Abstract: ONE of the most pressing questions that faced the Roman Catholic Church in colonial Mexico was that of a native clergy. In an effort to resolve it, both Church and state groped toward a policy that would reconcile the conflicting demands of Christian idealism and social reality. Eventually an accommodation was reached, but the process that led to it was remarkably complex. The confusion and difficulties that surrounded the issue can be seen most clearly in the history of the legislation of the bishops of New Spain regarding the ordination to the priesthood of Indians and castas (mixedbloods), specifically mestizos. Johann Specker has distinguished three stages in the Church's approach to the ordination of non-Europeans in Spanish America.1 The first stage, roughly from 1524 to 1555, was one of idealism and was characterized by the first moves toward an Indian clergy. It ended in failure. This stage included the famous Franciscan college at Tlatelolco and is the one that has been most studied. The second stage was that of formal exclusion, specifically as found in the legislation of the Mexican Church Councils of 1555 and 1585. The third stage, which began toward the end of the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the period of practical accommodation, when in some way or another Indians and persons of mixed ancestry began to enter the ranks of the clergy.2

Abstract: This book examines the role of the Dutch Catholic church, and especially of the bishops, in ensuring the solidarity of the Catholic subculture for so many years and, more remarkably, in promoting drastic social and political changes after Vatican II. This development transformed one of the most orthodox churches in Western Europe into the most radical and, as Professor Bakvis demonstrates, led to the decline and fall of the largest political party in the Netherlands. The author also discusses the recent formulation of the Christian Democratic party and the impact of John Paul II's pontificate. He has drawn upon interviews with priests and politicians, as well as survey and ecological data, in his portrayal of life inside the Catholic subculture at both the grass-roots and the elite levels. The result is a substantial contribution to our understanding of the interaction of religion and politics in a plural society and the sources of party loyalty and subcultural cohesion.

Abstract: When George Cardinal Mundelein of Chicago built his massive major seminary of St. Mary of the Lake in the 1920s, he designed its facades on early American, neoclassic lines, but he molded the seminary rules from Roman models. The exterior of the seminary library resembled Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia, but the interior was an exact replica of the Barberini Palace in Rome. American on the outside, but Roman to the core-this had been the goal of the American Catholic church from the days of John Carroll's consecration as first bishop in 1789. The leaders of the Catholic minority tried to forge a community that was different in values from the American norm, but not too foreign, a community separate but equal.' Remaining separate was not difficult for a church composed largely of immigrants. Builder bishops and brick-and-mortar priests raised enough churches and parochial schools in the nineteenth century to ensure a separate institutional base for Catholics. Doctrinal intransigence and puritanical morals also kept Catholics distinctive in a Protestant but increasingly secular nation. Yet until well into the twentieth century, American Catholics did not feel equal to other Americans or even to other Catholics elsewhere in the world. Though the Catholic community was the largest American religious denomination as early as 1850, it lacked status and respect, both in Rome and in America. Rome considered the United States a mission territory as late as 1908, and in its mediation of various church disputes in the nineteenth century, the Roman Congregation of the Propaganda, which administered the church in mission lands, consistently misunderstood events in America. American Protestants, for their part, feared and mistrusted the Catholic church as an un-American invader of the Republic.2

Abstract: It is difficult, if not impossible, to speak of a "Catholic" policy towards Jerusalem, Zionism or Israel without careful limitations. From a strictly tlheological point of view, Jerusalem, to say nothing of Zionism or Israel, is hardly a matter which would come under the heading of faith. Thus, unlike Islam, which from a theological point of view ascribes an obligation of pilgrimage upon believers, there is no such prescription in the Catlholic faith. Althouglh over the centuries various interpretations of Scripture have referred to a return of the Jewish people to Zion prior to the end of time, this esclhatological position can be interpreted either literally or figuratively. From a strictly juridical point of view, the Catlholic Clhurch, as embodied in its hierarchical structure lheaded by the Pope and situated in tlle sovereign State of Vatican City, is free to take any position relative to Jerusalem, Israel or Zionism. As head of the Catholic Church, the Pope might also deal witlh moral issues involving lhuman or civil rights or respect for Church property. At the same time, national hierarclies grouped in bishops' conferences might well assert a "Catlholic" position on a local matter toucling faitlh or morals. Individual clerics, from priest to bishop, archibislhop, or cardinal, miglht, like any other individual Catholic, express an opinion relevant to faitlh, morals or politics, but none of these could be interpreted as the position of the Catholic Clhurclh. In this brief presentation, the subject of investigation is the position of the Vatican on the question of Jerusalem, from a juridical, diplomatic point

Abstract: This intriguing study shows that a religious revolt, spurred by deep divisions within the church, followed the princely and parlementary rebellions of the French civil war known as the Fronde. The cures vied with the crown, the bishops, and the Jesuits for control of the parishes. In examining the Fronde, Golden demonstrates the connection between Janenism, Richerism, and ecclesiastical politics and how it shaped the rule of Louis XIV and the role of the cures in the French Revolution.Originally published in 1981.A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

Abstract: THE notion dies hard that Arminianism in early seventeenth century England was ‘a catch-all term of abuse’ expressing ‘rather vague fears of a group of theologians who, by their emphasis upon the sacraments, ceremonial, and the iure divino status of bishops, seemed to be taking the Church back towards Rome’.1 For such is the combined voice of Professor Kenyon, in his new Pelican history of Stuart England, and of Dr. Foster the modern biographer of Richard Neile, ultimately Archbishop of York and reputedly a great patron of English Arminian clergy. Yet there exists abundant evidence to show that it was precisely the anti-determinist views of the Dutch Arminius which Englishmen had in mind when they complained, with increasing vehemence, about the emergence of home-grown Arminianism. A good example of this usage is William Prynne’s book The Church of England’s Old Antithesis to New Arminianisme, first published in 1629, which seeks to vindicate the orthodoxy of the English Church from those who intrude ‘the Arminian doctrines of free will, the resistabil- ity of grace, conditionall, yea mutable election, with total and final apostacie from the state of grace’. According to Prynne, a common lawyer, the very title deeds of ‘our salvation’ were at stake.2 More-

Abstract: In 1859 Charles Robert Darwin, well-known Victorian traveller, authority on barnacles, and long-time recluse, published his epoch-making work: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Neither Darwin nor biology were ever quite the same again. Denounced by bishops, defended by scientists, satirized by novelists, Darwin’s major claim — that the whole organic world, right up to and including ourselves, is the product of a slow, natural, ‘evolutionary’ process — rapidly became one of the most controversial issues of the day (Ruse, 1979a). And yet, Darwin and his ideas stood their ground, gradually winning support. From beingiheresy they became, if not orthodoxy, almost respectable. When Darwin died in 1882, less than a quarter-century after the Origin appeared, he was carried to his grave by two dukes and an earl, past, present and future presidents of the Royal Society, and the American Minister (F. Darwin, 1887). Significantly and appropriately, he rests in that English Valhalla, Westminster Abbey, but a few feet from Isaac Newton.

Abstract: Third General Conference of Latin American Bishops. Puebla. Evangelisation at Present and in the Future of Latin America. Conclusions. St Paul Publications and Catholic Institute for International Relations. 1980. pp ix + 220. £4.25. - Reflections on Puebla. CIIR. 1980 pp 56 £1.00. - Volume 62 Issue 731