Before I say anything else, let me stress that I am a devout Catholic who sees a sincere adherence to the Magisterium of the Church (which encompasses both the teachings of my faith and the teaching authority of the Church) and an acknowledgement of the primacy of the Pope as head of Christ's Church as the keys to knowing my faith and putting it into action the way God intended me too. That said, I am extremely disappointed by Richard P. McBrien's efforts to convince Catholics that their faith could be improved by de-emphasizing the authoritative teachings of the Church (especially in his criticism of Popes who stress the authority of their office) and in turn embracing extreme leftist views. Among other things, McBrien implies in this encyclopedia that the Church's position is misguided and outdated on such issues as homosexuality, the ordination of women into the priesthood (which Pope John Paul II in a 1994 statement explicitly said would never happen; note that this encyclopedia is copyrighted 1995), the Just War Doctrine, and liturgical practices. His criticisms of the Church in these areas, and his misrepresentations of Catholic teaching in numerous other articles, are a direct violation of the oath of obedience that McBrien took upon being ordained a priest; and it should be noted that when a priest's teachings on Catholic matters fail to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church he claims to represent, his authority as a teacher suffers greatly. And speaking of authority, one thing that McBrien seems to trivialize in this encyclopedia is the concept of natural law. According to Catholic teaching, natural law is the rule of conduct that is prescribed to us by God by way of the nature with which He has endowed us. This means, for example, that because God created man and woman so that they would give themselves to one another in a way that was love-giving and that would also create life, then such practices as contraception, abortion, and casual or premarital sex (all of which go against the prescribed rule of conduct God intended for us) are immoral and unacceptable. And since sex is supposed to be between man and woman, it follows that the consummation of homosexual passion also goes against the precepts of natural law and is also sinful. On other issues (most notably on the ordination of women priests), Pope John Paul II (and his predecessors) have explicitly established the Church's position with the full power of their teaching authority. On all of these issues, Catholics are morally bound to accept the teachings of the Magisterium. And yet McBrien insists on presenting dissenting opinions on many issues that have been definitively addressed by authorities that he himself is answerable to.

Now, having said that, I will give McBrien credit for thoroughly researching his topics and being informative and factual when he's not trying to promote his political agenda. It is for this reason that I give his book a 2-star rating instead of the 1-star rating that it deserves. As a historical resource, this compilation will serve you well. Still, it doesn't change the fact that McBrien has done a disservice to the Catholic Church with this compilation (and his other works). As a priest, he most definitely should have known better.

I got this book about 4 years ago and it does give great information and pictures that help in the understanding of catholicism, but is written on the point of view on the liberal side. Richard McBrien, the author, tends to bring opinions from somewhere other than the Magisterium of the Church on issues that bring heated debate within the people of the Church. If a non-catholic picks this book up and looks up information on issues such as sexuality, they will get the wrong idea on what the church really teaches. But for the most part though, the book is very thorough on most items such as people of the Church. A whole section on St. Augustine will give you everything you need to know about this popular saint. I recommend this book only to find historical facts, not for facts on morality.

I recommend this book to any Catholic, especially those seeking to understand their tradition in a better way. This book contains the ABC's of Catholicism and then some. It has much more information than what I imagined and has helped me to understand more about the Church. A must have for any Catholic.

Fr. Neuhaus has written a book that is scandalously at odds with the teaching of Pope John Paul II, as most recently given in his apostolic exhortation, Ecclesia in America, presented at the close of the Synod for the Americas that Fr. Neuhaus is writing about here. If you are looking for an orthodox, faithful to the magisterium, review of the Synod, this ain't it. Instead, what you will find is warmed over Protestant Calvinism and political partisanship, where the poor are poor because they are bad people.

It is little wonder that orthodox Catholic thinkers everywhere, including the Holy Father, hold Fr. Neuhaus in such high esteem. Appointment in Rome is must reading for anyone interested in getting a clear-eyed but affectionate look at the key figures in the American Catholic Church hierarchy. A true joy after the stale rehash of 60's liberalism that taints so much of U.S. Catholic journalism. Neuhaus' snapshot of Fr. Thomas Reese S. J. is worth the price of the book!

