Toward the beginning of "Voice," Bishop Jacques Gaillot compares JP2 to Joseph Stalin, immediately estranging himself from this reader's sympathy. He recovers somewhat to give a sporadically engaging but under-informative essay on papal authority: Is the Catholic Church over-bureaucratized and over-centralized?

Condemning the authorities as vicious, meanspirited, intolerant, insensitive (stop me if you've heard that one before), Gaillot really doesn't tell us what made him fall under the scrutiny of the Holy See. This particular pontiff is famously patient, not having excommunicated whole raftloads of dissident theologians, but issuing restrained admonitions when something's amiss. (I think he's excommunicated two [2] theologians, one of whom has already been restored to communion.)

The book is brief, and Gaillot does not tell us how, in the hypothetical diminution or absence of papal authority, the Catholic Church would be able to stop itself from splintering as the Anglican Communion has done in the last quarter-century. An Eastern Orthodox theologian might have insight into this question; Gaillot proffers not insight as much as self-justification and the occasional baseness of name-calling.

We learn that Bishop Gaillot considers himself the eparch, if you will, of a cyber-diocese, where persons who might be inclined to sympathize with his views of ecclesiology & moral theology can gather, refresh themselves, and lament the alleged immitigability of JP2, Cardinals Ratzinger & Gantin, and other figures more representative of the main stream of Roman Catholicism than the soi-disant progressives. This cyber-diocese has an interesting if not quite memorable name which begins with a P.

Persons who parrot the National Catholic Reporter might be inclined to appraise Gaillot's slender and breezy account more highly than this reviewer (indeed, the book carries a preface from NCR editor Thomas Fox).

"Voice from the Desert" is a deceptively-simple, slight volume, in which Bishop Jacques Gaillot chronicles his "resignation" from the see of Evreux, France; and his "appointment" as Bishop of Partenia - a North African wasteland, now defunct. With remarkably little bitterness, this extraordinary man outlines his beliefs and the actions which eventually led to his dismissal. His resilience was such that he established a cyber-diocese on the Internet, and thus can reach millions of souls, where before he only reached thousands. One can only mourn for an institutionalized church which prizes doctrine, authority, and image over the true, all-embracing and eternal love which Gaillot embodies with every word. My only regret is that he does not address the ordination of women and the position of women in the Catholic church. A beautiful, inspiring and radiant book.

As a practicing Taoist, I find this book very silly and just a book to appeal to a christian whom is disatisfied being a christian...As a Taoist I find christianity does not relate and the thinking is primitive...why do christians have to bother with other peoples views if their religion "worked" for them to begin with..study on this...

To be part
and object part
is to set apart
from the whole (hole)
Be at rest
and be
Enjoy..

Book is part -
take from, give to or be with it
your part.
Add to - take from - be with it
make it part of you and you a part of it.

Not bad - not great - good book and many stars.

I am puzzled over the hateful reviews of this book. The reviewers cannot have read the book, and seem to have a borderline pathological hatred of Christianity, or what they think is Christianity. The subtitle of this work really gives away its intentions: it is 1. experimental, and 2. understanding.

My family is Chinese, and my grandfather was a Taoist priest back in China. We are practising Taoists, not new-age Taoists or disgruntled ex-Christains who read the Dao Deh Ch'ing and decided to call themselves Taoists. So I think that I can speak about this book. I find nothing offensive about its content, and I think that Jesus has much to teach Taoists. I wish a Taoist "theologian" would write a similar book, and I smile to think that maybe we are talking about the same thing. After reading this book, I am glad to be a Taoist, but I am appreciative of people like Br. Loya in the Christian tradition who take the time to understand and experiment with the edges of human faith.

the death of mainline Protestantism.

It's hilarious to see the term "fundamentalist" tossed about in defense of Bishop Sprague's thesis. If "fundamentalist" means (as it has to here) "one who tends to take the Bible and the historic witness of Christianity seriously," then I guess I'm a "fundamentalist." And proud of it. If nothing else, it is solid evidence that my leaving the church of my youth was the proper decision.

Admittedly, though, as a Catholic, I have yet to be called a "fundamentalist." First time for everything, I suppose.

Now that that the Bishop's fans have successfully conjured up the image of "American Gothic" meets Fred Phelps in demonizing their critics, let's look at the substance of the Bishop's witness to Jesus, The Really Neat But Safely Dead Palestinian Guy. Fellow fundies can start, and end, with Chapter 4, "Fully Human Jesus."

Boy, does the Bishop mean it! None of that "virgin birth," "divinity of Christ" nonsense for him. No, sir! The Resurrection was an event all the truer for never having occurred in a crudely real, physical sense.

