) based on the book of the same name, "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll. It is on Netflix. It is obviously not as deep in coverage as the book, but quite good none-the-less.

 

Hope these help.

 

Bill

[ElizaG]

On the other hand, you might want to look to scholarly sources, rather than just the latest turgid best-seller. 

 

Here's a review of "Constantine's Sword" by Thomas F. X. Noble.  Unlike Carroll, he's a historian who uses the accepted research methods of his field.  (WTMers might recognize him from the lectures he's done for the Teaching Company.) 

 

Have you tried asking on the high school/self-education board?  They might have some recommendations for learning more about that era.

[Kathryn]

I had a feeling from reading Spy Car's other posts that his information came from the pseudo-history "Constantine's Sword." Read some scholarly reviews of that book to get you started. Noble's referenced above will give you the general idea behind the problems with Carroll's book.

[Spy Car]

On the other hand, you might want to look to scholarly sources, rather than just the latest turgid best-seller.

 

Here's a review of "Constantine's Sword" by Thomas F. X. Noble. Unlike Carroll, he's a historian who uses the accepted research methods of his field. (WTMers might recognize him from the lectures he's done for the Teaching Company.)

 

Have you tried asking on the high school/self-education board? They might have some recommendations for learning more about that era.

Thomas F. X. Noble's summation of Carroll's book is one of the most slanted and intellectually dishonest rebuttals I've read in a long time. While it is not unusual for "apologists" to take the low-road, Nobel starts with personal attack (the usual tactic of those whose case is weak) and then twists Carroll's point to the point where he (Noble) seems proud of defeating straw-men.

 

Is "Constantine's Sword" a "popular history" book? Yes, certainly. It is intended for a general audience, and written my a person of high intelligence and one with a long-background inside the Catholic Church, including being a cradle-Catholic, attending seminary, and serving as a Roman Catholic Priest.

 

Noble does not take on the substance of Carroll's work, but instead tosses insults. Not great behavior for a "scholar." Nobel also engages in "denialism" when it comes to the history of the Church and its role in anti-Semitism and the persecution of Jews. It is intellectually dishonest.

 

Bill

[Kathryn]

OP - here are two more reviews of "Constantine's Sword," both by professors of theology--one Jewish and one Catholic. Both come to the same conclusions as Noble. https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/reviews/Constantines_Sword.htm

[Kathryn]

And another: http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=5655

[Spy Car]

OP - here are two more reviews of "Constantine's Sword," both by professors of theology--one Jewish and one Catholic. Both come to the same conclusions as Noble. https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/reviews/Constantines_Sword.htm

The Jewish reviewer, Ruth Langer, while making some nit-picks (such as suggesting Carroll's understanding of Kabballah is inadequate, or that he is not fully immersed in the latest scholarship on pagan sources of anti-semitism) then concludes: Carroll’s basic narrative is fundamentally correct...

 

Carroll is bringing to communal table a serious if popular examination of our history and a genuine proposal for our future. Both this examination and this proposal deserve serious discussion by both Catholics, other Christians, and Jews, academicians, clergy, and laity.

 

Not exactly a damning review.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

And another: http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=5655

 

And this reviewer looks more favorably the works of historians who place "the major share of the blame" for  the Holocaust:  

 

...not on Christian antisemitism, but on the German medical establishment, within which an ideology of eugenics facilitated cooperation in a "final solution" that was perceived as a "cure" to the "Jewish problem," and on the habits and state of mind of too many German bureaucrats who tended to view implementation of the final solution as just another administrative task.

 

Seriously?

 

Bill

[Kathryn]

The Jewish reviewer, Ruth Langer, while making some nit-picks (such as suggesting Carroll's understanding of Kabballah is inadequate, or that he is not fully immersed in the latest scholarship on pagan sources of anti-semitism) then concludes: Carroll’s basic narrative is fundamentally correct...

 

Carroll is bringing to communal table a serious if popular examination of our history and a genuine proposal for our future. Both this examination and this proposal deserve serious discussion by both Catholics, other Christians, and Jews, academicians, clergy, and laity.

 

Not exactly a damning review.

 

Bill

She has said in several places that she thinks they are important conversations to have, but his conclusions are wrong and his history is bad. Here's another: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/03/Constantines-Sword-A-Good-Read-But-Not-Good-History.aspx

 

Since we're going to nit-pick and pull out quotes we feel make our own points:

 

"The result is massive oversimplification throughout."

 

"This results in some bizarre interpretations of the history and content of kabbalah and other aspects of Jewish mysticism."

 

"Most of the scholars on whom Carroll relies, though, are credible, but his immense bibliography simply has strange lacunae and frequently lacks depth. The problem is that the best scholars disagree with each other, sometimes seriously. Carroll, it seems, frequently picked the view that best fit his “narrative arc†and disregarded the rest. "

 

"It is hard to recommend this book as a careful work of scholarship."

 

And on. I'm getting bored of this. OP is capable of reading the reviews herself and forming her own conclusions.

