The Catholic Book Club discussion

1. Share your thoughts and reflections along the way. This is a good spot for observations that don't fit in any other question.

It will take a me few days to start the book.

It is always disturbing for me to read a nonfiction book and find glaring factual errors. In Chapter 2, Woods asserts that the word Barbarian comes from the Roman inability to understand them, and the fact that these people's speech all sounded to them like "bar bar bar."

But this was the Greeks, not the Romans, who borrowed the word from the Greeks. https://www.altalang.com/beyond-words...

It makes it much harder to read the book without wondering what else the author got wrong.

All copies of the book at our local library are currently out though I have it on request. And they've just eliminated late fees, so I may not get it in time to participate in conversation! But I'd always rather use the library than accumulate books.

John wrote: "It is always disturbing for me to read a nonfiction book and find glaring factual errors. In Chapter 2, Woods asserts that the word Barbarian comes from the Roman inability to understand them, and the fact that these people's speech all sounded to them like "bar bar bar.""

When I read this, I took it to be intended as a joke by the author.

My copy of this book (a Spanish translation) has a very bad layout and there are even missing words at the end of some paragraphs. So I'm not always sure of the author's intention.

John wrote: "It is always disturbing for me to read a nonfiction book and find glaring factual errors. In Chapter 2, Woods asserts that the word Barbarian comes from the Roman inability to understand them, and the fact that these people's speech all sounded to them like "bar bar bar.""

Woods was mistaken when he ascribed that etymology to the Romans rather than the Greeks, but the etymology itself is right. I have found this reference: https://www.history.com/news/where-di... where it says this:

The word “barbarian” originated in ancient Greece, and was initially used to describe all non-Greek-speaking peoples... The ancient Greek word “bárbaros,” from which it derives, meant “babbler,” and was onomatopoeic: In the Greek ear, speakers of a foreign tongue made unintelligible sounds (“bar bar bar”). Similar words exist in other Indo-European languages, including the Sanskrit “barbara,” which means “stammering.”

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "It is always disturbing for me to read a nonfiction book and find glaring factual errors. In Chapter 2, Woods asserts that the word Barbarian comes from the Roman inability to understa..."

Yes, that's what I was saying. It was the Greeks, not the Romans. That's a pretty significant error in a book that claims to be historical.

Finding it a bit dry but keeping with it! I am listening to the audio version.

I am really enjoying the section on science - I don't think I've seen the argument made before (and fairly persuasively) that Catholicism is not just the historical foundation of Western Science, but the philosophically necessary foundation.

Enjoyed the section on the University and how much has not changed as far as the rewarding of degrees. Also, the fact that Free inquiry and Reason were important to challenge arguments and promote discussion. Nowadays, after seeing my children now in college, this isn't always the case. Feelings are now more important than getting at the Truth. And there is consistent bashing of the RC Catholic Church which is quite ironic.

John wrote: "I am really enjoying the section on science - I don't think I've seen the argument made before (and fairly persuasively) that Catholicism is not just the historical foundation of Western Science, but the philosophically necessary foundation."

You can find this idea in the works of Christopher Henry Dawson. Besides his book in the bibliography, you can also read the following books by Dawson: The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity (1932), Dynamics Of World History (1957) and Christianity and Culture: Selections from the writings of Christopher Dawson (2008, a recent selection of his papers).

I found the chapter on the Church's foundational role in free market economics to be interesting. I've come across references to this before, but have been wanting to dig in deeper and understand more. This will be a great reference for doing that, when I have time.

My copy of the book finally came into the library, glad it's not super long!

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "I am really enjoying the section on science - I don't think I've seen the argument made before (and fairly persuasively) that Catholicism is not just the historical foundation of Weste..."

It was really Pierre Duhem who pioneered this idea, with his herculean research into the science of the scholastic age, back in the early 1900s. Then, Fr. Stanley Jaki, in his many books, helped expand on, deepen, and popularize this idea (his Science and Creation is particularly interesting).

I myself tried to give a more philosophical (as opposed to historical) presentation of the thought of Fr. Jaki in The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.

Paul wrote: "It was really Pierre Duhem who pioneered this idea, with his herculean research into the science of the scholastic age, back in the early 1900s. Then, Fr. Stanley Jaki, in his many books, helped expand on, deepen, and popularize this idea (his Science and Creation is particularly interesting)."

About Pierre Duhem, a couple of posts in my blog:
https://populscience.blogspot.com/201...
https://populscience.blogspot.com/201...

And a book by Stanley Jaki about Pierre Duhem: Scientist and Catholic: Pierre Duhem

Thank you so much, Manuel.

I have finished the book. This is my (short) review for Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Manuel wrote: "I have finished the book. This is my (short) review for Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..."

I like the difference in the title in Spanish "Como la iglesia construyo . . . ." The implication that there is only the one church and no modifier "católica" required.

John wrote: "I like the difference in the title in Spanish "Como la iglesia construyo . . . ." The implication that there is only the one church and no modifier "católica" required."

True, "The Catholic Church" and "The Church" are synonyms!

I started reading the Spanish version, but its layout was so bad, it was hard to read, so I got an English version and read the second half of the book there.

I found the section on Galileo fascinating. As with so many historical figures, it's easy in retrospect to say, "If only he had..." been willing to compromise, understood the difference between a theory and proven fact, etc. I also hadn't considered the role of Protestant criticisms that the Church didn't pay enough attention to Scripture in this controversy where Scripture seems to assert a scientific conclusion rather than use the common way of describing what we experience.
I also hadn't thought much about all monks contributed in terms of practical science/industry/manufacturing.

One thing the section on Galileo does not mention is that the Pope asked Galileo to write an explanation of his theories, with a real interest in understanding his arguments. Galileo wrote it as a dialogue where one of the characters is clearly the Pope and is presented as an idiot. The Pope did not like that.

Mariangel wrote: "Galileo wrote it as a dialogue where one of the characters is clearly the Pope and is presented as an idiot. The Pope did not like that."

The Pope (Urbanus VIII) had been a great friend of Galileo, although he was in favor of the Ptolemaic system. He asked Galileo to write a text offering arguments for both positions, stating that, in this text, none of the positions should win.

Galileo made the text into a trialog, with one participant defending the Copernican position, one the Ptolemaic, and one unsure about them. At the end, the first convinces the third fully, while the second (Simplicius, representing the Pope's position) is left, as his name indicates, as "a simple man."

The character defending the Ptolemaic position is called Simplicius (Latin meaning "more simple"), supposed to be a negative term, as in "simple minded," which would have been applied by Galileo to all those who defended that cosmological position.

Since then, the Pope stopped defending Galileo from his many enemies (he had fought with most astronomers and theologians of his time).

I finished the book about a week ago and enjoyed it, but mostly as introduction. I don't have a lot more to add to what's already been said. I will try to go back and find a couple passages I noted as I was reading. I am looking forward to reading a number of the books in Wood's bibliography, some of which I might add to our Nominations List. 😁

The whole book seems a bit superficial but brings together many interesting topics and gives ample references for following one's interests deeper.
In the chapter on art, he doesn't mention the old saw that medieval art was meant to compensate for widespread illiteracy, hence was the only way people could learn about the Bible and the faith.
His treatment of the development of international law from the self-recriminations of the conquistadors is interesting.
How could a Pope "appointed" by a secular emperor be God's authority in the Church?
War in itself is an evil, though there may be compelling reasons to tolerate it.
Not everyone would find all modern art "sterile and perverse"! His analysis in the last chapters is only convincing to those who already agree with him about what's moral, beautiful, etc.
Simone Weil did become a Catholic later in her life.