The Catholic Revival in English Literature, 1845-1961: Newman, Hopkins, Belloc, Chesterton, Greene, Waugh

The Catholic Revival in English Literature, 1845-1961: Newman, Hopkins, Belloc, Chesterton, Greene, Waugh.  By Ian Ker, University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.

 

In this book, Ian Ker presents profiles of six of the most prominent Catholic British authors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  All but Belloc were converts to Catholicism.  Throughout their careers, these authors continually incorporate themes of faith, the clergy, and theology in their writings, ranging from fiction to nonfiction to poetry. 

 

Nearly all of the authors discussed in this book (I am as of this time unfamiliar with the work of Gerard Manley Hopkins) are favorites of mine.  I am not a fan of these authors simply because they are Catholics. Rather, I am captivated by the way that these authors invigorate and enrich their work through the worldview expressed in their books, and it just so happens that their worldviews are driven by their faith.  One of my favorite quotes on literature comes from the novelist, essayist, and social critic Alice Thomas Ellis, who quipped, “Once you take away the religious element, you can’t write fiction. Well, you can, but it’s boring.”

 

Other than a brief introduction and an even briefer conclusion, Ker’s book is composed of six chapters, each devoted to a short biographical overview of one of the authors, as well as a critique of some of each author’s work and the Catholic themes that permeate it.  The chapters grow longer as the book proceeds.  The first chapter on Newman is only about thirty pages, which is far too short to do justice to the man’s life and work.  Comparatively, the final chapter on Waugh is around fifty pages, composing nearly a quarter of the book.  The added length makes for a much better analysis, since far more of Waugh’s books are referenced here.  Casual readers should be cautious– some major plot points and spoilers are included in the chapters on Greene and Waugh.

 

Given the lengths of these profiles, and the details provided about each of these authors’ writings, these chapters might work best for readers with introductory-level knowledge about these authors.  Those who are well-versed on these writers will find a great deal of factual information that they already know, but the main attraction of this book will be for people who seek to find out how great writers were able to blend faith into their work.

 

The first two chapters on Newman and Hopkins are good overviews of the authors and their work, but their primary shortcoming is their brevity.  Ker touches upon some intriguing autobiographical information on the pair, but only a handful of sentences are provided on the topics before the direction shifts.  Herein lies the central difficulty of a work such as this.  When dealing with extremely talented authors who deal with massive themes and important topics, it takes considerable skills to condense the men and their writings into a few dozen pages.  The Newman and Hopkins chapters are the weakest– the two men are not sufficiently developed as individuals.  Thankfully, the next four chapters provide vivid images of the men in question.

 

The chapters on Belloc and Chesterton give extremely enjoyable glimpses of the authors and their work.  Some problems lie in the critical analysis of the pair.  Belloc is summed up as a minor writer, whose greatest works were his comic verse and his book The Path to Rome.  Belloc was a brilliant humorist and poet, and The Path to Rome is a classic, but I strongly disagree with Ker’s categorization of the man.  Indeed, Belloc’s histories, which sought to debunk the Whig version of history, which denigrated Catholic England in favor of the rise of Protestantism, are critical to understanding his Catholic literary mindset.  Belloc’s economic treatises, which blended Catholic moral teachings with monetary concerns, are another field where a social science was infused with faith.  By not including Belloc’s historical and economic studies, let alone his fiction, this chapter seems oddly hollow.

 

At one point, Belloc’s famous Christmas song, blending the joys of faith with tongue-in-cheek curses is cited.  When I hear this song, it brings on the warm fuzzy feelings in a way that “Frosty the Snowman” never could:

 

Noël! Noël! Noël! Noël!

A Catholic tale have I to tell!

And a Christian song have I to sing

While all the bells in Arundel ring.

 

I pray good beef and I pray good beer

This holy night of all the year,

But I pay detestable drink for them

That give no honor to Bethlehem.

 

May all good fellows that here agree

Drink Audit Ale in heaven with me

And may all my enemies go to hell!

Noël! Noël! Noël! Noël!

May all my enemies go to hell!

Noël! Noël!

 

In order to give proper due to the man and his work, the poem and its themes, hidden meanings, and humor would have to be analyzed and discussed. Unfortunately, the poem and others like it are not sufficiently critiqued, perhaps due to Ker’s insistence that Belloc is a “minor” writer.  Given the limited information provided, it is understandable that the reader who is uninitiated in the books of Belloc might concur that the man was a “minor” writer, but this would be a gross shortchanging of a remarkable wordsmith.

