Rating: 
Summary: "A History of the Papacy"
Review: Hans Kung's "History of the Catholic Church" is a broad treatment of a much narrower subject, the history of the papacy. Kung convincingly argues that the history of this institution is much different from the myth, that Christ said "Upon this rock I will build my Church," and that there has been an unbroken line of holy men from then until now proclaiming the word of God. Rather, the papacy was a political institution, developed some several hundred years after the death of Christ, in an era where church and state were indistinguishable.Kung takes us through the era of persecution, the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, the invasions and fall of that empire. The pope was a prince like many others, susceptible to being co-opted by warring princes, to being deposed, to gaining and losing territory. Many think of the church as having survived intact through 2,000 years, and use this as a reason to be somewhat complacent about the state of the church today. But Kung reminds us of not only of the Protestant Reformation, the huge split we are familiar with in Western Europe, but also the split with the Eastern Church that occurred much earlier. Is the church headed towards such a split today? Although of course there were many reasons underlying these world-shaking events, Kung places the responsibility for these schisms in large part on the papacy, which in both cases resisted change and insisted on its own primacy and infallibility. Kung also traces the evolution of doctrine along the way. Again, the myth is that doctrine remains unchanged and inviolable down through time, and that the pope is in a sense God's mouthpiece. How then to explain the proclamation of "new" doctrines such as the bodily assumption of Mary to heaven, as late as 1950? Of course infallibility comes in for much criticism from Kung, as well as the new fashion for canonizing a pope's predecessors, who, if half of what Kung writes is true, are hardly candidates for sainthood. Kung of course has an ax to grind, having been a major force in Vatican II, and subsequently having been removed from teaching by the modern successor to the office of the Inquisition. But it is hard to argue with the proposition that the church is a man-made institution. Which of course all churches are--the problem for Catholics is that belief in the Church as an institution is inextricably intertwined with belief in Christ. Must they be?
Rating:
Summary: An honest, if disquieting, look at the great Catholic Church
Review: This is a book worth reading. The number of reviews (48 as I write) demonstrates the controversial nature of this book; the high average rating (in stars) is evidence for its excellence. Some of the criticisms lodged here are quite unfair - while Kung is a rebel within the modern church, the history he writes is accurate if unblinking, and written from a deep love of Christ, and of the true, core church which is biblically-based. Kung is deeply Catholic. The story of papal power is very much at the center of church history, and emphasis on that fact is especially relevant these days. Kung writes his history about what actually was and is, and not history as some people would like to percieve it. So yes, this is a disquieting book. But Kung is part of the "loyal opposition," like Garry Wills (Papal Sin, Why I am a Catholic). In writing this and his other books, in his amazing erudition, passion and deep faith, Kung is one of the theologians who best demonstrates what is great about the Catholic Church. The book is short, and its brevity and controversial nature fit well within the format of this series, although it must then share the faults of all short books on large topics - and some criticisms presented here are actually just reflecting this inevitability. Turn to one of his larger books, and you will see very well-documented treatment of all the topics touched on in this brief history. Don't criticise Kung for what the book had to be to fit into the series. One reviewer wrote, that Kung merely summarizes what Protestants have said since the Reformation." Well in some senses . . . exactly. And the Church still hasn't listened! If the Church had responded to these issues, the Reformation would never have happened. The issues are still there, and the Church is still wrong, encrusted as it is in non-biblically-based dogma and practice. It is untrue to Christ in these respects. Kung does more than summarize, of course, but this and other, similar crticisms (e.g. that Kung is a sexually deprived old man -if so only by living according to his church!- on a vendetta, etc.) are more self-revealing comments than solid criticisms. What they mostly reveal is how uncomfortable reading this book is for many Catholics. That Kung wrote the bulk of this volume prior to the most recent scandals about child abuse by priests validates his critical approach. There are some things very wrong with the church, and this is a church in trouble. Witness not only this scandal but declining participation by laity, and the drastic drop in recruitment of priests and nuns. My advice is, read the book and make up your own mind. But if you do not approach it with an open mind, don't expect to be instructed or swayed by Kung's points.
