Skip to main content

A Response to Hitchens' 'God Is Not Great'

Father Cantalamessa Analyzes Attack on Religion

ROME, SEPT. 26, 2007 (Zenit) - Here is the text of a commentary written by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, in response to an essay on religion and evolution written by Christopher Hitchens.

* * *


A few weeks ago an anonymous benefactor saw to it that I received a free Italian edition of an essay by the Anglo-American journalist Christopher Hitchens, titled "God Is Not Great," subtitled "How Religion Poisons Everything" (Giulio Einaudi, Turin/New York 2007).

I'm quite sure his aim was not to provoke me, but to help me out of the deception I find myself in as a believer and as a TV commentator on the Gospel.

Let me say at once that I'm grateful to my unknown friend. Many of the author's reproaches against believers of all religions -- the book treats Islam no better than Christianity, which shows considerable courage on the part of the author -- are well founded, and must be taken seriously so that the same errors of the past are not repeated in the future. The Second Vatican Council states that the Christian faith can and should benefit even from the criticisms of its attackers, and this is certainly one of those cases.

But Hitchens, in my view, makes a mountain out of every molehill. He claims to follow the Gospel principle of judging the tree by its fruits, but as for the tree of religion, he only considers the rotten fruits, never the good ones. The saints, the geniuses and benefactors given to humanity by the faith or nourished by it, count for nothing.

Using the same principles -- I mean, by considering only the dark side of an institution -- one could write a "black book" about any of the great human realities: the family; medicine (just think what it was used for at Auschwitz); politics and science, and about the author's own profession, journalism (how many times has it been, and still is, in the service of tyrants and serving the interests of powerful groups!).

No one is exempt from his criticisms. Francis of Assisi? "A mammal who was said to have preached to birds!"

Mother Teresa of Calcutta? "An ambitious Albanian nun" made famous by the book "Something Beautiful for God," written about her by Malcolm Muggeridge. In other words, Mother Teresa is just one of many products of the media age!

Pascal concludes his account of his discovery of the living God with the words: "Joy, joy, tears of joy." And C.S. Lewis describes his conversion as being "surprised by joy," but for Hitchens "there is something dreary and absurd" in these two authors, as in all believers: a fundamental absence of happiness. ("Why does such a belief not make its adherents happy?")

Dostoyevsky is one of the main witnesses for religion, but the arguments put into the mouth of the rebel atheist Ivan are given more attention than those of the pious Alysosha who, as is well known, reflects much more closely the thought of the author himself.

Tertullian becomes a "church father" so that his "credo quia absurdum" -- I believe because it is absurd -- can be interpreted as the thought of Christianity as a whole, whereas it is well known that when he wrote these words (here interpreted outside of their proper context and in an inexact way) the Church considered Tertullian a heretic.

Strange that the author should criticize Tertullian, because if there is one apologist he resembles, like a reversed reflection in a mirror, it is precisely the African: The same energetic style, the same will to triumph over his adversary by burying him under a mass of apparently -- but only apparently -- insuperable arguments: quantity replacing quality of argument.

An English reviewer (J. Cornwell of The Tablet) has compared the author of this book to "a tired old prizefighter throwing weary punches at an inert punching-bag while the true champ he'd like to duff up is absent from the gym."

He does not demolish the true faith, but a caricature of it. Reading the book, I was reminded of the sport of clay pigeon shooting: The ready-made targets are hurled into the air, and the marksman, aiming his shots with fine precision, blasts them to bits effortlessly.

Hitchens attacks the various religious fundamentalisms with an opposite kind of fundamentalism. In the Italian secular newspaper La Repubblica, Renzo Guolo wrote: "Hitchens' work looks like the militant manifesto of a world that appears polarized between the disturbing champions of fundamentalism, with their crazy projects for new, totalitarian ethical states, and the supporters of an integral neo-secularism which undervalues the search for meaning on which many are engaged in this age of the 'end of the narratives.'"

Hitchens shows signs of another kind of fundamentalism too: Although with the opposite intention, he reads Scripture, especially the Old Testament, in exactly the same way as certain biblical fundamentalists of the American evangelical variety -- literally, without any effort to contextualize or interpret the text historically. This enables him to speak of "the nightmare of the New Testament."