You see, the primitives who assembled the creeds of Christianity were a half-step removed from working on cave paintings. They didn't have the sophisticated understanding of the Force--er, "God"--that we merlot drinkers do. The scriptures and creeds were actually "poetry," and it is only now, in our enlightened era that we now understand what they were *really* trying to say.

For example, here's the Bp's take on the Virgin Birth:

"I believe that Jesus the Messiah, the Christ of God, was fully human. The myth of the Virgin Birth (a theological myth is not a false presentation but a valid and quite persuasive literary device employed to point to ultimate Truth that can only be insinuated symbolically and never depicted exhaustively) is found neither in Mark, the earliest gospel account, nor in John, the latest. This powerful myth was not intended as historical fact, but was employed by Matthew and Luke in different ways to point poetically to the Truth about Jesus as experienced in the emerging Church. The Church believed that Jesus was the long-expected Messiah, the Christ of God, whose revelation was unique and normative. Said differently, in Jesus, God's Essence found confluence with a human being and the Kingdom/Reign was incarnated and ushered into being. The theological myth of the Virgin Birth points to this wondrous mystery and ultimate Truth. To treat this myth as an historical fact is to do an injustice to its intended purpose and to run the risk of idolatry, namely, treating a means as an end itself."

The theo-flatulence can be filtered to the following: Belief in historic virgin birth = idolatry. Got it.

Watch now as the Resurrection goes out the winn-der (you know how we fundies talk) as more literalist idolatry:

"I affirm resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus. God's Essence cannot be killed, buried or kept from being active in creation and history. God is from everlasting to everlasting. But, resurrection, including that of Jesus, does not occur through bodily resuscitation. God does not work this way. The issue is not the absence of God's power but God's own "self" limiting role of revelation in history. God works within the boundaries God has established. And while I do not pretend to know the limits of these boundaries and realize that we all see but through a glass darkly, I am certain that the miracle of resurrection, pre-eminently that of Jesus, is not tied to bodily resuscitation. The linking of resurrection with bodily resuscitation is to make a literal religious proposition of a metaphorical, symbolic expression of Truth itself. This is the kind of idolatry from which I dissent."

He also denies Jesus is the "the way, the truth and the life" for anyone other than Christians. Wouldn't be "ecumenical" to assert otherwise, I guess.

You get the idea. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the Bishop, who perhaps unwittingly reveals the key to his thought in recounting the tragic death of his baby boy. Perhaps he could not reconcile the traditional understanding of Christianity with his loss. It's hard to say how any of us would react.

But that does not give anyone the license to remake the ancient faith for which Christians died and are dying for today. We worship a Father who cruelly lost his own blameless Son, and understands pain. That example should cause us to draw closer, not away from, the historic understanding. Which, after all, makes better sense of the evidence of Christ.

To see the Bishop's take revealed to be the unclothed emperor it truly is, read Anglican scholar N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God." There you will see all the evidence, pro and con, handled in a careful, objective, scholarly manner.

Instead of being mangled in an exercise in pseudo-midrashic wish-fulfillment.

I am a member of a church in the Northwestern Illinois Conference of United Methodists whose Bishop is Bishop Sprague. I have heard Bishop Sprague on two occasions, and have followed the contoversy that surrounds him and his beliefs.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, this is a book for all to read. For I get the feeling that Bishop Sprague's real objective is to open a dialogue, not just between Christians, but people of all faiths. Perhaps there is a common ground we can all reach that will end much of the trouble in the world. He does assert in the book that this is his own personal way of looking at things. By stating that, I believe he has opened the door for dissent from his beliefs, not only in the United Methodist denomination, but all peoples of faith.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, this is a man that has devoted his life to not only preaching the Gospel, but living it as best he can. For his service to people and to God, he deserves the opportunity to be heard without the charges of heresy and the threats on his life that he has endured. And I would say that any person, no matter what their belief, should have the same right.

Whether a person follows Christ, Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, or Joe Blow from Kokomo makes no difference to me. If your belief causes you to do good towards others, to throw off the rampant self-centeredness that the world is full of, and causes you to be a good person, then your faith is real.

Finding this faith does not consist of blindly following ancient interpretations of even more ancient texts. Look at all the injustice done within the last nearly 2,000 years, and it's obvious it hasn't worked. This is a time for new thoughts about ancient truths.

I am proud of our Bishop in the Northern Illinois Conference. I do not agree with him 100%, nor should I. We were all created with a brain to feel, think, and reason with. I refuse to be a part of any religion or denomination that insists that I accept 2,000 year-old teachings without debate. I refuse to be a part of any religion that requires me to 'check my brain at the door'.

So I encourage all to read this book. Agree or disagree with his views, the dialogue will begin. And every Christian, from 'liberal' to 'fundamentalist' will benefit from that.