The Pope named Fr. Neuhaus as his personal designee to the Synod, and a splendid choice it was. Neuhaus is one of the best chroniclers of events in the whole field of religion--and some other fields, too. Full of engaging detail and profound reflections, this memoir conveys the day-to-day argument but also the background to make it intelligible, and is infused with a love for the Gospels and Catholic social thought. Its realistic and probing questions give evidence of a powerful desire actually to help the poor to move out of poverty. Neuhaus punctures the simplicities of those who have failed to follow the successive cutting edges of this particular great Pope's thought. For some reason, I note in two or three reviews, it has infuriated the more doctrinaire leftists--probably because it reports their opinions as reflected at the Synod, and dares to question what facts they are based on, and then lets out their hot air slowly and wittily. Richly entertaining as a memoir, and good to read in a prayerful, reflective frame of mind as one tries to think with the Church--this lumbering, concrete, often crashingly human Church at the Synod. Neuhaus describes the daily boredom of listening to speech after speech (as happened many days at Vatican II, too, I remember) but also those moments in which every so often the event was lit up by great flashes of illumination. The deft pen portraits of famous personalities are sometimes wickedly funny, and always candid. The book glows with affection for the Church in all its messy, angular variety. If you love reading about great events and vast panoramas of people--and about Rome--you will delight in this book. It took me some months to get to it, but the great pleasure it gave will stay with me.

Couldn't agree more with review below! Analytic philosophy almost invariably failes to grasp the uniqueness of historical philosophers; instead they seem to view the history of philosophy as a great catalogue of mistakes where theres not a whole lot to draw inspiration from. This is just sad.

I bought the book hoping that I would get a clear explanation of Scotus' views from within. Instead I found an exposition of an analytic philosophers contracted views on Scotus. To be blunt, Cross should not presume that the reader cares about his views in a work that purports to expound Scotus' views. I find this to be a common defect amongst the analytic philosophers, who seem intent upon telling us that we can make good use mediaeval philosophy, but fail to see that they themselves are peripheral to that ressourcement. I give it three stars for the sake of Duns Scotus, not for the sake of Cross. Beware also his work on the Physics of Duns Scotus, unless, that is, you are an analytic philosopher.

This is an extremely thorough and interesting book. Cross puts personality into each page, demonstrating why the debates are important and whether Scotus's solutions to some of the great questions are likely to hold within the context of medieval debates. The book is illuminating even to a non-specialist with an interest in finding out more about Duns Scotus. This is the best introduction to the subject.

Unfortunately, the book falls short of it's intended goal in a huge way. Mr. Colson, although meaning well, falls into the unfortunate error of unity at all costs. Christ himself and all of the leaders of the early church were sure of the fact that our only Salvation is in Christ alone, by Faith alone. This is revealed in the Word of God, the Bible. "E&CT:TaCM" misses this entirely. This is not an attack on any person, nor on any Catholic who doesn't accept the teaching of the Scripture as his/her sole authority, which it claims to be. Any Bible-believing evangelical who has passed from death to life by being born of the spirit through faith, (a free gift, unable to be improved upon or earned, unlike the requirement for sacraments or penance...) loves all people and wishes for all to come to the saving knowledge of the truth found in Christ alone. We love all other evangelicals, we love all Catholics, we love Chuck Colson and the other contributors to this book. The book attempts to unite all under a common mission. The problem is that our mission was laid out in the Bible; to make disciples of all nations, which begins with our salvation. The issue is one of disobedience to God's Word as it was God-breathed through it's writers. (2Tim 3:16, 1Peter 1:20-21,...) Any involved must repent, pray for those who don't take God at His Word, and preach the one and only gospel of Salvation which has the power to save those who will place their trust in Christ alone! God's Word will never pass away, it will always stand. Our man-made "unity" not based on His Word will always fail! I understand this may never get printed b/c it disagrees with the author and therefore may not help sell this book. But there is much more at stake, please study the warning of Galatians 1: 6-9. Any other gospel is condemned by the Apostle Paul, the teachings of whom originated the Catholic church and the Reformation required when the Catholic church strayed from the Word of God. Today we see the beginnings of the same problem. God is no fool, He will judge all of us, based on His Word. I Praise Him that although I don't deserve anything but His anger, hell and death, He has saved me by the death & resurrection of His Son alone who is worthy to be worshipped forevermore. Unfortunately, this is not the message of the book: "Evangelicals & Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission" If you buy it and read it, remember to do so in light of God's Word, referencing the above scriptures and all the rest that clearly distinguish the message of this book from the message of the Bible. God Bless You in your studies!

