Last night, for academic purposes, I attended a book signing in Houston. The author was Garry Wills. He was discussing his recent book,"Why I am a Catholic". The book is a followup to "Papal Sin".

Wills is very critical of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, and the papacy (papal infallibility), in general.

However,I was impressed with his personal faith,at the base level of wanting to be a follower of Jesus, and of his devotion to Mary. This,at first, appears contradictory, but is really not.

One of the things that he states is that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops,in forming a national review board due to the sexual abuse scandal, knowingly violated a Vatican directive. The directive states that a national conference cannot implement a policy unless it is voted in unanimously and gains approval by the Vatican. He went on to say that the US bishops instituted the review board publicly and quickly, so that it would be in place and could not be abolished by the Vatican.

Garry Wills is a respected historian. He made a statement that St. Juan Diego, by the most credible historical evidence, was a myth. Could this be similar to St. Christopher?

There are many points that could be debated here and frankly, I'm running out of time this morning.

What are your opinions of Garry Wills and his points of view?

I respectfully ask that comments come from forum members who have read his books, not from those persons who have only read reviews of his books.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 15, 2003

Answers

If Juan Diego were a myth ( I make no definitive judgment on this one way or the other, though I personally doubt that he is mythical), then presumably the story of Our Lady Of Guadalupe would also be a myth? Did he address this?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2003.

No Paul, He didn't say anything about that. He mentioned Juan Diego in passing. He was talking at the time about the Pope's personal leaning toward apparitions or appearances and Fatima. In particular, he stated that he did not understand how the Pope interpreted the third secret as his attempted assination.

I wish now that I had taken notes. God bless, God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 15, 2003.

John,

The existence of Juan Diego has been discussed here in the past (in many threads and two languages!).

Please see this thread as it has links to a few more. Hope your Spanish is better than mine as half of the posts are in this language.

As I have not read his books, I cannot comment on those.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), October 15, 2003.

"People are the church, not the pope. With that in mind, it is not fair to say the church is against homosexuality and birth control. The church is not against those things, the pope is." -Gary Willis at a recent book signing

He is obviously searching, but I am not sure for what.

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

According to Mr Willis amazingly myopic view of ecclesiology, anywhere there are two or more "Catholics" who believe in something that opinion must also magically become "the belief of the church".

But two can play this game. What if a majority of people believe blacks should be enslaved, women held in bondage and gays rounded up and gassed? Would their opinion instantly become authoritatively "the Catholic position"?

For that matter, does Mr. Willis really believe that any majority opinion instantly becomes "the moral position"? If so, then Nazism and Communism were both completely moral political positions within their spheres of influence and given the multi-culturalistic ethical relativism of Mr. Willis and his ilk, he could only conclude that Hitler and Stalin are saints in heaven because they were at peace with their consciences and "FELT GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES"!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

Let me clarify one thing that I wrote -- now that I have a little more time.

What I should have said is that I was impressed by Garry Will's personal sincerity. I beleive that HE believes that he is trying to be a true follower of Christ. He is devoted to Mary, as the mother of God. I have no doubt about his feeling on these subjects.

However, his criticism of the Pope, as a church leader, and his personal journey are apples and oranges.

Since we are all on our personal journeys, we are all trying to find our own "personal theology".

Mr. Wills believes intellectually that he is right in his views. His faith is there, but his CONCLUSIONS are at best questionable. At worst, heretical.

I agree with (I think) St. Augustine who said, "Let's not kill the heretics, let us bring them to repentance".

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 15, 2003.

John,

The Catholic Church does not cannonize "myths". This statement shows that this man is a confused pup.

He is just talking to sell books.(In my opinion) The root of all evil is not the money,but what some people will do to make a buck.

-- - (David@excite.com), October 15, 2003.