[Spy Car]

She has said in several places that she thinks they are important conversations to have, but his conclusions are wrong and his history is bad. Here's another: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/03/Constantines-Sword-A-Good-Read-But-Not-Good-History.aspx

 

Since we're going to nit-pick and pull out quotes we feel make our own points:

 

"The result is massive oversimplification throughout."

 

"This results in some bizarre interpretations of the history and content of kabbalah and other aspects of Jewish mysticism."

 

"Most of the scholars on whom Carroll relies, though, are credible, but his immense bibliography simply has strange lacunae and frequently lacks depth. The problem is that the best scholars disagree with each other, sometimes seriously. Carroll, it seems, frequently picked the view that best fit his “narrative arc†and disregarded the rest. "

 

"It is hard to recommend this book as a careful work of scholarship."

 

And on. I'm getting bored of this. OP is capable of reading the reviews herself and forming her own conclusions.

 

Nit-picks with Carroll's book do not change the significant changes Constantine's rise as the Emperor of Rome brought to the Western world. this included a very different relationship between the State and Christianity, including the use of armed expansionism, assumed "divine right of Kings", etc.

 

His reign while ending persecution of Christians (at the price of his fundamentally transforming their religion into something that aided his temporal power) came at some cost to the Jews who were blamed as the prime actors in the death of Jesus (and as a way of lightening the blame of Romans, a people he represented).

 

If Carroll's understanding of kabballah is superficial (or even bizarre) it is unsurprising to me, since kabballah is pretty esoteric stuff. What that has to do with the price of tea in China, is beyond me.

 

Bill

[Pen]

Thank you!!!    I appreciate all the links and discussion so far.  I was not familiar with either Constantine's Sword nor the discussions and criticisms of it.  In addition to reading the criticisms and comments above, I have now also read several of both the 5 star and 1 star customer comments on Amazon, many of which are extremely interesting.   I do plan either to read book or see the movie or maybe both.   At least some of the posted criticisms even do seem to think it is interesting for its potential to start a conversation about these topics, even if they think some of the sources are not the best or disagree with some of his ideas and conclusions.

 

Kathryn or Eliza Grace or others, have you any suggestions for book/s to read (or perhaps alternative, and ideally Netflix available, films) that would give its/their own other view/s side/s and explanation/s--perhaps ones that make more sense to you, or that you feel are more historically sound --  for:

 

1) how Christianity became militaristic?   Obviously not always, there are pacificist denominations like Quakers and Dukhobors.    But, even if Constantine did not start this aspect or bear responsibility for it, it seems that fighting under the banner of Christ's name and with helmets with a Christ symbol on them apparently was not something the Church Fathers ( as a whole, maybe individuals felt upset about it) condemned as being against the Spirit of Christianity.  So if that did not start with Constantine, with whom did it start, how, why?  What did happen to Blessed are the Peacemakers?

 

2) the antiJewish thread in and aspect of Christianity...   Obviously not always, with that either, but, for example, in the quote attributed to Constantine I found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Judaism or, to take another example, I have been to Palm Sunday services where the congregation, enacting the Passion from Matthew, follow the prompt: and then the Jews shouted, "Crucify Him!"

 

Jesus was himself Jewish, those were his own People--perhaps some of the same ones who listened to the Sermon on the Mount and welcomed him with Palm fronds--but  it certainly can come across as antiJewish, and I believe historically was sometimes followed by going out and enacting pogroms.   I am not an historian, as I've said, and am hopeful someone will correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

 

again, TIA

 

 

 

[ElizaG]

You've brought up several topics, and they each involve various combinations of secular history, church doctrine, Biblical interpretation, and patristics.    It might be easier if you focused on one thing at a time.  :001_smile:

 

Just to give some background, the official 1993 Catholic Catechism entry on peace and war is here (starting at par. 2302), and the entry on the events of the crucifixion is here.

 

Since you mentioned Matthew's Gospel, I'd also suggest reading Romans 11.   (If you figure out exactly what the prophecy means, please tell me, because I'd like to know.   ;))

[Kathryn]

I'm on a field trip right now and then have to work at the Greek festival all weekend. I mean to come back I this at home, but if I forget, PM me to remind me.

[Pen]

..., I'd also suggest reading Romans 11.   (If you figure out exactly what the prophecy means, please tell me, because I'd like to know.   ;))

 

It looks like there must have already been a great deal of antagonism?  hatred?   fighting?   as between not only Christians and Jews by the time Paul wrote that, but also as between Gentiles who became Christians and Christians of Jewish origins.  ... or, in other words, already well before Constantine.   

 

 

?????????

[Spy Car]

It looks like there must have already been a great deal of antagonism? hatred? fighting? as between not only Christians and Jews by the time Paul wrote that, but also as between Gentiles who became Christians and Christians of Jewish origins. ... or, in other words, already well before Constantine.

 

 

?????????

There is no doubt that there are writings (especially ones attributed to "John" and "Paul") that served as sources of anti-Semitism. And that these pre-date the rise of Constantine.

 

We could have a long talk about that, but....

 

Bill

[Pen]

You might enjoy reading the book "Constantine's Sword" that was written by a former Roman Catholic Priest named  James Carroll. He deals with most of these issues (and related others) in the book.

