This is it, folks -- the point at which classical and modern liberalism began to diverge. Everybody in either camp is indebted, in one way or another, to the great Thomas Hill Green. And sooner or later, everybody in either camp will have to come to terms with him.

Now, in my own not entirely humble opinion, Green's criticisms of other liberal theorists are well-founded and he himself has gotten the philosophical foundations just about exactly right. Basically, his claim is that (my paraphrase) the source of our rights against one another, as well as the source of the state itself, is our possession of an ideal common end in which the well-being of each of us is coherently included.

He develops this account very painstakingly, and one of the joys of reading it is watching him make sense of Rousseau's tortured notion of the "general will." By the time Green is through rescuing this doctrine from Rousseau, it becomes something altogether respectable: that (my paraphrase again) there is an overarching ideal end at which our actions aim, and it is that end which we _would_ have if all of our present aims were thoroughly modified and informed by reflective reason.

I say "_would_ have" with some reservations, since for Green (as for Bosanquet and Blanshard, who followed him here) there is a clear sense in which we _really_ have this ideal end. But this point takes us afield into Green's metaphysics, which are better covered in his _Prolegomena to Ethics_.

As I said, this volume marks the watershed between classical and modern liberalism. Green is often associated with the "modern" side of the divide, but today's reader will be surprised to see just how "classical liberal" Green was (in, e.g., his opposition to paternalistic government and in a good many other respects). Why, heck, there are passages that could have been lifted from David Conway's _Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal_.

It does seem, though, that in allowing a positive role for the governmental institutions of a geographically-demarcated State, he has started down the slippery slope to the modern welfare-warfare state. Like Hegel before him and like Bosanquet after him, Green usually means by "state," not the bureaucratic machinery of a territorial government, but the whole of society including _all_ of its "institutions of governance." But -- also like Hegel and Bosanquet -- he does not always keep these two things firmly distinguished, and at times he is clearly thinking specifically of the governmental institutions of a territorial nation-state rather than what some of us would call the "market."

He is also a bit unclear on the ground of "rights." W.D. Ross rightly takes him to task for this in _The Right and the Good_: Green writes on one page that we have _no_ rights until these are recognized by society, and then turns around and writes as though "society" is recognizing rights we _already_ have. To my mind Ross clearly has the better of the argument here, though the problem is not, I think, terribly hard to fix.

On the whole, then, it is probably no wonder that Green and his crowd set into motion -- whether inadvertently or otherwise -- a stream of "liberalism" that would eventually find a far, far larger role for the State than any that Green himself would have approved. But to my mind, these difficulties are removable excrescences, not the heart of his theory. (And it is also worth bearing in mind that Green provides moral grounds for _resisting_ the State: he acknowledges that no actual State is really ideal and, insofar as it falls short of the ideal, should be brought firmly into the service of our common end.)

The theory itself seems to me to be sound. In fact, despite the aforementioned disagreements and several others, I would nominate this volume as perhaps _the_ single greatest work on liberal political theory.

Again, at some point every "liberal" of any stripe will have to come to terms with Green's ideas (perhaps in highly mutated form). And if, with minor tweezing, Green's basic outlook is sound, it also -- suitably adjusted -- forms the proper basis for the classical-liberal commonwealth.

It therefore behooves classical liberals and libertarians to get the word directly from Green himself. Those other "liberals" aren't _entirely_ wrong.

I found this to be an excellent book about the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Bosnia-Hercegovina. It gave me a concise history and a good summary of the messages given to the children. I also enjoyed the wonderful pictures and the useful bibliography. I recommend it to anyone devoted to Mary and interested in Marian apparitions.

I thoroughly enjoyed this. John Paul Noel has written an inspiring and uplifting account of his pilgrimages to Medjugorje.He puts across in an unpretentious fashion a very readable reporting of the struggles, the hardships and the eventual joy of his and his family's travels to Medjugorje. There is a very definite sense of spiritual growth.