Being an Anglican, I am the first to admit that the Catholic church has doctrines I don't agree with. However, so does every denomination. I don't even agree completely on every Anglican Doctrine!

The reason I started out with that paragraph, is that this is the attitude the contributors to this book take. The Protestant contributors (Mark Noll, J.I. Packer, Charles Colson) do not wish to become Catholic. Nor do the Catholic contributors (Avery Dulles, George Wiegel) wish to become Protestant. What they do wish to do is come together in unity, especially in para-church organizations.

So the basic message of this book is, that while firmly recognizing the points on which protestants and Catholics disagree, as worshippers of the Triune God we need to be unified in today's post-Christian society, and to have meaningful discussions about our beliefs. I really enjoyed this book because of the conrtibutors' willingness to strive for peace and unity, while still holding to doctrinal truth.

Of note, the complete "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" statement is included, as well as the list of people who signed the statement (which includes famous men such as Pat Roberston, R.C. Sproul, Thomas Oden, and Bill Bright)

For centuries, one of the Christian Church's (By that I mean all Christians)greatest failings is to bicker as to what seperates us. Such bickerings have sadly included warfare and hatred spanning for generations. In this book several leading Church figures including Charles Colson, Richard John Neuhaus and J.I.Packer, put forward what unites all Christians and why, especially in an age of pluralism and postmodernism assailing the Church, there needs to be a united church. What is also excellent about this book is that there is also no gloss over what seperates Christians, but that one could say that this could be seen as an asset, not a failing. A must read for all Christians, and one with which I strongly urge readers to look at with a prayerful and open mind

It's so sad that a recognized leader of an international church can so publicly mutilate the words of God and go virtually unchecked. I found errors and blatant misinterpretations on virtually every page of this book. It was so distressing to me that I could not finish it.

The problems began even before the first page... in the very TITLE itself. "A marvelous Work and a Wonder", a reference to Isaiah 29:14, is claimed by the author to be a prophecy pointing to Joseph Smith. However, Mat 15:7-8 clearly indicates that this exact same prophecy is specifically fulfilled in Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

The abominable butchering of God's word continues non-stop throughout the first few chapters, and I'm quite certain it continues on throughout... If you are going to read this book, make sure to check out every reference and read each one IN FULL CONTEXT. The overwhelming errors will be plainly apparent.

This book was given to me by a former Mormon missionary that I worked with. He and I had been discussing Mormonism versus Christianity. Rather than debating many of the strange Mormon doctrines that have been taught over its 200 year history, I decided to stay with one subject: historical validity of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon the foundation of the Mormon faith and the cornerstone of their religion. He said that a man could get closer to God by obeying its precepts above any other book on earth. Smith also claimed that it was the most correct of any book on the earth. I challanged my Mormon friend to find my one evidence for the Book of Mormon to be taken as historically acurate. Mind you, I did not ask him to prove to me its theological content but only its historical content for if its historical content cannot be proven, why believe what it says theologically? He brought me this book. I read it in three days, marked it up pretty good, and brought it back to my Mormon friend. My conclusions: the LDS Church still is serching for historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. I have here in front of me a copy of a statement put out by both the Smithsonian Institute and the LDS leaders. The Smithsonian letter denies the content of the book of Mormon as being historical and views the material as only religious in nature with no archeological evidence to support its claims. The LDS leaders, in reply, ask "Why question what the Lord has decided to keep hidden?" I for one question. I question all things (1 Thess. 5:21). I am not a Christian because I have prayed and feel its right, I am a Christian because of historical evidence to support the claims of the Bible (2 Peter 1:16-21). Christianity alone is the only religion based not on the teachings of Jesus as much as on the historical evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection. Buy this book. Read it. Study it. But don't believe something simply because someone tells you its true. I believe I can fly btu that does not mean its true. My subjective truth will hit objective reality when I test it. Do that with Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, etc. You will find Jesus to be true (John 14:6).

