This book is extremely useful as a contribution to the ongoing debate as to the moral imperatives, which existed upon Pope Pius XII to speak out against what remains the most catastrophic occurrence in human memory namely the holocaust. The book primarily focuses on the Italian situation and the relationship between the Vatican and the Italian State during the 1930's as well as the war. Again and again the author points out her view of the Vatican's distinction between racial and religious policies introduced against the Jewish people in Italy. The Fascist government introduced racial laws, which striped the Jewish people of their civil and human rights while the church, in the author's view at least acquiesced these provisions on the basis that they believed that the Jewish People were traditional opponents of Christianity.

Throughout the book the author quotes examples of how the Vatican could have been more forceful in its condemnation not simply of the Holocaust but of the ever-worsening conditions of the Jewish people in Europe from 1935 onwards. The crescendo of criticism reaches its high point in the chapter dealing with the round up of roman Jews in October 1943. The silence of Pius in this instance is the very essence of the authors thesis that the Pope for what ever reason failed the moral test not simply in terms of speaking out but of personally intervening to stop the barbarity Under His Very Windows as it were.

The author does of course place papal defences like for example, the possibility that speaking out would have made the suffering of others worse alongside her own criticisms. However I have to say that the book is quite scathing of Pope Pius's role and attitude throughout the war. This is not to say that the book is biased or of no value it certainly is both in its content and ease of understanding, its just that with any emotive subject of this magnitude those for and against make their own case more strongly and on this subject its difficult not to have or develop a view based on what we believe are moral imperatives.

For years there has been controversy over the role of Pius XII and his conduct during the Holocaust. A couple of years ago John Cornwall came out with a book called Hitler's Pope. This book is clearly superior to this one in many ways. Zuccotti is an expert in both Italian history and the Holocaust and she has fully researched both the available dioscean archives and the twelve volume series of Vatican documents in the second world war. She is noticeably fair, giving the pope credit where credit is due, and is careful about the risks a firmer anti-Nazi policy would have achieved. What is her conclusion? "As some 6,746 Jews from Italy were being shipped north to share the fate of the others, the pope's own countrymen similarly looked to him for guidance. They found little or nothing."

Pius XII has many defenders, but Zuccotti is good in showing where they are wrong. She points out that there was a certain degree of hostility or coolness in pre-war Catholic newspapers. These were not parochial or insignificant papers: they were leading papers of either the Vatican or the Jesuits. She points out that while Pius XI did say "Spiritually, we are all Semites" in 1938, the L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican paper, did not. There was some support in the Vatican, if not for the racist 1938 Italian laws, for measures that reduced the Jews to second- class citizenship. She also points out that for several years the Vatican concentrated what attention it did give to Jewish converts to Catholicism. Zuccotti is good at dismantling other myths. In defense of his shameful silence about the deportation of Roman Jews, defenders said he donated money when the Nazis imposed a forced loan on the Jewish Community. In point of fact he merely offered to loan them money, and only after he had been asked by the Jewish community when they incorrectly thought they might not be able to raise the money themselves. Papal defenders like Father Robert Leiber, Joseph Lichten and Pinchas Lapide claim that the Vatican helped arrange 3,000 visas to Jews and converts, when in fact less than a thousand went to converts, with most of the Vatican money was actually a contribution from Jewish agencies.

Pius XII has benefited from the belief that what good things the Church did do must have been an expression of his will. It is a key value of this book that Zuccotti shows that was not the case. Italian foreign ministry officials actually took the initiative in making sure Jews were not deported from occupied Croatia, while the rather mild-mannered protests and interventions at most bucked up their confidence. Pius XII's own criticisms of the Nazis and Nazi racism were vague. "Jews" were never mentioned, "descent" (as opposed to race) was only mentioned a handful of times. Those who were already sympathetic to Jews could read support for their own activities, those who were not could ignore the Jews with a clear conscience. Much of the Catholic initiative came from individual priests and bishops, while much of the help and the money came from Jewish organizations themselves, such as Desalem. If there has been a written order to help the Jews, why was it not in the twelve volumes of Vatican documents? If there was a written order, why did the Patriarch of Venice, the Archbishop of Perugia and other priests do little or nothing to help?

The Pope by later 1942, had enough information to know that the Jews of Europe faced an unprecedented danger. He should have done more but did not. He and his predecessor could have condemned the racial laws of the 1930s. He could have condemned them again after Mussolini's fall. He could have given the papal order that his defenders assume that he did. One might add to Zuccotti's claim that he could have informed the hierarchy in Ireland, Switzerland, Canada and the United States to do more to help the Jews. This would have been especially helpful in Canada, which had a truly pathetic record in helping refugees and much Catholic opposition to doing more. (As one can see in Irving Abella's None is Too Many) One might even add that as head of the Church Pius XII should have realized he should have run more risks, not less, than occupied Europe. But he did not. Reading Zuccotti's book, we find that though Pius XII was as celibate as a saint, he had the soul of a bureaucrat.

