A complete cathecisis on the Mystery of Jesus. The presentation follows the faith expressed in the creed. Short easy to read chapters cover the full life and mystery of the Son of God, by the great theologian of our time with all is heart in the telling.

The author is a master of print. His knowledge of the Vatican & the papacy is unsurpassed. It is as though he grew up in the Vatican.

Whether you agree or disagree with its message--I for the most part disagree--it's impossible to ignore the significance of HUMANAE VITAE in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Its proponents see it as an reaffirmation of the Church's ages old comittment to the sanctity of human life. Its detractors see it as a rebuke of the principals set forth in Vatican II, and a step backwards in the evolution of the Church as a viable modern religion.

Pope John Paul II proves, once again, that he is light years ahead of his time. Avoiding all the common pitfalls, like individualist divisiveness and neo-Manichaeanism, Pope John Paul II paves the way for a "new feminism" based on the dignity of women as women and human persons.

Good companion volumes include: Pope John Paul II on the Genius of Women, collected by the United States Catholic Conference; Love & Responsibility, by Karol Wojtyla; The Concept of Woman, by Prudence Allen.

You may also find Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) in the larger collection of John Paul II's writings entitled Theology of the Body.

"Papal Power" was my first ever understanding of the papacy, and remains a very good reference point. Though the book is subjective in wasy that under the present attitude of the papacy were disastrous for the author, it offers an excellent assessment of the way in which the Catholic Church has evolved.

Unlike many books on the history of the papacy, "Papal Power" has a very good focus on the history of the church, though one can suspect bias. There is a clear account of the way in which the papacy developed elaborate theories of papal power but without the communications to enforce them.

Most significantly, there is a very clear account of the way in which the pope became infallible through such authors as de Maistre's "Du Pape" and the neo-ultramontane movement. This neo-ultramontane movement argued that everything the pope says in infallible - in contrast to the definition at Vatican I which restricted infallibility quite severely, though the Wojtyla papacy has breached these boundaries since Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The neo-ultramontanes, the best known of which were William Ward and Henry Manning, were well prepared and even influenced Pius IX, who this book suggests may have illegitimately fathered a son.

The book looks, if in a rather biased manner, at the effects this extreme concentration of papal power has had on the Catholic Church. It states that much of what the Vatican is concerned with today is nothing more than preserving its power, and follows on this very logically. If "Papal Power" has one serious flaw, it is in arguing that reforms of the papacy have a chance of occurring in the future. In reality, the third millennium of Catholicism will be characterised by a movement from a large church to a much smaller church comprised of members steadfastly loyal to the doctrines presented by Joseph Ratzinger and John Paul II. Open dissent will be even more severely censored than under the Wojtyla papacy and the ideas - interesting reading though they were/are - of progressive reformers will be the preserve of archives of secular universities.

Nonetheless, this cannot dimiss the fact that "Papal Power" is a very impressive study of the way the papacy has evolved into the absolute monarchy of today.

This is not a complex movie. It does not pretend to be. That is what makes it so special. The story, if you don't know it by now, is about Ray Kinsella, an aging-hippie-turned-Iowa-farmer, coming to terms with middle-age. Fearing stagnation, i.e. turning into his father, he decides to do the ultimate spontaneous act: plowing under his crop to build a boseball field. Though the world of rationality is against him, Ray relies on faith, and not only keeps the field, but improves it with lights and bleachers.

The story has a sense of magic realism, manifested by the field itself. The baseball field attracts the spirits of baseball players past. Not heroes mind you, for the first ones to arrive are the infamous (at least to baseball fans) 1919 White Sox, who were branded the Black Sox after throwing the World Series. The field is redemption, a chance for these souls to play the game they lived and loved. It also attracts the players who never made it. James Earl Jones gives a strong performance as the spiritual twin of Ray, or rather what Ray could have been or could become. He plays a 60's radical who has become disillusioned with the world, who suppresses his baseball dreams and chooses stagnation.

