A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present

The Jesuit researcher John O'Malley presents us with an OK book. It's well researched, and contains a lot of good facts and stories about some popes. The problem is that he seems to choose some just for the opportunity to bash them. He picks up some popes that are very important to some key moments of the Church's history. But others do seem to be there just to give the book some more "juice".The other fact is the research itself. Since its purpose seems to be presenting a lot of facts, even quotes and what sometimes seem to be anecdotes (but all presented like unquestionable truth), a larger index of sources would have been better. There are just a few notes at the end, and some are just to point to which encyclical it belongs to. And some are just quotes from other modern writers, like Peter Hebblethwaite. It seems odd to have so few notes, and it can make you few like you are reading an extract from Hebblethwaite's book.The author is obviously a liberal. Maybe more than a moderate liberal. His analysis of the Popes since Leo XIII is somehow disturbing. He picks his favorites and tries to find a way to present a problem in the others. His critique of Saint Pius X is just the usual liberal rant, and most of that is baseless. What strikes as more absurd is exactly that he can stop being analytical and just offer plain opinion. But just when he doesn't agree with that particular pope. I'll quote some passages just to prove my point. About Saint Pius X, when he states that his fight against "modernism" started an epidemic banning of books, or worst. First of all, it has no sources for that. And it's the first book that I've read that puts something like that in such words. And he states: "With more than a grain of truth it has been described as a reign of terror". Talk about bashing and taking sides, huh? A reign of terror? What an exaggeration. And said by whom, we imagine?Things get worst (if you can believe). In the chapter about Pope Benedict XV, he states that Pope Pius X sent him to Bologna, but didn't make him a cardinal "because he distrusted him", and goes on to state that making the person in charge of the see of Bologna was "usually automatic". OK, did I miss anything? Usually automatic doesn't mean that it was a rule. Or that it happened every time. It says that it could happen. Let's make this clear. If it was automatic for every other archbishop before him, O'Malley is not precise in his writing. If he knew that it was not a rule (it is not!), he just found a way of bashing Pius X some more, even in the next pope's chapter. And come on. Where did he get that Pius distrusted the future Benedict? By the way, there are no sources for anything in this chapter of the book.His careless writing gets another shot on Pius XII's chapter. He says that, these days, Pius reputation hinges on "his failure forcefully to condemn the holocaust...". He could have made more clear that it's an alleged failure. One that is not supported by the facts. Something that even he, although not that forcefully, states in other parts of the chapter. It's bad for a priest, and a scholar, not to be more clear about this episode.Even on Pope John XXIII's chapter he drops the ball. Not on the pope's biography, a liberal would never do that (and Pope John was indeed a saint that deserves all the praise, even from non-liberals like myself). But when he talks about the council that elected him. Again he makes bad conjectures just to try to bring new light to a point. Everybody knows that the future pope Paul VI was considered for pope in John's election. And he was discarded because he was an archbishop, and not yet a cardinal. But O'Malley goes again with another assertions that finds no eco in the facts. He says that the future Paul VI was considered "because there were no strong candidates". On the contrary. Pope John was elected exactly because there were too many strong candidates, and no compromise could be found. The struggle between the conservative and the liberal cardinals was so strong that they chose John XXIII to put him as a stop-gap pope (how wrong they were), and try again when the college of cardinals would have a different arrangement.Of course, things get worse in John Paull II's chapter, when the author goes all in. He follows the now obvious and boring rant of the liberals that JPII concentrated too much power on himself, and demanded blind obedience. As he puts it: "cost what it may". So he calls the pope's alleged iron fist as "petty obstinacy unworthy of JPII". He then goes on to make a ridiculous pseudo-psychoanalysis of the pope, stating that having survived the assassination attempt by the communists only strengthened the popes vision of a special mission for himself, and that only made him more authoritarian. Now wait a minute. Talk about petty obstinacy. Is the author so desperate to make a case for JPII authoritarian vein that he tries his hand in third class psychology? And based on what? Funny, there are no sources for this chapter. So he is just making that up and stating an opinion that is ridiculous for a book like this, that poses as a scholar's book. He just forgets it all and go after what he doesn't like. A shame that this need is so strong that tarnishes what could have been a better book.The end of the book is probably worse still. He tries once again to shout that the popes have concentrated too much power on their hands, and uses the election again. But he says that power used to be shared, and betrays himself by citing emperors, kings, and whoever could do it centuries before. But, was that a good thing? It bothers me that a priest, just to try to prove a point against the popes from his age, say that it was a good thing to let people outside the church to participate in the choice of the next pope.He then says that the church, today, basically is Ultramontanist. This is rubbish of the worst sort. Even Papal Infallibility, the flag of those accusing the church of ultramontanism, has nothing to do with the movement really thought about it. No pope claimed infallibility for his every act. In fact, the last popes always stated their fallible nature. Infallibility was only used as such by Pius XII, and that was before Vatican II and the true "universalization" of the church.And he goes all-in to close the book stating that when Jesus said that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it", he meant the church (obvious), and that the popes have a penchant for confusing it with themselves. Oh, come on. That is a low punch. And of a very low quality one. From a catholic to diminish so much the role of the pope is troubling. For an author pretending to write about the history of the popes, is even worse.Let's make it clear: it's a book against the papacy. It tries very hard to focus on the bad, and when he can't, he just makes it up, or misrepresent it with no second thought. In the course of it, he gives some interesting facts about the old papacy, especially about a millennium ago. If you can separate the good from the bad, it's worth the money. If you are going to read and believe it blindly, or if you know nothing about it, don't waste your time. It will pollute your mind with his personal opinions. And he is not afraid to throw them disguised as facts.

