Matthew Kelly (1) (1973–)

This book hit me hard. Really good and timely stuff.

At first I thought it was too disjointed and I wanted to know some back story of the author, but as I read on, I didn’t need it. I have my own back story and the journaled thoughts of another gave me perspective and wonderings of my own.

I am going to cycle back and do some journaling of my own. Simplicity, spiritual needs, who would hide me and who would I hide, my virtues…these all need some more exploring. Am I the best version of show more myself right now?

Food for thought my dear friends… show less

This was an... interesting book.

There are a few caveats to my review. First, I am not part of the intended audience for the book. This books is marketed to Catholics, generally, and to lapsed, lukewarm, or non-practicing Catholics specifically. The entire point of this book is to remind Catholics what's great about Catholicism and bring them back into the fold. With that in mind, my review is an assessment of Mr. Kelly's success in this regard, using my rather unique perspective in this show more matter.

Second, I'm going to spend a lot of time on one chapter in particular (to wit, Chapter 15); this is because it's the most glaring example of the areas in which this book failed. I admit, I do have a certain bias in this particular chapter, but I don't believe I am overreacting. Feel free to judge for yourself, though; there will be quotes.

To begin: Most of the book is quite good. It reaches its target audience compellingly and effectively; it plays to their emotional and intellectual background, as well it should. It conveys its message with firm conviction and unwavering resolution, which is always good in a book exhorting people to become virtuous. And when he selects from the saints for examples, he tends to select saints (or saints-to-be) that most people know, thereby making the message both personal (these saints affected him personally) and relatable ("Hey! I've heard that name before!").

And, for the most part, the editing is good. I didn't notice any glaring errors in the first fourteen chapters (although, during those chapters, I wasn't looking for any). Everything seemed cohesive; the book had a pleasant flow. The one awful editing choice that fills the entire book, and has nothing to do with chapter 15, is the hyphenation of a particular (set of) phrase(s). Because Mr. Kelly is exhorting his readers to become more virtuous, he often says that they should become a better, or even the best, version of themselves.

Only he doesn't write it that way. He writes, "a-better-version-of-yourself," "better-versions-of-ourselves," "the-best-version-of-yourself," "the-best-version-of-myself," and "the-best-version-of-ourselves." And it wasn't a one-time event. I never went an entire chapter - and I hardly went an entire page - without seeing this travesty. I don't know whether he made that choice, or his editor did, or whether it's an Australian thing (if so, it's still wrong), or what. But hyphenation is completely and totally unnecessary for that phrase, or any other like it. It was almost enough to put the book down sometimes - and that was before I got to chapter 15.

The only other note I took on an error was defining "eucharist" as "thanksgiving." While clearly this has been perpetuated enough throughout history that "eucharistus" in the Latin dictionary brings up "thanksgiving" as an alternate definition, it's quite... well, if not erroneous, then at least a little skewed. In the original Greek, "eu-charis-tos" means "good grace" or "graced well" or something similar. In other words, the Eucharist is a gift from God (a grace) that is good. I realize that this definition sounds a little boring and doesn't play into encouragements toward thanking God for His gift, but it's the fact of the matter, all the same.

Now, to the infamous aforementioned chapter: The subject is Scripture, and, to be more precise, how Catholics ought to be reading the Good Book a smidge more than they are now. However, the chapter begins with something quite out of character (so far in the book) for Mr. Kelly, and quite eviscerating for his entire façade as an ecumenist.

(Well, technically, it starts with one of those age-old tales about person A giving person B a Bible instead of the money that person B really wanted, and person B gets really mad for a long time, and then something happens to make person B pick up the Bible, only to find the money they wanted inside. I first heard it as a gift in a will to a guy who grew old and gray before he found the thousands; in Kelly's version, a kid's father gives it to him for his birthday, and then the father promptly dies. Either way, it doesn't spruce up this chapter any more than it spruces up a lazy Sunday sermon.)

As soon as the parable is over, Mr. Kelly launches into a six-page rant against Protestants in general. (Now you see why I said I was biased.) There is no lead into this rant; there is no connection to the rest of the chapter at the end of this rant. It seems to me that Mr. Kelly had an unfortunate experience with a rather unpleasant Protestant and, like many cradle-Catholics (i.e., Catholics who were born into Catholic families and grew up Catholic, rather than converts), lumped all Protestants into the anger and vitriol he felt against this one person. Or, perhaps, Mr. Kelly genuinely feels this kind of repulsion at the existence of those who deny the veneration of Mary and the primacy of the Pope. But I digress.