I read A Marvelous Work and a Wonder several years after joining the church. I really wish I had the opportunity sooner. It should certainly be recommended to every investigator or new convert. While Richards does not delve into as great of depths as, say, Talmage or Nibley, this book is perfect for starters. It is a quick and easy read with many scripture references. Basically this book outlines basic LDS doctrines and supplies a scriptural basis (mostly Biblical) to support the claims. I found it very inspiring and an essential background for anyone considering a mission.

What I would rather see, than a historical or theological review of one particular sect of Christianity, is a review of Christianity as a whole.... If one is honest with himself, and intelligent, and informed, and sincere, he would recognize that Christianity's very existence is solely due to so many scandals and horrific acts that one could scarcely comprehend. And yet, just as Mormons "hide" that which does not seem so favorable, Christians as a whole dismiss with equal--if not even more so--emphasis that which was caused by those "glorious" leaders of their faith's past.... Good show. Way to be equal. Way to be American.

I am personally acquainted with two of the editors of this book, Paul Owen and Carl Mosser, and have enjoyed conversing with them on "Mormon" topics. Their interest in this subject was prompted by a perception that most of the books critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were written by Evangelicals (most of them ministers) who are not qualified to deal with the issue from a scholarly level. Beckwith, Mosser, and Owen want to elevante the discussion to a new height by having well-trained Evangelical scholars meet the challenge inherent in the recent proliferation of scholarly literature by Latter-day Saint scholars. The scholars they invited to participate in this dialogue are certainly qualified in their particular fields, but most of them know little or nothing about "Mormonism." Indeed, the major failing of this book is that the various authors who contributed to the volume are able to discuss topics only insofar as the editors provided them the raw data with which to work. The unfortunate result is that they are not aware of most of the published material on the subjects in question. So I say, nice try, guys, but shouldn't your associates look into the issues in more detail before responding in a manner that is bound to discredit their articles?

If anything can be said about The New Mormon Challenge (henceforth TNMC), it has to be that it is sure to create controversy. After all, never before have so many different Christian scholars attempted to respond-in one volume, even-to Brigham Young University professors as well as LDS apologists.

The position taken by the editors assumes that the words of LDS scholars or even the personal beliefs of the laity may supercede that of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. For the average Mormon, truth is contained in the four standard works and the current words of the leaders. When one of the editors, Carl Mosser, says that "evangelical apologists" are "jealously" guarding a type of Mormonism that is not believed by Mormons, I ask if Mosser believes the majority of Mormons would hold to the following beliefs: 1) The idea that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become; 2) The idea that temple work is essential to reaching the highest level of the celestial kingdom; 3) The idea that ultimate truth is to be found in the Standard Works as well as the LDS prophet and apostles; 4) The idea that a person must be baptized in the Mormon Church to have an authentic baptismal experience; 5) The idea that Joseph Smith and succeeding church leaders were given complete authority on earth; 6) The idea that the Mormon Church is the most trustworthy church in the world.

The list could go on. The point is that I have no doubt that no less than 80 percent of all Latter-day Saints would immediately agree with me that the above six points as fully being Mormon doctrine. I am not sure why Mosser makes a blanket statement to make it appear that Christians involved with LDS outreaches are making up their own brand of Mormonism-a straw man, so to speak-so they can more easily tear the religion down. This, I believe, is just not accurate.

