![]() |
| St. Thomas Aquinas |
Firstly, as Catholics, we can benefit from the fact that Holy Mother Church looks out for us in our readings. Thanks to the Church, we can know whether something is doctrinally "safe" to read simply by seeing whether the work has the "Nihil Obstat" (nothing stands in the way) imprinted within its first few pages, along with an "Imprimatur" ("let it be printed") and occasionally an "Imprimi Potest" (it can be printed").
Simply put, "The 'Nihil Obstat' and 'Imprimatur' are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."
In essence, these words being stamped upon a book provide a kind of safeguard for the spiritually conscious Catholic trying to ensure that they are feeding their mind and soul with spiritually healthy writing. I'm grateful for the Church taking the time to do this - it's an easy way to know what I'm getting into when I pick up a bit of Catholic writing.
But what of non-Catholic Christian writings? What of spiritual writings in other religious traditions? Should a Catholic ever read these?
![]() |
| St. Augustine of Hippo |
I think this is where spiritual maturity and direction come into play. I think too, that one who studies religion and spirituality in general should take a view somewhere between Thomas Merton and Seraphim Rose. Thomas Merton, in a way, became far too "open" to other religions and philosophies, not simply taking wisdom from them and using that wisdom to enrich his own faith and understanding, but falling into almost seemingly letting these other philosophies undermine and hurt his faith (this is just my personal, uneducated view). Seraphim Rose, on the other hand, comes off as quite reactionary in a negative sense to nearly anything not strictly falling within his own Eastern Orthodox tradition. So it is that we end up with two extremes. I think both men meant well in their views and writings - of a surety, both are profound spiritual writers worth checking out on some level or another.
Like I said, I greatly appreciate the Church taking the time out to let humble lay people like me who want to deepen and enrich their faith what's healthy spiritual reading, and what might not be. In reading any questionable writing, I think it's important to be firmly grounded in the orthodox Catholic faith so that errors and heresies can be spotted right away and one can separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
I suppose the question will be asked, though, why a faithful Catholic would ever read anything that is not faithfully Catholic in teaching, doctrine, and the like. I think one could have asked St. Thomas Aquinas why he was studying Aristotle or Maimonides. Again, I think that spiritually maturity and knowledge must come into play at some point here. If one is a fledgling in understanding the faith (and many times, I think we all are - there is so much to know!), and still new, then maybe reading Catholic or non-Catholic Christian writings might not be the best idea - stick with the approved, orthodox works universally acclaimed by the Church. But overall, I would simply say - be cautious, be prudent, be open but grounded at the same time in the faith.
That's the best advice I can come up with - be prudent when it comes to your spiritual diet.


"In essence, these words being stamped upon a book provide a kind of safeguard for the spiritually conscious Catholic trying to ensure that they are feeding their mind and soul with spiritually healthy writing."
ReplyDeleteI thought the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are merely signs that the book is free from moral or doctrinal error, quite apart from its quality or "spiritual nutritional value".
This is an interesting and complex issue. And many people, especially among the better educated, like to think they don't need guidance but can judge on their own. As a high-school teacher I knew other Catholics, whose intelligence I respected, say the dumbest things about what the Church teaches. Even so great an intellect as St. Augustine admitted that, after he'd talked to St. Ambrose, he realized that what he had criticised the Church for teaching wasn't what the Church taught.
ReplyDeleteBut not all safe books carry imprimaturs. Two books by Cardinal Dulles, for example -- Magisterium and Assurance of Things Hoped for -- do not. People might start out with writers they can be certain of, such as Pope Benedict. I have often found theologians by going to ones talked about by ones I trusted. Of course, when you read someone like Maimonides or Bonhoeffer, you know to start with that they aren't Catholic. It's the ones who call themselves Catholic but deny the authority of the magisterium - like Fr. Hans Kung - that are the worry. May I suggest Ignatius Press as a starting place for people who want to be sure?
I know you're talking about spiritual reading and not theology, but it's the false theology in the spiritual reading that is the first problem (for what my opinion there is worth). Pope Benedict (or Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote somewhere that faith without reason is superstition. But starting too deep, even if the theology is perfectly orthodox, can cause problems.
The Church leaves a wide field for differences of opinion in theology, but knowing what it actually insists on should be the starting point. Perhaps the Catholic Catechism is a good place to start; it will also provide references, especially to the Saints, that can be helpful.