This is a caricature of papal history, clearly tilted to fit the author's stange view that Vatican II overturned the traditional Catholic view of papal authority. It's breezy enough, but the ideological distortion is so grave and so tiresome that many of the popes are simply not recognizable.

For an excellent study of the papacy, read Patrick Madrid's wonderful new book on the subject.

Tons o' fun for church history fans. Lots of stuff which was new to me, esp. regarding the period 400-800 , where Constantinople gradually gives up on the West and the Pope gives up on the East and makes his own Roman Emperor, and very solid on canon law (author is a Doctor Canonis Juris) in the middle ages, growth of Lateran/Vatican bureaucracy etc. I'm still reading this book and thoroughly enjoying it. As far as the author's politics, he clearly favors the conciliarists in the 1400s, so you can guess where he'll come down on the next 600 years. Unless you're a great fan of popes like Boniface VIII, you should find this book interesting, i think. But I'm a pagan, this is just a hobby; ymmv.

William La Due's history of the papacy is an enlightening read. Because it deals honestly with both the good and the bad in that history it will not appeal to those who have a particular axe to grind. It will not appeal to fundamentalist Protestants who want to demonize the Pope, nor will it appeal to modern obscurantist Roman Catholics who tend to gloss over significant historical details in their ongoing historical revisionism. La Due has done the Roman Catholic Church a favor by being honest with the historical evidence.

In an irenic and scholarly manner, La Due examines the development of the papacy from the first century up to today. He places the Popes in their historical context and reveals how quite often the development of the papacy was more the result of political and economic factors than any theological or ecclesiastical concerns.

An excellent piece of historical research.

My guess is this post is Ms. (ATM) Murphy's most recent, final word regarding her tumultuous past.

Bravo!

Glad to see that she's alive and at peace with the past. Hope Peter is well and am wondering if he completed law school? I even hope the former bishop is okay too and at peace with his paternity as well as finding fulfillment in life outside the narrow view and confines of the church.

All three, in their respective fashions, have served as martyrs to necessary change and should be retired, with compassion.

May the peace of the Lord which surpasseth all understanding (and still eludes the church that claims to have the market on Christian salvation, cornered in their favor) be with you all.

By the way, Ms. Murphy, I am now going to A.A., as well, after being dumped by a Jesuit, two years ago. He engaged in the added pretense of saying he wanted to marry me and have a child, right before his superior ordered him into treatment at a sex offender clinic.

Maybe, I too, will write a book about that experience as well, one day. But in the meantime, all I can really manage is working on sobriety, one day at a time.

Alright it's been awhile so let them all rest....but really folks did not Ireland benefit from the restrictions of the Church being loosened and perhaps the Bishop and Annie (the pawn) were used well on this chess board of politics emeshed in religion. I lean towards givin them a break-- they served Ireland well. The Bishop is doing his work, Annie, foolish in her choices, has paid a dear price. Perhaps you might remember before ever going public, Annie took Peter to Ireland for 6 months just so the Bishop could be given the chance to approach his son which he obviously choose to ignore--- so ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE!!--- So all of you who point the finger soley at one or the other STOP. ATM and that doesn't stand for automated teller machine

If some of you really read between the lines and get the knowledge of the pain and true love that goes through the whole book, you will feel the pain of all the 'forbidden' couples in the world have to go through and the environment's judgement on all that is 'forbidden';The true love! I'm sure that every one, man or woman can recognise the pain for both of them. Please open your hearts! Feel for them! Get the comfort for all your own unhappiness -By the environment judgements! I'm sure God DID wan't them to be happy, but the Catholic earth was so filled with historic traditions. Forgive them too! Read it! Feel it! I recognise their pain, but mine is more of unhappy ending! I wish that I could share it with you, Another time maybe..

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.

The book shown above is the hardcover edition. It's also published, without illustrations, in five paperback volumes. I read only THE TUDORS AND STUARTS, which had no illustrations other than two or three maps and graphs. The first half of the book, about the Tudors, was written by one man, and the second half, about the Stuarts, by another. The volume was short, only 142 pages.

This is my favorite period of British history and the one with which I am most familiar, but still, I found the text confusing. I think there were several misplaced lines of type in the second half. Maybe a writer can't do much in 70 pages to elucidate a period, and probably the illustrations would have distracted from the sketchy text. The writing was not lively.

The very last section is called "Intellectual and Religious Life," but it was mostly about religious life. Literature is almost totally ignored throughout the volume. Pepys is never mentioned.

There is no index. Perhaps the complete, one-volume version has an index, and the publisher didn't want to go to the trouble of compiling indexes for the individual volumes. Still, a history book without an index is unthinkable.

On the whole, the book was disappointing.

I'm a half-educated American, with the vaguest notions of British history. I bought this book hoping to be able to understand the story of the British Isles, in a more or less clear outline. That didn't happen: after 200 pages, I tossed the book, wondering just who it was written for. Here's why I tossed it:

(1) It doesn't have an author. Instead, it has a bunch of authors, each apparently assigned a certain portion of British history to cover. The problem is that none of the authors seem to have consulted each other, nor did the editor seem to edit. On every other page, you see a fact or definition repeated (by a previous author), or a topic referenced (but uncovered by a previous author). History is a messy thing, but it has to be organized to be learned, and any hope of presenting material in terms of themes or movements is lost, because styles and approaches switch radically from author to author, from clear and sparse, to confusing and overly-detailed.