While the editors would like the Christian community to direct more effort to respond to the scholarly LDS community while paying less attention to the teachings of LDS leaders, they forget one very important point. That is, the Mormon Church is considered to be a restoration of the Christianity that is said to have died soon after the time of the apostles. When Joseph Smith was supposedly given the keys of this authority by Peter, James, John, and even by God the Father and Jesus, it is believed by most Mormons that he was personally given the authority the church lost more than a millennium ago.

Indeed, Smith's own history records that the Christian churches "were all wrong" (Joseph Smith-History 1:19). Succeeding leaders have made it a point to declare that there is no true church on the face of the earth except for the Mormon Church itself. Currently Mormons hold that all authority rests with current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, his First Presidency, and the apostles. For a vast majority of Latter-day Saints, what a certain BYU professor or FARMS scholar says does not mean half as much as what President Hinckley says, especially at the general conference.

So my question is why focus on the scholars when most LDS members direct their attention of the Standard Works and LDS leadership? (Strange, but I wonder why the Mormon high school seminary students merely study the Bible, D&C, and Book of Mormon during their four years of study. I don't see them studying "Church Scholars.")

Who is this book intended to reach? Perhaps it was meant as a discussion for the scholars. No doubt it will be a great resource for seminary professors and some pastors. It will probably also be a great asset to Christian apologists.

Yet I just don't see how TNMC-though attracting LDS intellectuals to the table of discussion-will have a wide impact on the general LDS community. I doubt most Mormons will ever even hear of this book, let alone pick it up in their lifetime. It can be safely said that the majority of Mormons are too busy with families, church-related activities, donating their time in church ministry, etc. to even care what the scholars, either Mormon or Christian, declare is truth. The Mormon has a burning in his bosom, and no scholar could ever alter this "fact" regardless of the available evidence.

Its depth will probably confuse many readers who do not have a considerable grasp of the book's technical language related to philosophy, logic, and science. Those Christians who buy TNMC thinking it is a witnessing-tip manual will be sorely disappointed as the arguments will be unintelligible to the average Mormon.

With this being said, I need to temper my criticism by saying there are many important arguments raised in TNMC that will be beneficial for many Christians. The best chapters were 3 (Kalam Argument), 8 (Monotheism and the New Testament), and 10 (Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Background). As far as recommending this book, I would certainly do so for those who are more learned in the fields of philosophy, theology, and the background of the Mormon Church. However, this is not meant to be a popular book or one that can be easily digested by the majority of Christian and Mormon laity. Thus, for such people, I would think that TNMC will have very little impact since much of the material will sail over their heads. Based on this, each reader needs to make a personal choice...

Unless you know a lot about Mormon history, and about the Hoffman bombings, this book can only confuse. It's poorly written, a long recitation of facts and supposed facts. It reads like an attempt to defend the Mormon church, rather than provide any history or narrative. It's unfortunate, because it's certainly a fascinating subject.

After reading this, the only thing I wanted to do was re-read A Gathering of Saints, Robert Lindsey's book about the same period.

This is one of several books written in the wake of the murders and forgeries committed by Mark Hofmann in the early 1980s. Hofmann forged hundreds of documents, but it his forgeries affecting Mormon history is the focus of this work. Several of these forgeries went to the heart of Mormon origins, and were done in an apparent effort to embarrass The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In financial trouble, Hofmann murdered Steven Christensen and Kathleen Sheets to delay discovery of his duplicity.

Turley begins his account by reviewing the canonical account of the Church's origins and a history of other prominent forgeries intended to discredit the Church. Turley then goes over the history of the Hofmann case. An appendix lists all known documents acquired by the Church from Hofmann. Unlike other writers, he had access to a wealth of Church documents. The result is a well-documented account presenting the Church's side of the story. Though he is hardly objective in his account, he avoids the sensationalism characteristic of the so-called true crime novel. His tone is mainly that of a scholarly historian.

The Hofmann case is extremely complicated, involving Church officials, Mormon historians, document dealers, journalists, law enforcement officers, attorneys, and others. Turley attempted to keep the major characters in focus, but the reader is still liable to get lost. I found myself going back over previous material several times to keep everything straight. Fortunately, this book contains an index.