Having read several recent books on this subject, I find that an author's bias is reflected in his/her writing more on this issue than perhaps on any other. This is particularly striking in the recent Rychlak book ("Hitler, the War, and the Pope") which is unabashed propaganda, veiled thinly or not at all. Even the more objective Cornwell book ("Hitler's Pope"), although it supports the opposite side of the debate, has occasional undertones of prejudice.

In contrast to these and some other authors, Zuccotti presents her arguments by giving fair consideration to both sides of the issue. Her fine scholarship is evident throughout this entire study, which is meticulously annotated and documented, but her writing is directed to general readers of history, rather than to her professional peers. The book makes for very enjoyable reading on this painfully tragic subject.

Anyone who is interested in reading about Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and his efforts--or lack thereof--to reduce or even address the persecution of European Jews before and during World War II should begin with this book.

This book contains many examples of tremendously misguided interpretations of Catholic teaching. In fact, that is why our seminary uses this text...to illustrate how this type of material distorts and perverts the teachings of the Church. It is almost humurous in its blatancy. The book is useful only because of its historical references. Read it cautiously and be sure to have a copy of the Catechism close at hand for reference.

This is a fair and comprehensive overview of the Catholic Church (mainly the US) in terms of it's institutional, spiritual,theological, ecumenical,social and philosophical life throughout the twentieh century. It does have one noticable drawback however. In chapter nine, McCarthy makes a analysis of liberation theology but doesn't really point out its faults and shortcommings,he simply brushes aside whatever criticisms there may be. In fact he doesn't even mention Fr. Andrew Greeley's criticism of liberation theology. I would have to say his analysis of liberation theology is a bit one-sided. The postscript at the end of the book borders on naivete. Aside from that he does present a fair analysis of the Church.

I purchased this book in the hope that I would obtain a clearer understanding of Cardinal Ratzinger in terms of his role and significance during the last twenty years. However I have to say that while there is lots of information in this book along with stories and anecdotes, it fails to deliver in terms of a substantive analysis of the church since vatican II and where the church will be as we move further into this the 21st century. At the conclusion of the book Allen hinges his critical description of the Cardinal in terms of the next conclave including a list of reasons why Ratzinger will not be Pope. If that is not enough he then goes further to sujest that in the event that he is wrong and Ratzinger does become Pope all of the difficulties he would envisage with such a papacy. The issues which he attampts to examine are far to complex in nature to be benchmarked of nothing other than his own futuristic and prophetic beliefs. Sorry to be so negetive.

Given the scathing reviews Allen's book has recieved by vehement critics, one would get the impression that he has nothing at all positive to say about Ratzinger. On the contrary, Allen believes Ratzinger "is not the vengeful, power-obsessed old man who lurks like a bogyman in the imaginations of the Catholic left". With regard to Ratzinger's thought, Allen finds that his "arguments are more than ex post facto rationalizations for exercises of authority" and speaks of "a deep, logical consistency to [his] vision". Indeed, Allen is so impressed with Ratzinger that he exclaims "in the unlikely event I ever had access to Ratzinger as a personal confesser, I would not hesitate to open my heart to him, so convinced I am of the clarity of his insight, his integrity, and his commitment to the priesthood" -- sentiments which might be denounced as treasonous or dismissed as insane by some on the Catholic left. (Picture a conservative saying the same claim about Hans Kung).

Allen's prevalently liberal audience will be reassured by the fact that his praises for Ratzinger as a person fail to carry over to Ratzinger's role as doctrinal prefect. One doesn't have to read far to note that on every issue from contraception to women's ordination to liberation theology he comes down squarely opposed, and remains just as steadfast in his convictions as the cardinal is in his.

There are many aspects about John Allen's book with which I disagree. Granted, we could expect something of a much different tone had this been written by one of Ratzinger's ardent supporters (Father Joseph Fessio or Cardinal Schonborn). Nevertheless, I believe we should respect Allen's account for what it is: an honest (and so far as I have noticed, unparalleled) attempt by a liberal Catholic to appreciate the person and thought of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. (No doubt others will disagree with my impression -- I say read the book and judge for yourself).

