GENERAL INDEX
Volume 102 (2016)
Compiled by
Orysia Mack
Abbreviations:
annot.: annotated
bio.: biography
b.n.: brief notice
collab.: collaborators
ed.: editor
introd.: introduction
men.: mentioned
obit.: obituary
rev.: review
trans.: translator
Abyssinian Baptist Church
men., 191–92
Æthelwold, Saint
men., 284–317
Agnes, Saint
men., 665
Al Kalak, Matteo, and Ilaria Pavan
Un’altra fede. Le Case dei catecumeni nei
territori estensi (1583–1938), rev.,
129–30
Alexander, John
Rev. of J. M. DeSilva, ed., 836–37
Ambrosini, Federica
Una gentildonna davanti al Sant’Uffizio:
Il processo per eresia a Isabella della
Frattina, 1568–1570, rev., 414–
15
American Academy in Rome
Sponsors Greek paleography course, 444
American Catholic Historical Association
Awards for 2017 meeting announced,
876
Citations from awards at 2016 meeting,
216–20
Planning 2017 meeting, 216
Anastasakis, Panteleymon
The Church of Greece under Axis
Occupation, rev., 185–86
Anderson, Bentley, S.J.
New term as ACHA executive secretary
and treasurer, 216
Andrade, António de, S.J.
men., 26–45

Andrea, Alfred J., and Andrew Holt, ed.
and introd.
Seven Myths of the Crusades, rev., 593–94
Andreassi, Anthony D., C.O.
Teach Me to Be Generous: The First
Century of Regis High School in New
York City, rev., 430–32
Andrews, Robert
obit. of D. D. Martin, 227–29
Angenendt, Arnold
Offertorium: Das mittelalterliche Meßopfer,
rev., 592–93
Anglican-Catholic ecumenism
men., 178–80
Anglo-Saxon religion
men., 284–317
Anti-Catholicism
men., 517–44, 861–62
Antisemitism
men., 223, 706–08, 801–04, 808–09,
812, 839
Aquinas, Thomas, Saint
men., 154–55
Aquino, Frederick D., and Benjamin J.
King, eds.
Receptions of Newman, rev., 848–50
Argentina
men., 649–50, 771–98
Ariosto, Ludovico
men., 222
Aston, Nigel
Rev. of C. M. S. Johns, 625–27
Rev. of T. Tackett, 845–47

vi

GENERAL INDEX

Augustine of Hippo, Bishop and Saint
men., 173–75, 223, 376–77,828
Augustinian order
men., 223
Austin, Kenneth
Rev. of L. Baschera, B. Gordon, and C.
Moser, eds., 411–12
Avella, Steven M.
Confidence and Crisis: A History of the
Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 1959–1977,
rev., 434–36
Bailey, Michael D.
Rev. of S. P. Marrone, 372–73
Ballantyne, Tony
Entanglements of Empire: Missionaries,
Māori, and the Question of the Body,
rev., 658–59
Bargellini, Clara
Rev. of S. L. Stratton-Pruitt, ed.; J. de
Bustamante, org., 438–39
Barocci, Federico
men., 617–19
Barr, Colin, and Hillary M. Carey, eds.
Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity
and Irish Global Networks 1750–1950,
rev., 847–48
Barth, Karl
men., 422–23
Baschera, Luca, Bruce Gordon, and
Christian Moser, eds.
Following Zwingli: Applying the Past in
Reformation Zurich, rev., 411–12
Bauer, Stefan
Rev. of B. Wagner, ed.; D. Booton et al.,
trans., 164–65
Baumgartner, Frederic J.
Rev. of J. Bergin, 416–17
Beaken, Robert
The Church of England and the Home
Front, 1914–1918: Civilians, Soldiers
and Religion in Wartime Colchester,
rev., 854–56
Bede, Venerable
men., 212
Beguines
men., 155–57, 394–95
Bell, James B.
Rev. of K. J. Dellape, 188–89
Benedict XIV, Pope
men., 687–711
Benedictine order
men., 127, 201–02, 814–19
Berg, Scott
Receives 2015 Peter Guilday Prize for
“Seeing Prussia through Austrian
Eyes: The Kölner Ereignis and Its

Significance for Church and State in
Central Europe,” 217–18
Bergin, Joseph
The Politics of Religion in Early Modern
France, rev., 416–17
Berns, Andrew D.
2016 Marraro Prize winner for The Bible
and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance
Italy, 876
Bianchini, Janna
Rev. of E. Casteen, 832–33
Bible
men., 340–68, 860
Biddle, Cordelia Frances
Saint Katharine: The Life of Katharine
Drexel, rev., 428–30
Billett, Jesse D.
The Divine Office in Anglo-Saxon
England, 597–c. 1000, rev., 143–44
Bireley, Robert, S.J.
Rev. of P. Oberholzer, S.J., ed., 838–
40
Bitel, Lisa M.
Our Lady of the Rock: Vision and
Pilgrimage in the Mojave Desert, rev.,
869–70
Black, Joseph L., ed.; R .J. Fehrenbach,
gen. ed.
Private Libraries in Renaissance England:
A Collection and Catalogue of Tudor and
Early Stuart Book-Lists. Vol. VIII:
PLRE 167–260, rev., 410–11
Bláhová, Marie
Rev. of L. Wolverton, 384–86
Blair-Dixon, Kate
Rev. of G. D. Dunn, ed., 135–36
Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Renate
The Strange Case of Ermine de Reims: A
Medieval Woman between Demons and
Saints, rev., 398–99
Blumenthal, Uta-Renate
Rev. of G. Drossbach, ed., 598–99
Boehringer, Letha, Jennifer Kolpacoff
Deane, and Hildo van Engen, eds.
Labels and Libels: Naming Beguines in
Northern Medieval Europe, rev., 394–
95
Bonaventure, Saint
men., 665
Bossy, John Antony
obit., 225–27
Botham, Fay
Rev. of T. M. Kerstetter, 637–38
Bouchard, Constance B.
Rev. of C. Bousquet-Labouérie and Y.
Maurey, eds., 370–71