 

Ker refers to Chesterton as “Dickensian,” and with good reason.  Chesterton has many similarities to Dickens characters, such as Mr. Micawber from David Copperfield.  The major disappointment of this chapter is Ker’s seemingly selling Chesterton short.  Chesterton’s massive religious-themed output is barely addressed here, and his theology-saturated Father Brown mysteries are referenced but not discussed, and his novels are similarly ignored, despite the heavy spiritual themes of The Man Who was Thursday, The Ball and the Cross, Manalive, and The Flying Inn.

 

Ker argues that Chesterton’s best work is his collection of critical essays on the work of Charles Dickens.  There is something to be said for this selection– his book in Dickens is certainly a masterpiece, and shows Chesterton at the height of his powers, yet to focus on this work at the expense of all of his others, and to categorize Chesterton as yet another figure in the tradition of Victorian nonfiction prose stylists is accurate, yet oddly incomplete.  I should reiterate that this an original, intelligent, and well-crafted depiction of Chesterton’s work, and yet Chesterton’s chapter, like those of Newman, Hopkins, and Belloc, seems to only say a little bit about a very big subject.

 

The best essays are the last two on Greene and Waugh.  Both authors are given fairly substantial biographies, although I have grown tired of the typical characterizations of Greene as a man who was very much a “burnt-out case” in the later decades of his life, and Waugh as a Catholic left adrift in the wake of Vatican II.  There is a lot of truth in these depictions, yet after reading their work from that period I can’t help but feel that there was far more to their stories than that.  Wisely, Ker ends his chapter on Greene by mentioning my favorite anecdote about Greene, which coincidentally happens to be my favorite anecdote about Waugh, as well.

 

In the mid-1950’s, Graham Greene informed Evelyn Waugh that he was seriously considering ceasing writing about God in his novels, and Waugh firmly replied “Oh, I wouldn’t drop God if I were you.  Not at this stage anyway.  It would be like P.G. Wodehouse dropping Jeeves halfway through the Wooster series.”

 

I liked this book a lot.  Perhaps my major problem with it lies with me, and not Ker.  The plain fact is, if I were to write a book like this– and I hope to some day– it would be radically different from The Catholic Revival in English Literature.  The focus, arguments, and critique would be utterly unlike Ker’s.  I can’t blame Ker for not being me.  Yet I can’t help feeling that this book reinforces the popular mindset that these Catholic writers are a subset genre, talented certainly, yet not part of the “canon.”  Perhaps my feelings are better expressed by Chesterton in his opening pages of his book on Charles Dickens:

 

In everyday talk, or in any of our journals, we may find the loose but important phrase, "Why have we no great men to-day? Why have we no great men like Thackeray, or Carlyle, or Dickens?" Do not let us dismiss this expression, because it appears loose or arbitrary. "Great" does mean something, and the test of its actuality is to be found by noting how instinctively and decisively we do apply it to some men and not to others; above all, how instinctively and decisively we do apply it to four or five men in the Victorian era, four or five men of whom Dickens was not the least. The term is found to fit a definite thing. Whatever the word "great" means, Dickens was what it means. Even the fastidious and unhappy who cannot read his books without a continuous critical exasperation, would use the word of him without stopping to think. They feel that Dickens is a great writer even if he is not a good writer. He is treated as a classic; that is, as a king who may now be deserted, but who cannot now be dethroned. The atmosphere of this word clings to him; and the curious thing is that we cannot get it to cling to any of the men of our own generation. "Great" is the first adjective which the most supercilious modern critic would apply to Dickens. And "great" is the last adjective that the most supercilious modern critic would apply to himself We dare not claim to be great men, even when we claim to be superior to them.

 

–Chris Chan

 

In Soft Garments: A Collection of Oxford Conferences

In Soft Garments: A Collection of Oxford Conferences.  By the Right Reverend Monsignor Ronald Knox, Burns Oates, 1942.

 

Ronald Knox (1888-1957) is one of the leading Catholic English writers of the early twentieth century. Though he was raised an Anglican and entered the Anglican priesthood, five years after his ordination he converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest soon afterwards. 

 

Throughout his career he worked to evangelize the masses through essays and radio lectures, although he also wrote mysteries and pioneered the use of pseudoscholarship in exploring literature.  Knox became famous for a series of essays on Sherlock Holmes, where he combed Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s mysteries for facts and trivia, and drew ingenious conclusions and speculations regarding discrepancies and unanswered questions in Doyle’s work. In Soft Garments is a collection of talks he gave to Oxford students, mostly on the role of religion in contemporary life.  The title comes from the Book of Matthew, which states, “They that are clothed in soft garments are in the Palaces of Kings.”