 

There is also a documentary (loosely) based on the book of the same name, "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll. It is on Netflix. It is obviously not as deep in coverage as the book, but quite good none-the-less.

 

Hope these help.

 

Bill

 

 

Do you think the movie version would be okay for an 11.5 year old?

 

 

[Spy Car]

Do you think the movie version would be okay for an 11.5 year old?

 

Despite the Catechism linked above not sounding very pro-war, at 5 his reaction to how war was dealt with in church was to tell me (very sweetly) that he was going to grow up to make money so he could give missiles to Jesus as presents. Scary. I thought the cover of the DVD with its No War Is Holy theme might do him good.

I would think it would be appropriate for a thoughtful 11.5 year old. There is certainly no "adult content."

 

My only reservation and caveat is that this film is shaped a "persuasive essay" told from one man's (Carroll's ) very interesting life perspective. On some points he is critical of the Roman Catholic Church and the actions of various Popes. He was a Preist, so his disillusionment with some aspects of the history is painful and palpable in a person sense. Those that could not endure criticism of the Church or of Holy Fathers of the past, or of the Pope Emeritus Benedict, might not consider the film appropriate.

 

Evangelicals, particularly Ted Haggard and others who are active in Colorodo Springs and at the Air Force Academy also come off badly for crossing the lines of church and state, and at times for pressuring Jews to convert.

 

So there are themes that require maturity.

 

Bill

[Pen]

I have now seen the movie of Constantine's Sword and started the book and am finding both of them to be excellent and insightful.   I am giving this a bump in case anyone has other discussion on it, or would be ready to suggest books with other views at this point.

 

I am wondering if the people posting above against it actually read it, or only criticism of it.

[Spy Car]

I have now seen the movie of Constantine's Sword and started the book and am finding both of them to be excellent and insightful. I am giving this a bump in case anyone has other discussion on it, or would be ready to suggest books with other views at this point.

 

I am wondering if the people posting above against it actually read it, or only criticism of it.

I'm glad you are enjoying the movie and the book. I'm with you in find them excellent and insightful. His is not the only perspective to be considered, and it is not "perfect." But much of the criticism of Carroll was nothing but smear tactics directed at a well intended and thoughtful person who is asking serious questions.

 

Bill

[Pen]

 insightful in the sense of having deep insight is what I meant!     Not inciteful in the sense of inciting to violence, hatred, an so on.

 

I am finding it insightful into aspects of Christianity, history, current events, and an exploration of one's own biography.  And, as it applies to my question about history: Insightful into how Christianity might have come to be associated with, or indeed might incite, violence of various types.   Alas.

 

 I do not personally find his work inciteful itself in the sense of causing violence. racial hatred etc., if anything, rather the opposite, would be what I would expect, and what I certainly think was his goal, that to raise the issues and look at them, people might do better for now and in the  future.

 

Although reading that first criticism by Thos. Noble that was posted, I guess for some people Carroll's work does seem to incite anger.

 

 

 

I am also open to hearing other perspectives.  ...  ETA, "open" does not sound right.   I  would like very much to hear other perspectives, and try to understand how others are understanding these matters or personally coming to terms with them.  Or other viewpoints.

[Spy Car]

insightful in the sense of having deep insight is what I meant!     Not inciteful in the sense of inciting to violence, hatred, an so on.

Ooohs! Dumb typo. I edited. Too tired.

 

I am finding it insightful into aspects of Christianity, history, current events, and an exploration of one's own biography.  And, as it applies to my question about history: Insightful into how Christianity might have come to be associated with, or indeed might incite, violence of various types.   Alas.

 

 I do not personally find his work inciteful itself in the sense of causing violence. racial hatred etc., if anything, rather the opposite, would be what I would expect, and what I certainly think was his goal, that to raise the issues and look at them, people might do better for now and in the  future.

 

Although reading that first criticism by Thos. Noble that was posted, I guess for some people Carroll's work does seem to incite anger.

 

 

 

I am also open to hearing other perspectives.  ...  ETA, "open" does not sound right.   I  would like very much to hear other perspectives, and try to understand how others are understanding these matters or personally coming to terms with them.  Or other viewpoints.

Yes, it is "insightful" and only "inciteful" if one can't handle a mature discussion about the the historical development of Christianity.

 

Sorry about the misspelling. My brain is shot.

 

Bill

[NASDAQ]

I have not read SOTW in full. I have not found it to be inappropriate for Orthodox Jews if you generally allow your children to read secular books that have Christmas and such in them. You will need to have one or two conversations about "What Christians believe that we do not believe."

 

I don't particularly like it though. I like Gombrich much better.

 

I am not, as a Jewess, at all interested in a discussion of "soul-searching" with the Catholic church. The past is a foreign country. They did things differently there.

[Pen]

 The past is a foreign country. They did things differently there.

 

 

I do not understand what you mean.  Could you please explain?

 

I know that our technology is much different than it was in the past, though it also is something that has built on what there was in the past.  Do you mean you believe that anti-semitism no longer exists (a recent copy of The Week said anti-semitism is on the rise again), and no longer should be considered or explored, with a goal of improving the present and future, with a goal not only of improving the anti-semitism situation but also other thngs like it, and also ending genocides such as seem to be, still, in recent years, not some distant past, all too common?  

