Replies

If you want a Protestant version of Catholicism, Moynihan is fine. It's a typical self-loathing Liberal Catholic take on the Catholic Church. If it presented itself as a liberal Catholic (= Protestant) take, there'd be no problem. But anyone who thinks that because the author is a practicing Catholic he gives a Catholic view of the history of the Church will be sadly disappointed. If one wants careful history combined with a Catholic viewpoint, there aren't a lot of options: Warren Carroll is one; Philip Hughes (now out of print) is another. Crocker is not always careful with his history but certainly gives a solid Catholic viewpoint. And even where he pushes the envelope he's worth reading because he's challenging deeply embedded Enlightenment/Protestant myths.

And one of the most pernicious of the Enlightenment myths is the myth of "noble Islam" and "vicious cruel Crusaders"--which even secular historians, finally, now that the Enlightenment has died a well-deserved death (though its replacement, post-enlightenment post-modernism is a cure worse than the disease--actually its the dying gasp of the Enlightenment packaged as post-Enlightenment), even secular historians recognize that Madden's and Jonathan Riley-Smith's presentation of the history of the Crusades is far more accurate than Runciman's or any of the Christian-hating, Muslim-loving Enlightenment historians.

Before someone dismisses a clear Catholic viewpoint in writing as useless because it's a viewpoint, consider: every historian has a viewpoint, no historian writes from complete objectivity. Identifying the viewpoint of the historian is not done to discredit the historian but in the name of truth in advertising. The problem with Moynihan is that he claims a Catholic viewpoint when he writes from an Englightenment-Protestant viewpoint which is the standard, deeply embedded in Anglo-American popular culture viewpoint. The difference was that in the "old days" Catholics sought out and read Catholic-viewpoint history--Philip Hughes--which is good historical research from a clear Catholic viewpoint. Hughes is not afraid to point out where popes and Catholic kings and emperors sinned and sinned badly. But he does write from a faithful Catholic viewpoint.

Today, much of what passes as Catholic is actually simply the old Anglo-American anti-Catholic Enlightenment viewpoint repackaged as Catholic. That's the dissembling that does everyone a disservice. Carroll does not; Crocker does not--with both of them what they claim to offer they offer. That's not true with Johnson--his viewpoint is enlightenement/protestant/liberal Catholic. If one reads him with that in mind, one can learn valuable stuff from him, but what one won't learn is a solid Catholic understanding of the Catholic Church's history.

Don't get me wrong, Moynihan is an engaging writer and I'm sure you enjoyed reading him. Just don't assume that he's always accurate or Catholic.