Rating: 
Summary: From the point of view of an historian. . .
Review: . . .this book is unacceptable.I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a clergyman and an historian, with a keen interest and background in Church history. I also keep up-to-date on the various political, social, and religious points of view within Christianity. Any serious scholar (Protestant OR Catholic) who has seriously studied the history of Christianity AND who is familiar with "who is writing what" these days, will immediately recognize that because many of the contributers to this volume are so far out of the mainstream of Catholic thought -- even liberal Catholic thought -- the ultimate usefulness and validity of the entire volume is called into question. Each Christian Church or denomination has its own share of malcontents -- and the Catholic Church is no different. The difference here, is that compared to many other denominations, non-conforming and dissident Catholics are permitted a voice. If the reader doesn't believe me, try publically dissenting from "official" teaching in a liberal Protestant denomination, or in a Fundamentalist church. There are certainly persons within the Catholic Church who disagree with Church teaching on key issues. But this volume would have been far more valuable if it had not limited its contributers to the radical fringe. Sorry -- this isn't the way to properly dissent. No stars. PS (Note to previous reviewer Rev. Chet Scalese -- by her own admission, one of the editors is NOT a Roman Catholic. This book is not a presentation by "honest" Catholics in good standing!)
Rating:
Summary: From the point of view of an historian. . .
Review: . . .this book is unacceptable. I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a clergyman and an historian, with a keen interest and background in Church history. I also keep up-to-date on the various political, social, and religious points of view within Christianity. Any serious scholar (Protestant OR Catholic) who has seriously studied the history of Christianity AND who is familiar with "who is writing what" these days, will immediately recognize that because many of the contributers to this volume are so far out of the mainstream of Catholic thought -- even liberal Catholic thought -- the ultimate usefulness and validity of the entire volume is called into question. Each Christian Church or denomination has its own share of malcontents -- and the Catholic Church is no different. The difference here, is that compared to many other denominations, non-conforming and dissident Catholics are permitted a voice. If the reader doesn't believe me, try publically dissenting from "official" teaching in a liberal Protestant denomination, or in a Fundamentalist church. There are certainly persons within the Catholic Church who disagree with Church teaching on key issues. But this volume would have been far more valuable if it had not limited its contributers to the radical fringe. Sorry -- this isn't the way to properly dissent. No stars. PS (Note to previous reviewer Rev. Chet Scalese -- by her own admission, one of the editors is NOT a Roman Catholic. This book is not a presentation by "honest" Catholics in good standing!)
Rating: 
Summary: Hope for Catholicism
Review: Contrary to those who have criticized this work (probably without even reading it), 'Catholic bashing' is anything but the point to be pressed. This work was written by two Catholic women who strongly believe in their faith. The two authors attempt to point out how the Catholic Church has evolved it's teachings over the years from often times corrupt to a much more compassionate and liberating theology. In many ways this work gives hope to liberal Catholics who are troubled by what seems to be stagnant doctrine and seek change in their faith. The contents include papal words and laws on: infallibility, scriptural interpretation, religious freedom, slavery, women in the clergy, science and much more. Each chapter goes through early church teacings to modern. After reading this work (as a non-Catholic), I have a new found respect for Pope John Paul II and his courage. To those who find 'change' as a threat, I suggest reading the early church teachings and conduct and ask yourself 'Would I honestly wish to live in this realm of thought?' I think we both know the answer.
Rating:
Summary: Malcontents Have Spoken
Review: Fiedler and her "editor" Rabben, or perhaps it should be, "rabid", have written, yet, another unscholarly "hit piece" on the Catholic Church. This is nothing more than a slightly new approach to a tired, old theme. Many examples of the so-called inconsistencies of the Vatican are taken out of context, and needed background information is not provided. Pseudo-scholarship is a good word to describe this book. If it's hate-filled propaganda you want, buy this one !
Rating:
Summary: Hysteria as scholarship.
Review: Let's be honest. The clear purpose of this book is to assault the teaching of the Catholic Church on controverted moral issues, specifically its teaching on contraception, conjugal relations, divorce. To push their case, the usual suspects insist that, gosh, the church changed on issue x in the past, so maybe she'll just change on the pelvic issues in the future. It's not convincing. The treatment of slavery and religious freedom (where the authors claim the church reversed herself) are illustrative. The author of the chapter on slavery claims that the church once supported slavery, but now condemns it. But the selection of texts is truncated and some passages are taken out of context. The fact that the Popes firmly condemned the slave trade when it began (in the sixteenth century) and that Gregory XVI was an early leader in the 19th-century fight to abolish the slave trade is passed over in silence. The same maneuveur is used on religious freedom. Of course, Pius IX and co. condemned "relgious liberty" in the 19th century. But the religious freedom they condemned was the variety promoted by the French Revolution and the anticlerical governments floating from it. This "religious freedom" meant that the individual can believe what she wanted, but there was no freedom to conduct religious schools, enter a religious order, or for a religious group to take a public stand on the issues of this day. As many Vatican II supporters of religious freedom argued (see Cardinal Konig), the religious freedom defended by the Council is completely different than that imposed by the "liberal" republics of the 19th century. There is certainly development of doctrine here, but no contradiction. The book is full of truncated citations, misquotes, and hostle interpretations ripping old phrases out of their social context. The scholarly apparatus is so poor that the curious student would never be able to track down the entire text of many of these controverted documents. Is this suppression of information deliberate? Don't waste your money on this disinformation by Dissent, inc. You'd be wiser to curl up with a fresh copy of Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
Rating: 
Summary: Unchanging Dogma has Metamorphosised as Changelings
Review: One of the myths promulgated within and without the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, is that basic Catholic dogma has not changed in the 2000 years C.E. Those who support this myth, and rank this book with less than 4 stars, will only grant that Catholic Dogma has been refined. Unfortunately, many many doctrines have reversed themselves to remain au courant with changing times, places and mores. This is not a definitive exposition of each and every changing dogma. Instead, a collection of authors, each a recognized expert in their field of competance, has chosen to give a Cliffs Notes summary of the history and present value of various dogmas and doctrines. In other words, this is a Guide to Papal Statments, and a starting place for further research on particular questions. I was particularly pleased to see Diana Hays summary of how the Church has changed on Slavery, and Charles Curran's precis on Religous Freedom. Richard McCormick's piece on Theological Dissent by itself would justify this volume. Charles Davis on Divorce and Remarriage is outstanding from this Advocate/Procurator's view. And these are just a few. There are some articles which do not meet the rigourous standards of the others -- Reuther's five pages are less than insipid. I was particularly happy to find the condemnation of the Magna Charta, albeit the index is absurd. Obviously this book is designed for a one-semester undergraduate course since each section has discussion questions for further inquiry. Like Garry Wills "Life of St. Augustine" "Rome Has Spoken" is an easy Idiot's Guide to Roman Catholic Dogma. Garry Wills "Papal Sin" provides a scholars precis on several of the lightly touched chapters of this book. Tad Szulc's timely "To Kill A Pope" also enlightens one on the abuses of papal temporal power. For those who think dogma has not changed, consider that Jesus condemned Divorce, whereas the modern Church only condemns remarriage after divorce sans Tribunal approval. Both Peter and Paul contravened Jesus, and said it was okay to divorce a non-Catholic, and modern practice says that one may not apply for a Declaration of Nullity until and unless one has first obtained a Civil Divorce. Jesus forbade divorce, modern Rome forbids remarriage. Even St. Augustine divorced his common law wife, at his mother's urging, so that he would be eligible for a more socially acceptable mating, and this was less than 500 years after Jesus forbade divorce. Yes, Roman Catholic practices and beliefs are eternal and unchanging. AMDG
Rating: 
Summary: Telling, but unsympathetic
Review: This book uses two techniques, with differing effects, to illustrate its point. First, it uses actual quotes from past papal and magisterial pronouncements in order to paint a picture of the Church's opinion on any given topic at various times through history. This first technique is admirable and effective. The stars I give are merited because of this, and so the book is a useful reference tool, if nothing else. The actual text of the book comes in the form of commentaries, which follow the aforementioned quotations. This text, as well as the introduction, tell more about the biases of the authors than of the church. Biased though, it may be, the opinions expressed are not invalid. They are, however, unbalanced. In the introduction of the book, the authors identify themselves as largely feminist activists who support new translations of Scripture that attempt to use gender-neutral language in every verse (leaving out he and she, and substituting "spouse" for husband or wife). I fail to see how such relanguaging does anything to help the feminist cause, as it only disguises real sexism that clearly existed in the first century and other times. I also find it curious that, when it suits their needs, Church documents are *not* rewritten in gender neutral terms, presumably so that early church "sexim" can be exposed. While I am sympathetic to the authors' aim at revealing such things, I would much rather they do in an intellectually honest fashion. On the whole, if you are looking for a compendium of actual church documents (no amount of bias has altered the utility of the quotations that make up the lion's share of the book's merit) then this book is worth having. Better yet, once you have the book, look up their quotations for yourself to get a better historical perspective on what they selected.