 

I think the past is connected to the present and future, and in a world of rapid travel of communication, warheads, people, viruses, radiation fallout, even whole heavy concrete piers that cross the ocean, and dust that blows from one continent to another, and also I hope of perhaps better ways of doing things and learning,  foreign countries are our neighbors.

[Candid]

This is a quote. Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Between

 

However, I have seen this quote used by many historians. It is hard to understand how differently people thought in the past until you study the past, read history books by historians and works of literature from the time. 

 

Even as short a time ago as the Civil War, which I have started to study, is filled with unexpected moments. We look back and see towering heroes and military strategists. We see a time of honor and careful discipline. But looking carefully through the documents of the day you learn that instead communications between leaders and subordinate was insubordinate in the extreme. Here's a series of blog posts to illustrate.

 

http://iwouldneverwearorange.blogspot.com/2009/08/insubordination.html

http://iwouldneverwearorange.blogspot.com/2009/08/insubordination-2.html

http://iwouldneverwearorange.blogspot.com/search/search/?q=insubordination&x=-267&y=-356

http://iwouldneverwearorange.blogspot.com/2009/09/insubordination-4.html

 

And what about the pure sanity of some of those commanders. Here's another blog post:

http://iwouldneverwearorange.blogspot.com/2009/08/insubordination-3.html

 

None of the people referenced in these posts would cut it in today's military, especially not that last nut. Hence the saying, " The past is a foreign country. They did things differently there."

[Pen]

Thank you for elucidating the quote in terms of its use by historians.    

 

However, what I do not understand is substantive in regard to dismissing issues pertaining to understanding anti-semitism and relationships between violence and Christianity as being in the past.    The quote and tone sound to me (though perhaps not meant to be) flippantly dismissive of that as irrelevant and no longer part of  the present, but much of the whole point of the book though it's title sounds like something far past is that it is relevant to the recent past and the here and now present and most likely to the future.  

 

When my grandfather was a young man in the 1930's his mother thought he should study science in Germany as the most advanced and enlightened country of the time.  I expect it would have seemed then that the pogroms in Russia were in a far away backward country, and the Inquisitions in a long past time, and one could probably equally give this very flippant and dismissive sounding quote to someone raising such issues--and yet a few year later came the Holocaust/Shoah.    As much as I would like to understand how Christianity would be violent or anti-semitic when Jesus was a Jew who preached non-violence, so too I would like to understand how someone, anyone really, but perhaps especially someone who writes as a "Jewess," apparently chooses to dismiss anti-semitism and related issues as something that we in the present can no longer understand or relate to.     That is what I wanted to understand.  

[Pen]

Ooohs! Dumb typo. I edited. Too tired.

 

 

Yes, it is "insightful" and only "inciteful" if one can't handle a mature discussion about the the historical development of Christianity.

 

Sorry about the misspelling. My brain is shot.

 

Bill

 

 

I think I knew it was a typo, but it seemed like an useful one to aid discussion, since it does seem to be the word with a 'c' is the way it seems  to some people!

[Spy Car]

I think I knew it was a typo, but it seemed like an useful one to aid discussion, since it does seem to be the word with a 'c' is the way it seems  to some people!

It is not unusually for people to feel defensive when institutions or ideas they hold dear are being subjected to examination, if not criticism. I get that. But that is part of why Carroll's work is so interesting. He is not "anti-Catholic." He was a Priest.But he sees areas that trouble him, areas that are not death with, and he struggles to find answers.

 

That drew some pretty strong flack from those unwilling tackle inconvenient questions. We need people like Carroll who are willing to self-examine.

 

Like you, I do not know what to make of NASDAQs post. when I read it, I assumed I must have misconstrued her point. The position of the Church on Jews and anti-Semitism is vital to everyone, not the least of which are Jews. I must assume there is no argument about that.

 

Bill

[Candid]

Thank you for elucidating the quote in terms of its use by historians.    

 

However, what I do not understand is substantive in regard to dismissing issues pertaining to understanding anti-semitism and relationships between violence and Christianity as being in the past.    The quote and tone sound to me (though perhaps not meant to be) flippantly dismissive of that as irrelevant and no longer part of  the present, but much of the whole point of the book though it's title sounds like something far past is that it is relevant to the recent past and the here and now present and most likely to the future.  

 

When my grandfather was a young man in the 1930's his mother thought he should study science in Germany as the most advanced and enlightened country of the time.  I expect it would have seemed then that the pogroms in Russia were in a far away backward country, and the Inquisitions in a long past time, and one could probably equally give this very flippant and dismissive sounding quote to someone raising such issues--and yet a few year later came the Holocaust/Shoah.    As much as I would like to understand how Christianity would be violent or anti-semitic when Jesus was a Jew who preached non-violence, so too I would like to understand how someone, anyone really, but perhaps especially someone who writes as a "Jewess," apparently chooses to dismiss anti-semitism and related issues as something that we in the present can no longer understand or relate to.     That is what I wanted to understand.  