GENERAL INDEX

Bouley, Bradford
Negotiated Sanctity: Incorruption,
Community, and Medical Expertise,
1–25
Bousquet-Labouérie, Christine, and Yossi
Maurey, eds.
Espace sacré, mémoire sacrée: Le culte des
évêques dans leurs villes (IVe–XXe siècle).
Actes du colloque international de Tours
10–12 juin 2010, rev., 370–71
Breuer, Marcel
men., 201–02
Bridgettine Sisters
men., 661
Brno diocesan museum
Madonna of Veveri to be displayed,
Exhibition, 443
Brochero, José Gabriel del Rosario, Blessed
Canonized as saint, 661
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
miracle, 220
Brock, Sebastian, and Brian Fitzgerald,
trans., introd., and annot.
Two Early Lives of Severos, Patriarch of
Antioch, rev., 137–38
Brown, Mary Elizabeth
Rev. of J. Sciorra, 202–03
Brown, Michelle P.
Rev. of J. Mullins, J. N. Ghrádaigh, and
R. Hawtree, eds., 141–43
Brown, Peter R. L.
Treasure in Heaven: The Holy Poor in
Early Christianity, rev., 826–27
Brown, Warren C.
Rev. of J. Y. Malegam, 147–48
Buck, Lawrence P.
The Roman Monster: An Icon of the Papal
Antichrist in Reformation Polemics, rev.,
405–06
Buckley, Thomas E.
Establishing Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s
Statute in Virginia, rev., 189–91
Bull, Marcus
Rev. of C. Tyerman, 150–51
Burkard, Dominik, and Tanja Thanner, eds.
Der Jansenismus—eine „katholische
Häresie”? Das Ringen um Gnade,
Rechtfertigung und die Autorität
Augustins in der frühen Neuzeit, rev.,
173–75
Burke, Tony
Rev. of P. Jenkins, 820–21
Burns, J. Patout, and Robin M. Jensen
Christianity in Roman Africa: The
Development of Its Practices and Beliefs,
rev., 132–33

vii

Burns, Jeffery M.
Receives 2017 ACHA Award for
Distinguished Teaching, 876
Burson, D., and Jonathan Wright, eds.
The Jesuit Suppression in Global Context:
Causes, Events, and Consequences, rev.,
821–23
Bush, Jonathan
Rev. of P. Doyle, ed., 850–51
Byrnes, Joseph F.
Rev. of R. D. Priest, 851–53
Byzantine architecture
men., 133–35
Byzantine empire
men., 369–70, 379–80
Cage, E. Claire
Unnatural Frenchmen: The Politics of
Priestly Celibacy and Marriage, 1720–
1815, rev., 844–45
Cahiers de civilization médiévale: X e–XII e
siècles
Publishes articles on “La Liturgie
Hispanique” (vol. 58), 223, 446
Callaghan, Jennifer
Receives 2015 John Tracy Ellis
Dissertation Award, 218
Callahan, William J.
Rev. of K. Eaton, 630–31
Campopiano, Michele
Rev. of C. Wickham, 596–97
Canadian Catholic Historical Association
Holds meeting, “Energizing
Communities,” 222
Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies
Sponsors fellowships, 444
Canon Law
men., 389–91
Canonization
men., 1–25
Capito, Wolfgang
men., 837–38
Capuchins
men., 220
Carlin, Martha, and David Crouch, eds.
and trans.
Lost Letters of Medieval Life: English
Society, 1200–1250, rev., 153–54
Carlsmith, Christopher
Rev. of T. B. Deutscher, 169–70
Carmelite order, arrival in Mexico
Topic of 2015 Congress, 221–22
Carney, James Jay
Receives Bethwlll Ogot Prize for
Rwanda before the Genocide: Catholic
Politics and Ethnic Discourse in the Late
Colonial Era, 224

viii

GENERAL INDEX

Carpenter, Joel
Rev. of D. Dochuk, T. S. Kidd, and
K. W. Peterson, eds., 639–40
Carthusian order
men., 446
Carty, Jarrett A.
Rev. of K. Eisenbichler, ed., 612–13
Carty, Thomas J.
Rev. of L. J. McAndrews, 199–201
Caspers, Charles
Rev. of A. Angenendt, 592–93
Casteen, Elizabeth
From She-Wolf to Martyr: The Reign and
Disputed Reputation of Johanna I of
Naples, rev., 832–33
Castiglione, Caroline
Accounting for Affection: Mothering and
Politics in Early Modern Rome, rev.,
840–41
Catechism
men., 492–516
Catecumeni, Case dei
men., 129–30
Catholic Apostolic Union
men., 220
Catholic books
men., 545–80
Catholic converts
men., 687–711
Catholic education
men., 318–39, 340–68, 517–44
Catholic Reform
men., 492–516, 615–16
Catholic Workers’ College
men., 318–39
Ceci, Lucia
Rev. of D. Kertzer, Forum Essay, 799–
813
Celenza, Anna Harwell, and Anthony R.
DelDonna, eds.
Music as Cultural Mission: Explorations of
Jesuit Practices in Italy and North
America, rev., 373–74
Chambers, David
Rev. of A. White, 399–400
Chapman, Mark D.
The Fantasy of Reunion: Anglicans,
Catholics, and Ecumenism, 1833–1882,
rev., 178–80
Chevalier, Jaima
Rev. of A. G. Remensnyder, 187–88
Chicago Studies
Reviews causes of Servants of God,
447
Children of Reparation
men., 661

Childs, Jessie
God’s Traitors: Terror & Faith in
Elizabethan England, rev., 408–10
Cholvy, Gérard
Les religions et les cultures dans l’Occident
européen au XIX e siècle (1800–1914),
rev., 177–78
Chowning, Margaret
Rev. of M. Lundberg, 584–85
Chrissidis, Nikolaos
Rev. of G. E. Demacopoulos and A.
Papanikolaou, eds., 130–31
Christensen, Mark Z.
Nahua and Maya Catholicisms, Texts and
Religion in Colonial Central Mexico and
Yucatan, rev., 208–09
Christian missions
men., 180–81
Church and state
men., 340–68
Church History & Religious Culture
Publishes issue on Carthusians, 446
Church, Stephen
Rev. of W. C. Jordan, 395–96
Cistercian order
men., 128–29, 219–20
Civic participation
men., 517–44
Clare of Assisi, Saint
men., 605–06
Clark, Anthony E.
Rev. of R. M. Ribeiro, ed., with J. W.
O’Malley, 654–55
Clark, Emily Suzanne
Rev. of B. J. Leonard, 638–39
CLASMA
men., 877
Codignola, Luca
Rev. of T. Villerbu, 426–28
Coleman, David
Rev. of T. Devaney, 606–08
Collani, Claudia von
Rev. of T. Meynard, S.J., 843–44
Confraternities
men., 492–516
Confucius
men., 843–44
Congregation of Marians of the
Immaculate Conception
men., 220
Congregation of Missionaries of
Mariannhill
men., 220
Congregation of the Little Workers of the
Sacred Heart
men., 220

