The book was very informative and it gives you alot of information on the last three popes that the roman cathlolic church has had.

This is a fascinating look at papal elections. Hebblewaithe regales us with wonderful historical and behind-the-scenes details which alone make the book worthwhile. His descriptions of the likely candidates, though likely to be outdated when the actual event arrives, are informative. Hebblewaithe's own agenda tends to permeate the book; he seems intent to replace the "intricate and highly politicized process" with an intriccate and highly politicized process of his own, to ensure the election of what he hopes will be a more "liberal" Pope. Fortunately, this partisanship doesn't spoil an otherwise engaging work.

...theologically anyway. But before dealing with that it would be beneficial to review its strengths.

For one thing, it is a comprehensive work. There is evidence throughout that the author sought to write as complete a biography as possible and clocking in at around 750 pages, the detail is not lacking. The portrait of Giovanni Battista Montini the man is well sketched and his gifts made readily apparent to the reader. The author believes that Pope Paul was "the most naturally talented man to become pope in this century" and if he is referring to all around then I can certainly concur with him. The problem though is that the papacy requires more then that to properly function. Paul from the biographies I have read of him - and Hebblethwaithe follows suit with them - sketches a portrait of a man who on paper is almost overqualified to be pope (if that was at all possible) excelling in his knowledge of Canon Law, the history of the Ecumenical Councils, and Church history in general. (Not to mention being schooled in the field of journalism.) An intellectual who could relate to average people, who was kind, compassionate, charitable, and longsuffering. (And from a pastoral standpoint a great priest.) Physically frail in health from his earliest years Paul VI was still able to accomplish much more then it would seem task-wise. An excellent listener who enjoyed philosophical discourse and dialogue with the belief that the truth would ultimately win out. A dialoguist who could weigh the pros and cons of opposing sides and do so equitably. Adding to these the element of patience and sensitivity of all viewpoints and Paul had the makings of a great diplomat.

Hebblethwaithe documents well Paul's service to - and admiration of - Pius XII and treats the latter pope reasonably well: though he seems to think Pius XI was a diplomatic blunderer. (There is a clear preference shown to John XXIII over both of them.) He details well Pope Paul's meetings with Patriarch Athengoras and other leaders both religious and secular. I am trying to think of what else can be said in under 1,000 words about a 750 page book. (In these situations space constraints are not of assistance.)

It has been said in the Conclave that after the election the consensus of him was that he was "John with Pacelli's [Pius XII] brains". But even taking into account all of the relevant factors, it is difficult to see how anyone could say that his reign could be anything better then "average" historically. Hebblethwaithe's sketch reveals the human side of Paul through his successes and also his failings. (Not to mention the tremendous sufferings physically and spiritually that he underwent in the exercise of his ministry.)

It helps now to know that the author is an "ex-Jesuit" because it fills in several question marks that cropped up when I read the book. His treatment of the subject of the minority at the Second Vatican Council is not as balanced as it could be. (The author almost makes it seem that any concessions made by Paul VI to the minority party was the result of conspiracy and certain prelates "getting to Paul" rather then Paul acting as he did out of a sense of personal principle.) The treatment of the Council could have been more thorough as well since that was the defining event and constant reference point for the rest of Pope Paul's pontificate.

There were a few points of theology where the author showed his grasp of the issues as specious. He makes two theological blunders by presuming that the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church affiliation would have to "be overcome by Vatican II" - an absurd notion and one not sanctioned by the documents of Vatican II. (The second was the assertion that the treatment of the Mystical Body in the encyclical somehow did not account for the presence of sin: another superficial commentary on the encyclical's content.) He also shows almost a disdain for the encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei: seemingly any attempt of the Pope to not endorse the "newer and therefore better" whatever it happened to be (and regardless of its relative merits) permeates this work in various spots.