Hi John, I have read both "Papal Sins" and the sequel, "Why I am a Catholic." I started out of order with "Why I am a Catholic," when I was making my way back to the Church. I thought this book might be inspiring or helpful. As I got into it, I realised it was probably not designed to re-ignite my fire for Catholicism. Still I became interested and decided to read "Papal Sins" first, in order to get a better idea about why he wrote "Why I am a Catholic". "Papal Sins," as the title suggests, is very critical of many popes, the papacy in general, not just John Paul II. Much of what he wrote in "Papal Sins" might be construed as Catholic bashing, but after reading "Why I am a Catholic" I ended up with a very different more positive feeling about his intentions. In spite of his conclusions in "Papal Sins" I sense that he genuinely and sincerely loves the Church. He summarized his beliefs by reciting the Nicene Creed. I would suspect he shares much with Hans Kung. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), October 15, 2003.

I would have to agree with David@excite. Wills knows that the american people seem to have this thing against Catholics. It is easy to find in the media. So he tapped into that because he know it will sell well. Anyone can write a book bashing the Church. Find something you don't like and make up crap about it.

If he is searching for a return to his faith then I wish he wouldn't publish his thoughts. But maybe it could be good too. Maybe if people like to follow him and read all his books, and then he writes a defense of the Church.... Maybe that would change people's minds.

Let us pray that that is the case. And if it is he might just be very brilliant. Who knows. But all we can do is pray for him.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.

There is an error in going after your our own "personal theology". We are Roman Catholics, our theology is defined by Christ and the fact that He said He would stay with the Church so the living magistarium can help clearify the theology of our faith and morals as time goes by. This modern idea that we can somehow dramatically deviate from the Church's theology because we don't agree with it is nothing but simple elitism. When you examine it, it really is a violation of the 1st Commandment.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), October 16, 2003.

One of the things that he states is that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, in forming a national review board due to the sexual abuse scandal, knowingly violated a Vatican directive.

Among his many other shortcomings, Wills lacks facts here. The USCCB did not "form a national review board." It was an act of the president alone (Bp. W. Gregory). He had the power to do this because the board is merely consultative. It has no legal power. It cannot command any bishop (or the Conference) to do anything, but can only state conclusions and recommendations.

Wills again is short on facts when he writes about the popes. A full review (by former publisher of "Our Sunday Visitor," Robert Lockwood) of the "palpable nonsense" that is Wills's "Papal Sins" should be read here.

The situations of St. Christopher and St. Juan Diego cannot be compared. Again Wills shows his ignorance. St. Juan Diego was just canonized last year, after a long, painstaking process of ascertaining facts, waiting for miracles, etc.. It is impossible for the modern (second-millennium) canonization process to err, so careful is it. Moreover papal canonizations are considered infallible statements, so it is impossible for St. J.D. to be a "myth." Although there is not a vast amount known about him, this little Vatican biography ought to convince any fair person that Wills was wrong.

By contrast, "saint-making" in the very early Church (e.g., at the time of St. Christopher) was accomplished in ways that are very different from the modern process. Sometimes just the "acclamation" of the people of a small area, with a bishop's approval, could result in a person being considered a saint, with his fame eventually spreading to the universal Church. This may have been the case with St. Christopher -- who, by the way, has never been declared "mythical" or a "non-saint" by the Church. Of him and several other "old-timers," it has only been stated that there is a scarcity of historical evidence to prove, with the kind of certainty that people of our age expect, that they existed.

-- (Free@Wills.com), October 16, 2003.

Bill, I placed "personal theology" in quotation marks for a reason.

We all have a "personal theology". Many people say, "my theology is the Church's stated theology". This is OK. This is good. Many of us are more like Thomas. Sometimes we say, "Show me". Most of us are the prodigal instead of the good son.

Jesus knew we had this trait. He showed Thomas.

"Come and See!" was also stated / recorded for a reason.

The Holy Spirit works in our lives everyday to reveal to us a little more about God and his plans.

Each day we should gain a richer theology. A richer "knowledge of God".

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 17, 2003.