What do you think?
Rate this book
Prison Journals of a Priest Revolutionary
The breaking of men & the breaking of an introduction-- Daniel BerriganCan we serve both love and war?Statement at sentencing, May 24, 1968Letter from a Baltimore jailA community of nineA day in the an interviewPrison journal, 1968The trialStatement at sentencing, November 8, 1968Prison journal, continuedA priest in the an interview.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
99 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 25, 2022
This book is another prison diary of Philip Berrigan, which reveals his thoughts on the prison system, the protest movement, the Vietnam conflict, and society in general. As per usual when it comes to him, this account is full of interesting, insightful discussions.
It was a surprise for me that the author began reading Gandhi and Martin Luther King in prison. I expected him to have become a follower of their nonviolent resistance earlier in his life, but, as it turned out, he had believed in the system, in the government, and in the idea that peace would take time, but it would come. It was after his trial and conviction that he had changed. He discussed the resistance of Socrates, of Christ, of Henry David Thoreau, of Gandhi, and King with other activists, and he learned that they all emphasized obedience to the higher law of God, making clear distinctions between the rights of conscience and the rights of the State. They called for, and did, nonviolent resistance to government – not as conspiracy or subversion, but to argue for the democratic ideal of government of, for, and by the people.
In prison, he lived in quiet fury, writes the author, knowing that he "sat in that sweatbox," and the killing in Vietnam went on. He was angry at the fact that the judicial system supported the people behind the American involvement in Vietnam and that young men were thrown in prison, beaten, and raped because they refused to go to another country and kill people there, so his thoughts went to Gandhi and King for encouragement. He remembered that they and many others had suffered beatings and jailings, and killings, but they had still refused to engage in violence. He eventually made peace with himself and decided that he was ready to spend his whole life in prison if this was what it took for him to stay devoted to God and morality.
He spoke against the prison system as a whole. According to him, it was a human fishbowl that left people fragmented, lonely, and antisocial. Although it broke down the violence of the old life, it did so with new, socially controllable violence. The penal system, as he saw it, existed not to rehabilitate criminals or reduce crime, but to control and prevent a shift in power. It protected the men of property, and it punished those who consciously or unconsciously challenged their greed.
I appreciated that the author cast light on the notorious Kissinger kidnapping case. He clarified that neither he nor his brother and their friends had planned to kidnap the politician. Their initial idea had been to shut off heat to government buildings because they felt that government workers, at least those who remained silent about the killing in Vietnam, were conspiring with President Richard Nixon to pursue the conflict. Berrigan and his partners in crime wanted to shut off the heat and then, as workers left their buildings, hand out leaflets denouncing the Vietnam conflict. He maintained that the plan about blowing up heating ducts and kidnapping Kissinger were made up by the FBI because Hoover wanted to keep him behind bars for life.
Berrigan explained that he and his wife, Elizabeth McAlister, had actually thought of was a "citizen's arrest" of Kissinger. They believed that when the judicial system failed to prevent someone from committing violence, citizens had a right to take action. Since Kissinger was a murderer who had no respect for either the American people or the people of Vietnam, or international law, or the law of God, they should find another way to make him answer for his crimes. However, they did not try to execute their plan as they knew that Kissinger did not go anywhere without armed guards. Berrigan did not even approve of the plan. His only real crime, as opposed to the crimes of the government in Vietnam, was having unacceptable thoughts, which he had expressed in his letters to his wife. His brother also had nothing to do with the kidnapping plan. The FBI, determined to stop the priests, who were becoming popular with the American public, accused Daniel only because he was Philip's brother.
PRISON JOURNALS OF A PRIEST REVOLUTIONARY is as well-written and thought-provoking as Berrigan's other works. Although he focuses on the same topics throughout his accounts, reading them is still worth it. This book will be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about one of the well-known members of the Catholic Left.
It was a surprise for me that the author began reading Gandhi and Martin Luther King in prison. I expected him to have become a follower of their nonviolent resistance earlier in his life, but, as it turned out, he had believed in the system, in the government, and in the idea that peace would take time, but it would come. It was after his trial and conviction that he had changed. He discussed the resistance of Socrates, of Christ, of Henry David Thoreau, of Gandhi, and King with other activists, and he learned that they all emphasized obedience to the higher law of God, making clear distinctions between the rights of conscience and the rights of the State. They called for, and did, nonviolent resistance to government – not as conspiracy or subversion, but to argue for the democratic ideal of government of, for, and by the people.