GENERAL INDEX

Congregation of the Mission
men., 69–96, 841–42
Congregation of the Missionary Eucharistic
Sisters of Nazareth
men., 661
Congregation of the Sisters of Mary Most
Holy Consolatrix
men., 220
Congregation of the Sons of Mary
Immaculate
men., 661
Conley, Rory
obit. of P. Liston, 667–68
Connolly, John M.
Rev. of K. Flasch, auth.; A. Schindel and
A. Vanides, trans., 831–32
Constantine, Emperor
men., 660
Conway, John S.
Rev. of M. Riebling, 184–85
Cook, Karoline P.
Forbidden Passages: Muslims and Moriscos
in Colonial Spanish America, rev., 866–
67
Cook, William R.
Rev. of N. B.-A. Debby, 605–06
Cosmas of Prague
men., 384–86
Coss, Peter
Rev. of M. Carlin and D. Crouch, eds.
and trans., 153–54
Council of Trent
men., 687–711, 838–40
Coyne, Edward Joseph, S. J.
men., 318–39
Crawford, Paul F.
Rev. of S. L. Field, 155–57
Crews, Clyde F.
Receives 2016 ACHA Distinguished
Teaching Award, 219
Crews, Daniel A.
Rev. of M. Firpo, auth.; R. Bates, trans.,
168–69
Crisis of Christendom
men., 46–68
Crosby, John F.
Rev. of H. C. Hunt, trans.; M. A.
Neyer, O.C.D., ed. and annot., 636–
37
Crossley, John N., and Sarah E. Owens
The First Nunnery in Manila: The Role
of Hernando de los Ríos Coronel,
469–91
Crusades
men., 150–51, 391–92, 593–94, 602–
03

ix

Curtwright, Travis, ed.
Thomas More: Why Patron of Statesmen?,
rev., 610–11
Cushwa Center of the University of Notre
Dame
To sponsor conference, “North Atlantic
Catholic Communities in Rome,
1622–1939,” 664–65
Cussen, Celia
Black Saint of the Americas: The Life and
Afterlife of Martín de Porres, rev., 206–
07
D’Ailly, Pierre, Cardinal
bio., 833–34
Danielson, Sigrid, and Evan A. Gatti, eds.
Envisioning the Bishop: Images and the
Episcopacy in the Middle Ages, rev.,
377–78
Danieluk, Robert, S.J.
Rev. of D. Burson and J. Wright, eds.,
821–23
D’Avray, D. L.
Dissolving Royal Marriages: A Documentary History, 860–1600, rev., 581–82
Papacy, Monarchy and Marriage, 860–
1600, rev., 382–83
Debby, Nirit Ben-Aryeh
The Cult of St Clare of Assisi in Early
Modern Italy, rev., 605–06
DeBerg, Betty A.
Rev. of M. M. Grubiak, 196–97
De La Salle Brothers
men., 661
D’Elia, Anthony F.
Pagan Virtue in a Christian World:
Sigismondo Malatesta and the Italian
Renaissance, rev., 604–05
Dellape, Kevin J.
America’s First Chaplain: The Life and
Times of the Reverend Jacob Duché,
rev., 188–89
De los Ríos, Hernando
men., 469–91
Demacopoulos, George E.
Gregory the Great: Ascetic, Pastor, and
First Man of Rome, rev., 589–90
Demacopoulos, George E., and Aristotle
Papanikolaou, eds.
Orthodox Constructions of the West, rev.,
130–31
DeSanctis, Michael E.
Rev. of V. M. Young, 201–02
DeSilva, Jennifer Mara, ed.
The Sacralization of Space and Behavior in
the Early Modern World: Studies and
Sources, rev., 836–37

x

GENERAL INDEX

De Smet, Pierre-Jean
men., 251–83
De Souza, José Antônio de C. R., and
Bernardo Bayona Aznar, eds.
Doctrinas y relaciones de poder en el Cisma
de occidente y en la época conciliar
(1378–1449), rev., 157–58
Destivelle, Hyacinthe, O.P., auth; Michael
Plekon and Vitaly Permiakov, eds.;
Jerry Ryan, trans.
The Moscow Council (1917–1918): The
Creation of the Conciliar Institutions of
the Russian Orthodox Church, rev.,
181–82
Deswarte, Thomas
Editor of Cahiers issue on “La Liturgue
Hispanique,” 223
Deutscher, Thomas B.
Punishment and Penance: Two Phases in
the History of the Bishop’s Tribunal of
Novara, rev., 169–70
Devaney, Thomas
Enemies in the Plaza: Urban Spectacle and
the End of Spanish Frontier Culture,
1460–1492, rev., 606–08
Devotions
men., 492–516
Diem, Albrecht
Rev. of F. Lifshitz, 380–81
Dillon, Anne
Rev. of J. L. Black, ed.; R. J.
Fehrenbach, gen. ed., 410–11
Dinan, Susan E.
Rev. of S. A. Smith, 841–42
Discalced Carmelites
men., 661
Discalced Franciscans
men., 469–91
Disciples of Saint John
men., 661
Ditchfield, Simon
obit. of J. A. Bossy
Rev. of K. M. Rudy, 160–61
Dochuk, Darren, Thomas S. Kidd, and
Kurt W. Peterson, eds.
American Evangelicalism: George Marsden
and the State of American Religious
History, rev., 639–40
Domenico, Roy
Rev. of D. Kertzer, Forum Essay, 799–
813
Rev. of S. Lesti, 856–57
Dominican order
Conference commemorating 800th
anniversary of founding, 662
men., 647–48, 662

Dondi, Cristina
Rev. of A. K. Frazier, ed., 603–04
Donnadieu, Jean
Jacques de Vitry (1175/1180–1240) entre
l’Orient et l’Occident: L’évêque aux trois
visages, rev., 599–600
Donovan, John T.
The 1960s Los Angeles Seminary Crisis,
69–96
Dopfel, Costanza Gislon
Rev. of A. F. D’Elia, 604–05
Doyle, Peter, ed.
The Correspondence of Alexander Goss,
Bishop of Liverpool 1856–1872, rev.,
850–51
Drake, H. A.
b.n. of E. F. Smither, ed., 660
Drayson, Elizabeth
The Lead Books of Granada, rev., 172–73
Drexel, Katharine, S.B.S., Saint
men., 428–30, 661
Dries, Angelyn, O.S.F.
“Perils of Ocean and Wilderness”: A
Field Guide to North American
Catholic History, 251–83
Drijvers, Jan Willem
Rev. of U. Fellmeth and U. Mell, eds.,
827–28
Driver, Martha W., and Veronica M.
O’Mara, eds.
Preaching the Word in Manuscript and
Print in Late Medieval England: Essays
in Honour of Susan Powell, rev., 162–63
Drossbach, Gisela, ed.
Die Collectio Cheltenhamensis: eine
englische Decretalensammlung. Analyse
beruhend auf Vorarbeitung von Walther
Holtzmann (†), rev., 598–99
Duché, Jacob
men., 188–89
Dunn, Dennis J.
Rev. of H. Destivelle, O.P., auth; M.
Plekon and V. Permiakov, eds.; J.
Ryan, trans., 181–82
Rev. of L. Pettinaroli, 853–54
Dunn, Geoffrey D., ed.
The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity,
rev., 135–36
Dunne, Robert
Rev. of K. Haden, O.F.M., 861–62
Early Christianity
men., 132–38, 375–77, 445–46, 824–28
Eastman, David L., trans., annot., and
introd.
The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter
and Paul, rev., 824–25