Two more encyclicals that do not meet with the authors approval are Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (on priestly celibacy) and Humanae Vitae. On the latter the author pulls out the kind of kook conspiracy theories that are common to fringe extremists to try and "justify" themselves. (Particularly when it comes to Cardinal Ottaviani in this instance.) It is pretty clear that he did not like Paul's teaching in the latter two encyclicals or the judgment Paul had the CDF issue on women priests. The author for the most part is pretty fair but on the examples above there is a clear bias. The sketch he makes of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was also not flattering but frankly Lefebvre brought a lot of his problems on himself. (In that context Hebblethwaithe details Pope Paul's patience with Lefebvre very well.) Throughout the ups and downs of the book (which technically is written well and reads well) we receive a detailed sketch of Paul the pope and Montini the man.

In short, this is a good book but it is not without its problems. Two biographies not used by Hebblethwaithe are in this writers opinion superior works page for page. One is Roy MacGregor-Hastie's 1964 biography on Paul VI (approx. 210 pages). Another is Alden Hatch's biography "Pope Paul VI" which is about 400 pages. Either work is better then this one but this one is still worth a read too if you have the time and if deficiencies such as the ones noted above are taken into account.

Because I believe Paul VI was by far the greatest Poper ever and thanks to his tireless efforts there is a Church today that sounds realistic to the world, I welcome this book that I bought back in 1993. The missing star is because, in my view, the author does not follow enough in Paul's sanctity. I recommend that any interested party goes over his prayers, and they will find that his deep intellectual skills were based and sustained upon an impressive spiritual life.

Before reading this I tended to label Paul VI unfairly has a highly 'conservative' Pope who wrote 'Humane Vitae'. Having read this I realised that he wrote this encyledal partly because he thought he would be betraying the Church in the face of theological history and partly out of fear as to what it would lead to. He was also a highly complex man prone to fits of depression, and yet in some ways a warm and caring man. Like the US President Lyndon Johnson, Paul VI has suffered unfairly partly due to having a highly popular predessor. Sadly in Paul VI's case he also had a highly popular successor partly due to the shortness of his reign.

This volume, an update of an earlier work by the late Peter Bebblewaite, is little more than an obsolete exercise in wishful thinking by the Catholic radical left. For the book to be at all relevant, it needs to be updated again, to reflect the changes in the College of Cardinals (fairly significant in the last few years). Even such an update would do little to further recommend it, as there are other, more recent and less biased works on the same subject.

Give this one a miss.

The most interesting part of the book for me was the first half where past conclaves in history are discussed. Some of the history is really fascinating. Although the tone of the book optimistically predicts a less severe papacy next time around, there is little evidence presented to back this up. The criticisms of John Paul II, while quite accurate, do little to help us understand who we might expect as the next pope. It is a well written book and very readable, but as time continues to go by and the current pope continues to live, the latter section on potential popes becomes less and less relevant due to the age restriction and deaths. Still, there is enough here to recommend a read.

"The Next Pope", though quite out of date now, is a very good and comprehensive study of the Catholic Church and how Popes are elected, and an attempt to give an idea of who the next Pope will in fact be.

It covers, very well and in quite clear language, a history of the papacy from the time of Pius VIII (1829 to 1830) up to John Paul II's historically crucial letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". Each conclave in that period is discussed very well and with quite reasonable language that I have found very helpful in gaining an understanding of where the papacy has travelled in recent centuries.

The next part of the book looks at John Paull II and explains his thought. It does an easy-to-understand job that could, I feel, give a better understanding of his Polish nature.

The last part written before Peter's death deals with "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" and the reaction to it, however it fails unfortunately to reach the notes of Ratzinger about the infallibility of the document and to explain in simple, if for many harsh, language what this will mean for the next centuries of the Catholic Church.

Margaret's article is a very detailed (compared to her late husband's) analysis of the College Of Cardinals as it was comprised in 2000.

Though this is now completely out-of-date, contrary to what others have said about Margaret's writings, I find her very balanced in her exceedingly sensible admission that the next Pope can only be just as conservative as Wojtyla. She is very willing to face and accept the fact that many cardinal want an even more conservative papacy in the future, and looks at such cardinals as Dario Castrillon Hoyos and Rouco Vadela as possibilities for the next Pope.

My main criticism of Margaret is that her language is so unclear and that she seem incomplete - it is as if one would need a detailed analysis of those cardinals who nobody, outside or inside the Vatican, would consider as possibilities for the papacy.

Though out of date, this contains some useful information.