Rating: 
Summary: Papalcentrism Ad Infinitum, Ad Nauseum
Review: (Papalcentrism to Infinity, to Sickness) The very ironic thing about this book is that while Kung constantly bashes the papacy for what he percieves to be its failures and shortcomings and insists at the end of the book that [Roman] Catholicism is more than its hierarchy, he focuses on little more than the 1500+ year history of the Roman hierarchy! The papacy's claim to be absolute seems to have stuck in Kung's mind well, although he may claim to hate the idea; in reading this book, it is apparent that, at least in Kung's mind, the history of Roman Catholicism consists of little more than the history of the papacy. Of course, few will disagree that the Roman Catholic understanding of the pope as the ultimate authority in the church is one of the most divisive issues in Christianity today. However, surely the history of Roman Catholicism is far more than the history of the papacy! Perhaps it is worth noting that Kung gives neither footnotes nor bibliographical references; although I propose it somewhat humorously, I also write with all seriousness and sincerity that Kung's secrecy about his sources, as well as his refusal to even note a competing view on a controversial topic (such as Pope Pius XII), mirrors quite well the Inquisition and its refusal to allow for counter-testimony or a defense of/by the accused. Like the Inquisition, how am I - or anyone, for that matter - able to know if all that Kung has written is fiction or fact? Kung gives no point/s of reference for his views; he expects them to simply be accepted point-blank. Frankly, if that doesn't sound like Roman authoritarianism, I don't know what does. Kung views the Roman Catholic papacy as having walked the straight and narrow up until about 325 c.e., when the Council of Nicea was convened by the emperor Constantine. Several years after this, when Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople, the popes - the bishops of Rome - began to try and fill the socio-cultural-political vacuum left by Constantine's absence by asserting their primacy over the rest of the Church. Kung notes that this was a deviation from the norm, but that the deviation was only sporadic; it didn't really get into full swing until after Gregory the Great (late 6th century). Of course, like all deviations, it developed over time. Kung notes these developments from their beginning through their climax in 1410 when three rival popes had been elected but none of them were willing to step down, despite the havoc that this was having on the Catholic Church. Of course, by this time the papacy had become so deeply entwined in politics that its fundamentally religious orientation had become quite marred by a history of illegitimate children, mistresses, wives, political intrigues, scandals and injustices. Up until this point, aside from a few pages devoted to St. Augustine and a few other pages devoted to St. Thomas Aquinas (and only to their ideas that contributed to the rise of the papacy rather than even a brief summary of the life work of each!), the broader history of the church - that is, the people who make up the church - is not touched upon. Well, enter the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. The response of the Roman Catholic church towards these cultural shifts was wrong (well, at least in Kung's view) on all counts. Kung thinks that the correct answer/s to these cultural shifts would have been modernizing - that is, *following* the culture and changing with (in reality, after) the culture. Kung does not explain why this would have been a good idea or even the best (let alone correct!) approach (which, again, sounds a bit authoritarian to me). Of peculiar note is Kung's writing that papal infallibility made little sense in the light of evolution and Darwinism, yet he fails to explain why (p. 162). Frankly, it's a fascinating claim that papal infallibility should incorporate Darwinism so as to "make sense", but what exactly that means and how exactly it should have played out is anyone's guess. However, it is another opportunity for Kung to criticize the Roman Catholic papacy, regardless of how poorly explained or illogical his point may be. Skipping down a bit, Kung gets to Vatican II, the Roman Catholic church counsel that modernized much of Roman Catholicism, which he himself participated in. For Kung, Vatican II didn't turn out the way it should have and at this critical juncture Kung not only promotes two of his own books but also portrays himself as a hero and martyr; he writes that his 1970 book Infallibility? "had to be written" (p. 189). Not only is the entire history proposed by Kung one of constant failure, but as he ends it he promotes himself as a type of prophet, writing and saying things that "had" to have been written and said! The word "egotistical" comes to mind all too quickly. Kung's history of the Roman Catholic church ends with two points: he calls for an end to priestly celibacy and a reform of the ministry of the bishops. Kung promotes the view that celibacy will end most of the problems in the priesthood, particularly those relating to the recent crisis in the United States of priests that have been serial child molestors. While on the one hand this sounds nice and dandy, it seems to me to also be incredibly naive: nevermind that we have absolutely no scientific - biological-genetic or social - evidence to validate this claim. And, while those priests who are twisted may provide a fascinating, relevant and insightful study of human sexuality, to assume that serial child molestation is linked to celibacy not only seems silly but absolutely insulting to the victims themselves: it is not a perverted priest's fault, but an institution that made him that way. Such an explanation is less than compelling and is really rather repulsive. Sadly enough, I don't know where exactly to recommend someone else go to read a succinct history of the Roman Catholic church. Of course, if you are interested in Roman Catholicism you could read the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains the teachings of the faith in full. And, unlike Kung's work, the Catechism is both well-referenced and footnoted.