But Christopher Hitchens is an intelligent man. He foresees that religion will survive even his attack, just as it has survived countless others before it, and he goes to the trouble of providing an explanation for this embarrassing fact.

"Religious faith," he writes, "precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, is ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other."

Religion is only a provisional, intermediate state, connected with the situation of man as "an evolving being." Thus the author tacitly assumes the role of one who has single-handedly broken through this barrier, anticipating the end of evolution and "returning" to earth, like Nietzsche's Zarathustra, to enlighten poor mortals about the way things really are.

I repeat: One cannot fail to acknowledge the author's extraordinary erudition and the relevance of some of his criticisms. The pity is, by trying to win the argument hands down, he fails to convince.

[Text adapted]


Catholic Online  CA, US
Catholic Online - Publisher, 661 869-1000



Cantalamessa, God, Hitchens

Rate This Article

Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 6 of 6 Comments

  1. greygandalf
    2 years ago

    I am about to buy this book. I like Hitchens' style, witty and urbane. Not necessarily because I'm against religion; I would like to see how he pieces the story together. From his discussions, it is clear he has a wide range of literary influence, and has attended many religious ceremonies, of different religions. Why? To educate himself to increase his knowledge. I appreciate the Father's comments regarding Hitchens' extraordinary erudition, and relevant criticism. If anything, that has convinced me to buy the book! The Father has shown he can both take criticism (not directly at him), and still have a generous enough heart to praise the author.

  2. Mike
    5 years ago

    Roman Catholicism in its institutional manifestation in the Roman Catholic Church, is and has been filled with all kinds of people trying to be like our lord Jesus Christ. Mr. Hitchens targets the stupid, criminal and lazy members and their bad behavior as one of his principal arguments that religion poisons everything. He does not dwell much on the thousands and thousands of saints, in their unvisited tombs, who selflessly educated the ignorant, comforted the sick and dying, raised children and tended to elders through lifetimes of drudgery and personal poverty. Self-abnigation and charity through the centuries, benefiting those who would otherwise have had no hope at all, is so much more of what the Church is about than this parody presented by Mr. Hitchens. History is a mess of tragedy, and the problem of evil in a world with a God that loves us will always be a mystery, and an easy target for polemicists. However, I'll take a world with the Church in it over the athiest utopias that were set up in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China and Cambodia. Quo vadis indeed Mr. Hitchens.

  3. Andres Valdes
    5 years ago

    Surely this is not a very good response. Where is the part where you convince me of the divine nature of the holly scripture versus the man made option, unless of course I have to just have faith on it?

  4. tyork
    6 years ago

    Actually, Tertullian was never officially named a heretic and I think Christians would do well to claim his comment. Yes, that the second person of the Triune God would become incarnate and give his body over to be executed so that we might participate in the divine economy is absolute absurdity. How beautiful though. As Paul says, It is foolishness to the Greeks.

  5. Christopher J. Freeman
    6 years ago


    I'm not sure your comment has any relevance, and is on level with an ad hominem. Cantalamessa's article is not invalidated by his presence as a priest in the Catholic Church. Interact with the article, not the beliefs you happen to disagree with and that Cantalamessa holds but doesn't mention.

  6. Tom Hoppe
    7 years ago

    How can someone take seriously the opinion of the writer of this article who, as a Catholic priest, presumably believes in and celebrates such an obvious fiction as The Assumption? One need not decide if a literal or metaphorical interpretation of scripture is in order here because, of course, there is no mention whatsoever of this event anywhere in the bible. For Catholics to adhere to this dogma simply because one man -- Pius XII -- declared it so almost 1950 years after the supposed event is extremely ridiculous.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Joel 1:13-15; 2:1-2
Priests, put on sackcloth and lament! You ministers of the ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 9:2-3, 6, 16, 8-9
Read More

Gospel, Luke 11:15-26
But some of them said, 'It is through Beelzebul, the prince of ... Read More

Saint of the Day

October 9 Saint of the Day

Sts. Denis, Rusticus, and Eleutherius
October 9: The first mention we have of these three martyrs who died around ... Read More