Well, it's either a ONE STAR book or a FIVE STAR book based upon whether or not you are a Religious Fundamentalist. Fundamentalists hate this book, along with most other books that do not march in lock-step with their conservative assumptions.

Do you believe that the bible is straight from God and must be blindly followed according to a narrow interpretation? You won't like this book.

Do you believe the bible was written by people, from a culture long ago, expressing their relationship with God? Maybe this book has something for you.

I thank Bishop Sprague for challenging the fundamentalist "take- over" of the United Methodist Church.

Just like what happened in the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church is being saturated and consumed by religious fundamentalist organizations. The "Good News" movement, the "Confessing" Movement, Renew Women's Network, Lifewatch, Transforming Congregations, the Mission Society of United Methodists, and the Institute on Religion and Democracy are attacking the freedom of thought, expression, inclusiveness, and theology that stands as the backbone of the Methodist experience.

Do you want the UMC to continue to become a fundamentalist church? If not, then read this book.

Rev. Kevin Higgs
United Methodist Pastor
North Alabama Conference

This is an excellent scholarly review of Orthodox Christianity. But is Orthodoxy willing to practice what she preaches? The philosophy of Orthodoxy is steeped tradition and on a solid foundation. Do not fall in love with the ideaLs and philosophies presented here in this book and expect the same from the actual churches as they are very patriarical and not all churches are the bastion of ethics and Christian love that they might aspire to be. Judge each church not on what you have read Orthodoxy to be as presented in this or any other book, but on a congregation-by-clergy basis. This book covers what the RELIGION is built on, not the individual parishes.

The author poses some challenging questions that face all questions and he does so in a quite readable format. The writing does not break new ground, but it does present the questions in a timely context -- post Sept. 11.

The examples of challenges are good (although somewhat repetetive) and he proposes some spiritual solutions to these challenges.

Overall, a nice read

The Cranes present a revealing examination of the life of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose members are best known as Mormons. They document the deemphasis of Joseph Smith in the public presentations of the church. This shift in focus is not surprising when you consider that his doctrines include the outrageous statement that dark skin is a curse from God. They also illustrate many of the events of Joseph Smith's life, as well as examine a number of his unfulfilled prophecies. The truth could hardly be topped by any work of fiction. Many of the Cranes' references come straight from the Latter-Day Saints' own publications. Particularly compelling was the comparison between the humble and meek life of Christ and the violent and proud life of Joseph Smith. This book will not reveal much that is new to those who are familiar with the history of the Mormon church(es), but it is a good introduction for those who think that the LDS church is a group that is not too different than other denominations. I have also heard good things about Charles Crane's book comparing the Bible with Mormon scriptures, and Jerald and Sandra Tanner's exhaustive works on the LDS church have also been recommended.

What is absolutely amazing to me is the blatant lies that the church tells it's members. This book explains how realistically the church is crumbling. When the false prophet includes members that are dead, ie. baptism of the dead. Members that have been inactive for many years, the membership numbers are highly exagerated. The long list of members also includes people who have requested their names be removed, but the church hesitantly resists this due to accurate disclosure and fear of fallout. The book also explains why the missionaries are going to third world countries, out of desperation. Most Americans are knowledgable in this new religion that proselytizing here is almost non-existant. This book should be required to all members of mormonism along with the BoM. If they could accept this reality, they wouldn't need the other book. I applaud the Cranes for telling the truth and allowing the false church membership lies to be revealed. It's the moral thing to do.

It is a wise thing to question anything and everything that can affect the difference between life and death. Religion, above all else, should especially be subjected to intense scrutiny. I completely enjoyed this work of literature, and found it to be accurate, thorough, and straight-forward. I think it is so sad that the only bad reviews were obviously from Mormons who are hurt by truth. I became interested in Mormonism when two very young gentlemen approached me on my doorstep to convert me, and after several lengthy discussions, I found that these boys could not agree on the "official beliefs" and their views regarding heaven and hell were completely different. At that point, I went to do some intense research. I searched not only books such as this one, but the Book of Mormon, Pearls of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants. I was fortunate to find several different copies of each of these, published over a span of about 70 years. These works could not even agree with themselves. To those who idolize Joseph Smith, I pity their ignorance, but more than that, I pity their souls. I have only one thing to say to those--read these works with an open mind--it could save your eternal life.

This book is an excellent example of why food is not the only thing that should be marked with "sell by" dates. In 1983 when this book was written, the New Code of Canon Law of 1983 had just been promulgated. There was no background of interpretation of it. The author here had a clear road in that he could not be faulted for misinterpretation since no one yet knew what the authentic interpretation would be. The author is not a canon lawyer. He gives a civil attorney's perspective on Catholic Church annulments and that is very much like mixing apples and elephants. As both a civil and canon lawyer, I find his dicussion of the internal forum to be dangerous. He has no degree in theology and that would be a minimum for attempting to enter into that discussion at this level of assumed authority. He knows not of what he speaks. If you are looking for a book that will help you now through an annulment process, this is not the book for you to read. It can give you a historical perspective or thought on the process, but it is not what it entitles , a "step-by-step guide". This book should be taken off the shelves immediately.