With all of the recent historical news coming out of the Vatican recently, starting with Pope Benedict XVI's resignation, the first pope to do so in almost 600 years, to the also historic election of Pope Francis who claims a number of firsts for the papacy, I had become more interested in learning about the institution.The papacy itself is one of the most enduring institutions in Western civilization having been in existence for around 2000 years. Starting with Saint Peter, the papacy has endured to the present day. With such a long history there are many interesting stories surrounding it and the men who have been pope.Despite the current job description of the pope, the papacy used to be a very powerful position, especially during the Middle Ages. Popes could create and depose emperors and kings and launch holy wars. Not only were they seen as a religious leader, but also, for about 1000 years, the pope was also a monarch as head of the Papal States, a sovereign country formerly located in central Italy. Because of these historical aspects, even if you are not Catholic, understanding the papacy is critical to understanding human history, especially the history of Europe.As it currently stands, the Catholic Church officially lists 266 popes and the book seeks out to look at the most interesting ones. Some of the popes were truly great men who tried to do the right thing in their position while some were truly despicable who instead abused their position, plus many in between. The book paints the many popes for what they were: human. They had flaws, but even that should not take away from the truly great popes.I thought this book did a good job of explaining and exploring the most important events in papal history. Of course there are some compromises that had to be made in order to look at the history of 265 (or so) popes over 2000 years.My only real criticism is that the book, like some history books, falls too deeply into recent history. Popes such as John XXIII and John Paul II get their own chapters. Yes, there is more information about the most recent popes available, but I feel that a more balanced approach would have been better.All in all, I enjoyed this book and learned some interesting things about the history of papacy. I would recommend this book to those interested in popes and their place in history.

Very well done, informed, and readable history of the papacy. As O'Malley notes, the history of the papacy is not the history of Catholicism. What a remarkable path. As a Catholic, I cannot marvel at how we have managed to continue despite some of the paths we have taken and the church leaders we have had. Such a book is a measure of the man who wrote it and the Church has been blessed by Fr O'Malley's scholarship.

A History of the Popes: From Peter to the Present is an insightful look into the Roman Catholic Church by way of the men who have held the papacy. It is objectively written by a scholar whose priestly order, the Jesuits, have taken a special vow of obedience to the pope. I have read Absolute Monarchs by John Julius Norwich and use The Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D. Kelly for reference. Nothing in A History of the Popes by John W. O'Malley, SJ, contradicts those other two sources. But as a Catholic priest and teacher himself, writing an historical narrative, Fr. O'Malley brings out the theological and ecclesial or church meaning of things...the good, safvific and inspiring along with the sinful, appalling and more than worthy of condemnation. He sketches a human institution with a spiritual purpose, in part, an institution that in part also is purposed to continue itself. Is the Roman Catholic Church living up to the directive of its founder, Jesus Christ, recorded in Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"? An insightful book.

I read this book as a non-Catholic who believes that this church has strayed significantly from the principles set forth by Jesus and the apostles. I believe it confirms that quite thoroughly with even a white-washed presentation of the facts demonstrating that many popes were as far removed from Christ as any human could be. The author is to be commended for not attempting to hide the facts entirely and not much more could be expected from a dedicated Catholic writer. The book does a good job of presenting the problems that ensue when church and state become entwined as happened at the time of Constantine. It also helps one understand better the challenges the church faced once it became political and once the pope decided to assert his claim of preeminence over all bishops. While much of what I read disgusts me, I keep in mind that this is the church that carried Christianity forward to a later time when it could be reformed and I don't doubt that many popes had good intentions and have done good deeds. Perhaps some were even "saints". This book is worth the money.

J. W. O'Malley has the gift of portraying briefly and piquantly the larger trends in a long and complex history whileI portraying the personalities of some of the major popes.