In prison, he lived in quiet fury, writes the author, knowing that he "sat in that sweatbox," and the killing in Vietnam went on. He was angry at the fact that the judicial system supported the people behind the American involvement in Vietnam and that young men were thrown in prison, beaten, and raped because they refused to go to another country and kill people there, so his thoughts went to Gandhi and King for encouragement. He remembered that they and many others had suffered beatings and jailings, and killings, but they had still refused to engage in violence. He eventually made peace with himself and decided that he was ready to spend his whole life in prison if this was what it took for him to stay devoted to God and morality.
He spoke against the prison system as a whole. According to him, it was a human fishbowl that left people fragmented, lonely, and antisocial. Although it broke down the violence of the old life, it did so with new, socially controllable violence. The penal system, as he saw it, existed not to rehabilitate criminals or reduce crime, but to control and prevent a shift in power. It protected the men of property, and it punished those who consciously or unconsciously challenged their greed.
I appreciated that the author cast light on the notorious Kissinger kidnapping case. He clarified that neither he nor his brother and their friends had planned to kidnap the politician. Their initial idea had been to shut off heat to government buildings because they felt that government workers, at least those who remained silent about the killing in Vietnam, were conspiring with President Richard Nixon to pursue the conflict. Berrigan and his partners in crime wanted to shut off the heat and then, as workers left their buildings, hand out leaflets denouncing the Vietnam conflict. He maintained that the plan about blowing up heating ducts and kidnapping Kissinger were made up by the FBI because Hoover wanted to keep him behind bars for life.
Berrigan explained that he and his wife, Elizabeth McAlister, had actually thought of was a "citizen's arrest" of Kissinger. They believed that when the judicial system failed to prevent someone from committing violence, citizens had a right to take action. Since Kissinger was a murderer who had no respect for either the American people or the people of Vietnam, or international law, or the law of God, they should find another way to make him answer for his crimes. However, they did not try to execute their plan as they knew that Kissinger did not go anywhere without armed guards. Berrigan did not even approve of the plan. His only real crime, as opposed to the crimes of the government in Vietnam, was having unacceptable thoughts, which he had expressed in his letters to his wife. His brother also had nothing to do with the kidnapping plan. The FBI, determined to stop the priests, who were becoming popular with the American public, accused Daniel only because he was Philip's brother.
PRISON JOURNALS OF A PRIEST REVOLUTIONARY is as well-written and thought-provoking as Berrigan's other works. Although he focuses on the same topics throughout his accounts, reading them is still worth it. This book will be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about one of the well-known members of the Catholic Left.
February 26, 2023
A FINE COLLECTION OF WRITINGS AND INTERVIEWS
The Editor’s Note to this 1971 book explains, “In May 1969, Philip Berrigan asked me to help prepare an account of his experience and thought during seven months of prison… After release on bail pending appeal… Phil wanted to put these months of thought and deep experience before the public. Kept on edge by the possibility of a quick return to prison and driven to put into print the account of jail, Phil turned to others to help bring this book into being. The bulk of the text is taken from taped interviews and conversations during the late spring and early summer of 1969. Previously published articles … complete it.”
