Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church

 

Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church by H.W. Crocker III

Oh dear. Oh dear.

I’ve read several hundred history/biography books over the last few years (I’ve reviewed many on Amazon) and this was by far the worst “history” book I have ever read.   Let me be very clear and state that I am not anti-Catholic nor am I anti-Christian. Many times when one comes across a negative review on Amazon of a Christian topic, the reviewer is clearly biased if they are anti-theist, atheist or agnostic. I am none of the above.   Although this book is definitely one-sided in its presentation of the accomplishments of the Catholic church, this is not my issue.  By ‘one-sided’, I mean that this book has a highly conservative slant, and am reminded of a minority of Catholics on the far-right fringe who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Pope Francis while also stating things on social media such as “It’s a mortal sin to vote for Joe Biden because he is a Democrat”.

Although I disagree with these sentiments, I still maintain that a thoughtful argument can be made by an author and I would be willing to judge the book on such merit.  However, you won’t find any “thoughtful arguments” here. The main problem is that the author is too filled with hate and vitriol to be taken seriously.  Instead of a serious academic, H.W. Crocker III comes across more like a spoilt 16-year old who is throwing a temper tantrum because his daddy won’t let him take the family car out past curfew on a Saturday night.  The Catholic Church deserves better than this.  If you are a Catholic and you are wanting to encourage non-believers to become part of your faith (as you should) I would strongly advise you not to recommend this book.  Sometimes I really couldn’t believe the author expected to be taken seriously.  In fact, there’s a part of me that believes Mr. Crocker is playing a sick joke on his readers, as the “history” he is presenting in this book is so removed from anything that one could consider serious scholarship.

Although he never specifically states so in this book, he seems to believe that the only way the planet can survive is by implementing a strict Catholic theocracy.  He seems unconcerned with things such as love, forgiveness, fairness, and helping those in unfortunate circumstances.  You know, the very things that Jesus Christ taught.   What many people don’t realize, is that such a theocracy existed in western civilization for over a millennium in Western Europe, and it failed simply because you can’t beat people into submission while at the same time preach about a loving redeemer.  People must respond to the Gospel of Jesus and invite Him into their heart; they can’t be “commanded to love God”.   Our human nature simply doesn’t work this way.  (As a side note, the Protestants tried something similar with the Puritan movement when they first arrived in what is now the United States. It didn’t work out too well for them either.)

For those who might not know, the word “catholic” means “universal” and for the first 1500 years since the time of Christ, the Catholic Church was essentially the only Christian church on the planet.  For the first several years, there were debates and arguments but for the most part the church stayed healthy.  Metaphorically, the problems of the church started like a small snowball rolling down a hill. By the time of the Renaissance, the snowball had grown tremendously in size and speed.  We really shouldn’t be surprised at all that the call for reform happened when it did.

When Constantine became emperor of Rome in 306 A.D., he actually made Rome into a Christian theocracy. The problem was that when everyone HAS to be a Christian, you end up having a lot of non Christlike Christians in the kingdom.  THIS is why so many people left the cities and went to live in trees and caves called “monasteries” and called themselves “monks”. It’s a fascinating story, yet the author doesn’t cover any of this here.  The only reason that I can speculate that he omits this, is that he would have to concede that monasteries and monks were “formed” out of problems they saw with the universal church and the author refuses to admit that the church could possibly ever have such problems.

Sadly, it then proceeds to really get bad (I’m not necessarily commenting on the church, but the author’s treatment of the church).  To hear the author talk about things like the Crusades and the Inquisition, you would be left thinking that these were really neat ideas that slightly fell short of the goal, and the world would have been so much better had more blood been shed and more people tortured.  We then come to probably the most infamous Pope in the history of the church, Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI) and his stained family.  Entire books have been written about the evils of the Borgias, yet he author of this book merely slags the negativity away stating that “history has treated them unfairly”.   He states that, oh sure Rodrigo Borgia had a mistress, but he was KIND to his mistress!   Now, ask yourself this: If you are a Catholic and you go to confession for committing adultery, but you inform your priest that you have no intention of stopping your adulterous affair because you’re “kind” to your mistress, do you really think your priest will absolve you of your sins??  I didn’t think so.