GENERAL INDEX

Eaton, Kent
Protestant Missionaries in Spain, 1869–
1936: “Shall the Papists Prevail?,” rev.,
630–31
Eberle, Gary M.
Rev. of M. Navarre, O.P., ed., 647–
48
Eckhart, Meister
bio., 831–32
Edmund, Saint
men., 590–91
Eisenbichler, Konrad, ed.
Collaboration, Conflict, and Continuity in
the Reformation: Essays in Honour of
James M. Estes on His Eightieth
Birthday, rev., 612–13
Eliav-Feldon, Miriam, and Tamar Herzig,
eds.
Dissimulation and Deceit in Early Modern
Europe, rev., 834–36
Elizabeth of the Most Holy Trinity
(Elizabeth Catez)
Canonized as saint, 661
Elsner, Jas’
Rev. of H. Kaell, 204–05
Endres, David
Elected to ACHA Executive Council,
876
Engelbert, Pius, O.S.B., auth; Henry
O’Shea, O.S.B., trans.
Sant’Anselmo in Rome: College and
University. From the Beginnings to the
Present Day, rev., 632–34
Environment
men., 251–83
Erbe und Auftrag
Publishes articles on “Der Mönch
Martin Luther,” 878
Ermine de Reims
men., 398–99
Estudios Eclesiásticos
Publishes articles on St. Teresa of Ávila,
878
Etherington, Norman
Rev. of S. S. Maughan, 180–81
Études théologiques et religieuses
Publishes “Dossier Jean-Jacques
Rousseau: La religion personnelle.
Interprétations et receptions,” 446
Evangelicalism
men., 639–40, 640–42
Fabris, Dinko
Rev. of A. H. Celenza and A. R.
DelDonna, eds., 373–74
Fallaw, Ben
Rev. of E. Wright-Rios, 648–49

xi

Fanger, Claire
Rewriting Magic: An Exegesis of the
Visionary Autobiography of a
Fourteenth-Century French Monk, rev.,
396–98
Farge, James K., ed., annot., and introd.
Religion, Reformation, and Repression in
the Reign of Francis I. Documents from
the Parlement of Paris, 1515–1547:
Vol. I: Documents 1515–1543; Vol. II:
Documents 1544–1547, rev., 402–03
Farnese, Clelia
men., 170–71
Fascism
men., 799–813
Fattori, Maria Teresa
Rev. of D. Burkard and T. Thanner,
eds., 173–75
Sacraments for the Faithful of the New
World, Jews, and Eastern-Rite Christians: Roman Legislation from Paul
III to Benedict XIV (1537–1758),
687–711
Fedalto, Giorgio
Cristiani entro e oltre gli Imperi: Saggi su
Terre e Chiese d’Oriente, rev., 369–70
Feiss, Hugh, O.S.B.
Rev. of A. Kessler, O.S.B., with N. A.
Kelly, 127
Fellmeth, Ulrich, and Ulrich Mell, eds.
Pilgerwege ins “Heilige Land”: Beiträge zur
Religionsgeografie der Alten Kirche, rev.,
827–28
Field, Sean L.
The Beguine, the Angel, and the Inquisitor:
The Trials of Marguerite Porete and
Guiard of Cressonessart, rev., 155–57
Findlen, Paula
Rev. of M. A. Waddell, 619–20
Finocchiaro, Maurice A.
Rev. of C. M. Graney, 620–23
Firpo, Massimo, auth.; Richard Bates, trans.
Juan de Valdés and the Italian
Reformation, rev., 168–69
First Vatican Council
men., 712–45
Flasch, Kurt, auth.; Anne Schindel and
Aaron Vanides, trans.
Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of
Christianity, rev., 831–32
Fogarty, Gerald P., S.J.
Rev. of J. Pollard, 634–36
Folger Shakespeare Institute
Holds seminar on “Convent Culture,”
symposium on “Early Modern
Theatre and Conversion,” 662

xii

GENERAL INDEX

Fournier, Éric
Rev. of J. P. Burns and R. M. Jensen,
132–33
Fragnito, Gigliola
Storia di Clelia Farnese: Amori, potere,
violenza nella Roma della Controriforma, rev., 170–71
Francis I, King of France
men., 402–03
Franciscan Handmaids of the Most Pure
Heart of Mary
Celebrate 100th Anniversary, 443
Franciscan Institute at St. Bonaventure
University
To sponsor conference, “Frater,
Magister, Minister, et Episcopus: The
Works and World of Saint Bonaventure,” 665
Franciscan order
men., 220, 443, 469–91, 665
Franciscan Sisters Adorers of the Holy
Cross
men., 220
Franco-American history
men., 746–70
Frazier, Alison K., ed.
The Saint between Manuscript and Print:
Italy 1400–1600, rev., 603–04
French Canadian Church
men., 746–70
French Revolution
men., 176–77, 845–47
Fromont, Cécile
The Art of Conversion: Christian Visual
Culture in the Kingdom of Kongo, rev.,
651–52
Fueyo Castañón, Genaro, and three
companions, Servants of God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
martyrdom, 220
Furry, Timothy J.
Allegorizing History: The Venerable Bede,
Figural Exegesis and Historical Theory,
b.n., 212
Fusco, Alfonso Maria
Canonized as saint, 661
Gaillardetz, Richard
Rev. of L. Van Rompay, S. Miglarese,
and D. Morgan, eds., 586–87
Garneau, James
Rev. of T. Hartch, 441–42
Gesellschaft für Konzilienforschung and
Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Lehrstuhl Mittelalterliche Geschichte II
Sponsors international conference,
“Konzil und Frieden,” 662–63

Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus
Catholicorum e.V.and Katholische
Akademie der Erzdiözese Freiburg im
Breisgau
To host conference “Glaube(n) im
Disput. Altgläubige Kontroversisten
des Reformationszeitalters in neuerer
Forschung,” 877
Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus
Catholicorum e.V.and Würzburger
Diözesangeschichtsverein
To sponsor conference, “Bischöfe und
Bischofsamt im Heiligen Römischen
Reich 1570–1620: Ideal und Praxis,” 877
Gilbert, Claire
Rev. of E. Drayson, 172–73
Giroux, Robert
men., 645–46
Goa Inquisition
men., 26–45
Gockel, Matthias
Rev. of D. W. Norwood, 422–23
Goffart, Walter
b.n. of T. J. Furry, 212
González García, Manuel
Canonized as saint, 661
Goss, Alexander, Bishop
men., 850–51
Graham, Billy
men., 198–99, 866
Graney, Christopher M.
Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni
Battista Riccioli and the Science against
Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, rev.,
620–23
Greco, Francesco Maria, Venerable Servant
of God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
miracle, 220
Gregory, Adrian
Rev. of R. Beaken, 854–56
Gregory, Jeremy
Rev. of B. S. Sirota, 418–20
Gregory IV, Pope
men., 144–45
Gregory the Great
men., 589–90
Grendler, Paul F.
Rev. of F. Ambrosini, 414–15, 839
Gribble, Richard, C.S.C.
Elected ACHA vice-president, 876
Rev. of A. C. Loveland, 197–98
Griffiths, Fiona J., and Julie Hotchin, eds.
Partners in Spirit: Women, Men and
Religious Life in Germany, 1100–1500,
rev., 151–53

GENERAL INDEX

Grimshaw, John
Rev. of J. Kilpatrick, 656–57
Grubiak, Margaret M.
White Elephants on Campus: The Decline
of the University Chapel in America,
1920–1960, rev., 196–97
Guadalupe
men., 205–06, 439–40
Guiard of Cressonessart
men., 155–57
Guy, John
Rev. of T. Curtwright, ed., 610–11
Gwynn, David M.
Rev. of G. L. Thompson, trans. and
annot., 136–37
Haden, Kyle, O.F.M.
Anti-Catholicism in American History: A
Reinterpretation—Human Identity
Needs Theory and the Bible Riots of
1844, rev., 861–62
Hagiography
men., 284–317
Hamm, Berndt, auth; Martin J. Lohrmann,
trans.
The Early Luther: Stages in a Reformation
Reorientation, rev., 403–04
Hammond, Geordan
Rev. of J. R. Tyson, 627–28
Hancock-Parmer, Teresa
Rev. of C. Cussen, 206–07
Hanley, Mark Y.
Rev. of J. C. Pinheiro, 192–94
Harmless, William, S.J.
Augustine and the Catechumenate. Rev.
ed., rev., 376–77
Harrington, Ann M.
Expanding Horizons: Sisters of Charity of
the Blessed Virgin Mary 1919–1943,
rev., 195–96
Harris, Max
Rev. of K. P. Cook, 866–67
Harrison, Carol E.
Rev. of T. Van Osselaer and P. Pasture,
eds., 823–24
Hartch, Todd
The Prophet of Cuernavaca: Ivan Illich
and the Crisis of the West, rev., 441–
42
Häuptli, Bruno; trans. Helena Kogen
Rev. of J. Le Goff, auth; L. G.
Cochrane, trans., 386–87
Hazlett, Ian
Rev. of R. A. Mason and S. J. Reid, eds.,
412–14
Heisser, David C. R., and Stephen J. White
Sr.

xiii

Patrick N. Lynch, 1817–1882: Third
Catholic Bishop of Charleston, rev.,
425–26
Hernández, Marie-Theresa
The Virgin of Guadalupe and the Conversos: Uncovering Hidden Influences from
Spain to Mexico, rev., 439–40
Hernández Rodríguez, Alfonso
Rev. of C. M. Malone and C. Maines,
eds., 125–26
Herremans, Valérie
Rev. of W. Sauerländer, 417–18
Hesselblad, Maria Elizabeth
Canonized as saint, 661
Hill, Thomas D.
Rev. of M. R. Rambaran-Olm, 145–46
Hincmar of Rheims
men., 829–30
Hispania Sacra
Publishes articles on St. Teresa of Ávila,
665
Historical Studies
Devotes vol. 81 to “Irish Catholic
Halifax: From the Napoleonic Wars
to the Great War,” 224
Hogan, Edmund Michael
Rev. of B. O. Okpanachi, auth.; G.
Droesser and C. Udeani, eds., 870–
72
Hollinger, David A.
After Cloven Tongues of Fire: Protestant
Liberalism in Modern American
History, rev., 643–44
Holscher, Kathleen
“A Decision that Spits in the Face of
Our History”: Catholics and the Midcentury Fight Over Public Prayer and
Bible Reading, 340–68
Horn, Gerd-Rainer
The Spirit of Vatican II: Western European
Progressive Catholicism in the Long
Sixties, rev., 424–25
Houghton Library, Harvard University
Hosts “Beyond Words: Illuminated
Manuscripts in Boston Collections,”
Exhibition, 876
Howe, John
Reforming Reform: Steven Vanderputten’s Monastic Histories, Review
Essay, 814–19
Hudon, William V.
Rev. of G. Fragnito, 170–71
Hughes, Cheryl C. D.
Katharine Drexel: The Riches-to-Rags
Story of an American Catholic Saint,
rev., 428–30

xiv

GENERAL INDEX

Hunt, Hugh Candler, trans.; Maria Amata
Neyer, O.C.D., ed. and annot.
Edith Stein: Self-Portrait in Letters—
Letters to Roman Ingarden, rev., 636–
37
Hunting, Penelope
The Saint and His Disciple: Cardinal John
Henry Newman, the Reverend George
Dudley Ryder and the Catholic Revival
in Nineteenth Century England, rev.,
421–22
Huntington Library
Offers California missions records
database, 221
Hyland, William P.
Rev. of J. Verkholantsev, 383–84
Ignatius of Loyola, Saint
bio., 407–08
men., 838–40
Illich, Ivan
men., 441–42
Immigrants
men., 746–70
Incorruption
men., 1–25
Ingle, H. Larry
Nixon’s First Cover-up: The Religious Life
of a Quaker President, rev., 865–66
Irish American Catholics
men., 746–70
Irish Church
men., 318–39
Isabella della Frattina
men., 414–15
Iserloh, Erwin
bio., 167–68
Islam
men., 158–59, 379–80, 877–78
Issel, William
Distinguished Scholar, 876
Istituto Sangalli and FAR Studium
Regiense Fondazione
Sponsor conference “Orlando Furioso:
1516–2016,” 222
Istituto Sangalli
Sponsors fellowships in Florence, 444
Italian Catholic Church
men., 46–68
Iuris canonici medii aevi consociatio
(ICMAC)
To cosponsor sessions on “Otherness” at
Leeds International Medieval
Congress, 877
Ivanova, Maria
Rev. of M. Eliav-Feldon and T. Herzig,
eds., 834–36