 

Then you'll need to begin in the beginning and read forward, in this case, you can start with the New Testament and then read the early church fathers. Begin to identify where bias appears. However, you'll probably also want to study the overall culture. To assume like Christianity invented this bias would be incorrect. So you'll also want to read other first century writers (and maybe earlier) to see how Jews were viewed in the ancient world. Josephus might also be important to read as my understanding is that he wrote to make Jews appear better to the Roman government just after the fall of Jerusalem.  As you read both these streams of thought, you'll begin to see interplay and begin to get at the question of separation between Christianity and Jewishness. 

 

You'll also want to read historians. There have been many books and reviews suggested in this thread. Choosing could be difficult. As someone who read historians, I would suggest looking at the background of each person who writes each thing and choosing those who have an education and publishing background that supports their writing such a work. While singular works by oddball writers can advance historical knowledge for the most part such works are not distinguished as highly because generally such authors do not have the training to properly handle and sort the issues. 

 

For that matter if you have never read any church history at all, you might begin by reading one. I generally suggest this one: http://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Early-Church-Present/dp/1565635221/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381495274&sr=1-4&keywords=the+story+of+christianity It is secular in orientation and does the best job I have seen covering all of Christianity.  At least reading through and past Constantine will give you some background to place further in depth reading against. 

 

If you are particularly interesting in the Holocaust. I've been reading the chapters in a book on the issue by an excellent writer. He's going to eventually release these in a book, but I am sure he would be happy to back subscribe you to his email newsletter which is very inexpensive if you wish to read about Nazi's and Christianity. PM me and I will send you his email. 

 

Let me add that while the quote may seem flip to you, your own quote asking about the quote also struck me as flip as made by someone who has not done any sort of extensive and in depth study of the past. You seem to understand that how people lived was differently, but you don't seem to understand that how we perceive the world is radically different. That's why I provided the Civil War insubordination links. They show how behavior that would be punished in today's military was common just 150 years ago, part of how people behaved. You CAN NOT ASSUME people in the past thought the same ways you do in any way shape or form.

 

As just one part of that, most folks believe we see the world with what is called a "psychological" point of view. This point of view is held by almost all first world people no matter what their religious and philosophical beliefs. However in the past many societies including the ancient ones you are interested in held an "honor" based point of view. This effect many details that we are totally unaware of when we read Biblical and other ancient writings. 

[RootAnn]

But that is part of why Carroll's work is so interesting. He is not "anti-Catholic." He was a Priest.

 

I don't know Carroll, so this isn't a comment on him specifically. Anecdotally, I have found that some of the most anti-somethings used to be those very somethings themselves. Huge anti-smoking pushers were once smokers themselves. I have a relative or two who are virulently against even recreational alcohol use and one of them is a recovering alcoholic. A couple fitness experts in my hometown were former fat people. Some of the most anti-Catholic people I've been around were baptized Catholics who have "fallen away." 

 

Logically, just because someone was a priest doesn't mean he can't be anti-Catholic. It doesn't mean he will definitely be anti-Catholic either. I think it is a non sequitur.

[*Michelle*]

Specifically, Carroll is anti-Catholic.  He is a professional anti-Catholic.  He can say he is a "dissident" Catholic all he wants, but he attacks the Church in all areas.  He denies foundational doctrines.  He is not a Catholic.

[Kathryn]

OP, sorry I forgot about this. If you're still interested in learning about Constantine from a historian's viewpoint, a good place to start (because you can likely get it at your library) is "Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor" by Paul Stephenson, a professor of Byzantine history. As with all treatments of Constantine, there are judgments made on one side or another. Constantine is an extremely difficult historical personality. Notice I said "start" with that. To get a good picture of Constantine, you really need several sources (at least), and this one is newer and offers a good bibliography of what is out there.

 

ETa: this is a pretty fair review: http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/644.asp

[Spy Car]

Specifically, Carroll is anti-Catholic. He is a professional anti-Catholic. He can say he is a "dissident" Catholic all he wants, but he attacks the Church in all areas. He denies foundational doctrines. He is not a Catholic.

It is extremely easy to slander people who ask questions you don't like on the Internet there days.

 

This website is very controversial, not mainstream, not endorsed by the Church, and not run by trained Catholic theologians (even though they act with that pretension). They are in bad standing in the Catholic community, and the owners Jeff and ( his son) Peter Mirus enrich themselves off the donations to this "charity."

 

This is just not a reliable source.

 

Carroll is a very thoughtful person, and hardly an anti-Catholic. Charges like this are a way to shut down people who ask the questions that deserve to be asked (and answered).

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

OP, sorry I forgot about this. If you're still interested in learning about Constantine from a historian's viewpoint, a good place to start (because you can likely get it at your library) is "Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor" by Paul Stephenson, a professor of Byzantine history. As with all treatments of Constantine, there are judgments made on one side or another. Constantine is an extremely difficult historical personality. Notice I said "start" with that. To get a good picture of Constantine, you really need several sources (at least), and this one is newer and offers a good bibliography of what is out there.

 

ETa: this is a pretty fair review: http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/644.asp

Sounds like an interesting book. The review does not mention Constantine's relation to the Jews, focusing only on his suppression of pagans, and andancement of Christians. I wonder how the relations with Jews are covered in the book?