Ultimately, the film ends on what baseball is. A game of catch in a green field. The movie is timeless because the game is timeless. This film captures the game of baseball, not the sport. It is a simple film with a simple message, which is what makes it good.

This one is a classic! =) I started to watch it, thinking it would be stupid, but I was wrong. It's an outstanding movie. When Ray Kinsella starts hearing voices, he disregards them for a while, but they become impossible to ignore. He builds a beautiful baseball field in accordance with the wills of the "voices," and things really start heating up when famous, deceased baseball players from the past like "Shoeless" Joe Jackson come to play on the field. The discovery of a famous, yet secluded author and an elderly doctor who never got anywhere in baseball heightens suspense and excitement in the movie. You don't want to miss this one--it's great. =) Amy Madigan does well in her role as Ray's supportive wife, and Gaby Hoffmann is adorable as little Karen, the daughter of Ray and Amy who is a faithful believer of everything that happens as soon as Ray starts hearing the voices. It is actually her faith that may help some other headstrong characters to believe! =) What can I say? It's an awesome movie and you gotta see it!!!! It really is just as good as all the critics have said.

Great fantasy of baseball nostalgia, family relationships, and unfulfilled dreams. The key word is "fantasy." Forget logic, suspend disbelief, and you will do fine. The gentle sentiment and warmhearted humor of the movie cover a multitude of unlikely plot developments. Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner), sort of an updated version of Jimmy Stewart's "every man," embarks on a seemingly foolish task inspired by a ghostly "voice" to convert his cornfield into a baseball field. Amy Madigan is both comical and frustrated as Ray's wife, an aging activist from the '60s. As a kooky ex-radical, she initially supports the goofy idea. Upon mature reflection, however, she worries about the income needed to save the family farm. Things take on a definite other-worldly quality when Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) and other old-time players appear on the mist-shrouded field and play ball. Adding to the mystery, the "voice" directs Ray to a reclusive writer (James Earl Jones). He is drawn kicking and screaming into Ray's real-life fantasy, until he becomes intrigued by the possibilities. Burt Lancaster is excellent as Doc Graham. Doc's demise 16 years before our story doesn't stop him from playing an essential role in the plot. 50 years ago he yearned to be a baseball player, but a career in medicine got in the way. Ultimately, the mystic ball field represents the yearning in everyone to find a peaceful place where dreams come true, and lost opportunities are found. The fade-out displaying a long line of cars driving to Ray's field makes this point nicely. Relax and enjoy the fantasy. ;-)

This is a great flick for both devotees and novice fans of Jackie Chan.

Why Jackie Chan's U.S. distributors didn't release this in theaters is beyond me. Before I saw it, I thought that it would be c**p, but hell, it's Jackie, so I gave it a whirl. Though the first half hour is slow (by Jackie Chan standards, at least), once this flick gets going it ranks right up there with Drunken Master II and Police Story. The escape from the police with a rope and bucket, the chase and fight in the streets of Amsterdam (what Jackie can do wearing of wooden shoes...), and the final fight on the roof are amazing examples of action and comedic artistry. Stuff that ONLY Jackie Chan could pull off. There's even a car chase scene that breathes some life into the old warhorse of action movie cliches. I feared that Jackie Chan might be slowing down as he reached 45, maybe doing less dangerous stunts...no way.

The actors are terrible, the plot non-existent, the dialog silly, the production values shoddy at times, but one might as well complain the writing is poor in Playboy. You're there to look at the pictures, and Who Am I? has some that took my breath away.

This movie had eveything you expect from Jackie Chan....terrible actors, breathtaking fight sequences, cheap plot, and a bit of humor in between. It follows a special agent named Jackie(what a suprise! ) in his quest to figure out who he is, after he gets smashed in the head my a tree branch and acquires amnesia. He has to meet up with his slightly attractive women that help him get through everything, while finding out about devious undertakings of fallen-CIA agents. There is one fight scene that makes it worth the watch--it is on a high-rise/skyscraper, and has the most amazing martial arts action i have ever witnessed. The stunts are one-of-a-kind, and not always on jackie's part either. If you are a Jackie Chan lover, or even if you like cheap(actually probably astronamically expensive--you will see what i mean if you watch it) cheesy movies, you must buy/rent/ whatever this movie. It is great.