Jacobus de Voragine
men., 387–89
James, Serenhedd
Rev. of P. Hunting, 421–22
Jansenism
men., 173–75
Janssen, Geert H.
The Dutch Revolt and Catholic Exile in
Reformation Europe, rev., 616–17
Jefferson, Thomas
men., 189–91
Jenkins, Philip
The Many Faces of Christ: The ThousandYear Story of the Survival and Influence
of the Lost Gospels, rev., 820–21
Jerome, Saint
men., 383–84
Jerónima de la Asunción
men., 469–91
Jewish-Christian relations
men., 129–30
Johanna I, Queen of Naples
bio., 832–33
Johns, Christopher M. S.
The Visual Culture of Catholic
Enlightenment, rev., 625–27
Jones, Christopher A.
Rev. of J. D. Billett, 143–44
Jordan, William Chester
From England to France: Felony and
Exile in the High Middle Ages, rev.,
395–96
Julius I, Pope
men., 136–37
Julius II, Pope
men., 609–10
Kaell, Hillary
Walking Where Jesus Walked: American
Christians and Holy Land Pilgrimage,
rev., 204–05
Kaplan, Benjamin
Cunegonde’s Kidnapping: A Story of
Religious Conflict in the Age of
Enlightenment, rev., 175–76
Karras, Ruth Mazo
Rev. of D. L. D’Avray, 382–83
Keen, Ralph
Rev. of U. Wolff, auth.; B. Hallensleben,
ed., 167–68
Kelly, Henry Ansgar
Rev. of D. W. Pasulka, 124–25
Kennedy, Rick
The First American Evangelical: A Short
Life of Cotton Mather, rev., 640–42
Kent, Peter C.
Rev. of J. Kornberg, 857–59

GENERAL INDEX

Ker, Ian
Letter to Editor, 231–32
Newman on Vatican II, rev., 629–30
Rev. of F. D. Aquino and B. J. King,
eds., 848–50
Kerstetter, Todd M.
Inspiration and Innovation: Religion in the
American West, rev., 637–38
Kertzer, David I.
The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History
of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in
Europe, Forum Essay, 799–813
Kessler, Ann, O.S.B., with Neville Ann Kelly
Benedictine Men and Women of Courage:
Roots and History. Rev. ed., rev., 127
Kiessling, Nicolas K.
James Molloy and Sales of Recusant
Books to the United States, 545–80
Kilpatrick, Jane
Fathers of Botany: The Discovery of
Chinese Plants by European Missionaries,
rev., 656–57
Kinder, Terryl N., and Roberto Cassanelli,
eds.; Joyce Myerson, trans.
The Cistercian Arts from the 12th to the
21st Century, rev., 128–29
Kirk, Stephanie, and Sarah Rivett, eds.
Religious Transformations in the Early
Modern Americas, rev., 436–37
Kleinjung, Christine
Rev. of S. Danielson and E. A. Gatti,
eds., 377–78
Kline, Jonathan
Rev. of J. I. Miller and L. TaylorMitchell, 600–02
Klingenberg, Mitchell G.
Rev. of W. B. Kurtz, 862–63
Kolbet, Paul R.
Rev. of W. Harmless, S.J., 376–77
Kollman, Paul, C.S.C.
Rev. of B. M. Wall, 652–53
Kornberg, Jacques
The Pope’s Dilemma: Pius XII Faces
Atrocities and Genocide in the Second
World War, rev., 857–59
Krawchuk, Andrii
Rev. of M. S. Wessel and F. E. Sysyn,
eds., 585–86
Kraye, Jill
Rev. of C. Martin, 401–02
Kuehn, Thomas
Rev. of C. Castiglione, 840–41
Kurtz, William B.
Excommunicated from the Union: How the
Civil War Created a Separate Catholic
America, rev., 862–63

xv

Kuzniewski, Anthony J., S.J.
Rev. of J. T. McGreevy, 859–60
Labor
men., 746–70
La Ciudad de Dios
Publishes articles on St. Teresa of Ávila
and her relations with St. Augustine
and Augustinians, 223
Lacroix, Patrick
A Church of Two Steeples: Catholicism,
Labor, and Ethnicity in Industrial
New England, 1869–90, 746–70
Laínez, Diego
men., 838–40
Laity
men., 284–317
Landau, Peter, and Waltraud Kozur, eds.;
Stefan Häring, Heribert Hallermann,
Karin Miethaner-Vent, and Martin
Pezolt, collab.
Summa ‘Omnis qui iuste iudicat’ sive
Lipsiensis. 3 tomes. Tomes 2 and 3,
rev., 389–91
Lange, Tyler
Rev. of J. K. Farge, ed., annot., and
introd., 402–03
Lantfred
men., 284–317
Larson, Atria A.
Master of Penance: Gratian and the
Development of Penitential Thought and
Law in the Twelfth Century, rev., 387–
89
Latowsky, Anne
Rev. of J. T. Palmer, 828–29
Lavin, Marilyn Aronberg
An Allegory of Divine Love: The
Netherlandish Blockbook Canticum
Canticorum, rev., 165–66
Lay Catholic Organizations
men., 46–68
Lazarists
men., 69–96, 841–42
Leclercq, Solomon
Canonized as saint, 661
Le Goff, Jacques, auth; Lydia G. Cochrane,
trans.
In Search of Sacred Time: Jacobus de
Voragine and The Golden Legend,
rev., 386–87
León, Luis D.
Rev. of L. M. Bitel, 869–70
Leonard, Bill J.
A Sense of the Heart: Christian Religious
Experience in the United States, rev.,
638–39