Finally, two poignant observations by John, L. Allen himself:

"Reaction to Ratzinger is often uncritical, driven more by emotion and instinct than sober reflection. Progressives do not read his books, they disregard his public statements, and they assume every position he takes is based on power politics. Conservatives revere most of what he says as holy writ, often spouting mindlessly without penetrating to the principle or value he seeks at stake. Neither response takes Ratzinger seriously.

* * *

The problem with political arguments in contemporary Catholicism is that too often the disagreeing parties talk past one another, having very little intellectual common ground upon which to base the discussion. . . . Neither is willing to spend the intellectual effort to understand the concerns that drive their thoughts, the arguments that have led them to the conclusions they hold, the alternatives they have considered and rejected."

This is certainly advice which any Catholic, regardless of his personal and ideological convictions, can take to heart and follow.

John Allen is to be commended for his biography of Cardinal Ratzinger. It is difficult to write objectively about living, controvertial figures and even more so in the case of powerful religious figures. Emotions can run high, even to the boiling point. Some readers might expect a "hatchet job" of the Prefect of the CDF by a writer for the "National Catholic Reporter", which is a prominently liberal newspaper, but only someone blinded by partisanship could consider this carefully researched and written book to be anything but thoughtful and even handed.

Allen read all of Ratzinger's works and many collateral books and conducted dozens of interviews in preparation for this study. He is at present NCR's resident editor in Rome. Allen is also an unusually well-read and well-informed practicing Catholic who genuinely tries to understand the points of view of his subjects. He raises difficult questions, as is his proper role, and, in my opinion, sometimes gives Ratzinger the benefit of the doubt when a sterner view would be justified but he provides a tremendous amount of valuable information and references so the reader can do his or her own research. This is the mark of a serious biographer and not a polemicist.

John Allen's "Cardinal Ratzinger" is an important and scholarly contribution to our understanding of this powerful figure in the present-day Catholic hierarchy. It deserves to be read.

It is with some relief that I note that this particular work of fiction is now out of print. Briefly, it purports to show how the Pope and most if not all of the rest of the Vatican authorities have lost the plot, so to speak, and are working to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Interesting asides purport to show that Paul VI was replaced in mid-reign by an imposter (identified by slightly different-shaped ears) and that John Paul II fathered a love-child. It is just about possible - just about - to read this as a work of satirical fiction. That its author intended it to be read as fact is very nearly beyond belief.

After ending the reading of this book, I must conclude that the author was unable to proof his three main and very serious assertions: Pope John XXIII's masonic initiation; Pope Paul VI's double; and Pope John Paul II's ilegitimate son. Suming up, an obvious failure.

Nevertheless, Piers Compton clearly demonstrates that Catholic Church, after the Second Vatican Council, was greatly infiltrated at the highest levels of the Roman Curia by masonic and socialist/communist agents, a fact that explains the turmoil faced by Church since then.

This book deserves to be rated with two and half stars.

The message that there is [illegal activity] in the Curia is hardly news, but these prelates endlessly repeat the allegation, claiming that power and honors go to the treacherous, incompetent and cooperative, while those sincerely devoted to truth, justice and service are humiliated and ostracized. I have no doubt that nepotism and avarice dominate Vatican politics but these Milinari sound like the guys whose candidate didn't win, whining about how unfair the process is. On one hand, they chronically point out that clerical office is not about careers and all should be done in service to the poor and disadvantaged, but then they refer to numerous cases of "deserving" prelates who were overlooked or shut out of higher office. Do they actually point fingers? Well, sometimes. But it's hard to tell when they're being serious, when they're speculating, or when they're just being cute.

The editor explains that this book's authors are native Italian speakers with a strong Latin streak and that a "faithful translation would have been unreadable". The significance of this warning soon becomes apparent. Their tedious diatribe is constantly interrupted by "stories", which begin abruptly and end ambiguously. Some are sophomoric jokes, some are allegories and some are actually presented as true events, occasionally including actual names, more often just vague hints. In at least one story, they get mixed up, confusing Pius XII with Paul VI. All the stories are artless and are usually followed up by a threatening Bible verse from Jeremiah, Malachi or Jesus, usually railing against the priests and Pharisees. The verses are rendered in bizaarely stilted English ("Why smitest thou me?") and, with perhaps [traditional] Catholic style, are devoid of chapter and verse references. The Milinari's use of quotes, puns and metaphors is grating, self-impressed and not quite on target, ironically like the very monsters they are battling.

The editor pretends to help by supplying marginal glossary entries for the uninitiated, explaining such difficult concepts as "gospel", "Decalogue" and "Marcus Aurelius", but ignoring the likes of "Telepeace", "loggia", and "Sertillanges". And sometimes he gets it wrong. ("The Beatitudes are the nine blessings spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.")