 

There are twenty-four essays in this volume, with titles such as “The Church and Human Progress,” “Morality and Convention,” “Unselfishness in Marriage,” “Faith Lost and Found,” and “Immortality.”  Knox’s first essay, “The Cross-word of Creation,” discusses the validity of various justifications for the existence of God, and concludes that some oft-cited “proofs” of God’s existence are too facile to hold under critical scrutiny, and then moves on to cite better evidence and reasoning to prove that God is real.  “The Cross-word of Creation” ends thusly:

 

“It’s not necessary for us to prove that we are living in the best of all possible worlds, it doesn’t matter (for the purposes of our present argument) whether the laws we find in nature are beneficent or harmful in their operation; the point is that order exists in the Universe, and that it is logically impossible to conceive of order existing without a Mind.  And if we denied the existence of that Mind, and went on thinking about it hard, it wouldn’t be very long, I fancy, before most of us would go out of our own.” (7).

 

Some of the essays deal with real-world situations, such as how Catholics who want to live up to their Church’s teachings ought to respond to divorces.  Knox observes that it is easy for Catholics to get caught up in uncomfortable situations, such as when a divorced friend asks a Catholic to be involved in the wedding party for a second marriage.  In “Cutting the Knot,” a penetrating look at the reasons why divorce is not acceptable, Knox writes,

 

““The Catholic Church forbids divorce”– so we are always reading in the newspapers.  Of course, that isn’t true.  It isn’t the Catholic Church which forbids divorce; Almighty God forbids divorce, and all the Catholic Church does is to say she’s very sorry, but there it is; the Divine Law will not allow a marriage to be dissolved, so she is afraid she can’t very well do anything about it.  If it was the Church that had made this law, she would be able to dispense people from this law; the whole point of the situation is that the Church is powerless; she can do nothing.  She can no more prevent a person who has two wives being in mortal sin that she can prevent a person who falls off a precipice breaking his neck.  It is not part of her legislation that a married man should not remarry.  It is part of her doctrine that a married man cannot remarry, so long as his first wife is alive.  If he goes through the form of marriage, it is an empty farce.” (166).

 

In this essay, and all of his other essays, Knox explains the Catholic Church’s position by first debunking the widespread popular opinion that the Church has adopted a certain perspective out of sheer arbitrariness.  Catholic doctrine is not meant simply to be mean or contrary or rigid, but instead is formed the way it is because it is compelled to follow a specific code of conduct because to deviate from the prescribed path will in all likelihood lead to something sinful, destructive, or unbearable.  Actions have consequences, and the many “don’ts” of Catholicism is to warn people of potential pitfalls that may not be immediately apparent.  Knox observes that Christian morality is far more than just an attempt to prevent people from doing whatever they want, it is a guide that has the wellbeing of everyone involved at heart.  Knox writes:

 

“Those are the people who are asking nowadays, “Why shouldn’t I?”  And the obvious answer is, “If you think morality a mere matter of social convention, if you are only concerned to consider what other people will say about you, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t.”  Nobody will think very much the worse of such a man nowadays if his irregularities are not too blatant.  And if he cannot see that morality means something more than a code of human conventions, there is no more to be done with him.  What we have to try and persuade him of is: First, that there are such things as right and wrong.  Second, that the art of living and, if I may so describe it, the fun of living, can be found only in regulating your life according to fixed principles of conduct.  Third, that there is one single standard of morality, ideally for all people, and practically for all Christian people.  And fourth, that if you are really a Christian, the irksomeness of merely obeying negative rules is exchanged for the positive joy of trying to live so as to please our Lord Jesus Christ.” (163).

 

Too often, people look at Catholic codes on conduct and denounced them as repressive or irrelevant to the modern world.  Knox uses numerous plausible real-life examples throughout his work in order to illustrate how behavior restrictions apply to contemporary everyday life.  Knox’s primary theme in these essays is to point out just why acting as the Church teaches is vital to long-term safety and happiness.  Though certain codes of morality may clash with short-term interests and base desires, no modern argument has been able to prove Christian behavioral doctrines wrong.  As G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting.  It has been found difficult and left untried.”

 

In Soft Garments, though written for a young audience nearly seventy years ago, is still accessible to readers of all ages today.  These were meant to be comparatively casual yet salutary talks, and in book form they make for chapters that are both easily read and challenging intellectually.

 

 

–Chris Chan

Mary, Mother of the Son: Volume III– Miracles, Devotion, and Motherhood

Mary, Mother of the Son: Volume III– Miracles, Devotion, and Motherhood.  By Mark P. Shea, Catholic Answers, 2009.

 

Mark P. Shea concludes his impressive trilogy on Mary’s true role in the Catholic Church and Christian civilization with Mary, Mother of the Son: Volume III– Miracles, Devotion, and Motherhood.  This volume centers on the enduring legacy of Mary, how her intercession helps Christians in countless ways, and the role of the miraculous in the world.  As in the first two volumes of this series, Shea utilizes historical analysis, logic applied to real-world situations, humor, popular culture references, and spiritual insight in order to explain why Christians have no need to fear venerating Mary.

 

Shea uses an intriguing array of sources for quotes in order to buttress his information.  On a couple of occasions he cites from anti-Catholic (or at least Catholic-critical) websites in order to reference their positions or erroneous views, and then provides counterpoints in order to contradict them.  Shea is unafraid to state that many of those people who harbor viewpoints contrary to his own (at least on Marian historical/theological matters) are wrong, but he largely avoids the common trap of painting his opponents as fools or deliberate liars.  There is a major difference between pronouncing someone’s statements as being incorrect, and impugning someone else’s integrity and intelligence, and for the most part Shea simply references opposing perspectives so he can criticize the ideas and not the people promoting them.

 

G.K. Chesterton, who Shea describes as one of his heroes, is referenced multiple times in order to explain Catholic doctrine on Mary further.  One of the most common allegations against Catholic beliefs and traditions is that they steal from pagan practices, thereby diluting or masking Jesus’s true message.  A primary goal of Mary, Mother of the Son, is to refuse such allegations.  Sometimes this takes a strictly factual approach, other times a theological, logical, or emotional tactic is utilized.  In one instance, Shea quotes from Chesterton’s Orthodoxy in order to explain how Catholicism is more than just paganism with additional trimmings:

 

“Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light.  Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration.  But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light.  Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination.  Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution.  He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types.  He is an unselfish egoist.  An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion.  Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light.  Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within.”

 

This quote is used to illustrate Shea’s point that humans require extra help in order to save themselves and keep themselves spiritually sane– there is no shame in needing a little intercession.

 

A substantial portion of this book consists of explaining the rosary and what it means for proper veneration of Mary.  Prayer beads have been used in non-Christian religious practices, but that does not make their use idolatrous or in any way improper.  As Shea notes, rosary beads are meant solely as a tool to help the faithful keep track of their prayers.  One could pray the rosary on one’s fingers if one likes.  The point of the rosary is not to mumble prayers mindlessly, but to use the time and repetition as a guide to direct one’s mind and spirit as one reflects on Marian Mysteries and making oneself stronger, more focused, and purer spiritually.  The rosary is not a superstitious bauble, it is a guide to self-betterment and a means to bring oneself closer to God. 

 

My favorite part of this book is Shea’s take on how a political figure like Pontius Pilate would fit into the modern media.  Pilate, after all, was a skilled and powerful politician who was one of the most prominent and influential people of his day.  Shea imagines a theoretical television interview between Pilate and Barbara Walters, where Pilate is pitched a series of softball questions about his political career, personal life, and where Pilate responds with subtle false modesty about his imperfections and shortcomings, but glosses over it all with a slick narrative about having done the best he possibly can and that all things considered he has done a pretty good job.  At the end of the interview, Walters would pronounce, “Pontius Pilate: A Man to Remember.”

 

Shea’s wry commentary underscores just how ersatz much of contemporary television can be.  We see politicians and celebrities speak on-camera with apparent sincerity or weep softly with apparent regret, but the camera can lie.  Prominent figures go to great lengths in order to look good on television, win people over, and shape their personal legacy in a way that flatters them best.  Pilate almost certainly believed that his name would be remembered throughout the ages, possibly for his strong government or useful infrastructure projects or for general competency.  In any case, in today’s society even the most blundering and venal politicians strive to craft lasting pictures of themselves that depict them in the most positive light possible, and it is not to much of a stretch to postulate that the public figures of two millennia ago similarly tried to assure that their historical legacy would be a glowing one.

 

What Pontius Pilate probably never would have guessed is that two thousand years after his death, he would still be known worldwide, and mentioned publicly thousands of times daily, but not in a positive way.  At masses, it is regularly recited that Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate.”  Pilate would almost certainly have never dreamed that by far, the most pivotal action of his life would be to condemn a seemingly obscure religious figure to death, and that the ensuing events would overwhelmingly overshadow all of the other political achievements of his career combined.

 

An appendix of famous Marian apparitions is included at the end of the book.  The idea of seeing a miraculous vision of Mary (or any other religious figure) is laughable to many people, even otherwise believing Christians, who contend that such a violation of natural law and is therefore either impossible or demonic.  Shea argues that to deny that miracles can happen only serves to make people believe in a God that is smaller, not larger.  Shea cites a number of real-life cases of Marian apparitions, ranging from Lourdes and Fatima, to a notorious case where a woman claimed to have seen the face of Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich.  The latter case may be a figure of fun to some skeptics and an embarrassment to some believers, but Shea observes that miracles serve to bring people close to God, and that those who see them are free to reject them.  

 

Shea references the case of a former Catholic of his acquaintance, who impossibly heard a mass that her mother was attending from a long distance away.  The woman who heard this miraculous event remains an ex-Catholic, dismissing the miracle as useless to her because it didn’t cure her diabetes or anything like that.  As Shea reminds us, God’s grace is a gift that we are free to reject, but he strives to make us wonder why anybody would want to deny themselves something so wonderful. 

 

Shea cites two more cases connected to miraculous cures at Lourdes.  In the twin cases of Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who had left Catholicism for atheism, and Emile Zola, the famous writer and public figure and outspoken atheist; both men observed a seemingly impossible act of healing at Lourdes.  Zola denied that he had seen any solid evidence of divine intervention, but Carrel, faced with the evidence of his own observations, wrestled with this disruption to his materialistic worldview for the rest of his life, finally reconciling himself to the Church shortly before his death.  Grace, Shea declares, acts in ways that we often cannot expect.  For it to better us, we must allow ourselves to accept it.

 

After reading the entire trilogy, it is clear that it was a good decision to divide Mary, Mother of the Son into three parts.  If it were published as a lengthy tome, as was originally planned, the thickness of the spine might have put off some readers.  Divided into three easy-to-read, topical volumes, the information presented in this work is easily read and digested, without anything being lost in the sheer breath of the study’s scope.  Mary, Mother of the Son is a clear, concise, and easy-to-use resource for anyone who wants to understand the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary better.

 

 

–Chris Chan

Mary, Mother of the Son: Volume II– First Guardian of the Faith

Mary, Mother of the Son: Volume II– First Guardian of the Faith.  By Mark P. Shea, Catholic Answers, 2009.

 

Mark P. Shea continues his trilogy on the life, theological role, historical impact, and contemporary relevance of the Virgin Mary in the second volume: First Guardian of the Faith.  As my earlier review mentioned, the purpose of this series is to explain the role that Mary plays in the Catholic Church, especially for an audience that has been influenced by misconceptions and pseudoknowledge.  Although Shea directs a lot of his focus towards educating an Evangelical audience, this is an invaluable reference for helping Catholics learn more about their faith, as well as helping non-Christians learn about what the Catholic Church believes.

 

While the first volume looked at how popular culture and bad theology may have influenced people’s beliefs and conceptions, this book focuses primarily on the Catholic Church’s teachings about Mary, how they were developed, and why it is important that these teachings not be distorted or misrepresented.  The reduced number of popular culture references, and the increased focus on history, religious doctrine, and intellectual development makes the book seem rather more formal than its predecessor, but Shea’s prose style is always eminently readable, and never, ever stuffy.  Shea’s great strength as a writer is his ability to present information in a clear and conversational manner, thereby crafting a rapport with the reader that a more formal style might never have achieved.

 

It is easy to see how people can develop mistaken impressions about what the Church teaches about Mary.  The 1999 television movie Mary, Mother of Jesus, starring Pernilla August as Mary of Nazareth and Christian Bale as Jesus of Nazareth, is an example of how certain Protestant doctrines or other Biblical interpretations not officially recognized by any denomination can disseminate into the popular culture.  There was nothing disrespectful about this production; on the contrary it was quite reverent towards the source material.  Nevertheless, some of the theology and character representation was distinctly different from what the Catholic Church teaches.  For example, in this film, when Joseph learns about Mary’s pregnancy, he is initially stunned, then angry, believing that the baby must be that of another man’s, only accepting the situation after an angel’s intervention.  This is a rather common view of how Joseph behaved, but Shea argues that this is not the Church’s interpretation of events.  Joseph knew Mary well enough to know that she would never betray him or commit a grave sin, and believed her immediately when she told him about the great and wondrous role that God had planned for her.  This is a reminder that we must sometime give great saints more credit than we often do.  What we call “human nature” is not necessarily how people behave when they are divinely guided.

 

Shea brings up many commonly-heard arguments and tropes attempting to discredit Marian theology, the early Church, the medieval Church, the contemporary Church, and Catholicism in general, and in each case, he proves how these perspectives are based upon spurious assumptions, misinformation, and faulty reasoning.  At times, it seems as if Shea is in the middle of a theological and historical version of Perry Mason, with Shea in the title role, all things Catholic as the defendant, and the Church’s detractors in the part of the consistently misguided prosecutor Hamilton Burger.  One of the Perry Mason series’ consistent charms and running gags was the fact that the defendant was always completely innocent (or in one case, acted purely in self-defense), but despite the fact that everyone who was ever defended by Mason was invariably exonerated, District Attorney Burger never allowed himself to suspect that maybe– just maybe– he’d accused the wrong man.  The way Shea keeps advancing alternative, more reasonable explanations of Biblical passages, contradicting historical errors, and refuting horribly flawed theses; it serves as a reminder that whenever one hears any sort of attack against the Church, one should wait to find a defensive counter-argument before automatically assuming guilt.

 

A wide variety of sources are referenced in order to show just how misconceptions about Marian doctrine enter the public consciousness.  Some examples are centuries-old heresies, such as Pelagius and his denial of original sin.  Others are far more contemporary.  Shea quotes extensively from several prominent anti-Catholic websites and how they rage against Catholic views of Mary, yet he never responds in kind.  Bitter anger is repaid with logical rebuttal and calm disapproval.   A deft touch and a sense of humor serve Shea well.  When he addresses oft-mocked and even more often misunderstood doctrines such as Mary’s perpetual virginity, Shea is always firm in his defense of the faith, seeking to explain why those who disagree are wrong while never getting upset.

 

Shea often likes to poke holes at the theory that every day, in every way, humanity is getting better and better.  The idea that 2011 is four centuries wiser and more enlightened than 1611 is utter bosh.  It often seems as if for every moral lesson that the culture at large learns, it in turn forgets two or more old truths.  One of the most interesting portions of this book is Shea’s critique of the legacy of several major figures.  Shea includes a concise but very interesting chronology of some of the most influential intellectual minds of the last couple of centuries, such as Freud, Marx, and many others, as well as how some of their ideologies, when put into practice, have led people away from Catholic teachings and caused destruction to the society as a whole.  To cite one example, when discussing the career of Margaret Sanger, Shea writes:

 

“Sanger even dreamed of establishing a vast American concentration camp for "morons, mental defectives, epileptics... illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, [and] dope-fiends". In all, she wanted to forcibly imprison about one-seventh of the entire American population. Needless to say, she was an enthusiastic supporter of the pioneering eugenics done by doctors of the Third Reich. For years, her slogan summed up a philosophy warmly received by her colleagues in Hitler's scientific elite: "Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds!"

 

The problem for Margaret Sanger was that all this became a tough sell in the post-war years, what with pictures of Dachau and Auschwitz circulating in classrooms and history books. So the organization she had founded changed its marketing strategy. Instead of encouraging Americans to worship racial purity, Planned Parenthood instead seized on the much more salable notion (pioneered by Freud) that we should throw off the shackles of guilt and responsibility and worship sex. This was sold as "Birth Control" but the practical outcome was, as Chesterton famously remarked, "No birth and no control."

 

The outcome of this story is a catalogue of human misery: Massive STD rates, a contraceptive culture in which love and fruitfulness are damned as hindrances to sexual pleasure, the ever-increasing sexualization of childhood, and 1.5 million abortions in the United States alone each year. And so, as Pope John Paul II said, "The cemetery of the victims of human cruelty in our century is extended to include yet another vast cemetery, that of the unborn."

 

Though a great deal of space is devoted to describing what’s wrong with the world, this book ends on a hopeful note.  The world is undoubtedly in a bad way, but the way to fight the problems is not through anger, nor through the use of power to crush dissent, but through following the virtuous example of Mary and praying for her intercession.  As Shea observes in his conclusion, Pope John Paul II knew that the way to set an unjust world right is not to do evil so that good may come of it; but instead to promote justice, truth, and freedom.  Understanding and following the example of Mary is a crucial step towards achieving such lofty goals.

 

 

–Chris Chan