...
Show More
The book opens up strong, preventively defending itself against anyone who would think an accusation of heresy is nothing more than Catholic intolerance. Belloc explains how, far from fundamentalist pedantry, the inquiry into heresies is useful in order to understand how our society was and is, and how it might have been or will be.
The first one is the Arianism. What's interesting is how some familiar patterns begin to emerge. We get an account of how Arianism appealed mostly to the rich, the army, and the intellectuals, and how their sympathies were informed by a sense of superiority to the Catholic masses. Indeed, it is always the snobs, the affluent hipsters and eccentrics —to wit, the cultural and economic elite —who start "innovating" with spirituality and making belief a matter of fashion and status signalling, something we can see to this day.
Another interesting point is how Belloc again insists that this inquiry is no mere intellectual curiosity, no simple orthodox arrogance. Nay, in the Arian claim that Christ is dissimilar to God, it opens up the gates for Unitarianism and, according to Belloc, to paganism. The author invites us to consider that from this abstract (seemingly irrelevant) theological controversy, a completely different society might have emerged; one which did not have such a clear grasp on the importance of Man as the Catholic Faith does.
Next up is Islam. Many moderns will take issue with how the author portrays the religion of Mohammed as a simplification, a degradation even, of the Catholic doctrine passed through the lens of Arabian paganism; indeed a Christian heresy, albeit an enduring one that spawned from without. I myself take no issue with this. The theological arguments are sound and there is even a hint of respect from Belloc for the might of the Caliphate and the doctrine that powered it.
What I do take issue with is the East versus West worldview, the clash of civilizations narrative. Clearly a product of its time, the view of a civilized Christendom in perpetual war against a barbaric Orient is, though not completely insane, way too easy. Turkey, as a nation, is an example of the complexities I have in mind, and I will not go into more detail here.
What I take even more issue with, and is for me proof of Belloc and his contemporaries' eagerness to simplify, is how he refers to Muslim peoples. See, I am all for calling ethnic groups by their names rather than lumping all of them under "PoC" like it's the fashion. Belloc seems to make distinctions between Arabs and Berbers (and for this I commend him) but then his historical accuracy becomes murkier as he starts talking of "Turks" and "Mongols" as if they were the same thing; betraying his view of all non-Europeans as "Orientals" or "Asiatics". The comment about the "Asiatic temper" is also of course racist by today's sensibilities, and one I don't condone.
The section on Albigensianism is probably the most boring, but it does help to shine a light over how theodicy has always been one of the, if not the, most delicate point of Catholic theology, able to spawn such vibrant a heresy as the Albigensian. More generally, it is useful to see how heresies usually evolve from a need to rationally explain a mystery (Arianism attempts to do the same with the Trinity).
The last two chapters are perhaps the most relevant for our day and age. Belloc spends a lot of time discussing Protestantism, its origins, its historical clash with Catholicism, and the society it produced, spiritually and materially. Then, in a weird move, Belloc says Protestantism is waning and a new heresy has taken its place; namely modernity. I say odd not because I can't see how Protestant theology is withering (its only remaining bastion being, perhaps, US evangelicals) and how modernity has produced its own vast array of anti-Catholic monstrosities; but rather because I see the two as one and the same.
The author clearly states how a key tenant of the Reformation was a distrust in central (Papal) authority, a distaste for orthodoxy, and a substitution of eternal with temporal earthly things. He is brilliant in tying this to the material success of Anglo and Germanic societies vis-à-vis Mediterranean ones; but to my knowledge he never connects this to "the Modern Attack" which came after. In my view the connection is evident; Protestantism was but a bridge between the tempered and healthy (though flawed and sinful) Catholic society of the Middle Ages and the Godless neo-paganism of today.
The first one is the Arianism. What's interesting is how some familiar patterns begin to emerge. We get an account of how Arianism appealed mostly to the rich, the army, and the intellectuals, and how their sympathies were informed by a sense of superiority to the Catholic masses. Indeed, it is always the snobs, the affluent hipsters and eccentrics —to wit, the cultural and economic elite —who start "innovating" with spirituality and making belief a matter of fashion and status signalling, something we can see to this day.
Another interesting point is how Belloc again insists that this inquiry is no mere intellectual curiosity, no simple orthodox arrogance. Nay, in the Arian claim that Christ is dissimilar to God, it opens up the gates for Unitarianism and, according to Belloc, to paganism. The author invites us to consider that from this abstract (seemingly irrelevant) theological controversy, a completely different society might have emerged; one which did not have such a clear grasp on the importance of Man as the Catholic Faith does.
Next up is Islam. Many moderns will take issue with how the author portrays the religion of Mohammed as a simplification, a degradation even, of the Catholic doctrine passed through the lens of Arabian paganism; indeed a Christian heresy, albeit an enduring one that spawned from without. I myself take no issue with this. The theological arguments are sound and there is even a hint of respect from Belloc for the might of the Caliphate and the doctrine that powered it.
What I do take issue with is the East versus West worldview, the clash of civilizations narrative. Clearly a product of its time, the view of a civilized Christendom in perpetual war against a barbaric Orient is, though not completely insane, way too easy. Turkey, as a nation, is an example of the complexities I have in mind, and I will not go into more detail here.
What I take even more issue with, and is for me proof of Belloc and his contemporaries' eagerness to simplify, is how he refers to Muslim peoples. See, I am all for calling ethnic groups by their names rather than lumping all of them under "PoC" like it's the fashion. Belloc seems to make distinctions between Arabs and Berbers (and for this I commend him) but then his historical accuracy becomes murkier as he starts talking of "Turks" and "Mongols" as if they were the same thing; betraying his view of all non-Europeans as "Orientals" or "Asiatics". The comment about the "Asiatic temper" is also of course racist by today's sensibilities, and one I don't condone.
The section on Albigensianism is probably the most boring, but it does help to shine a light over how theodicy has always been one of the, if not the, most delicate point of Catholic theology, able to spawn such vibrant a heresy as the Albigensian. More generally, it is useful to see how heresies usually evolve from a need to rationally explain a mystery (Arianism attempts to do the same with the Trinity).
The last two chapters are perhaps the most relevant for our day and age. Belloc spends a lot of time discussing Protestantism, its origins, its historical clash with Catholicism, and the society it produced, spiritually and materially. Then, in a weird move, Belloc says Protestantism is waning and a new heresy has taken its place; namely modernity. I say odd not because I can't see how Protestant theology is withering (its only remaining bastion being, perhaps, US evangelicals) and how modernity has produced its own vast array of anti-Catholic monstrosities; but rather because I see the two as one and the same.
The author clearly states how a key tenant of the Reformation was a distrust in central (Papal) authority, a distaste for orthodoxy, and a substitution of eternal with temporal earthly things. He is brilliant in tying this to the material success of Anglo and Germanic societies vis-à-vis Mediterranean ones; but to my knowledge he never connects this to "the Modern Attack" which came after. In my view the connection is evident; Protestantism was but a bridge between the tempered and healthy (though flawed and sinful) Catholic society of the Middle Ages and the Godless neo-paganism of today.