Daniel Berrigan wrote in the Introduction, “The good old definition of church renewal… is shattered. The hope for strong, open, affectionate relationships between bishops and communities is dissipated. The war has deepened and widened the chasm; the bishops spoke too late and acted not at all. So the war… has made less and less credible official claims to superior wisdom and access to the divine will.” (Pg. xv)
Philip begins the book, “I’m not at all clear about what to call this; in jail, I have no definite idea of the form my writing in jail will take. It will not be a diary, nor will I be writing what should rightly called meditations or reflections. Simply an unconventional look at the world through the mirror of prison life. Hopefully, a Christian look… What is important is why I am in prison, what prison life signifies for a Christian, and what it may indicate for the future. Jail for me was an entirely voluntary affair, one of the predictable consequences connected with serious political dissent… I felt civil disobedience was a Christian duty, and accepted jail as a consequence… the menacing aspect of world events has become increasingly difficult for any person to ignore. Another positive factor---which Church liberals generally ignore---is the freedom made possible by clerical celibacy… the two-edged absolution of Catholic discipline… produces, admittedly, many human casualties, but can it not also provide the training ground for saints and heroes?” (Pg. xxiii-xxiv)
He states, “We cannot fight the abstraction of communism by killing the men who believe in it. We cannot propagandize for peace while our deeds give the lie to our words. In a word, we can’t have it both ways. And that’s why … so many Christians and Americans have a ‘problem.’ How can we serve love and war: The fact is that we can’t.” (Pg. 3)
His May 24, 1968 statement at sentencing observed, “These are not times for building justice; these are times for confronting injustice. This, we feel, is the number-one item of national business---to confront the entrenched, massive, and complex injustice of our country. And to confront it justly, nonviolently, and with maximum exposure of oneself and one’s future.” (Pg. 13)
He observes, “we have experienced intimately the uselessness of legitimate dissent. The war grows in savagery, more American coffins come home, Vietnamese suffering would seem to have passed the limits of human endurance…. Russia and China have not dissolved their mutual-defense treaty. These are not debatable items by either side. In face of these facts, for some Americans to ask others to restrict their dissent to legal channels is asking them to joust with a windmill… it is to ask them for silent complicity with unimaginable injustice… for voicelessness in the fate that threatens everyone. God would never ask that of any man; no man can ask it justly of other men.” (Pg. 21)
In an interview, he said, “there weren’t many [war] resisters there [in prison]… But it should be understood that almost everyone there is anti-federal government… [due to] their treatment after getting into the federal penal system; the impersonality, the manipulation, the obvious corruption, the hypocrisy, and a lot of other things. You have immediate sympathy, because even though you’re there for different reasons than they are, at the same time you’re there for the same reasons.” (Pg. 37)
He wrote in his prison journal, “‘Revolution’ is today the most feared, and consequently the least understood, word in our vocabulary… In fact, ‘revolution’ is an eminently Christian word which should guide all Christian response to human process. Revolution may be unchristian in certain circumstances, but a man cannot be a Christian without being a revolutionary. Christian revolution means conversion to a crucified and risen Lord---and witness to this conversion.” (Pg. 87)
He asserts, “We are their [judges and prosecutors] enemies, but not in the sense that they imagine. In reality, we are their best friends---if they want to consider themselves guardians of the law, let them learn that the law responds to principle before power, to human need before vested interest, to morality before pragmatism… the law they represent has fallen into disrepute… because the law has become a field manual for naked power and a club against the poor.” (Pg. 117)
After reading Eldridge Cleaver’s ‘Soul On Ice,’ he comments, “It is a raw and slashing attack upon American life, while preserving a delicate balance of humanity and humaneness… He sees correctly that ghettos create both the black colonist and the black mercenary… the impression that lingered … was simply the intense drama of a man liberated by the honesty of his suffering…” (Pg. 119-120)
He explains, “The trial meant hope to me. Hope because none of us was prey to any illusions about the verdict. We understood that we would be convicted, and we understood why. And that’s a great ‘freedom.’ In contrast, the court, supposedly an instrument offering redress to free men, chose slavery to bureaucratic injustice and pollution for the Christian springs of its law… while we resisted its procedures, [we] congratulated one another on our guilt, prayed the Lord’s Prayer, and thanked the court for its courtesy.” (Pg. 140-141)
He said in his November 8, 1968 sentencing, “We have but one message for our leaders, in whose manicured hands the power of this land lies. Lead us! Lead us by giving people justice, and there will be no need to break the laws, no need for civil disobedience. Let President Nixon do what his predecessors failed to do---let him obey the rich less and the people more; let hm think less of the privileged and more of the poor; less of America and more of the world. Let our bishops and religious superiors think less of buildings and more of people; less of casuistry and more of the beatitudes; less of authority and more of service…” (Pg. 161-162)
In an interview, he was asked about he and his associates making a point of destroying property, and he explains. “Gandhi didn’t need to tamper with property to achieve [his] goals… we want political representation. To attain that here, one must engage the issue of private property. Draft files illustrate better than any item of private or public property---except hydrogen bombs---they savagery that Americans will use to defend private property. Draft files make it possible to fight wars cheaply---wars necessary to guard an expanding economy.” (Pg. 171-172)
He says of James Pike, “it took his son’s suicide to help him regain his faith and hope, or substantial portions of them… Few will find fault with Pike’s hope in man---he has stood for a questioning and socially relevant Christianity for years. Now his present hope in God, and in a future with God, has been strengthened by a son who is dead, but who… has become an instrument of hope for his father.” (Pg. 196)
This book will appeal to those studying the ‘Catholic Left’ of the ‘60s/’70s.
