Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews

 

 

Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews by James Carroll

I would put this book in the category of “coming so close but missing the mark” as it pertains to writing a great book.  James Carroll, at times, writes an incredibly interesting and compelling account of his subject matter, but too often – way too often – he gets distracted from his narrative and takes his readers off on tangents that don’t help the overall flow of his narrative.   As an analogy, we’ve all been exposed to someone telling us a story of something that happened to them, yet the person drifts off from their main point while talking to us.   We end up listening to an individual taking 30 minutes to tell us a 10 minute story.  This is the case with this book. Again, it’s really a shame since when the author stays focused, it really is a great account.

James Carroll is a Catholic and a former priest.  His focus on this book is how the Jews have been mistreated throughout the history of Christianity – by those same Christians.  I appreciate the fact that the author is in insider.  One who is a Christian might tend to get a bit less defensive when the criticisms are coming from the inside rather than the outside.   Carroll begins his narrative during the time of Christ, and highlights several historical times and instances up unto the culmination of the Holocaust in the 1930s-40s.  Throughout the narrative, he shows how the church made such mistakes.  This isn’t a hatchet job, though.  He points out many instances where those in power were quite sympathetic to the Jews and didn’t look down on them as “Christ Killers”.  Still, though, history has shown us that more harm was done than good.  We must also remember that church and state weren’t separated for most of history, so in many cases, whatever the church said was implemented and followed.

Now, as I’ve stated already, the problem is the author gets too distracted.  He begins the book in what seems to be a good way. Like many historical books, he begins his story at the end; specifically Auschwitz and the controversy of the church wanting to put crosses where the tragedy occurred.  Since the church didn’t do enough to prevent this horrific event, Carroll shows us just how offensive this gesture is to the surviving Jewish community. So the first chapter makes a very good introduction.

However the author isn’t finished yet with his “introduction”.  He takes the next several chapters droning on and on to try to continue his introduction. Often he interjects himself in the narrative.  We read over and over and over and over (and over) again about his trips to Europe as a young boy with his mother, and all the things he saw, all the people he met, all the relationships he had as a child with Jewish friends and on and on and on (and on).  This was simply too distracting.  Not only do these accounts take up the first several chapters delaying the start of the actual narrative, but he comes back to these events throughout the book, which means he’s essentially interrupting his account. He probably could have cut out the bulk of these interludes and ended up with a much better (and much shorter) book.  I don’t mean anything personal by this, but I simply didn’t care about the author’s many travels with his mother.

Speaking of distractions, the author spends the last section of this book going off on yet another tangent. After we read about the Holocaust, we read about the church’s attempt to reform with the implementation of Vatican II.  History shows us that this was a needed coda, yet Carroll doesn’t stop there.  He then hypothesizes that the church really needs a “Vatican III”, and proceeds to inform his readers of everything that needs to happen in this hypothetical convening, some related to the mistakes of how the church treated the Jews, but other of his proposed reforms simply talk about how the Catholic Church needs to change overall.    Now, to be honest, I thought much of his reflections were quite insightful, but I again asked myself: Why is this even here?   It seemed as though his idea of “Vatican III” should have been a completely different book.  It just didn’t really seem to belong here.

After I read the book, I found it was one of the author’s most highly regarded works.  I’m tempted to read some of his other books (he’s also written a few novels).  He really does tell compelling accounts when he’s focused.   I just couldn’t bear, though, having to read another 700 or so page “history” that should have only been about 400 or so pages.