 

The review also shows that Constantine's rise to power involved convincing the army that the "Christian God" as the ultimate god-of-war. This theological shift of Christianity being a transformed into a religion that served to advance the interests of Emerpors and embraced armed militarism was a profund shift. I don't see how one could cover Constantine and at least not mention this given that this is argueably his reign's greatest historical legacy.

 

Bill

[*Michelle*]

LOL, how about this:

 

James Carroll is very controversial, not mainstream, not endorsed by the Church, and not run by trained Catholic theologians (even though [he acts] with that pretension). [He is] in bad standing in the Catholic community, and.. enrich[es] [himself] off the [sales of his books.]

 

Anyone who denies the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church is not a Catholic.

 

 

 

 

[Spy Car]

LOL, how about this:

 

James Carroll is very controversial, not mainstream, not endorsed by the Church, and not run by trained Catholic theologians (even though [he acts] with that pretension). [He is] in bad standing in the Catholic community, and.. enrich[es] [himself] off the [sales of his books.]

 

Anyone who denies the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church is not a Catholic.

James Carroll is a cradle Catholic who went to seminary and was ordained (and served) as a Roman Catholic Preist. I understand people on the radical fringe want to smear him with false-charges of "anti-Catholicism," but it is bunk.

 

It is an old tactic in propaganda that when you can't deal with the substance of a debate you start smearing the opponent with ad hominim attacks. It is the unfortune consequence that these tactics too often close people's minds from addressing real and valid issues and concerns. *Sigh*

 

Bill

[*Michelle*]

You know, propaganda is exactly what I thought of when I read about Carroll. :)

 

If you want to think of Carroll as a devout Catholic, you are more than welcome to do so.  I doubt anything anyone says will convince you otherwise.  His work means nothing more to me than any other piece of historical fiction.

 

[Spy Car]

You know, propaganda is exactly what I thought of when I read about Carroll. :)

 

If you want to think of Carroll as a devout Catholic, you are more than welcome to do so.  I doubt anything anyone says will convince you otherwise.  His work means nothing more to me than any other piece of historical fiction.

If every American Roman Catholic who had "issues" with any policies or practices of the Church were held to the same standards as Carroll, I'm sure there'd be upwards of 70-80% of parishioners who'd get branded as "Anti-Catholics."

 

It is an unfortunate and disreputable tactic to smear an individual, rather than face tough questions he raises in a thoughtful manner.

 

Bill

[ElizaG]

CatholicCulture.org doesn't need to have trained theologians on staff.  They don't teach theology, nor do they answer theological (or other) questions from users. 

 

Jeffrey Mirus does have a doctorate in intellectual history from Princeton.   He co-founded Christendom College, and has also been involved in the leadership at Seton School in Virginia -- both of which are Catholic institutions in good standing with the Church.    And the director of the site is Phil Lawler, who founded Catholic World News, and has edited several mainstream Catholic periodicals, including the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston.  His latest book is a biography of Pope Francis, co-authored with a journalist and editor from Vatican Radio.

 

But we're supposed to believe that they're on the radical fringe.  And that James Carroll -- who's on record as rejecting the divine inspiration of Scripture, the Nicene Creed, and other basic Christian doctrines too numerous to mention -- is a faithful Catholic.

 

Sorry, not going to work.

 

OP, you might want to add The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice to your reading list.   It has some specific responses to Carroll's book, but would probably be of most interest in a broader sense, as it relates to your interest in religious tolerance.  

[Spy Car]

Wow!

 

What a terrible tactic. Instead of dealing with legitimate issues smear those with whom you disagree as anti-Catholics.

 

Egads, that's low.

 

Bill

[Meriwether]

Wow!

 

What a terrible tactic. Instead of dealing with legitimate issues smear those with whom you disagree as anti-Catholics.

 

Egads, that's low.

 

Bill

Bill,

 

You need some new insults. It seems you are calling someone low every time I turn around these days.

[Pen]

Then you'll need to begin in the beginning and read forward, in this case, you can start with the New Testament and then read the early church fathers. Begin to identify where bias appears. However, you'll probably also want to study the overall culture. To assume like Christianity invented this bias would be incorrect. So you'll also want to read other first century writers (and maybe earlier) to see how Jews were viewed in the ancient world. Josephus might also be important to read as my understanding is that he wrote to make Jews appear better to the Roman government just after the fall of Jerusalem.  As you read both these streams of thought, you'll begin to see interplay and begin to get at the question of separation between Christianity and Jewishness. 

 

You'll also want to read historians. There have been many books and reviews suggested in this thread. Choosing could be difficult. As someone who read historians, I would suggest looking at the background of each person who writes each thing and choosing those who have an education and publishing background that supports their writing such a work. While singular works by oddball writers can advance historical knowledge for the most part such works are not distinguished as highly because generally such authors do not have the training to properly handle and sort the issues. 

 

For that matter if you have never read any church history at all, you might begin by reading one. I generally suggest this one: http://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Early-Church-Present/dp/1565635221/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381495274&sr=1-4&keywords=the+story+of+christianity It is secular in orientation and does the best job I have seen covering all of Christianity.  At least reading through and past Constantine will give you some background to place further in depth reading against. 