The Editor’s Note to this 1971 book explains, “In May 1969, Philip Berrigan asked me to help prepare an account of his experience and thought during seven months of prison… After release on bail pending appeal… Phil wanted to put these months of thought and deep experience before the public. Kept on edge by the possibility of a quick return to prison and driven to put into print the account of jail, Phil turned to others to help bring this book into being. The bulk of the text is taken from taped interviews and conversations during the late spring and early summer of 1969. Previously published articles … complete it.”
Daniel Berrigan wrote in the Introduction, “The good old definition of church renewal… is shattered. The hope for strong, open, affectionate relationships between bishops and communities is dissipated. The war has deepened and widened the chasm; the bishops spoke too late and acted not at all. So the war… has made less and less credible official claims to superior wisdom and access to the divine will.” (Pg. xv)
Philip begins the book, “I’m not at all clear about what to call this; in jail, I have no definite idea of the form my writing in jail will take. It will not be a diary, nor will I be writing what should rightly called meditations or reflections. Simply an unconventional look at the world through the mirror of prison life. Hopefully, a Christian look… What is important is why I am in prison, what prison life signifies for a Christian, and what it may indicate for the future. Jail for me was an entirely voluntary affair, one of the predictable consequences connected with serious political dissent… I felt civil disobedience was a Christian duty, and accepted jail as a consequence… the menacing aspect of world events has become increasingly difficult for any person to ignore. Another positive factor---which Church liberals generally ignore---is the freedom made possible by clerical celibacy… the two-edged absolution of Catholic discipline… produces, admittedly, many human casualties, but can it not also provide the training ground for saints and heroes?” (Pg. xxiii-xxiv)
He states, “We cannot fight the abstraction of communism by killing the men who believe in it. We cannot propagandize for peace while our deeds give the lie to our words. In a word, we can’t have it both ways. And that’s why … so many Christians and Americans have a ‘problem.’ How can we serve love and war: The fact is that we can’t.” (Pg. 3)
His May 24, 1968 statement at sentencing observed, “These are not times for building justice; these are times for confronting injustice. This, we feel, is the number-one item of national business---to confront the entrenched, massive, and complex injustice of our country. And to confront it justly, nonviolently, and with maximum exposure of oneself and one’s future.” (Pg. 13)
He observes, “we have experienced intimately the uselessness of legitimate dissent. The war grows in savagery, more American coffins come home, Vietnamese suffering would seem to have passed the limits of human endurance…. Russia and China have not dissolved their mutual-defense treaty. These are not debatable items by either side. In face of these facts, for some Americans to ask others to restrict their dissent to legal channels is asking them to joust with a windmill… it is to ask them for silent complicity with unimaginable injustice… for voicelessness in the fate that threatens everyone. God would never ask that of any man; no man can ask it justly of other men.” (Pg. 21)
In an interview, he said, “there weren’t many [war] resisters there [in prison]… But it should be understood that almost everyone there is anti-federal government… [due to] their treatment after getting into the federal penal system; the impersonality, the manipulation, the obvious corruption, the hypocrisy, and a lot of other things. You have immediate sympathy, because even though you’re there for different reasons than they are, at the same time you’re there for the same reasons.” (Pg. 37)
He wrote in his prison journal, “‘Revolution’ is today the most feared, and consequently the least understood, word in our vocabulary… In fact, ‘revolution’ is an eminently Christian word which should guide all Christian response to human process. Revolution may be unchristian in certain circumstances, but a man cannot be a Christian without being a revolutionary. Christian revolution means conversion to a crucified and risen Lord---and witness to this conversion.” (Pg. 87)
He asserts, “We are their [judges and prosecutors] enemies, but not in the sense that they imagine. In reality, we are their best friends---if they want to consider themselves guardians of the law, let them learn that the law responds to principle before power, to human need before vested interest, to morality before pragmatism… the law they represent has fallen into disrepute… because the law has become a field manual for naked power and a club against the poor.” (Pg. 117)
After reading Eldridge Cleaver’s ‘Soul On Ice,’ he comments, “It is a raw and slashing attack upon American life, while preserving a delicate balance of humanity and humaneness… He sees correctly that ghettos create both the black colonist and the black mercenary… the impression that lingered … was simply the intense drama of a man liberated by the honesty of his suffering…” (Pg. 119-120)