Complicating things further, Turley often digresses from the narrative. Sometimes, the digressions are faith-promoting stories more suited to Church magazines. In others, they seem like personal attacks against real or perceived enemies of the Church. Turley also occasionally pauses to score an apologetic point. Turley should have omitted these things entirely or relegated all of this to the notes. This material is not very appropriate to what is supposed to be a scholarly history.

Hofmann said he was not afraid of being caught by divine inspiration (316). Some people have raised the question of why the Church's "prophets, seers, and revelators" did not detect Hofmann's forgeries. To his credit, Turley does not attempt to answer this question. While this is perhaps an interesting theological question, it would be out of place to try to answer it in a historical work.

This book exists in relationship to other books on the Hofmann case. Turley has relegated most of the direct interaction to the notes. Discerning Turley's intent concerning these books is not easy without reading them. It seems clear he wants to refute the work of Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith (The Mormon Murders [New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988]). Other sources tell me this work is most distorted account of the Hofmann case. Richard Lindsey's A Gathering of Saints (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988) is not mentioned as often. Turley may be correcting misconceptions, but does not accuse Lindsey of willful distortion.

Though Turley perhaps comments on Linda Sillitoe and Allen D. Roberts' Salamander (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988) the most, the relationship is harder to discern. Some Latter- day Saints portray Signature Books as an anti-Mormon press, but Turley is rarely dismissive of the book. At times, he may be trying to refute it. Sometimes he treats it as though its perceived misconceptions were due to lack of information available to him. At other times, he accepts its information at face value. It will be interesting to see if and how the second edition of Salamander deals with Victims.

The weaknesses aside, Turley has given us a well-balanced account of the Hofmann case. What it loses in complexity is more than made up for by its thoroughness. It is remarkably free from speculation, and highly recommended for those looking for a book placing the focus of the Hofmann case there it belongs: on Hofmann's victims.

The first reviewer to this book is probably robert lindsey himself, or at least some one who's trying to slyly sway the opinion of some unsuspecting shopper toward the 'anti' end of the spectrum.

I was pleasantly surprised when reading the first few pages of the book, then the author made the comment that Jesus was probably not married, and the fact that he was probably not married did not appear to be a religious statement. It was downhill from there.

Not all of the book is bad, but the irreverance to the history and wisdom of the Catholic Church's teachings makes it a poor choice for Catholics (IMHO).

The other two points I will mention are as follows:
- He comments on how he ran into a former classmate who was brillant in college and now she was married with kids and he couldn't help but feel sorry that she "sold out" and stopped using her God given mind. (to paraphrase) When my wife read this, she was appalled. My wife has a Masters in Education, 5 kids and stays home to raise them.
- The other item was his flawed view of conscience. When talking about the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception, he does a decent job of explaining why the Church teaches against it, but in almost the last sentence about the subject he says that if you still don't buy it and your conscience tells you the teaching against contraception is not for you, then you must follow your conscience and dissent from the Church's authoritative teachings. He should reread the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1792:

CCC 1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

I really wish the book was better, but it is not.

I used this book as one text for an undergraduate Christian Marriage class. Students found the book to be readable and insightful. The author excels at weaving together his experiences as a father and husband with theological insights that are exceptionally sophisticated for books of this genre. His use of the paschal mystery as central to the vocation of married life is both original and particularly effective.

I must disagree with those who say that G is unfaithful to the magisterial teaching on contraception. On the contrary, he presents the official teaching accurately and sympathetically. At the same time he is candid about the difficulty of adhering strictly to the discipline of natural family planning, but cautions readers against ignoring the discipline simply because it isn't easy.

My only disappointment with the book lies in the fact that the discussion questions posed are geared exclusively to married people. A broader base of questions would have been more helpful. Otherwise, this is an excellent, sophisticated book for use in undergraduate theology courses on marriage.

A common understanding of salvation centers around "getting to heaven," which is achieved by holding the correct beliefs and attending the right church. If this is your primary understanding of salvation, this book may be troublesome for you. Gaillardetz's thesis is that for married couples, our marriage is the setting where, and the means by which, many of us "work out" our salvation.