(2) It should have an author. This sounds like point (1), but hear me out: the editor, Mr. Morgan, claims that writing grand history, spanning the length of the British past, just can't be written anymore. It is better, rather, to have specialists write about their specialities. Sounds good in theory, but is just abominable when placed next to comprehensive histories written by single authors. Toynbee and Trevleyan wrote such history earlier. And J. Roberts writes such history now, particularly his History of Europe, and History of the World, two models of lucid historical writing that make this disjointed compilation look like an ill-considered mishmash.

(3) It should have an audience. Or at least a different audience: the average intelligent reader wants a clean, interesting exposition of the important events and currents of the past. While some chapters achieve that, the most seem to be written not to the Average Reader, but to the Rival Colleague. And so we see a few facts casually presented, and then a sudden digression into some piece of scholarly minutae that leaves the reader (me, that is) pexplexed.

(4) It should teach historical knowledge, not assume it. This is one of those histories that assumes from the onset that you know all the relevant history. That might be OK for a narrow scholarly article, but it's an awful presumption for a comprehensive history. I read dozens of pages discussing the 'Domesday Book,' its importance, and its effects. The authors never thought to enlighten the ignorant, and explain what this Domesday Book was (an very old tax survey). Things like this litter every page.

From previous reading, I've learned that good history can be written. From reading this, I've learned that very bad history can be written, too.

This is a good book for a reader who is little like me. I have no training in British history and little in Western. I read quite a bit of history and don't mind a challenging work, though, which lets me get through most histories without too much frustration. This book often lacked the context with which self-teaching historians can teach themselves, even with frequent map- and index-checking.

The chapters of this book are all written by different authors, each one clearly an expert on the subject of his individual chapter. The authors do not agree on their audience. For instance, Gillingham's chapter on the early middle ages was clearly written, had several maps and followed a timeline before ending with a thematic look at the economy and political structure of the period. The very next chapter, Griffiths' chapter on the late middle ages, skips around by dozens of years within a single paragraph, mentions towns in France without maps and assumes foreknowledge of the battles of the Hundred Year war. Unfortunately, this book contains more chapters like the latter than the former.

I suspect that a European or an American with a basic familiarity of British history would find this a very useful intermediate level book with which to learn or re-discover an overview of Britain. The handiness of one volume written by many experts providing an overview of such a long history is what is right with this book. To those with some background in the subject, this book will be extremely convenient and useful. For someone without European geographic knowledge or a recognition of the figures in British history, even a patient and attentive reading will lead to frustrating hunts for the background of many important figures mentioned once within the narrative and to pointless searches through inadequate maps.

Wells is one of these post-modern deconstructionist types who thinks everything and anything Western is by very definition decadent and wrong. Rather than helping the reader understand the German and Celtic peoples who lived north of the Roman empire, he basically recasts them as Third World nations subjugated by the imperialists - the noble savage as perpetual victim. Worst of all, he can't write to save his life.

Peter Wells has done a nice job of taking his years of scholarly field research to create a book that is palatable, understandable and readable for the lay person interested in Pre-Roman culture in late Iron Age Europe and the effects and evidence of subsequent Romanization. Was it Napoleon that said "History is written by the victors"? In the case of the Roman interactions and subjugations of European tribes, the Romans were the only ones that could write! It is a painstaking task to recover the bits and pieces of those pre-existing and obviously vigorous cultures. To do so one must use a trowel instead of a library card. Thanks to Peter Wells for his fieldwork, his organizational sense and his enthusiasm for his subject. Us armchair archaeologists appreciate being presented with his fascinating body of knowledge.

Adapted from the Disney animated film of Hercules. I can't help but be amused by it. I know, I know - it's pap, pulp and historically bunk. But then I don't have a huge issues with modern interpretations, or even inspiration from the classics (legends anyway). After all, I love Xena on the tube!

If you've ever seen a Disney adaptation, you get the idea. Cheaply produced, and dirt cheap to buy. These books are found in supermarket check-out queues. And why not! If they encourage adult/child closeness in the act of reading, that's a good thing. If they encourage the independent emerging reader to "have a go", then why not?

Oh, dear, now I might as well admit I even like the PlayStation game based on Disney's barrel-chested muscleman in the cute pleated skirt! END

Spong has the courage to review the Bible and find areas that need to be discussed . The Bible was written by a society who stoned women , thought the world wes flat, thought the earth was the center of the universe . Anyone who would say the earth was round could be put to death by the Pope of ancient times . Left handed or people who had an original idea were burned by puritans in the name of God . The same christians who hate and I men hate Spong are of that same school. If you know people so shallow do not drink the coolaide as this is the same people Jim Jones would have as friends . Jerry Farwell and his crowd have become millionaires tickling your ears and I don't think people want to know . The truth that the bible gives you the right to kill your first child , remove any woman's right to even speak in a house of worship as well as give a man the right to kill his wife if he becomes jealous should . People who think it is OK to kill and danm in the name of a god should move to Pakistan and never read Spong as it take 3 digits in your IQ to understand his work . Stupid people should read books written for their level of thinking and enjoy it as entertainment .
Rev. John Evers

The book, a collection of essays from many different Episcopal Bishops, takes on the task of refuting some of the wild and unscholarly writings of Retired Bishop John Shelby Spong. The book receives an average rating because the writing styles from so many different writers (10) doesn't flow naturally.