He explains, “The trial meant hope to me. Hope because none of us was prey to any illusions about the verdict. We understood that we would be convicted, and we understood why. And that’s a great ‘freedom.’ In contrast, the court, supposedly an instrument offering redress to free men, chose slavery to bureaucratic injustice and pollution for the Christian springs of its law… while we resisted its procedures, [we] congratulated one another on our guilt, prayed the Lord’s Prayer, and thanked the court for its courtesy.” (Pg. 140-141)
He said in his November 8, 1968 sentencing, “We have but one message for our leaders, in whose manicured hands the power of this land lies. Lead us! Lead us by giving people justice, and there will be no need to break the laws, no need for civil disobedience. Let President Nixon do what his predecessors failed to do---let him obey the rich less and the people more; let hm think less of the privileged and more of the poor; less of America and more of the world. Let our bishops and religious superiors think less of buildings and more of people; less of casuistry and more of the beatitudes; less of authority and more of service…” (Pg. 161-162)
In an interview, he was asked about he and his associates making a point of destroying property, and he explains. “Gandhi didn’t need to tamper with property to achieve [his] goals… we want political representation. To attain that here, one must engage the issue of private property. Draft files illustrate better than any item of private or public property---except hydrogen bombs---they savagery that Americans will use to defend private property. Draft files make it possible to fight wars cheaply---wars necessary to guard an expanding economy.” (Pg. 171-172)
He says of James Pike, “it took his son’s suicide to help him regain his faith and hope, or substantial portions of them… Few will find fault with Pike’s hope in man---he has stood for a questioning and socially relevant Christianity for years. Now his present hope in God, and in a future with God, has been strengthened by a son who is dead, but who… has become an instrument of hope for his father.” (Pg. 196)
This book will appeal to those studying the ‘Catholic Left’ of the ‘60s/’70s.
September 28, 2009
Interesting to read this now in light of what is going on in the world today. Forty years ago, Fr, Berrigan went to prison in protest of unjust war, nuclear proliferation and civil rights. Seems like those issues are more urgent than ever all these years later.
What a brilliant and devoted man he was.
What a brilliant and devoted man he was.
February 1, 2025
Prior to reading this book, I knew nothing about the Berrigan brothers. Having done some quick google searches prior to reading gave me a certain level of awe and respect for the duo. Both are accomplished organizers, priests, community leaders, and wordsmiths. While Phil admits his reluctance to write, he is nonetheless a clearly seasoned writer who has a dated, yet aesthetically appealing vocabulary and prose.
Before going further, I must admit my bias. I am a filthy, anarcho-communist who wishes to turn the frogs homosexual, as it were. I find many of Phillip's political and sociological analysis to be poignant and cutting, regardless of how he expresses it. When I learned about his home made napalm action in 1968, I have to admit that my reaction was something along the lines of "That's badass." Having finished the book, this text has done the job of any good biographical text. It's humanized Phil. My reaction to Phil is more along the lines of " Good for you man. Maybe go to therapy."
When Phil doesn't write about himself, the book is a fascinating exploration of what his journey was like. We get to know what it was like being processed, and why he did what he did. Across interviews it was a pleasure to read Phil's opinions on the church, it's place in politics, theocracy in the United States, and other sociological topics. Phillip is an incredibly well read man, who has nuanced opinions on a wide variety of issues.
It makes it all the more disappointing when one reads Phillip's personal writings. There is a section of this book where Phil creates a fake interview in his journal with what he imagines a "fearless reporter" would ask him, and then answers purposely loaded questions about how fearless and great he is. Savior complex aside, there are a few times where Phil touches on the idea of institutions such as prisons being filled with and promoting homosexuality. He often talks about how many people are violated in prison, and while that alone is not an inaccurate statement, he elaborates that the ONLY reason these people would ever engage in gay sex, is not because of people like Phil, but because they're in prison and want to inflict violence.
Philip also stands by non-violence as the only reasonable method of revolution in contemporary society, and cites Ghandi as an idol. Ghandi the child predator (look it up) aside, There is a level of privilege that comes along with Phil's enthusiasm at throwing everything away. I truly believe that, for folks like Phil, he provides an effective, and powerful form of resistance. When you have the money, resources, and privilege that Phil has, it makes a statement when you throw it all away to protest the reprehensibility of the state. The issue that arises is that Phil calls for everyone to do this. Including marginalized folks like the impoverished and college students. People who already have little in our society, can scarcely afford to get a prison sentence.