This book made a lot of sense to me, both practically and theologically. RG does a great job of combining teachings from the Christian tradition and modern psychology. A crucial insight from the latter is that we subconsiously choose to marry people who force us to revisit our childhood wounds; the recurring conflicts you have with a spouse are opportunities to address those wounds (and thus work out your salvation). Unfortunately, when couples face recurring marital problems, they often think that maybe they didn't marry "the one" they were destined to marry. Gaillardetz dispells this false notion as well.

Gaillardetz has served on the Catholic delegation in the Methodist-Catholic dialogues, and his writing reflects his ecumenical sensitivity. As a Methodist myself (married to a Catholic), I very much appreciate his tone. It is a pleasant change from those Catholic authors who write with what I call the "fullness of truth" attitude.

I also appreciate the author's sensitivity to those who are unable or choose not to have children.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) who seek a practical framework for making sense of Christian marriage.

This is biography of Thomas More lacks scholarship, and contains a surprising number of passages in which Marius shows his lack of depth as an objective scholar with a broad range of learning in this field.

Do yourself a favor and read Peter Ackroyd's book.

Among the several recent More biographers, Marius is the best qualified, having served as an editor of the Yale Complete Works of Saint Thomas More. More was an exceedingly complex person whose personality is very, very difficult to capture. Of the three serious biographies of More written in the last 20 years (by Alistair Fox, Marius, and Peter Ackroyd) I found Marius's biography the most rewarding.



More remains a controversial figure: to Catholics he is a Saint, the patron saint of politicians and statemen. But then again, he was an enthusiastic prosecutor of heretics: more than 30 were burned under More's authority as Chancellor of England. The idea that the brilliant, virtuous More (now frozen in the form of Paul Scofield) could have done this is repellant to some. I believe this accounts for the bile heaped on Marius's book by some reviewers here. Frankly, criticisms of Marius's SCHOLARSHIP are just ridiculous; they say more about the commentor than the subject.

That said, Marius's bio is not perfect. It has ideas and makes excellent connections; but I found that reading all three of these bios gave me a better sense of Thomas More than any one. Yet as in Rashomon, just when one thinks one has the missing piece needed to know More, one gets the annoying sense that the pieces do not quite fit and one despairs of ever knowing him. He is that deep.



Still, if one will read only one More bio, I say read Marius's. (Unless, that is, you are looking for outright hagiography -- in which case, read Monti's book.)

Marius' biography of Thomas More is excellent. His scholarship is first-rate, his writing superb. The author is very knowledgeable, not only of the man, and his times, but of the often confusing theological issues of the era. I find Marius' ability to convey these theological issues, both accurately and simply, to be second to none. Over-all this work is a great read. It presents Thomas More to us in such a way as to see inside of the man as no other author will probably ever be able to. Marius is as unbiased as is posible in his presentation of More and his struggles, and he is as honest regarding those problems of faith and doubt regarding religious matters (which More, Luther, and all of us have) as anyone I have ever read.

This book's attemps at being a novel distract from the weak historical aspect of the book. This book is obviously not written by a scholar, and thus, reads like a newspaper article written by a reporter who did not understand is material fully. I suggest, if you want to learn what the world was like a 1000, read The Oxford History of Medival Europe, a real book of history.

"A.D. 1000" reads like a work of narrative fiction, and it proves quite interesting. The fundamental structure of the book follows the chronology of Gerbert's fascinating rise to the Papacy. Because of Gerbert's unusual opportunities for travel, educational development, and influence in the most powerful courts of Europe, the book provides opportunities to discuss living conditions in the time. But caveat emptor: the author is not sufficiently critical of his sources. Some descriptions are presented as fact even though other seasoned historians have discredited similar claims.

This is a very interesting book, not boring, not stuffy. It gives a good view of the turning of the first Milennium, from a few different angles. Easy to read, hard to put down. If you want to learn about that specific time period without feeling like you're doing boring homework then this is a good book for you!