Why I Am A Catholic. (Book Review).

Garry Wills, Why I Am A Catholic, (Boston, Houghton Mifflin), (Toronto, Thomas Alien & Sons), 2002, $26.00 (U.S.), pp. 341, paperback.

Garry Wills claims that after Papal Sin appeared, readers asked how he could remain in a Church he thought so flawed. His reply to the inquiries, Why I Am A Catholic, may satisfy the curiosity of some, but others will find this latest work not so much an answer as further polemic.

The book consists largely of a tendentious history of the papacy, preceded by some rather unrevealing autobiographical material, and rounded out by Wills' own exegesis of the Apostles' Creed and the Our Father. There are many signs of hasty composition and the lack of a good editor.

Wills, a well-known expert in American history, tries to make his text look scholarly by using footnotes and a key to Citations, but mysteriously there is no Index in the paperback. Indeed the very project of writing an accurate overview of the papacy requires more than a little hubris if we may believe W.H.C. Frend, whose work on early Christianity Wills cites often. Frend cautions of his own field: "The evidence is too vast and complex for any single scholar to control and systematize." Did Wills even read this warning? Vast generalizations, glib simplifications, misstatements of fact and a litany of accusations would suggest he didn't, and undermine any claim he has to objectivity or credibility.

Wills' misuse of his sources is particularly egregious. Consider his references to Klaus Schatz's Papal Primacy (1996), a far better work than his. Trying to shore up his argument that Rome was not the leading community in the early church, he refers to Schatz thus:

"Joint authority is the essential note," as the Jesuit authority Karl Schatz emphasizes: "A judicial superiority of one church over another, or certainly anything like papal primacy of jurisdiction, was completely foreign to Ignatius or Irenaeus [in the second century], or even Augustine [in the fourth]...in particular, all kinds of thinking in categories of hierarchical subordination or superiority will lead us astray" (Wills, p. 63).

Now compare the above with what Schatz actually says:

"Is a negative answer not inevitable if we approach the first centuries using the yardstick of our modern, fully developed, doctrine of primacy, or especially the standards of Vatican I? Is such an inquiry really historical? if we ask the questions in such a way as to evoke a negative answer, are we not precluding any serious theological investigation? In fact, we everywhere encounter this kind of alienation by means of a later concept of primacy and all the historical associations, especially negative ones, connected with it.

This is usually the case to a greater degree for those who reject any notion of primacy in these texts than for those who think they can discern one. In such cases it is usually said that a juridical superiority of one church over another, or certainly anything like papal primacy of jurisdiction was completely foreign to Ignatius, or lrenaeus, or even Augustine; they knew nothing of any bishops being placed over one another, and so on" (Schatz, p.3).

Note that Schatz is replicating a type of argument, not giving his own opinion. In fact throughout this passage Schatz repudiates the very type of approach Wills uses, viz, imposing modern categories on times to which they do not apply.

Or consider Wills' use of Frend to show that Rome had no primacy early on: "In the second century, as W.H.C. Frend says, orthodoxy was held together not by a Roman primate but by like-minded Greek-speaking bishops in the major churches of the East" (Wills, p.63).

In fact, what Frend says is: "The measure of unity achieved in the church by c. 180 depended on its government staying in the hands of like-minded Greek-speaking bishops, whether resident in the cities of the East or in Rome, able and willing to communicate with each other by letter or in council" (Frend, The Rise of Christianity, p.251).

In another case, Wills baldly states that "The Church of Rome did not formulate the canon of Scripture." One of the principal lists which helped establish the final version of the New Testament was the Muratorian Canon. According to Frend, this very important text was probably Roman" (Frend, p.251).

This review would run on too long if all Wills' errors were laid out, but a final one should be noted. In an attempt to undercut the idea that there was an increasing appeal in the third and fourth centuries to the image of Peter as the first bishop of Rome, Wills cites many references to the fact that Paul and Peter were usually linked together: "The men are treated as equals, as Bernhard Schimmelpfennig says" (Wills, p.75).

But what Schimmelpfenning actually says is: "The position of the Roman bishops received further support in the latter part of the fourth century, when an increased emphasis was placed on Paul in both worship and teaching." (Schimmelpfennig, The Papacy, p.26). In other words, the German scholar is saying that Paul was brought in to the picture in order to gain more authority for Rome, not to lessen it.

Wills' conclusions are as dubious as his methods. He makes nine points about the papacy, the most important being that its claim to infallibility is illegitimate, false, and useless, and that it is a deeply flawed institution, as is the Church. The only role for the Pope is to be the "sacrament of unity" of the Church. Surely this concept of the Church as sets of groups and individuals who openly contradict each other and ignore their self-proclaimed leader's teachings is a caricature of true unity.

How different is Fr. Schatz's view; he concludes his study by arguing that, given the complexity of historical causes, "the definitions of primacy at Vatican I were a historically justifiable response." (Schatz, p.177). As for church unity, it must be real: "It must also be a unity that especially in questions of faith and in face of the challenges of new spiritual and intellectual movements is able to give clear answers that are universally recognized" (Schatz, p.177). When push comes to shove, says Fr. Schatz, unity must prevail over diversity.

It's a measure of our times that Wills will get the publicity and the money, and true scholars like Fr. Schatz will labour in obscurity.