While there are nuggets of wit, wisdom, and cutting poignance that still resonates decades after the fact, there are bones in this fish. As with all people, nobody is a monolith.
This book's greatest downfall, was that it was written by and old white guy. A tale as old as time.
Before going further, I must admit my bias. I am a filthy, anarcho-communist who wishes to turn the frogs homosexual, as it were. I find many of Phillip's political and sociological analysis to be poignant and cutting, regardless of how he expresses it. When I learned about his home made napalm action in 1968, I have to admit that my reaction was something along the lines of "That's badass." Having finished the book, this text has done the job of any good biographical text. It's humanized Phil. My reaction to Phil is more along the lines of " Good for you man. Maybe go to therapy."
When Phil doesn't write about himself, the book is a fascinating exploration of what his journey was like. We get to know what it was like being processed, and why he did what he did. Across interviews it was a pleasure to read Phil's opinions on the church, it's place in politics, theocracy in the United States, and other sociological topics. Phillip is an incredibly well read man, who has nuanced opinions on a wide variety of issues.
It makes it all the more disappointing when one reads Phillip's personal writings. There is a section of this book where Phil creates a fake interview in his journal with what he imagines a "fearless reporter" would ask him, and then answers purposely loaded questions about how fearless and great he is. Savior complex aside, there are a few times where Phil touches on the idea of institutions such as prisons being filled with and promoting homosexuality. He often talks about how many people are violated in prison, and while that alone is not an inaccurate statement, he elaborates that the ONLY reason these people would ever engage in gay sex, is not because of people like Phil, but because they're in prison and want to inflict violence.
Philip also stands by non-violence as the only reasonable method of revolution in contemporary society, and cites Ghandi as an idol. Ghandi the child predator (look it up) aside, There is a level of privilege that comes along with Phil's enthusiasm at throwing everything away. I truly believe that, for folks like Phil, he provides an effective, and powerful form of resistance. When you have the money, resources, and privilege that Phil has, it makes a statement when you throw it all away to protest the reprehensibility of the state. The issue that arises is that Phil calls for everyone to do this. Including marginalized folks like the impoverished and college students. People who already have little in our society, can scarcely afford to get a prison sentence.
While there are nuggets of wit, wisdom, and cutting poignance that still resonates decades after the fact, there are bones in this fish. As with all people, nobody is a monolith.
This book's greatest downfall, was that it was written by and old white guy. A tale as old as time.
December 24, 2017
Surpringly good critiques of the Vietnam war in its contemporary time. Berrigan has lots to say on the terrible system that spring forth the Vietnam war; imperialism at its finest. He writes a lot on issues of the day, including many that are still relevant such as the incarceration of people of color at high volumes and the immorality of conducting wars based on an idea.
November 26, 2010
During high school and college, which is to say during the late sixties and seventies, I was torn between pacifism and support for armed struggles for liberation such as that waged by the Vietnamese. The enemy, so far as I saw it, was any power which imposed unnecessary suffering on people: capitalism and authoritarian, racist or sexist regimes such as the USA and the USSR. Pacifism seemed, for me, the most certain choice as oppressive violence constitutes the clearest form of imposition. But that position seemed suspect for several reasons. First, it didn't deal with the matter of self-defense. Second, it didn't deal with the matter of the defense of others. Third, it seemed suspect for being convenient and, ultimately, cowardly. Consequently, I was drawn to the writings of revolutionary pacifists who couldn't be deemed cowardly and who dealt openly with the problematic, people like Gandhi, David Dellinger, David MacReynolds and the Berrigan brothers, David and Philip.
Some of my best friends in high school had been raised Catholic and one family in particular identified with the Catholic Worker Movement. They turned me on to the Berrigans and got me to read this book as well as works by other Christian pacifists long before college and seminary had helped me get my head clear about their religion.
I probably read this book while home from Grinnell College on Xmas break.
Some of my best friends in high school had been raised Catholic and one family in particular identified with the Catholic Worker Movement. They turned me on to the Berrigans and got me to read this book as well as works by other Christian pacifists long before college and seminary had helped me get my head clear about their religion.
I probably read this book while home from Grinnell College on Xmas break.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews