Talk:Marie Carré

Quote

The long rambling quote which takes up about a quarter of the article space can be referenced but to quote it within the article like this only serves to push one viewpoint over another. It should go, with the authors viewpoint trimmed and referenced as an example of people who don't believe that the manuscript is authentic. As it stands now even with my added references the article's views on the book are biased. Dwain (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the quote is too long since I would argue that it provides a comprehensive history and criticism of Anti-Apostle 1025 that the article previously lacked but I agree that we must find a quote from a non-fringe person (ideally a historian or journalist) who believes that the manuscript is authentic in order for the article to be more balanced. That being said, you must provide a reliable source that specifically claims that the Archbishop Wieglus spy scandal is "evidence that backs up the truth of assertions stated in the book published by Carré" otherwise it is original research. The fact that "the governments of both Vietnam and China appoint their own Catholic priests and bishops" is completely irrelevant. --Loremaster (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've edited your contribution to be as neutral and factual as possible. Please provide a reliable source for the sentence linking the Archbishop Wieglus spy scandal to Anti-Apostle 1025 to finish the job. If we cooperate rather than engage in an edit war while accusing each other of biais (aren't you a self-described Conservative Catholic Christian accused of Wiki abuse?), we could turn Marie Carré into a good article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

I think this review written by Stephen Hitchings on Amazon.com might be useful to improve the Marie Carré article:

Con job, October 12, 2003

This book is one of two things: either the most incredible revelation of infiltration of the Catholic Church, or a fairly boring piece of fiction. As I began reading it, I was prepared to believe that it was true. The more I read, however, the more I became convinced that it must be a work of fiction. The things that convinced me were:

1. The whole story about how the book came to be in the hands of a poor Catholic nurse stretches credibility, particularly when the nurse intrudes her own words into the narrative.
2. The anonymous author claims to be a Communist, but speaks almost exclusively using Catholic terminology.

1. His motivations in writing his "memoirs" are very unconvincing. He says that he is only writing them to get them out of his system and that he intends to destroy them before anyone can read them, but the book looks very much as if it is intended for publication; in particular, the "romance" with a young woman is too much like a stereotyped romantic fiction. The letter from the young woman sounds like something out of a melodrama. (And people do not quote others' letters in full in their memoirs, unless those memoirs are intended for publication.) The whole thing looks nothing like a set of private memoirs.
2. He claims too much: that is, to have thought up just about every change which has occurred in the Catholic Church in the past 40 years. In other words, everything this man claims to have thought of has either come about or been seriously suggested by people in the Church. If this is true, it would make this anonymous man the most influential Catholic of at least the last 19 centuries.
3. Despite this enormous influence which he claims, and despite his claim that he is writing the book only for himself, he is awfully vague about how he worked. As a result, the whole thing is extremely unconvincing.
4. Both the style and content are amazingly similar to what one reads in typical traditionalist attacks on the modern Catholic Church.
5. As the book goes on, it becomes more and more preoccupied with traditionalist concerns, and almost completely abandons any attempt to tell a story.

In conclusion, this book is a work of fiction. As everything in it denies even the possibility that it could be fiction, it is a con job - one which successfully conned me out of my money, since I bought it. Judging from the other reviews, it seems that many others have also been conned by it. I am prepared to believe, if given sufficient evidence, that Communists may have deliberately infiltrated the Catholic priesthood; but this book offers no evidence.

The Commies are Coming

I don't understand why the book "AA-1025" is presented here as a non-fiction document. It is openly described as fictionalised by the author herself. It is essentially based on the unproven claims of Bella Dodd. The criticism by the chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Joseph Shaw is perhaps more illuminating than either Miesel's neoconservative ethnocentrism or Alice von Hildebrand's 'Murica Fuck Yeah Cold War promotion of the book. Shaw mentions that even in communist countries, like Poland and Hungary, where actual compromises existed between the clergy and state, the doctrine of the Church remained more orthodox than in the liberal West and that in regards to the Russian Orthodox Church, which worked closely with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, no moved were made to change the traditional liturgy there. In China, the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, does not even recognise the Second Vatican Council and celebrated the Tridentine Mass into the 1980s. We should mention this in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)