xvi

GENERAL INDEX

Lerner, Robert E.
Rev. of C. Fanger, 396–98
Lesti, Sante
Riti di Guerra: Religione e politica
nell’Europa della Grande Guerra, rev.,
856–57
Levy, Ian Christopher, Rita GeorgeTvrtković, and Donald Duclow, eds.
Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and
Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, rev.,
158–59
Leyser, Conrad, and Lesley Smith, eds.
Motherhood, Religion, and Society in
Medieval Europe, 400–1400: Essays
Presented to Henrietta Leyser, rev., 14041
Libster, Martha Mathews
Rev. of B. A. McNeil, D.C., ed., 642–43
Lida, Miranda
Historia del Catolicismo en Argentina entre
el siglo XIX y el XX, rev., 649–50
Lifshitz, Felice
Religious Women in Early Carolingian
Francia: A Study of Manuscript
Transmission and Monastic Culture,
rev., 380–81
Limond, David
The Jesuits, Mary, and Joseph: The
Catholic Workers’ College, Dublin,
1951–66, 318–39
Liston, Paul
obit., 667–68
Logan, F. Donald
University Education of the Parochial
Clergy in Medieval England: The
Lincoln Diocese, c. 1300–c. 1350, rev.,
392–93
Loveland, Anne C.
Change and Conflict in the U.S. Army
Chaplain Corps since 1945, rev., 197–98
Rev. of M. Snape, 432–33
Lundberg, Magnus
Mission and Ecstasy: Contemplative
Women and Salvation in Colonial
Spanish America and the Philippines,
rev., 584–85
Luther, Martin
German exhibitions in 2017, 877
men., 403–04, 611–12, 878
Lynch, Patrick N.
men., 425–26
Madigan, Kevin
Medieval Christianity: A New History,
rev., 588–89
Maier, Christoph T.
Rev. of J. Donnadieu, 599–600

Makrides, Vasilios N.
Rev. of P. Anastasakis, 185–86
Malatesta, Sigismondo
men., 604–05
Malegam, Jehangir Yezdi
The Sleep of Behemoth: Disputing Peace
and Violence in Medieval Europe,
1000–1200, rev., 147–48
Malone, Carolyn Marino, and Clark
Maines, eds.
Sources for Monastic Life in the Middle
Ages and the Early Modern Period, rev.,
125–26
Mann, Judith W.
Rev. of I. F. Verstegen, 617–19
Manning, Henry, Cardinal
men., 712–45
Maps
men., 251–83, 654–55
Maria Luisa of the Most Holy Sacrament,
(Maria Velotti), Servant of God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
heroic virtue, 220
Marian Fathers of the Immaculate
Conception
men., 661
Marianism
men., 318–39
Marrone, Steven P.
A History of Science, Magic, and Belief:
From Medieval to Early Modern
Europe, rev., 372–73
Marsden, George
men., 639–40
Marshall, Peter
Rev. of S. Sobecki, 608–09
Martin, Craig
Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and
Philosophy in Early Modern Science,
rev., 401–02
Martin, Dennis Dale
obit., 227–29
Martín de Porres, Saint
men., 206–07
Martínez, Anne M.
Catholic Borderlands: Mapping Catholicism
onto American Empire, 1905–1935,
rev., 194–95
Masebo, Oswald
Rev. of R. B. Munson, 872–74
Mason, Roger A., and Steven J. Reid, eds.
Andrew Melville (1545–1622). Writings,
Reception, and Reputation, rev., 412–
14
Mather, Cotton
men., 640–42

GENERAL INDEX

Matter, E. Ann
Rev. of D. Robertson, 138–39
Maughan, Steven S.
Mighty England Do Good: Culture, Faith,
Empire, and World in the Foreign Missions of the Church of England, 1850–
1915, rev., 180–81
McAndrews, Lawrence J.
Rev. of H. L. Ingle, 865–66
What They Wished for: American Catholics
and American Presidents, 1960–2004,
rev., 199–201
McCarthy, T. J. H.
Rev. of H. A. Myers, ed. and trans.,
148–49
McCutcheon, Elizabeth
men., 446
McGinn, Bernard
Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae: A
Biography, rev., 154–55
McGoldrick, Patricia M.
Who Bombed the Vatican? The
Argentinean Connection, 771–98
McGreevy, John T.
American Jesuits and the World: How an
Embattled Religious Order Made
Modern Catholicism Global, rev., 859–
60
McGuinness, Margaret M.
Rev. of A. M. Harrington, 195–96
McIntyre, Cardinal James Francis
men., 69–96
McLeod, Hugh
Rev. of G. Cholvy, 177–78
Rev. of G.-R. Horn, 424–25
McNamara, Celeste
What the People Want: Popular Support
for Catholic Reform in the Veneto,
492–516
McNeil, Betty Ann, D.C., ed.
Balm of Hope: Charity Afire Impels
Daughters of Charity to Civil War
Nursing, rev., 642–43
McNeil, Genna Rae, Houston Bryan
Roberson, Quinton Hosford Dixie,
and Kevin McGruder
Witness: Two Hundred Years of AfricanAmerican Faith and Practice at the
Abyssinian Baptist Church of Harlem,
New York, rev., 191–92
McSherry, James
Outreach and Renewal: A FirstMillennium Legacy for the ThirdMillennium Church, rev., 123–24
Medical missions
men., 652–53

xvii

Medici Archive Project
Offers paleography seminars, 876
Medicine
men., 1–25
Medieval Memoria Research
Newsletter announced, 443
Sponsors Web site of liturgical
vestments, 220–21
Meens, Rob
Rev. of A. A. Larson, 387–89
Megged, Amos
Rev. of M. Z. Christensen, 208–09
Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Moyen
Âge
Publishes roundtable, “Le culte de Sainte
Agnès à Place Navone entre antiquité
et moyen âge,” 665
Melion, Walter S.
Recieves 2016 ACHA Distinguished
Scholar Award, 218–19
Melkite Church
men., 119–21
Melville, Andrew
men., 412–14
Menke, Martin
Elected to ACHA Executive Council for
2016–19, 876
Merton, Thomas
men., 433–34, 645–46
Methodism
men., 420–21, 627–28
Meyers, Ruth A.
Rev. of P. Tovey, 624–25
Meynard, Thierry, S.J.
The Jesuit Reading of Confucius: The First
Complete Translation of the Lunyu
(1687) Published in the West, rev.,
843–44
Middleton, Angela
Rev. of T. Ballantyne, 658–59
Mijangos y González, Pablo
The Lawyer of the Church: Bishop
Clemente de Jesús Munguía and the
Clerical Response to the Mexican Liberal
Reforma, rev., 210–11
Mikhail, Maged S. A.
From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt: Religion,
Identity and Politics after the Arab
Conquest, rev., 379–80
Military training
men., 517–44
Miller, Julia I., and Laurie TaylorMitchell
From Giotto to Botticelli: The Artistic
Patronage of the Humiliati in Florence,
rev., 600–02

