James G. McCarthy

This is a pretty good book attacking the dogmas of the Catholic faith, and it does it in a fairly non-confrontational style. But alas, it is still a polemic, and any review I make won't be accepted by anyone on the Papist side of the aisle.

McCarthy is a former Roman Catholic from a strongly Catholic family and seems to have a fairly strong grasp of Roman ritual and theology, regardless of what this book's detractors (stroll through the Amazon reviews) might say. He bases his interpretation of Catholic theology primarily on its most recently published catechism (spearheaded by the current Pope). The Catechism of the Catholic Church is referenced throughout the text and he peppers it with his personal experiences, quotes from the first and second Vatican Councils, and various papal bulls, etc. It’s pretty accurate as far as I can tell without becoming a monk and studying the catechism and the history of the Church 24/7.

McCarthy obviously belongs to some evangelical branch of Protestantism, and if I had to guess, of the Baptist variety (as he espouses credobaptism over pedobaptism). This happens to be the tradition I grew up in (moving from Southern Baptist to, recently, Free Will Baptist) and I recall picking up a tattered copy of Hislop’s The Two Babylons at my Church library. McCarthy does not stoop to accusing Catholics of being Nimrod worshippers and Luciferians, but he does castigate them for being unbiblical. Of course Catholics will usually jump up with “we wrote the Bible” and “you have to use tradition to interpret the Bible.” And so forth. And faithful Catholics won’t budge from this position, but doubters may. McCarthy does a fine job not when he’s talking about where Catholics interpret the Bible differently, or even where they turn to tradition to plug various lacunae, but when something Catholics believe is in direct contradiction to scripture. He is at his best attacking: (1) the sacraments, i.e. they don’t give salvific grace, belief in Christ does; (2) the contention that works can justify you, in direct contradiction with much of the Pauline corpus; (3) the supposition that Peter was the “leader” of the apostles (Christ was) and he is thus the head of the Church (Christ is) and only a Petrine Church is the true Church (an iffy proposition at best); and (4) the myth that Mary is the “Mother of God,” a “co-mediatrix” with Christ, immaculately conceived, bodily assumed into heaven, or a perpetual virgin (I mean, read Mathew 1:25, damn, it’s right there: “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” – we all know what “knew” and “till” mean).

But, as McCarthy even admits, these are arguments that the Catholic Church have heard before – they don’t care. Are they unbiblical? I’d vote yes. Are they un-Christian? Eh, I think if they have faith in Christ they’re okay, only God knows. I personally laud Catholics when they support general Christian values in society and attack socialism and secularism as man-centered quasi-religions. Thus I like when Benedict XVI talks about the “dictatorship of relativism.” But, I wish they weren’t so caught up in ritual and tradition and works. This book is good for fodder if you are a confirmed Protestant and have friendly debates with Catholics and they trot out any of their well-worn “proofs.” This way you don’t look dumbfounded when they say things like “Catholics wrote the Bible,” or “nowhere does it say Mary had sex in the Bible,” or “there is no such thing as sola scriptura.” Is McCarthy above error? No. In fact, on page 83 he quotes Mark 2:7 to support the fact that only God can forgive sins, yet these words aren’t from Jesus, but a detractor. Will confirmed Catholics convert? No. Will doubting lapsed Catholics decide that Protestantism has the key? Maybe. To sum up, could this book be worse? Yes, read Hislop. Could it be better? Probably not. Maybe more in depth, but that would sacrifice it’s handiness and lucidity.

Pickyness: Who decided on a continuous numbering of endnotes across the whole book? (Up to an unwieldy number 558.) And people, people, people, it isn’t against the law to have notes and a bibliography, in fact, an annotated bibliography for further study would have come in mighty handy.… (mais)