[.ca] The Catholic Church: A Short History (ISBN 0812967623)

From Amazon.com:
Hans Kung's The Catholic Church: A Short History is a small masterpiece of historical and theological writing. Kung fairly and comprehensively presents almost 2,000 years of Church history in a mere 207 pages. He begins with Jesus, who "radiated a democratic spirit in the best sense of the word" and "did not proclaim a church, nor did he proclaim himself, but the kingdom of God." Throughout, in his analysis of every phase of Church history, Kung builds a case for a populist church, challenging the idea of a hierarchical Roman Catholic Church led by an infallible pope. The book concludes with a harsh analysis of the Church's betrayal of Vatican II. Kung, the primary writer of Vatican II, was censured by the Vatican in 1979 for questioning Church doctrine and banned from teaching as a Catholic theologian. Here, Kung levels particular criticism toward Pope John Paul II, whose primary accomplishment, he argues, has been to revive a "conservative and authoritarian" spirit in the Church. The pope's conservative views on the ordination of women, sexual morality, mixed marriages, and ecumenism draw Kung's fire. He calls for nothing less than a new Vatican council in order to bring the Church hierarchy back in line with the Church faithful. The view of the papacy held by the Catholic Church fellowship, oriented on the New Testament, is different from that of the Roman church bureaucracy. It is the view of a pope who is not over the church and the world in place of God, but in the church as a member (instead of the head) of the people of God. The Catholic Church is the best history of the Church in many years. Unlike many such books, it is written clearly enough to be understood by lay readers, regardless of their knowledge of Christian history; and it is short enough that it can be read in a day or two. Furthermore, Kung's controversial views are not presented as mere polemic. They are grounded in objective historical facts. Thus, he succeeds in providing a history that is both committed and objective. Readers who share those commitments will find a trove of knowledge to support their beliefs; readers who disagree will be moved to consider carefully the question of whether and how the Church should be further reformed. --Michael Joseph Gross

"A History of the Papacy":
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?

This should not be called the "Catholic Church". . .:
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.

An honest, if disquieting, look at the great Catholic Church:
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.

This is a Manifesto, not a History:
This book is not a History. It presents Kung's view that the Church is man-made and corrupt beyond measure, with some common myths about the Church, for example he suggests that: -Jesus never intended such a hierarchy -the Church did not speak out against the WWII Holocaust -the Inquisition was all about killing Jews -ordination of women would be good for the Church Although selling itself as a "Short History", this book is in fact a manifesto for a secular liberal overhaul of Holy Mother Church. Kung's final chapter is a long list of Magisterial changes that he advocates for. He would replace the Kingship of Christ with a democracy. This is not appropriate for a history book. As you can tell, I am Catholic and I disagree strongly with Kung. Good on him if he wants to write a book espousing his views, but he shouldn't pretend that it is a "Short History" when in fact it is a "Short Manifesto". Instead, I recommend "A Short History of the Catholic Church" by Orlandis for a sensible history, or "Triumph: The Power ad the Glory of The Catholic Church" by Crocker for an ardently pro-Catholic history.

Claims to be Catholic, but...:
...he is pro-abortion!! It was his obstinate denial of the 2000-year-old basic tenets of the Catholic faith that got his teachings banned by the Church. Just remember that obstinate denial of what he denies incurs a latae sententiae excommunication--an automatic excommuncation. If you like him, then that's fine. But don't be fooled: he is not a Catholic.