We then make our way to the topic of Indulgences.  This was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of what actually started the Protestant Reformation. Again though, the author states that indulgences were really no big deal.  He denies that the church used the tool to get churchgoers and their relatives out of purgatory.  I’m not sure how he comes to this conclusion.  Every other source that I have studied says completely the opposite.  In fact, the author states that indulgences were rather harmless, and priests merely used them as part of the absolution process during confessions.  These must have been heavy sins since many peasants ended up giving 1/3 of their yearly wages towards said indulgences.  Again, the author doesn’t educate you of this fact. He then makes the absurd claim that had it not been for indulgences, Michelangelo probably wouldn’t have been able to create so many works of beauty for the church.  To me that sounds a bit like saying Adolph Hitler stole a lot of property from the Jews after he sent them to wither and die in concentration camps, but it really wasn’t that big of a deal because, well golly gosh darn it, Hitler used this ransacked plunder to improve the buildings in Germany, beautify the cities, and rebuild the economy.

Speaking of Adolph Hitler, we then come to Martin Luther.   **I’m** not comparting Luther to Hitler, but the author does.  A few times. The author even suggests that Hitler might not have ever come to power had it not been for Martin Luther.  Right.  Great.  We don’t learn anything useful about Martin Luther in this book.  He’s clearly the pinnacle of evil in the opinion of the author, and we get to read many horrid descriptions of the man complete with foul adjectives.  We read more about his repulsive personal appearance and bowel movement habits than we do anything useful to help understand the man.  Again, I’m not saying the author has to agree with Luther and the Reformation, but he should at least paint a fair picture of the man.  As a side note, I was assigned to write a term paper on Martin Luther when I was in high school, and I never uncovered any resources that painted the man the way this author does.  I received an “A” on my term paper.  Had I used this book as one of my references, I probably would have gotten an “F”.

So after the Protestant Reformation, this author blames every problem in Western Civilization for the next 500 years on Protestantism.  Atheism? He blames the Protestants.  The Age of Reason? He blames the Protestants. Democracy?  He blames the Protestants.  I wouldn’t have been surprised if he would have blamed his hemorrhoid condition on Protestantism.  I’m reminded of when liberal filmmaker Michael Moore actually blamed Ronald Reagan for the fact that he was overweight.   This book was written before the Catholic sexual abuse scandal rocked the world a few years ago.  I would bet a year’s salary that had this book been written AFTER that tragedy, the author would have somehow blamed Protestants for that scandal as well.    All throughout this, the author makes ridiculous statements such as praising a 19^th century Pope for banning trains (??) while condemning a later Pope for allowing gas powered streetlamps (??!!)

The latter half of the book became difficult to read because of the author’s strong, hateful opinions.  It reminded me of being in a fetid sewer filled with stenches of animal waste.  You can only stay in such an environment for so long before you have to come up for fresh air.  This was another problem I had.  I couldn’t read more than 10-20 pages of this book at a time without having to put this book aside and breathe some fresh air (i.e. common sense).

Fast Forward to the 1960s and Vatican II.  MOST Catholics embraced Vatican II, but not this author. He faults Pope John XXIII for Vatican II  (he describes the Pope as “fat” along with other lesser terms of endearment.  Is it really necessary to continue to dislike people because of their physical appearance??)  When Pope John XIII dies in 1963, the author essentially states that the next Pope, Paul VI, really had “no choice” but to continue Vatican II.  And on and on and on….

All of this to say that the title of this book is somewhat misleading.  It really isn’t a comprehensive history of the Catholic Church, but rather a statement of how Protestantism “destroyed” the church in Europe and, eventually, North America.  I don’t recall anything about the recent successes or growth of the church in places like Asia or Africa.  We then come to the word in the book’s title “Triumph”.  What exactly is “triumphant” about what the author is presenting to us?   According to this author, there hasn’t been anything “triumphant” for the Catholic church since Christendom in the Middle Ages.  In fact, his conclusion is that the church badly needs “A few good men (not women)” if the church is ever going to rise from its ashes.  A depressing thought indeed.

In conclusion, I have to reemphasize that I truly believe that the Catholic church has done many wonderful things and should be praised despite its warts.  I never felt encouraged nor upbeat while reading this book, however. It was simply angry and depressing.   The author seems to believe that beating subjects into submission is a much better tool than sharing the love of Jesus Christ with our fellow brothers and sisters. As an alternative, I would strongly recommend Justo Gonzalez’ two volume set “The History of Christianity”.   Gonzalez is a Christian (not a Catholic), yet he clearly shows the goods and bads of Catholicism and Protestantism throughout the years. It’s much more balanced, fair, real and upbeat. 

The Catholic Church deserves a much better retrospective than what is presented here.