In this chapter, and especially in this rant, the flaws in this book come flowing forth. Chapter 15 is the most poorly edited chapter of the entire book. It has poor pacing, awkward phrasing, excessive repetitions (using the same word three or four times in a sentence without any apparent intended effect, for example), and bad punctuation (using semicolons instead of commas, commas instead of semicolons, and even a couple of colons in place of who-knows-what).

As I mentioned, Mr. Kelly generally misrepresents mainstream Protestantism as united with fringe sensationalists and crazies. It is true that there are some oddballs who insist that the King James Version of the Bible is the true and authorized Word of God... but given what Catholics said about their translation of the Bible as little as sixty years ago, Mr. Kelly really doesn't have any legs to stand on for that argument. Plus, most people don't think such ridiculous things.

In reference to Protestants and their actions, Mr. Kelly uses violently insulting terminology. He writes that the Bible was "kidnapped by Protestant and Evangelical Christians," who "corner" Catholics with a theory that "self-destructs into the most monumental case of well-argued nonsense in the history of humanity." Harsh words, are they not? Especially for Christians and, shall we recall, separated brethren (not just heretics anymore!). (The "kidnapping" terminology is echoed in a later chapter, when he talks about evangelism.)

This rant also forges the book into a self-contradiction. He writes during his tirade, "It is this dynamic interaction between the Scriptures and tradition that keeps the Word alive"; later, when he has returned to his regularly scheduled programming, he writes, "Allow the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, alive and present in the Gospels, to sink their roots deep into your life." Let us recall, Mr. Kelly, that the power of God is in His Word, and tradition springs from it; the roots give life to the leaves, and the leaves give energy to the roots. Without the roots, leaves wither; without the leaves, the roots grow more.

Similarly, during his rant, "Our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters place an enormous emphasis on reading and studying the Bible. [...] Many modern Christians make it sound like it is impossible to receive salvation without a Bible. If that were the case, what happened to the people who lived before the Bible was printed?" Later, quoting St. Jerome (to whom many Protestants claim ironic allegiance), "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."

Oddly enough, Mr. Kelly's rant also becomes, at one point, self-deprecatory. This seems rather unintentional, as many things do in such philippics, but it still sounds like Mr. Kelly is insulting the modern Church: "It is here, in the gap of most Protestants' understanding of Christian history [i.e., the first 1500 years after Christ, before the printing press], that you find the beauty of Catholicism." This suggests (though it does not declare) that it is difficult or even impossible to find the beauty of Catholicism anywhere else. (Naturally, he could mean that it is more starkly presented there, and he may well, but he should consider his words before he prints them in thousands of copies across the world.)

Mr. Kelly furthermore makes a rather obvious oversight in his characterization of "Catholics" versus "non-Catholics": the Eastern Orthodox Church. Of all non-Catholic Christians, they are by far the most recognized by Roman Catholics as having good theological and moral standing. They are also, and have always been, non-Catholic.

But Mr. Kelly seems to have forgotten they existed at all (and for someone who claims a stronger knowledge of Church history than non-Catholics, this is surprising). He writes, "It is also interesting to note that the great majority of non-Catholic Christians have no idea that there are books missing from their Bible, just as all non-Catholic Christians are Protestants, whether they are aware of it or not." First of all, the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts most, if not all, of the same Deuterocanonical books as the Roman Catholic Church; in some cases, they also accept other books, which the Catholics do not. Secondly, they are not Protestants; the Eastern Orthodox were the Eastern Orthodox (whether or not they ever used the name) five hundred years before there were any Protestants. And finally, I have met several Catholics were entirely unaware that their Bibles were even supposed to have more than 66 books.

He later writes, "For fifteen hundred years, when there were no Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Non-denominationals, or any other Christian Church of any type, the Catholic Church preserved the Scriptures from error, saved them from destruction and extinction, multiplied them in every language under the sun, and conveyed the truths they contained to people everywhere." This should be rather obviously erroneous, and I think any monk east of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas would disagree vehemently. I will applaud Mr. Kelly, of course, for taking the time to look up some names for some denominations (although I think capitalizing "non-denominational" misses the point).

This chapter, chapter 15, was such an odd departure for Mr. Kelly in his stated opinions of non-Catholic Christians. He often used the term "separated brethren" (see: Second Vatican Council) and generally referred to them in an imprecise, but respectful manner. And then the reader gets blindsided with this. It was quite unnerving. Oddly enough, he spends most of the six pages defending the common Catholic ignorance of Scripture - the very same ignorance that he eschews in the pages to follow. Pages which, I shall remind you, never mention this rant again, and never the twain shall meet.

Beyond that, I only have two notes from my reading of the rest of the book. On the one hand, his editing errors seem to continue. I think this is explained, to a small degree, when he writes in the final chapter of the book, "The problem with books is that they are never really finished; they are only ever abandoned. You could keep writing and rewriting the same book for your whole life and never be fully satisfied with it." He seems to have done just this: read over his book, decided to add some content, and failed to finish the proper editing process. This very passage seems similarly disjointed from the rest of the final chapter.

