I purchased this book in the hope that I would obtain a clearer understanding of Cardinal Ratzinger in terms of his role and significance during the last twenty years. However I have to say that while there is lots of information in this book along with stories and anecdotes, it fails to deliver in terms of a substantive analysis of the church since vatican II and where the church will be as we move further into this the 21st century. At the conclusion of the book Allen hinges his critical description of the Cardinal in terms of the next conclave including a list of reasons why Ratzinger will not be Pope. If that is not enough he then goes further to sujest that in the event that he is wrong and Ratzinger does become Pope all of the difficulties he would envisage with such a papacy. The issues which he attampts to examine are far to complex in nature to be benchmarked of nothing other than his own futuristic and prophetic beliefs. Sorry to be so negetive.

Given the scathing reviews Allen's book has recieved by vehement critics, one would get the impression that he has nothing at all positive to say about Ratzinger. On the contrary, Allen believes Ratzinger "is not the vengeful, power-obsessed old man who lurks like a bogyman in the imaginations of the Catholic left". With regard to Ratzinger's thought, Allen finds that his "arguments are more than ex post facto rationalizations for exercises of authority" and speaks of "a deep, logical consistency to [his] vision". Indeed, Allen is so impressed with Ratzinger that he exclaims "in the unlikely event I ever had access to Ratzinger as a personal confesser, I would not hesitate to open my heart to him, so convinced I am of the clarity of his insight, his integrity, and his commitment to the priesthood" -- sentiments which might be denounced as treasonous or dismissed as insane by some on the Catholic left. (Picture a conservative saying the same claim about Hans Kung).

Allen's prevalently liberal audience will be reassured by the fact that his praises for Ratzinger as a person fail to carry over to Ratzinger's role as doctrinal prefect. One doesn't have to read far to note that on every issue from contraception to women's ordination to liberation theology he comes down squarely opposed, and remains just as steadfast in his convictions as the cardinal is in his.

There are many aspects about John Allen's book with which I disagree. Granted, we could expect something of a much different tone had this been written by one of Ratzinger's ardent supporters (Father Joseph Fessio or Cardinal Schonborn). Nevertheless, I believe we should respect Allen's account for what it is: an honest (and so far as I have noticed, unparalleled) attempt by a liberal Catholic to appreciate the person and thought of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. (No doubt others will disagree with my impression -- I say read the book and judge for yourself).

Finally, two poignant observations by John, L. Allen himself:

"Reaction to Ratzinger is often uncritical, driven more by emotion and instinct than sober reflection. Progressives do not read his books, they disregard his public statements, and they assume every position he takes is based on power politics. Conservatives revere most of what he says as holy writ, often spouting mindlessly without penetrating to the principle or value he seeks at stake. Neither response takes Ratzinger seriously.

* * *

The problem with political arguments in contemporary Catholicism is that too often the disagreeing parties talk past one another, having very little intellectual common ground upon which to base the discussion. . . . Neither is willing to spend the intellectual effort to understand the concerns that drive their thoughts, the arguments that have led them to the conclusions they hold, the alternatives they have considered and rejected."

This is certainly advice which any Catholic, regardless of his personal and ideological convictions, can take to heart and follow.

John Allen is to be commended for his biography of Cardinal Ratzinger. It is difficult to write objectively about living, controvertial figures and even more so in the case of powerful religious figures. Emotions can run high, even to the boiling point. Some readers might expect a "hatchet job" of the Prefect of the CDF by a writer for the "National Catholic Reporter", which is a prominently liberal newspaper, but only someone blinded by partisanship could consider this carefully researched and written book to be anything but thoughtful and even handed.

Allen read all of Ratzinger's works and many collateral books and conducted dozens of interviews in preparation for this study. He is at present NCR's resident editor in Rome. Allen is also an unusually well-read and well-informed practicing Catholic who genuinely tries to understand the points of view of his subjects. He raises difficult questions, as is his proper role, and, in my opinion, sometimes gives Ratzinger the benefit of the doubt when a sterner view would be justified but he provides a tremendous amount of valuable information and references so the reader can do his or her own research. This is the mark of a serious biographer and not a polemicist.