Further, while some authors do a good job refurting Spong's theology, others are not as good at communicating their position. The book does a good enough job in refuting "Spong theology", but lacks a coherent focus because of the many different authors. The book would have been better if only two of the Bishops wrote this book seeking editing and assistence from the others.

I confess-- I have something in common with most of the Rt. Rev. Spong's fans. Like them, I've read very little of what he's written. (For example, "Can A Bishop Be Wrong" has two five-star reviews from Spong fans who are under the impression that Spong wrote this book-- apparently, they feel comfortable praising Spong's work sight-unseen).

Don't get me wrong. I've tried to read Spong. But, alas, the Rt. Rev. S. is a ghastly writer. After a while, the charms of Spong's writing-- his relentless self-congratulation, his presenting of hackneyed 19th-century pop-biblical-criticism as his own daring innovation, his use of the passive voice to hide sweeping and questionable assertions ("...there is surprise at how insignificant were the theological issues dividing the two sides [of the Reformation]"), his utter lack of a sense of humor, his unforgivably poor skill with words-- begin to pall. I haven't yet met someone who can read an entire chapter of Spong at one sitting.

That's where this book comes in handy. They don't exhaustively categorize the intellectual sins of the Rt. Rev. Spong-- such a task could never be worth the trees killed. But they provide a good survey of his looking-glass kingdom. "Can A Bishop Be Wrong" isn't a work of Christian apologetics, because it doesn't have to be. Spong's main contention-- the foundation of all his work-- is his claim that no intelligent person of the twentieth century can be an orthodox Christian. To respond, one doesn't have to prove Christianity-- one just has to provide a counterexample. This book categorizes his errors and logical lapses with admirable thoroughness. Not an exhaustive thoroughness, to be sure, but sufficient to the silly task at hand.

This book has its flaws. As others have noted, it is a collection of essays, and they repeat some of the same points over and over. The authors sometimes let Spong goad them into anger. And they don't argue much against Spong's theological outlook-- but since Spong's outlook is just rehashed nineteenth-century "modernism", you can find plenty of orthodox arguments against heavier intellectual forces than Spong. (Try Chesterton's _The_Everlasting_Man_, for starters.)

This book has a limited market. Spong's fans will not be moved by what they read here, if they were inclined to try reading it. But to the traditional theist of whatever religion, who wonders whether he ought to read Spong and find out what all the fuss is about, this book offers a strong and well-reasoned answer: "Nope."

Peter Washington's fine selection of Roman poets is sadly watered down and barbarized by the translations he chose from English poets and playwrights, ranging from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, who had no regard for the genre in which the Latin poets originally wrote in. The epic meter, from which all the Latin poets modeled themselves off of, is discarded and the rhyming couplet is tragically substituted. Peter Washington's reason for this is that the epic meter is only fit for longer poems. Tell that to Horace, to Claudian, or to Virgil--tell that to any of the Roman poets and they would simply look at you with overwhelming disgust. All of them wrote in iambic and daclyctic hexameter, that is, Greek heroic verse, or in basic Greek lyrical form, as may be found in the works of Catullus or Horace. The rhyming couplet, then, was a fault all the ancient Greeks and Romans avoided both in poetry and good oratory; therefore it was completely alien to them. The great John Milton realizing this said that it was "the invention of a barbarous age, to set of lame meter and wretched matter," which inaugurated this tradition in English poetry, and therefore effected all their translations of the Roman poets' works. Sadly enough, this volume was not spared from "the troublesome and modern bondage of rhyming." However, this volume does have its bright spots. The editor's selection of Roman poets shows that he made a noble attempt to popularize some of the more obscure poets of antiquity, such as minor ones like Petronius Arbiter, Tibullus, Claudian, and Ausonius. Also, what better way is there to make Roman poetry known than by placing it into the context of modern English poetry, in a small, pocket sized volume, under the label of one of the most prominent publishers to be found, Everyman's library. Furthermore, the rhyming couplet at times--and the editor's minimal selection of lyrical verse--can be pleasant and bring forth deeper meaning out of the poetry. And at last, the detailed and vibrant illustrations, relevant to the poet and theme of their poetry, make flipping through these pages and reading aimlessly an engaging effort, worthy of leisure. In this anthology the Roman poets are Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Martial, Juvenal, Claudian, and Ausonius. This volume may come as a disappointment to those seeking to find these poets' works translated to the fullest degree in their original genre, but it still remains a good anthology, noble in scope, and charming in its simplicity.

I want some articles about goths and romans in the late antiquit