A worthwhile book for those interested in Marian spirituality, would-be pilgrims, and those who just want to know more about the miraculous events in Medjugorje. Great gift for friends and family. Wonderful photographs. I enjoyed reading the book and highly recommend it.

This is a wonderful introduction to the legend of Arthur. The story is told in a nice, straightforward way that doesn't interfere with the wonderful drawings. There's enough detail in the drawings to entertain an older artist, but not so much that a younger person will get frustrated trying to color.

While the overall scholarship of the new commentary is impressive, there are some serious, significant and grave errors which compel me not to recommend this book. Instead of relying on sound jurisprudence, this edition degenerates with theological dissent, speculation and confusion. Book Three (the Teaching Office of the Church) is where it begins. The footnote on page 913 in reference to canon 749 on Infallibility attacks ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS when it says: "the statement by the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since 'it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium' is an exaggeration" Classifying the authortative interpretation of the CDF on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as being an 'exaggertion' is going well beyond the bounds of judicial commentary and now enters the realm of theological dissent. Cardinal Ratzinger's Responsum ad Dubium (10-28-95) made it clear that while Ordination Sacerdotalis itself was not an EX CATHEDRA statement (like the papal document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS of Pius XII defining the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in 1950), nevertheless the TEACHING (doctrine) that only baptized males can be ordained (deacons, priests and bishops) IS infallible as it has been a consistent element of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM. "All members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein." The Commentary continues in the footnote to attack the infallibility of the teaching when this is not a canonical issue, rather it is obviously doctrinal and the proper authority (CDF) has made a definitive ruling, not the CLSA.

Canon 752, according to the new Commentary "leaves room for dissent." This is based on the mistranslation of OBSEQUIUM by the Commentary. Ironically, the translated text in the same book reads "religious SUBMISSION of intellect and will" must be given to the authentic Magisterium (as opposed to an ASSENT of faith required of infallible teachings) whereas the commentary below the translated text keeps translating OBSEQUIUM not as SUBMISSION but as "RESPECT" or "DEFERENCE". Austin Flannery, OP, had no problem using SUBMISSION for OBSEQUIUM when he translated LUMEN GENTIUM #25 upon which canon 752 is based.

Another of many examples of an underlying agenda is shown in Book Four as well as Book Three. Canon 914 explicitly and unequivocally mandates First Penance BEFORE First Communion, yet the Commentary (p. 1110) suggests ""if the parents, who have the primary responsibility for the child's catechesis, should determine that their child is not yet ready for first penance but is ready for first communion, the child should not be denied the right to the sacrament." If that is not encouraging the faithful to oppose the law, what is it? Certainly not orthodox teaching or canonically licit behavior.

All in all, it is sad that the good scholarship has to be eclipsed by the creeping heterodoxy and subtle dissent in major portions of the book.

It took me a while to figure out what this Commentary is all about. For one, I am not a catholic and secondly, I did not even know there is such thing as canon law. My curiosity compelled me to research and read more about the topic. In my profession as a foreign medical doctor, I have been trained to search for the "why's" and "how's" of every given thing. The commentary gave me not only a path to follow but ways to understand this so-called canon law, the absolute purpose of which according to its last law is "the salvation of souls". The commentary is very well written in a style and manner that reflects the author(s) intimate knowledge of the complexities of human life and the god that wants to save it. It is not always easy to find books (or commentaries for that matter) that can help one to understand issues, topics and events that are alien in one's mind and faith. The authors have successfully presented opinions and interpretations based on their obvious love and respect for the church they belong and the god they believe. If all laws are approached that way, perhaps not only souls but also lives will be saved as well. My compliments to the writers.

This text is a clear and concise explanation of Canon Law as found in the Code of Canon Law 1983. This text can be used by both the professional Canon Lawyer as well as the pastoral minister in a parish in order to understand what the law means. This text provides the best explanation of the law, which is meant to be used in real situations in the Catholic Church.