 

If you are particularly interesting in the Holocaust. I've been reading the chapters in a book on the issue by an excellent writer. He's going to eventually release these in a book, but I am sure he would be happy to back subscribe you to his email newsletter which is very inexpensive if you wish to read about Nazi's and Christianity. PM me and I will send you his email. 

 

Let me add that while the quote may seem flip to you, your own quote asking about the quote also struck me as flip as made by someone who has not done any sort of extensive and in depth study of the past. You seem to understand that how people lived was differently, but you don't seem to understand that how we perceive the world is radically different. That's why I provided the Civil War insubordination links. They show how behavior that would be punished in today's military was common just 150 years ago, part of how people behaved. You CAN NOT ASSUME people in the past thought the same ways you do in any way shape or form.

 

As just one part of that, most folks believe we see the world with what is called a "psychological" point of view. This point of view is held by almost all first world people no matter what their religious and philosophical beliefs. However in the past many societies including the ancient ones you are interested in held an "honor" based point of view. This effect many details that we are totally unaware of when we read Biblical and other ancient writings. 

 

 

I appreciate the time you obviously took here, and will look at the link above as I looked at the prior links you gave.  

 

However, I think I still have not made my area of lack of understanding about  the quote about history being like a foreign country clear.   I can understand anyone saying he or she is personally not interested in any subject.   In this situation, it could have been a Catholic person, a Hindu person, a Native American, anyone.  We all have our own interests, and we all have our own areas of lack of interest.  We all have books that resonate with us, and ones that do not.  

 

  What I did not understand was her dismissing, or as I understood her comment, seeming to dismiss, the whole subject of anti-semitism, and other subjects I said I was interested in (violence, for example) as, apparently, no longer pertinent to modern times.  

[NASDAQ]

I do not understand what you mean.  Could you please explain?

 

I know that our technology is much different than it was in the past, though it also is something that has built on what there was in the past.  Do you mean you believe that anti-semitism no longer exists (a recent copy of The Week said anti-semitism is on the rise again), and no longer should be considered or explored, with a goal of improving the present and future, with a goal not only of improving the anti-semitism situation but also other thngs like it, and also ending genocides such as seem to be, still, in recent years, not some distant past, all too common?  

 

I think the past is connected to the present and future, and in a world of rapid travel of communication, warheads, people, viruses, radiation fallout, even whole heavy concrete piers that cross the ocean, and dust that blows from one continent to another, and also I hope of perhaps better ways of doing things and learning,  foreign countries are our neighbors.

 

Of course anti-semitism still exists. But the major anti-semitic players in the world are not the same as the anti-semitic players of the past, even the recent past. If Jews hold grudges, we have no friends. I don't think the dredging up of past wrongs is particularly helpful.

 

We have really, really, really big problems, but the Catholic church isn't one of them.

[Pen]

Of course anti-semitism still exists. But the major anti-semitic players in the world are not the same as the anti-semitic players of the past, even the recent past. If Jews hold grudges, we have no friends. I don't think the dredging up of past wrongs is particularly helpful.

 

We have really, really, really big problems, but the Catholic church isn't one of them.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying what you meant!

 

 I can see that view, and respect, even admire it.  (ETA: except that what I thought I could see, respect and admire was apparently a total misinterpretation of what you meant.   Once I came to realize that what you meant, from your post lower down) was that you like that the Catholic Church isn't opposing nuclear weapons,  my admiration has vanished.  I would say that our really, really big problems--for all of us and not even just humans let alone humans of any particular faith--include nuclear weapons, and also the Fukushima nuclear power plants situation, which as I write appear to have just narrowly missed catastrophic disaster from a Typhoon.)

 

At the same time, I also see that Christian attitudes are still relevant, and that the Catholic Church and its many individual members may have some influence still in at least some places.   I don't see the book by Carroll or movie by the same title, as I was viewing/reading them  and understanding them, to have to do with holding grudges, but rather urging the world to move toward a future that is better--and while a primary focus was about the Catholic Church and Jews, it seemed to me also relevant to Middle East issues in present times, and issues with regard to modern day American Evangelical Protestantism as well, among other things.   

[Pen]

OP, sorry I forgot about this. If you're still interested in learning about Constantine from a historian's viewpoint, a good place to start (because you can likely get it at your library) is "Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor" by Paul Stephenson, a professor of Byzantine history. As with all treatments of Constantine, there are judgments made on one side or another. Constantine is an extremely difficult historical personality. Notice I said "start" with that. To get a good picture of Constantine, you really need several sources (at least), and this one is newer and offers a good bibliography of what is out there.

 

ETa: this is a pretty fair review: http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/644.asp

 

Thank you.  If my library does not have I'll ask them to get it from interlibrary loan.  Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor, by Paul Stephenson

New York: The Overlook Press, 2010.  ISBN: 1590203240.

[NASDAQ]

Thank you for clarifying what you meant!

 

 I can see that view, and respect, even admire it.  

