Death is a subject that is not taken seriously in contemporary society. The reason for this is probably the rampant materialism and secularism of our society. One of the consequences of this mentality is to either deny or ignore the question of the meaning of death and the reality of immortality. For, if the only thing that exists is matter, then death is the end of everything and it is pointless to speak about immortality.

In this book Pieper asks many hard questions about the meaning of death. After introducing the subject, he then analyzes modern vocabulary about death, and he notes how people tend to substitute euphemisms for the harsh reality of “death,” with phrases like “passing on” or “going to one’s reward.”

In the third chapter he questions the meaning of the traditional definition of death as “the separation of body and soul.” Here he says that it is not the body that dies, but the whole man. The author maintains that the spiritual soul, though profoundly affected by death, still persists indestructibly and maintains itself in being (p. 28). So Pieper strongly defends the immortality or imperishability of the human soul which, because of its spiritual nature, is like God and the angels.

Every man feels that there is something unnatural about death—that it is something which should not be. In the fourth chapter our philosopher asks whether or not death is a natural event or a punishment. Here he makes some use of the Bible and the teaching of the Church with regard to the beginnings of the human race and the fall of Adam and Eve, resulting in Original Sin passed on to all their descendants. Originally, God intended that man should not die, even though his material nature would wear out and tend towards death. God gave Adam and Eve the gift of immortality. How they would have terminated their life on earth has not been revealed, but we do know from Genesis that God threatened them with the punishment of death if they disobeyed his command. So when they sinned they were punished with death—for themselves and for all their children.

In the sixth chapter Professor Pieper discusses the question of “death and freedom.” In death he sees both necessity and freedom. The most absolutely free acceptance of death is found in the death on the Cross of Jesus Christ who freely went to death in obedience to his Father. Pieper, like Karl Rahner and others, thinks that the experience of death is not all necessity; he finds an aspect of freedom in it. Thus, when a man knows he will soon die he makes this last act a free act. In proof of his point he quotes a prison chaplain in Germany who assisted hundreds of men who were condemned to death during WW II.

In the last chapter the author argues that the expression “immortality of the soul” is not accurate, since only the whole man can die, not the soul. For Pieper the soul is indestructible or imperishable, that is, by its very nature it cannot cease to exist. His main proof for this position is the soul’s capacity for truth. There is something absolute and transtemporal about truth; since the soul knows the truth, then the soul itself must transcend time and space. In support of this idea he quotes St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologica I, 61, 2 ad 3). Along the same lines, the argument I have always preferred is the ability of the human mind to grasp universal ideas which are not limited to time and space. But both arguments are very similar.

Pieper’s book is a good antidote to the rampant materialism of our society. I recommend the book very highly to anyone who wants to reflect philosophically and theologically on death. Every serious thinker should be interested in this subject, since one thing that is absolutely certain is that we are all destined to die. No one is excepted, not presidents, not popes, not theologians, not philosophers.

I cannot recall any analysis of Newman, of whatever length, with this many original insights into the Cardinal who should most certainly figure officially as a Doctor of the Church. Much of it also is beguiling, like Newman’s lucid defense of capital punishment in his second letter to John Mozley and the Grammar’s negative judgment on life in outer space. Jaki is not ashamed to be politically incorrect, as when he refuses to cast a blind eye to the dangers of phenomenology or to succumb to a romantic interpretation of Vatican II. The remnant of the last generation who were hypnotized by an illusory “spirit of Vatican II” will profit from the example Jaki makes of Newman’s response to Peel’s utilitarianism in the Tamworth Reading Room address. While disdainful of distortions of that Council by modernists and reactionaries alike, he will not excuse such notorious shortcomings as its failure for all its prolixity to mention the angels or to say anything significant about hell or the devils. Newman would not be sympathetic with this. As for optimism, Newman’s “Second Spring” was not pollyannish, and he predicted a universal apostasy by the time in which we now live.

Nor does Jaki fall into an uncritical account of Newman himself, and this makes his devotion to the redeeming common sense and spiritual greatness of Newman all the more impressive. Jaki does not approve Newman’s inopportunist position on infallibility, but he admires his humility in accepting the definition even while Newman thought that the imminent death of Pius IX would not be a tragedy. Jaki is also impatient with the empiricist undertones and overtones in the Grammar, with its inconsistencies on universals and for not taking Locke head on. On points Newman might almost be taken for a latter-day Ockhamist. Still Jaki marvels at how Newman regularly seemed to come out right in the end. One of Jaki’s chief contributions to us has been his coining of the term “Aquikantism” for the transcendental Thomists who inflated the phosphorescent euphoria of the Vatican II period, and so he is glad to confirm Newman in the anti-Kantian camp, and to this case he brings meticulous research and irrefutable citations.

Professor Rice, of the Law School at Notre Dame University, offers us a book full of reasons for hope. It is the culture of death that is dying, and it is dying, essentially, because that is its commitment. The future belongs to the culture of life; that is the “winning side.”

The present anti-life culture can offer young people nothing of the spirit. It can lead them only into a dead end of alienation, dissipation, and self-absorption. As Pope John Paul II said to high school students at New York’s Madison Square Garden, “. . . when you wonder about your role in the future of the world and of the United States, look to Christ. Only in Christ will you fulfill your potential as an American citizen and as a citizen of the world community.”

Professor Rice is convinced, as all good teachers must be, that understanding generates hope. And so, he proceeds to inform us and help us to understand what happened in America to bring it to its current crisis. He explains, in a most reader friendly fashion, what legal, philosophical, and cultural processes have influenced and shaped our current anti-life climate. He explains why law and politics cannot solve our problems, why the family is beleaguered, and what is wrong with homosexual activities.

The Winning Side is a series of straight-forward answers to the relevant questions of our times. These answers cover such a wide territory that the book is useful as an information manual that sheds much light on the specific nature of our current situation.

The focus of hope, for the author, is the wisdom and example of Pope John Paul II. Professor Rice, who has taught constitutional law and jurisprudence for three decades, is pleased to concede that the Holy Father is “the most effective writer of jurisprudence in the world today.” But this focus directs our attention to God and “we have every reason for confidence if, in addition to our work, we repent, trust God, and call on Him for guidance and help, particularly through the intercession of Mary, His Mother.”