The signs that Satan is at work in St. Peters are the dogged reluctance of the Curia to embrace the likes of mystics like Padre Pio or to validate the latter apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There's more: the loss of Gregorian chant and "eligiac" Latin has reduced the Mass "from ritual to theatre". Homosexuality is yet another plague in the ministry. (Yet oddly though, the authors think that priestly celibacy is an idea whose time has finally gone. It's hard to keep one's traditions properly sorted.)

The cause of the Vatican's woes, you see, are a couple of powerful feuding Italian families who control all the appointments in an uneasy and constantly shifting standoff. No, actually it's because they're all Freemasons, which are the real diabolical threat, along with their junior organizations, Rotary and the Lions Club. (They actually say this.) Well, some of them are Communists or Satanists, and maybe the Magyars are involved too. (At least they stopped short of "perfidious Jews".) The Pope is not at fault however, because the Curia is always sending him out of town on meaningless pilgrimages and showy jamborees. (And the notorious Cardinal Ratzinger is apparently innocent as well.)

The Milinari aften point to popes and theologians of the past as models of proper behavior, bet these aren't the guys I would pick. Innocent III? Julius II? Pius XI? Not exactly sterling examples, but that may be a matter of whose hagiography you read.

When they aren't dishing rumors and gossip, the authors do reveal some decent ecclesiology, emphasizing the need to include the laity in the decision processes, as well as the actual Holy Spirit, not just a verbal simulation. But they are inconsistent, such as when they bemoan the recent process of letting dioceses nominate their own bishops.

These guys have their heart in the right place, but their attitude is naive, sentimental and puerile. I'd hate to leave the great clerical cleanup in their hands. If you want a thoughtful analysis of just what's wrong with the Church hierarchy, read Gary Wills' "Papal Sins".

The message that there is corruption in the Curia is hardly news, but these prelates endlessly repeat the allegation, claiming that power and honors go to the treacherous, incompetent and cooperative, while those sincerely devoted to truth, justice and service are humiliated and ostracized. I have no doubt that nepotism and avarice dominate Vatican politics but these Milinari sound like the guys whose candidate didn't win, whining about how unfair the process is. On one hand, they chronically point out that clerical office is not about careers and all should be done in service to the poor and disadvantaged, but then they refer to numerous cases of "deserving" prelates who were overlooked or shut out of higher office. Do they actually point fingers? Well, sometimes. But it's hard to tell when they're being serious, when they're speculating, or when they're just being cute.

The editor explains that this book's authors are native Italian speakers with a strong Latin streak and that a "faithful translation would have been unreadable". The significance of this warning soon becomes apparent. Their tedious diatribe is constantly interrupted by "stories", which begin abruptly and end ambiguously. Some are sophomoric jokes, some are allegories and some are actually presented as true events, occasionally including actual names, more often just vague hints. In at least one story, they get mixed up, confusing Pius XII with Paul VI. All the stories are artless and are usually followed up by a threatening Bible verse from Jeremiah, Malachi or Jesus, usually railing against the priests and Pharisees. The verses are rendered in bizaarely stilted English ("Why smitest thou me?") and, with perhaps stereotypically Catholic style, are devoid of chapter and verse references. The Milinari's use of quotes, puns and metaphors is grating, self-impressed and not quite on target, ironically like the very monsters they are battling.

The editor pretends to help by supplying marginal glossary entries for the uninitiated, explaining such difficult concepts as "gospel", "Decalogue" and "Marcus Aurelius", but ignoring the likes of "Telepeace", "loggia", and "Sertillanges". And sometimes he gets it wrong. ("The Beatitudes are the nine blessings spoken by Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.")

The signs that Satan is at work in St. Peters are the dogged reluctance of the Curia to embrace the likes of mystics like Padre Pio or to validate the latter apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There's more: the loss of Gregorian chant and "eligiac" Latin has reduced the Mass "from ritual to theatre". Homosexuality is yet another plague in the ministry. (Yet oddly though, the authors think that priestly celibacy is an idea whose time has finally gone. It's hard to keep one's traditions properly sorted.)

The cause of the Vatican's woes, you see, are a couple of powerful feuding Italian families who control all the appointments in an uneasy and constantly shifting standoff. No, actually it's because they're all Freemasons, which are the real diabolical threat, along with their junior organizations, Rotary and the Lions Club. (They actually say this.) Well, some of them are Communists or Satanists, and maybe the Magyars are involved too. (At least they stopped short of "perfidious Jews".) The Pope is not at fault however, because the Curia is always sending him out of town on meaningless pilgrimages and showy jamborees. (And the notorious Cardinal Ratzinger is apparently innocent as well.)