Rating:
Summary: Well told but one sided story.
Review: This short book provides a very readable and helpful overview of the history of the Catholic Church, and particularly the Papacy, from the Apostle Peter to the current Pope, John Paul II. As a Protestant without a lot of background in Catholic history, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and learned a lot from it. But as other reviews have noted, it is hardly an unbiased account. It presents the very unflattering story of a power-hungry papacy that has decreed itself infallible out of whole cloth, discriminates horribly against women, insists against all reason and Biblical authority on the celibacy of the clergy, and is simply hopelessly mired in the Middle Ages. Because I lean liberal, I found myself agreeing with Kung at every turn. But I have the distinct feeling that I've heard only one side of the story--that there must be another more devout and wholesome side to the story of the Catholic Church that Kung did not see fit to dwell upon. I'd like to know the rest of the story.
Rating: 
Summary: This should not be called the "Catholic Church". . .
Review: this should be called "Evil Popes: A Short History" or "Indescretions of the Church Heirarchy: A Short History." This book is so one-sided, so leftist, and so irresponsible, it is hard to take seriously. The Catholic Church is the people who make it up, not the church heirarchy. To equate Catholic History solely with the popes, many of whom were admittedly disgraceful, non-Christian people, is wrong. It paints a poor picture of the church and all the members of it. In a church with a 2000 year history, all Kung can find to talk about is the bad that it has done. I guess a book regarding the good that has been done would be much too long. For example, Kung alludes to the fact that the Church was an enabler of the holocaust. Yet, he never mentions the fact that Catholics were also murdered and persecuted in the Holocaust and he does not mention the good that Pius XII did during this time (i.e. saving Jews and promoting peace). This is the type of one-sided revisionist "history" that this book is. I am not so naive as to think that the church has not rightfully received much of its criticism; however, these bad points are a very small part of the church as the whole, and it is this small part that Kung's book almost solely focuses on. This book is saved by the last fifth (the 20th century). Kung offers great insight in regards to how the church needs to change and how individuals, on a community level, are the ones who are making the difference and giving all Catholics hope. He offers a number of statistics that show that the majority of Catholics are in direct oppostion to the papacy on many issues. Essentially, he concludes that the current papacy does not listen to its people, but merely governs according to antiquated, self-serving interests. It's just too bad that Kung didn't spend more time on this line of thought.
Rating:
Summary: An appropriate and timely look into church history
Review: While, as another reviewer indicated, anyone familiar with Church history will not be thrilled by new revelations, this book's review of history takes an unusually critical perspective from within Roman Catholic Christianity. Kung's writing is flawless, bringing a fresh taste of excitement where history runs dry. The aim of this book is similar to other works by Kung (a now-discredited Roman Catholic theologian), in that it attempts to expose the hypocrisy and problems of Papal infallibility and its practice. In fact, i cannot think of a writer that has harped this particular theme more elegantly than Kung, except maybe Martin Luther. And short of accusing the Papalcy of being the anti-christ as Luther does, Kung's distaste for its errors and inappropriate teachings throughout history raises relevant questions about the state of Papal power today, if not its relevance altogether.
Rating:
Summary: thought provoking, informative, but light on details
Review: this was a well written, very interesting book that gave me a pretty good overview of the history of post-Jesus Christianity and the Catholic Church. i still see myself looking for a more traditional history book on this topic, though, as the author focussed more on the effects of actions and events on the church more so than the actions and events themselves. the author also assumes a certain level of understanding of the Catholic Church and it's structure, which made some of the passages tough to navigate. one warning- have a dictionary at hand- i've never even seen some of the words he uses!