 

At the same time, I also see that Christian attitudes are still relevant, and that the Catholic Church and its many individual members may have some influence still in at least some places.   I don't see the book by Carroll or movie by the same title, as I was viewing/reading them  and understanding them, to have to do with holding grudges, but rather urging the world to move toward a future that is better--and while a primary focus was about the Catholic Church and Jews, it seemed to me also relevant to Middle East issues in present times, and issues with regard to modern day American Evangelical Protestantism as well, among other things.   

 

I was referring more to the idea of setting up Catholic/Jewish reconciliation circles. I don't think that grievance-airing regarding the past of the Catholic church moves the ball forward at all. Of course the Catholic church has influence, but it isn't using that influence to sponsor pogroms or strip Israel of the nuclear weapons we all suspect Israel has.

 

It's been awhile since I read the Carroll book so I can't really speak to it.

[Pen]

I was referring more to the idea of setting up Catholic/Jewish reconciliation circles. I don't think that grievance-airing regarding the past of the Catholic church moves the ball forward at all. Of course the Catholic church has influence, but it isn't using that influence to sponsor pogroms or strip Israel of the nuclear weapons we all suspect Israel has.

 

...

 

 

I want a world that learns to use reconciliation circles, or similar approaches, rather than nuclear weapons.

 

ETA:  I was thinking of the influence of the Catholic Church in terms of its potential ability to have influence for the better, btw--something more akin to the ability of Good Samaritan bystanders on a playground learning to help stop bullying, by using influence and action.  And that could include the influence of participation in reconciliation circles or other means of non-violent dispute resolution mechanisms, or reaching out in friendship to other religious groups: such actions could be a model for use in situations that are more fraught than, as I think you rightly point out, Catholic-Jewish relations are at this moment.   It also could make a big difference in the minds of individuals for whom people like the Pope, or Dalai Lama, or a Mother Theresa, or Archbishop Tutu perhaps, are important guides and role models--and that can include many who are not of the same faith, yet may look to such people as spiritual leaders.    Also ETA that I realize that there is a good bit of anti-Catholic sentiment around, and that the Catholic Church does not have as much influence, as much power, as it once did.  Though perhaps with less actual power there sometimes can also come some sense of greater moral influence, as would seem to be the case with several of the names I mentioned above.

[Spy Car]

I'd add that "truth and reconciliation" is preferable to "reconciliation" alone,

 

Bill

[Pen]

James Carroll is a cradle Catholic who went to seminary and was ordained (and served) as a Roman Catholic Preist. I understand people on the radical fringe want to smear him with false-charges of "anti-Catholicism," but it is bunk.

 

It is an old tactic in propaganda that when you can't deal with the substance of a debate you start smearing the opponent with ad hominim attacks. It is the unfortune consequence that these tactics too often close people's minds from addressing real and valid issues and concerns. *Sigh*

 

Bill

 

 

It does tend to lead discussion away from the real and valid substance concerns to side tracks about things like whether or not the author is or is not Catholic.   

 

I know some people check with their priest, rabbi, or other religious leader to see if books are okay to read, or short of that try to limit themselves to things they see as being in accord with their religious views.   But personally I read books by people of many faiths and by atheists, so if he had converted to become a Unitarian as the Vichy Catholic article author seems to think would be a better fit, or perhaps an Episcopalian, or a member of the Society of Friends (Quaker) which might also fit him perhaps, it would not especially matter to me, and if he had been a born something else that would have been fine too--though in that case he would not have  had this particular personal narrative to tell.  

 

I agree that anti-Catholicism is a problem, but I am not reading Carroll's book as being that.  I still have the feeling that many on here who are arguing against his work did not actually read it.   And accusations in the linked article are misleading, for example, JC uses the word "allegedly" as to the Pope's reaction to the play The Deputy.   To me it was clear that it might be a real story or an apocryphal one.   "Dissident"--JC's own word-- does sound accurate. 

 

(as an aside, My Princeton directory is not around at the moment, and perhaps too out of date in any case, but they did not, as I recall, give degrees in "Intellectual History" when I was there (History, yes, but not Intellectual History), thus it struck me a bit odd when someone wrote to you, Bill, saying that the person who runs the website with the article "Vichy Catholic" had such a degree.  Maybe I misremember  though. )  

 

I could not tell from the article whether JC was actually excommunicated, or only did something for which he might have been excommunicated, and I am not sure if being excommunicated makes someone a non-Catholic or still a Catholic but in bad standing.  

 

Nonetheless, if Carroll were, in fact, excommunicated for having married out of the "faith" before fully laicized, and then comparing that to Hitler not being excommunicated for ordering the murder of millions of people, such a difference speaks volumes as to the real and valid substance of Carroll's concerns and dissent.  

 

If one were to believe in Papal Infallibility, then I am not sure how one would reconcile that unless one believed that the murder of millions was acceptable, or at least more acceptable than a too soon mixed-marriage. 

[Kathryn]

It does tend to lead discussion away from the real and valid substance concerns to side tracks about things like whether or not the author is or is not Catholic.

 

The entire conversation on Carroll's Catholicness here began with Bill's logical fallacy statement that as a former priest, Carroll was not anti-Catholic.