This is one of Jackie Chan's best movies. Although maybe suffering from a thin plotline, the action, suspence, comedy, and of course, the Jackie Chan trademark of death defying stunts are all in this movie. Differencing from the movie everyone seems to compare it with, Who Am I? is a true Jackie Chan film, unlike the American film Rush Hour.

Of all the Jackie Chan movies I have thus seen, Who Am I? gets my vote for the best Jackie Chan movie, perhaps over many other types of movies as well. Its one of the rare types of movies I actually want to purchase after I rented and view it several times, and Who Am I? turned me from a "Chan-fan" to a "Chan-aholic" (as said by a fellow reviewer). Although plotline is somewhat soft and may be confusing at first, it all fits in as the beautiful scenes travel from Africa to Europe. This film makes you feel like Chan is once again risking his life to make us happy. Even the music (which I am now looking for the soundtrack) is great, and taught me that Jackie Chan can sing! (no kidding!)

Over all, this movie deserves a 5 star rating, because Chan should deserve it in this humourous and exciting film. I reccomend you don't pass this one up, because its a disappointment already that this film isn't as famous as it has the potential to be.

An ambitious book by Van Doren, "A History of Knowledge" presents a sweeping portrayal of knowledge and its developments from the time of the ancients to today and beyond. This portrayal is a relatively easy read, and Van Doren's style is alternatingly conversational and didactic. While it's a good book, I wouldn't recommend it unreservedly. Why? I believe that it has two key flaws.

First is its scope. Any book titled "A History of Knowledge" is bound to miss a few things while keeping the size of the book down to something that doesn't require a pickup truck to haul around, and this is no exception. However, the things that Van Doren has chosen to eliminate include all of the progress of knowledge in the Far East or the early Americas (the book would be more accurately titled: "A History of Western Knowledge"). If you're looking to see how knowledge has waxed and waned across the world through recorded history, your best bet is a more focused title (see any of Boorstin's recent three book series for a focus on technology, arts, or philosophy; or Beckman's "History of Pi" for a more mathematical insight).

The second, and arguably more serious, flaw is the increasing focus on opinion and interpretation rather than historical presentation. We've become accustomed to separating our history into two parts, one that presents it as it happened (or we believe it happened at any rate), and one that interprets and analyzes it for reflection an understanding. Van Doren hasn't done this. And while I appreciate an author's perspective, I tire of reading of his unalloyed joy in his Judeo-Christian ethic, in the victory of Capitalism over Communism, and in the superiority of democracy over ALL other forms of government. And anyone who's read any science fiction at all will cringe at the prognostications regarding the next 100 years.

It's a good, but flawed, book.

This book should be used as a text book. It is clear, easy to read and full of information. Extremely entertaining and flows from chapter to chapter. Opening up questions and answering others, this book is one of the best general history books I have ever read. Mr Van Doren has done an outstanding job of condensing and presenting a general history of knowledge with much knowledge and ability. I noted that while I was reading this book in the summer of 1996 at sidewalk cafes, that on more than one occasion, people walking by would stop and tell me how much they enjoyed the book.

A friend of mine recommended this book to me this way: "this book is like going back to school, and remembering everything you forgot. You will be taught by fabulous history teachers who will make sense out of whole of human history. Because historical events will make sense, you will understand and remember them so much better than the first time around, when you thought they were just random and boring."

My friend was absolutely right. I have been on a history kick ever since.

Charles Van Doren is really a tragic character. He is of "Quizz Show" fame. This movie described the historical events, whereby a young, attractive U of Columbia teacher (Charles Van Doren) got caught in the scandal of the TV game show 21, and was ousted of university circles for ever.

The only way he was still able to teach was through this book and others. After reading this book, you will agree he succeeded and redeemed himself.