Rating:
Summary: A personal review
Review: The Kung history is disappointing to say the least. It seems to start out being fairly objective and accurate but about midway through it becomes a biased diatribe against the very organization that has given him, and similar parasites, sustenance and a forum that they would not have achieved in the real world. He says nothing good about the church for its 1950 year history. He says virtually nothing about Christ or his teachings either. He is absorbed in the politics and personalities of the past and twists everything to suit his personal vendetta. He tells us in the Introduction that he will write this history "without making use of scholarly ballast(there are no notes and no bibliographic references)." This is a shame, because as a scientist I find such things not only useful, but vital to help ascertain the truth, if the truths really exists. By this statement he clear himself of any accountability. Every page contains points that could be refuted or argued in the opposite way. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. He frequently makes use of lists in enumerating the failures and shameful epochs in the church history (not unlike the crack-pot Malachi Martin used to do in his early books such as "The Last Conclave", "Three Popes and the Cardinal" and "The Final Conclave"). The Inquisition figures in most of these lists. The popular image of the Inquisition is one of iron maidens and the rack and burning at the stake. There was some of that, but not as much by a long shot as we are led to believe. See "The Spanish Inquisition" by Kuman for an in-depth scholarly research work into the subject, it has footnotes and bibliographic references. We find out later that Kung himself was a victim of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, the modern vestige of the Inquisition. He was banned from teaching for some unspecified reason. Hence his bitterness. The Kung history seems to violate the rule that to judge the past we must have lived in the past. He can interpret the past all he wants to, but he should not judge it. The Crusades seemed like the only way to rescue the tomb of Christ from the Infidels at the time. If today it is not politically correct to say anything good about the Crusades, so be, it still does not change the thought patterns of the past which we cannot possibly ever understand. It is a shame that the Kung history does not present a scholarly format. This is the first, and hopefully the last book by him that most people will read. Some will go away pleased that this disgruntled, sexually deprived old man supports all they believe, some with a more critical bent will scratch their heads and consign the book to the nearest recycling center and at least do the environment some good.
Rating:
Summary: The Lion in Winter
Review: There is an element of this work that reminds me of the college freshman who turned in a five-page, double-spaced entry entitled "A History of Western Civilization." Professor Kung has to be pulling our leg by attaching such a title upon a modest 206-page paperback. Having read the book, I now realize the work is misnamed. It is a historical essay, not a chronicle. It is not a treatment of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather of the emergence of the centralized governing style of the western or Roman Catholic system. And, though good folks may argue this point, it is more of a critique or commentary than objective overview. Anone who has followed Kung's brilliant academic career, involvement in Vatican II, controversial writings, struggles with the Vatican, and persecution by the Catholic Right probably has a fair sense of the author's outlook upon the present magisterial papacy. I have read that in his day Kung was a formidable tennis player. Certainly he has been the John McEnroe of the Vatican II generation of theological greats. His emphases upon church structure, reform, and ecumenism have been delivered over the years with the subtlety of a steam piston engine; even his habit of referring to popes by their last names ["the Montini pope"] carries a grating edge, and no one can deny that the Vatican has returned the favor. But surprisingly, as the Swiss Lion enters the sunset years of his life, the beliefs are still there but the mood is different, certainly in this work. What should we call it-sadness? Nowhere is this better exemplified than in his 2002 epilogue to the original work, added at the height of the priest pedophelia controversy. The piece adds nothing insightful to the general work or to the controversy at hand and in fact makes some arguments that stretch credulity to the breaking point. It is part "I told you so" and part "Is this what we have to show for forty years of reform?" If anything, the epilogue explains the book: the author's central thesis being that a powerful papacy and genuine reform are antithetical. As a history text this work highlights what the author sees as major exertions of centralized power and their generally doleful outcomes, or on the other hand, notable papal omissions [pre-Luther inactivity regarding church reform, Pius XII and the Jews, etc.] He argues-as have many others-that there is little or no justification for the shape of the present papacy and curia based upon biblical or postapostolic writings or practice. I do not see that this work will move many readers from either strong papalist camps [if they read this work at all] or add much to the weaponry of those who share a concern that monarchical popes such as John Paul II create organizational and spiritual paralysis at the grassroots level. It has been my experience that reformers are not always competent sociologists, and in reacting to this work the thoughtful reader may legitimately ask from time to time what form of church organization and governance would best serve the faithful. Kung is not clear on this point, and in his preoccupation with the Curia he does tend to overlook the historical sins of religious orders and dioceses, or tends to see them as organic outcroppings of papal excesses. In its own way this work is excessively clerical, overlooking one of the very elementary principles of Vatican II, the baptismal power and responsibility of the laity. In the United States, for example, where the focus of lay theological interest seems to be the availability of convenient parking for Mass, it would seem rather heavy handed to place all ownership of spiritual mediocrity upon popes and bishops. Perhaps the general indifference of laity after forty years brings a sadness to the Swiss Lion that he cannot yet put to paper in old age.
Rating:
Summary: First half of book very good
Review: The first half of this book is an excellent introduction to the history of Christianity. The second half reflects the author's conflicts with the catholic church. All in all, a good short history of Christianity and Catholicism, although some may be turned off by the second half. Otherwise, it would have gotten 5 stars.
|
