These are still in a bit of draft form, but not a bad starting place to get up to speed on how we're trying to work through such sensitive issues as serious book critique:
Though this quote, from Fr. Dubay's Authenticity: A Biblical Theology of Discernment is primarily focused on criticism within the Church, I believe the same basic principles apply to constructive criticism of secular and Protestant works as well...
It has been rightly noted that the sometimes necessary criticism in the Church heals no wounds unless it consists in an example of greater love:
The critic without love resembles rather a man who scratches himself all the more furiously, the more fiercely he itches, a process which of course can only result in exacerbating and spreading the inflammation. The great saints were reformers of the Church but they were edifying reformers. Not all great reformers were saints, that is to say those who truly loved; many of them destroyed more than they built up...
One can picture Catherine of Siena disapproving of the papal presence in Avignon and yet at the same time profoundly loving the pope as her "Christ on earth". Her criticism had all the marks of the Spirit: made with reluctance, moderation, gentleness, accuracy and love. One need only compare this approach with its opposite: eagerness, exaggeration, harshness, bitterness. When one reads of theological disputes through the centuries (including our own), he sees clear examples of the two types of criticism. One has the marks of proceeding from God; it builds up in love. The other bears the brand of human pride; it cuts and erodes.
Necessary criticism of textbooks does not serve the reader unless it includes an attractive invitation to the truth.
Here are some guidelines:
- Maintain a cheerful and informative tone. Anger and sarcasm are distracting and make even the most important corrections appear merely personal.
- Be aware of the difference between issues about which "good men disagree" and those about which there is an objective norm which has been overlooked or ignored.
- In some cases, the objective norm is one that has been carefully laid out by the Church, but is not clearly defined, or is not accepted, outside the Church. Life issues often fall into this category. Be clear within yourself (and within your critique) regarding those issues where all good men should agree and those where good Catholics will want to be informed, even if others are not concerned. Many life issues and related environmental issues are mixed up in this area.
- Do not judge the intentions of the author, who is responding to many influences which you do not experience. Instead, point out the likely effects of his bias. Your review is not about the author, but about the usefulness of a text.
- In particular, if a piece appears "anti-Catholic" distinguish carefully between errors of fact, errors of omission, and issues of effective bias, that is, bias which is likely to have its effect on the reader, whether or not intentional.
- Be scrupulously accurate when making a correction. An error in your correction will undermine the value of further correction. The research effort required for this will often uncover the specific source of the author's error, and this is extremely useful.
- Seek to make the reader feel that he is invited into the "accuracy club"; tell the honest reader where or how to find better information on the issues in question. Secular and Protestant sources are especially helpful in dispelling the impression that your critique is merely an ethnic squabble.
- Be principled in your critique and frame it clearly. An irritating author can have you running down a thousand rabbit holes, and can win just because he is clearer or more fun to read than you. What is the most fundamental problem with the book? How is it related to the stated purpose of the book, and to the true purpose of education?