This is an excellent basic intorduction to the questions about the annulment process of the Roman Catholic Church. It touches all the bases in simple straight forward language. I think it should be read before reading any other material on the subject, some of which are a might too technical for the layperson.

The Reverend Joseph Brandt has created a cottage industry of providing "diversity seminars" on College campuses across the nation. Most of his teachings are encapsulated in this book.

What's wrong with Brandt's track? Well, it's a screed, more than it is a book. A screed that blames whites for all the evils of the world and sees "racism" solely from the view of "white against other." This ignores the reality that (1) bigotry NOT "racism" is the problem and (2) every ethnic group, in every culture harbors some petty bigotries.

This makes Brandt's ideas not merely misguided and wrong-headed but dangerous. Brandt's views feed the anti-white bigotry that is endemic in much of the African-American community. How can an ideology that promotes bigotry help end it? In short, it can't.

Worse yet, Brandt can't back up his viewpoints with facts so instead he quotes Old Testament scripture, often unrelated to his assertions. People like Brandt make a living off "racism," both real and perceived, so they have no vested interest in finding any legitimate solutions to dealing with bigotry. In fact, his teaching promote bigotry as a path to dealing with "racism."

Confused? You're not alone.

The fact is that "racism" is defined as believing your own race to be superior to others. In that regard anyone who exhibits any kind of racial pride - white pride, black pride or any other, is, by definition, "racist." The more insecure and less educated a person is, the more likely they are to take pride in things like race that they've no control over. Pride should be reserved for achievements. None of us "achieved" being born black or Asian or white.

Bigotry is something else altogether. Bigotry is the hating of others for what they are. That's why bigotry is a lot more dangerous than "racism" is and it's also why so many people use the term "racism" when they really mean bigotry. The inane definition that "racism is the use of power by one group over another" is specious. Ethnic majorities and minorities have peacefully coexisted all over the globe despite the majority (regardless of race) having voting and purchasing power over the minorities.

That's why this book is so destructive, it claims to seek an end to "racism" through the promotion of anti-white bigotry. I wish I could find something nice to say about this tract, but it is demonstrably wrong in its approach, misguided in the viewpoint it proffers and dangerous in that it actually promotes a virulent anti-white bigotry.

I've never given a book a single star before but this one gets just that.

Joesph Barndt addresses the issues facing white Americans as we try to address our significant role in dismanteling and deconstructing racist privelage very well. Elucidating a number of important issues, from personal to institutional to cultural racism, he also addresses racism in the church; a task that few folks of the cloth will address adequately. One of the areas that I found facinating was his discussion on cultural borrowing (p 106), or rather cultural theft, as one of the worst forms of racism. He states that, "Immitation, it is often said, is the highest form of flattery. But when the immitation is done with neither the permission or acknowledgement, and when it is accompanied by assertations that the culture from which it is taken is inferior, then immitation becomes the lowest form of racist theft" (106). This is an excellent text and I reccomend it to anyone working in the field of social justice adn social diversity as well as folks trying to get a handle and understanding on what the issues and roles of white folks are around race and racism. It is non-threatening, does not attack or try to promote guilt, but it does call for some critical thinking and evaluation.

With a basic "be here now" attitude, Mr. Allegretti manages to write 182 pages of no information. Platitudes abound such as "find the good" and "think small" and "cultivate opportunities" but it all boils down to finding joy and meaning in what you already do. I suppose this book would be good for overactive compulsive workaholics, but for me, it proved to only parrot what has been said over and over during the last 20 years.

There is a rising interest around the topic of spirituality in the workplace. This contribution to the topic provides a basic primer for one who is a beginner on this spiritual journey and a helpful summary for those farther along. The author provides a solid basic framework for understanding one's spiritual life in the context of their work and the pitfalls that one encounters along the way.

I was surprized that the Library of Congress catagorized this as "Catholic" since the book approaches spirituality in such a generic way that I think it would defy any such catagorization. This avoidance of a Catholic expression is the book's greatest weakness. Parker Palmer, another author (quoted in this book) who has written on this subject, successfully mines the spiritual tradition of his Quaker faith. This faith perspective greatly enhanced Palmer's work. I was disappointed that a book distributed by a Catholic publisher and written by a Catholic author contained almost nothing of the richness of that spiritual tradition. It is also a rather pricey book considering its brevity and that it is a paperback.

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.