The last page has my last note. When I read, "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things," I heard it in Tim Robbins' voice in my head, straight out of "The Shawshank Redemption." And when I read, "I hope..." I heard it in Morgan Freeman's voice from the same film. While I don't begrudge the man saying totally honest and true things about hope, and the similarity could be (and probably is) entirely coincidental, I think avoiding iconic and thematic quotes from major motion pictures should be standard in books, unless an homage is intended (which seems unlikely here).

At any rate, I make the book sound worse than it is, and I know that. Three stars really is honest. Most of the book is effective and helpful. Even the remainder of chapter 15 is mostly delightful and uplifting. But something, somewhere along the line, went horribly wrong. show less

I read Holy Moments during the first half of 2025 — and it came to me the way it comes to many people: by surprise. It showed up in my mailbox one afternoon, no return address, no explanation, no bill. Just there.

Most days, I would’ve tossed it with the junk mail. But this time, I opened it. And I’m glad I did.

The message is simple, but not small: every moment is a ministry opportunity. Every interaction, no matter how fleeting, is a chance to bring goodness into the world. This show more isn’t a new idea for me. I’ve always believed that kindness and presence matter. But Matthew Kelly reminded me — with clarity and warmth — that the small moments matter most.

“The ripple effect begins with a single ripple… But we have been seduced by the spectacular, so we dismiss small as insignificant. Holy Moments are usually small and simple.”

That’s the core of the book: keep your eyes open for the quiet, ordinary places where you can bring something holy. A kind word. A pause. A bit of patience. A gesture of respect. These things matter — more than the noise, more than the spectacle.

The book challenges the idea that change is always progress:

“The progress delusion is the misguided belief that change and progress are the same thing. All change is not progress. What is progress? Improving the well-being of human beings.”

That line hit home. It made me want to live slower, deeper — and more alert to the person in front of me. It reminded me to stop measuring life by grand achievements and start watching for the quiet chances to help another soul breathe easier.

Even the distribution model of Holy Moments reflects its mission. Readers are invited to share the book — for free. You can send copies to five friends, or have five copies mailed to you to pass out. That’s how I got mine. That’s what I’ll do next.

If I could speak to Matthew Kelly, I wouldn’t just say thank you. I’d ask him to come with me into town — to look for a holy moment, side by side. And then, together, make it so. show less

I thoroughly enjoyed this little book of 12 chapters. Each chapter has essentially the same format:
A story of 2-3 pages telling how, when, under what circumstances the reality of the Eucharist hit home to that particular narrator;
A sort quote to ponder, usually from a saint;
A short "Point to Ponder," often asking a question the reader is to answer based on the reader's own life;
A sort "Verse to Live" from the Bible;
A short prayer;
A very brief biography of the chapter's author;
A show more section labelled "Want to Grow Spiritually?" which lists additional reading.

Many of the stories pack a punch and should challenge any Catholic who does not believe that the Eucharist IS Jesus Christ:
One describes a conversation between the author and a Muslim friend. The friend wonders why any Catholic who espouses belief in he Eucharist is not constantly on his/he knees before It. As Muslim, he would be if he saw his God.
One describes a priest in China who was detained on house arrest after his church, including the tabernacle, had been destroyed. For a number of nights, from his window, he observed a 12-year-old parish girl sneak into the area of the destroyed tabernacle, get down on her hands and knees and pick up one of the Hosts which had been in the tabernacle from the ground with her teeth and mouth. She had been taught you don't touch the Host with your hands and that you only take Communion once per day, so she came back for as many nights as there were Hosts on the ground. The priest could only watch from his window in tears. The last night, she accidentally made a noise after she had taken Communion, the soldiers arrived, and beat her to death.
The story of another man who returned to China as a priest, but incognito, for a visit. Once the people he was staying with trusted him, but still did not know that he was a priest, invited him to go with them in the middle of the night to the "wall." He did so and ended walking with a large group. He soon saw men climbing trees - lookouts. When they reached a clearing in the forest, he observed a small wall from an old derelict building. One of the men approached the wall, removed a brick, and took out a tiny monstrance with a Host. The people all knelt in adoration for one hour, replaced the monstrance in the wall, and went home. This was a regular occurrence for that village. (The priest did then reveal his identity, said Mass at the wall, and left a new Host behind.

I believe, but these stories certainly made me ask if I truly believe that God is present in that tiny wafer, what would I do for Him. Given the tenor and temperature of the world today, perhaps we should all be asking that question. Read the book for guidance regarding the answer. show less