John Allen's "Cardinal Ratzinger" is an important and scholarly contribution to our understanding of this powerful figure in the present-day Catholic hierarchy. It deserves to be read.

This book is an embarrassment. Poorly organized, full of debased lies so incredible that one wonders rather the author himself actually believed them, and of such a personally vindictive nature that the reader feels as though he/she have just sat through a 330 page temper-tantrum. I can't believe anyone takes this book seriously.
The first obvious clue to the unreliability of this book is Bennett's 60-page tribute to himself. It's been said, and I agree wholeheartedly, that anyone who needs that much space to prove the good nature of his character is a scoundrel of the worst sort. And scoundrel he was. He sold college diplomas under auspicies of a bogus university. At one time he abandoned a wife and children in Ohio. He was famous for seducing young women with the promise that, should they get pregnant, he would perform an abortion on them (he was a doctor by trade). Yet these facts (and many others) are oddly left out of his first-chapter shrine to himself. And, wisely so, for if anyone knew the true character of the man, no one would have read the rest of his book.
So, what is contained in the rest of his book? Actually, there is very little of Bennett's own material. The bulk of the work is simply a series of very long excerpts from previous anti-Mormon books. So, what does one have to profit from reading this work? Absolutely nothing.

Overpriced for the cliche approach. I'm sure I should have purchased a more innovative work.

First of all this book is not cliche or a rehash of earlier material as other reviewers have stated. This book is also not very good. The book is written by John Bennett the first mayor of Nauvoo and one of the first major opponents of the Mormon movement. It is one of the first works of anti-mormon literature. I give it a five not because of any inherent academic achievement by Bennett (it has none the book was little more than a money making scheme and a political tool) but because of what we can learn about early mormon dissenters and their views of Mormonism. It also has great significance as a first hand account, albeit a biased one but all views of Mormonism are obviously biased one way or the other.

I bought this book with the hope of reading how top contemporary Protestant scholars address the issue of ecclesiology espoused by Rome and the Orthodox. It left me sadly disappointed. The chapter that addresses the four marks of the church defined in the nicene creed did not attempt to reconcile Protestant perceptions of those terms with the historical understanding of the council fathers. None dealt substantially with Eph 5:32. I was further saddened that one author criticized the piety of Catholics on the basis of his understanding rather than taking the time to just ask some of them why they were doing it. All guns trained against Catholicism while the Eastern Orthodox hold nearly identical views on ecclesiology. Perhaps someday a book with less rhetoric and polemic will attempt to address issues that build understanding rather than polarizing divisiveness.

I cannot help but feel like I would like to toss my cookies when I recall this work. Certainly, the author made a futile attempt to provide an apelike overview of fluid mechanics, as it was at the time- but did he really scrutinise those engineering applications? Really and truly? As a reader, I must judge for myself-does this textbook actually present a serious attempt to disseminate the theories and methodologies of fluid mechanics, or is it just a convenient outlet for the author to convey to his readers his most bizarre and disturbing fascination with pipes, heads, and viscous fluids? Personally, I wonder....

I should have known better than to buy a book without actually holding it in my hands and giving it at least a cursory once through. One of the editorial reviews said that it was "lavishly illustrated", and that was good enough for me. There simply is not enough books with illustrations of the works of Joseph Cornell. Hence, I bought it, only to find that there's not a single color plate in the whole book. All the illustrations are B&W. Not only that, but most of the photographs of the works are not particularly well done. I admit, I haven't even looked at the text--so, call me provencial. Art books are about art. Art is colorful. In writing a review of a book, I would be ashamed to call it "lavishly illustrated" when not a single plate is in color. What, then, makes it lavish? You've got me. I'm going to bet that you're going to see a lot of used copies of this book in the near future. Frankly, if you need a fix of Joseph Cornell, buy the Prestel Post Cards of Cornell. You'll save money and actually get some idea of what his creative work was about.