The Milinari aften point to popes and theologians of the past as models of proper behavior, bet these aren't the guys I would pick. Innocent III? Julius II? Pius XI? Not exactly sterling examples, but that may be a matter of whose hagiography you read.

When they aren't dishing rumors and gossip, the authors do reveal some decent ecclesiology, emphasizing the need to include the laity in the decision processes, as well as the actual Holy Spirit, not just a verbal simulation. But they are inconsistent, such as when they bemoan the recent process of letting dioceses nominate their own bishops.

These guys have their heart in the right place, but their attitude is naive, sentimental and puerile. I'd hate to leave the great clerical cleanup in their hands. If you want a thoughtful analysis of just what's wrong with the Church hierarchy, read Gary Wills' "Papal Sins".

In Catholic tradition, the Book of the Gospels is a symbol of Christ as Teacher, instructing his Church by his word and example, especially within the liturgical context. As such, the Book of the Gospels was very early seperated from the other books in the Church, and designed and crafted with great care. The designs, artwork and craftsmenship of the book witness to the Church's devotion to Christ's teachings and her veneration of the Word of the Father himself.
This edition uses the revised American Lectionary of 1998. It contains the gospel passages for all Sundays of the year in their three-year cycles, as well as gospels read during solemnities and some special feasts. It also contains the gospel readings for the celebration of various other rites, such as ordination, confirmation, marriage and Christian initiation etc. This makes the Gospel Book useful for all major and solemn celebrations in a community, except Ash Wednesday since it does not contain the gospel passage for that day. This edition is approved by the US Bishops for use in the USA.
This edition of the Gospel Book however stands in stark contrast to the venerable tradition of the Church. The cover design, though potentially excellent, is now stark, being decorated only by a fanciful cross. [According to the publisher, the size of the book fits most ceremonial covers. Maybe that will mask the starkness of this book.] The print is easy-to-read, but there are no pieces of liturgical/religious art in the book. This runs counter to our tradition where words and art both help communicate the Gospel of Christ to all people. The Lectionary published by the same company is better than this Gospel Book and this makes the latter a very disappointing book.
This book is the cheapest of four editions to choose from, from different publishers. But it is so different from the Church's heritage that it would be more worthwhile to save some more money and obtain a better edition of the Book of the Gospels. If one can afford it, the Deluxe edition published by Midwest Theological Forum is the most exquisite and beautiful. This edition features many full-color art pieces, and a cover with Christ the Pantokrator(Teacher). The same publisher also produces a similar Standard edition that is much cheaper [...]; its cover has the four evangelists from the Book of Kells. If not, the edition produced by Liturgy Training Publications works too. This edition features contemporary full-color artwork based on Ethopian Christian styles. All these editions makes use of the revised American Lectionary of 1998, and are all approved by the US bishops. I would obtain this plain edition only as a last resort.

This book is definitely written from the perspective of liberal Catholicism. Although the author tries to present a balanced picture of the state of Catholicism today and in the recent past, he doesn't always succeed. The chapter on sexual morality, in particular, tended to present as viable possibilities some ethical schemes which are not consistent with either the Catholic tradition or the Christian orthodoxy in a broader sense. However, to give it credit, I did learn a great deal about recent ecclesiastical history and modern systems of theology. Personally, though, I would prefer a book more in keeping with the teachings of the Magisterium.

This book gave insight into the day-to-day actions of the council in great detail. It is a narrative of the bishops activities at the council as reflected in his notes. The book is rather technical, though: filled with numbers, basically a dry and descriptive read.

That anyone could take this bit of literary garbage seriously is incredible. It consists wholy of speculation, lies, and propaganda promulgated by small-minded people. Don't waste your time on this rubbish.

It is amazing how some will prostitute the truth to sell a book. Books such as Born in Blood are more accurate speculations of the nature and roots of the Masonic fraternity, which is all that the organization is. What is truely sad is that these falsehoods take on a life of their own. The book was written from ingnorance and has only perpetuated ignorance.

The book should be boot, it is a sinister evilness that try's to hurt and offend a socieity of brotherhood thru the all seeing eye of God.

I wasted my time reading about lies.

This is a pathetic book. The author is an expelled Jesuit who has married a Hollywood Starlette and tries to justify his disobedience by sending out questionaires to the American Catholic Bishops, the majority whom ignore him. Then he uses the returned questionares to try to justify his leaving the Jesuits and marrying. The book fails to make his point and is totally boring .