Rating:
Summary: Telling, but unsympathetic
Review: This book uses two techniques, with differing effects, to illustrate its point. First, it uses actual quotes from past papal and magisterial pronouncements in order to paint a picture of the Church's opinion on any given topic at various times through history. This first technique is admirable and effective. The stars I give are merited because of this, and so the book is a useful reference tool, if nothing else. The actual text of the book comes in the form of commentaries, which follow the aforementioned quotations. This text, as well as the introduction, tell more about the biases of the authors than of the church. Biased though, it may be, the opinions expressed are not invalid. They are, however, unbalanced. In the introduction of the book, the authors identify themselves as largely feminist activists who support new translations of Scripture that attempt to use gender-neutral language in every verse (leaving out he and she, and substituting "spouse" for husband or wife). I fail to see how such relanguaging does anything to help the feminist cause, as it only disguises real sexism that clearly existed in the first century and other times. I also find it curious that, when it suits their needs, Church documents are *not* rewritten in gender neutral terms, presumably so that early church "sexim" can be exposed. While I am sympathetic to the authors' aim at revealing such things, I would much rather they do in an intellectually honest fashion. On the whole, if you are looking for a compendium of actual church documents (no amount of bias has altered the utility of the quotations that make up the lion's share of the book's merit) then this book is worth having. Better yet, once you have the book, look up their quotations for yourself to get a better historical perspective on what they selected.
Rating:
Summary: what?
Review: This book would likely dismay any person even casually versed in the history of Catholicism. To put matters bluntly, the majority of what the authors try to "establish" via their out-of-context and poorly translated gathering of allegedly authoritative "Church pronouncements" (and gravely question-begging commentaries) is just false on its face. What isn't false is seldom helpful or to the point, not least because of the authors' systematic misunderstanding of the Church's own teachings regarding its own infallibility! If one were to set out to write a revisionist history of x, one ought to know the received history of x. Sadly, however, this truism of scholarship seems lost on these editors (and far too many of their contributors). Astute readers would know to be somewhat suspicious at the outset about a work so prone to quote secondary sources on secondary sources, but this sort of "research" comes as no surprise the further one ventures into the world of this book. There's too much to detail any particular topic, but if you're interested in bad history the weirdest of all the weird commentary set forth in this work probably concerns slavery: a bright undergraduate would find refuting the book on these matters a rewarding exercise in criticism, and all without moving beyond papal documents readily available (these days) at a mere keystroke. In short, this book is amusing to read, but lousy at being what it wants to be, namely a history of so-called "moral evolution" in the Catholic Church's defined teachings. Rome Has Spoken begs for solid editorial dismissal, after which we should speak no more about it.
Rating:
Summary: California has spoken
Review: This is a deceptive piece of work. Angry dissenters from Church doctrine attempt to show that the Church has reversed itself on key moral issues, but the methods used fall far below the minimum for theological scholarship. Texts are cited out of context, counter-texts are suppressed, tendentious interpretations are offered which would make the editors of The Wanderer blush. This is pure venom disguised as a theological argument. If you want the real story of what the Catholic Church teaches, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For a serious exploration of how Church doctrine evolves, dust off your Newman.
| 