xviii

GENERAL INDEX

Miller, Maureen C.
Receives 2015 John Gilmary Shea Prize
for Clothing the Clergy: Virtue and
Power in Medieval Europe, c. 800–
1200, 216–17
Miller, Tanya Stabler
Rev. of K. Madigan, 588–89
Millet, Hélène, and Monique MaillardLuypaert
Le schisme et la pourpre: Le cardinal Pierre
d’Ailly, homme de science et de foi, rev.,
833–34
Milner, Lesley
Rev. of T. N. Kinder and R.
Cassanelli, eds.; J. Myerson, trans.,
128–29
Minkema, Kenneth P.
Rev. of R. Kennedy, 640–42
Miscamble, Wilson D., C.S.C.
obit. of M. R. O’Connell
Missionaries
men., 251–83
Missionaries of Charity
men., 661
Missions
men., 373–74, 870–72, 872–74
Molloy, James
men., 545–80
Monastic reform
men., 284–317
Monasticism
men., 125–26, 138–39, 151–53, 160–61,
380–81, 814–19
More, Thomas, Saint
men., 610–11
Moreana
Special issue, collected essays of
Elizabeth McCutcheon, 446
Morello, Gustavo, S.J.
Rev. of M. Lida, 649–50
Morrissey, Thomas E.
Rev. of J. A. de C. R. De Souza and B.
Bayona Aznar, eds., 157–58
Moses, Paul
An Unlikely Union: The Love-Hate Story
of New York’s Irish and Italians, rev.,
644–45
Mosterman, Andrea
Rev. of C. Fromont, 651–52
Mount Tabor Ecumenical Centre for Art
and Spirituality
To sponsor Reformanda 2017 travel
symposia, 664
Muehlberger, Ellen
Rev. of É. Rebillard and J. Rüpke, eds.,
375–76

Mulder-Bakker, Anneke B.
Rev. of L. Boehringer, J. K. Deane, and
H. van Engen, eds., 394–95
Rev. of L. Swan, 394–95
Mulholland, Bernard
The Early Byzantine Christian Church: An
Archaeological Re-assessment of FortySeven Early Byzantine Basilical Church
Excavations Primarily in Israel and
Jordan, and Their Historical and
Liturgical Context, rev., 133–35
Mullins, Juliet, Jenifer Ní Ghrádaigh, and
Richard Hawtree, eds.
Envisioning Christ on the Cross: Ireland
and the Early Medieval West, rev.,
141–43
Mungello, D. E.
The Catholic Invasion of China: Remaking
Chinese Christianity, rev., 655–56
Rev. of K. Stumpf, S.J., auth.; P. Rule
and C. von Collani, eds., 874–75
Munguía, Clemente de Jesús, Bishop
men., 210–11
Munitiz, Joseph A., S.J.
Rev. of P. Ribadeneira, S.J., auth.; C.
Pavur, S.J., trans., 407–08
Munson, Robert B.
The Nature of Christianity in Northern
Tanzania: Environmental and Social
Change, 1890–1916, rev., 872–74
Murphy, Andrew R.
Rev. of T. E. Buckl, 189–91
Murphy, Paul V.
Rev. of M. Al Kalak and I. Pavan, 129–30
Mussolini, Benito
men., 799–813
Myers, Henry A., ed. and trans.
The Book of Emperors: A Translation of the
Middle High German Kaiserchronik,
rev., 148–49
National Endowment for the Humanities
Sponsors summer institute “Teaching the
Reformation after Five Hundred
Years,” 221
Navarre, Mary, O.P., ed.
Tapestry in Time: The Story of the
Dominican Sisters, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1966–2012, rev., 647–48
Neil, Bronwyn
Rev. of G. E. Demacopoulos, 589–90
Neophytes
men., 687–711
Netzhammer, Raymund, O.S.B.
men., 447
New Christians
men., 26–45, 838–40

GENERAL INDEX

Newberry Library
Begins project on “Religious Change in
Europe, 1450–1700,” 443
Hosts 2016 Mellon Summer Institute in
Italian Paleography, 221
Newman, John Henry, Blessed and Cardinal
men., 421–22, 629–30, 712–45, 848–50
Newman, Martha G.
Rev. of F. J. Griffiths and J. Hotchin,
eds., 151–53
Nicholas of Cusa
men., 158–59
Nixon, Richard
men., 865–66
Noble, Samuel, and Alexander Treiger, eds.
The Orthodox Church in the Arab World,
700–1700: An Anthology of Sources,
rev., 119–21
Noble, Thomas F. X.
Rev. of C. Scherer, 144–45
Noronha, Miguel de, Count of Linhares
men., 26–45
North Africa
men., 132–33
North American Catholic History
men., 251–83
Norwood, Donald W.
Reforming Rome: Karl Barth and Vatican
II, rev., 422–23
Oberholzer, Paul, S.J., ed.
Diego Laínez (1512–1565) and his
Generalate: Jesuit with Jewish Roots,
Close Confidant of Ignatius Loyola,
Preeminent Theologian of the Council of
Trent, rev., 838–40
O’Callaghan, Joseph F.
The Last Crusade in the West. Castile and
the Conquest of Granada, rev., 602–03
O’Connell, Marvin R.
obit., 879–82
Okpanachi, Blaise Okachibe, auth.;
Gerhard Droesser and Chibueze
Udeani, eds.
Nigerian-Vatican Diplomatic Relations:
Evangelisation and Catholic Missionary
Enterprise, 1884–1950, rev., 870–72
Olds, Katrina B.
2016 John Gilmary Shea Prize winner
for Forging the Past: Invented Histories
in Counter-Reformation Spain, 876
O’Loughlin, Thomas
Rev. of J. McSherry, 123–24
O’Malley, John W., S.J.
Awarded Centennial Medal of Harvard
University’s Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences, 666

xix

Olsen, Glenn W.
Rev. of T. Petráček, auth; Derek and
Marzia Paton, trans., 582–83
Rev. of T. Petráček, auth.; David
Livingstone, trans., 582–83
Oratorians
men., 617–19
Orientalia Christiana Periodica
Publishes 2007 symposium on Raymund
Netzhammer, O.S.B., 447
Orthodox Church
men., 119–21, 130–31
Orthodox Church, Greek
men., 185–86, 666
Orthodox Church, Polish
men., 182–84
Orthodox Church, Russian
men., 181–82
Palmer, James T.
The Apocalypse in the Early Middle Ages,
rev., 828–29
Papacy
men., 135–36, 382–83, 406–07, 634–36,
687–711
Papal infallibility
men., 712–45
Parishes
men., 492–516
Pasulka, Diana Walsh
Heaven Can Wait: Purgatory in Catholic
Devotional and Popular Culture, rev.,
124–25
Paul, Saint
men., 824–25
Pavoni, Lodovico
Canonized as saint, 661
Pedersen, Frederik
Rev. of D. L. d’Avray, 581–82
Pennington, Kenneth
Rev. of R. Weigand [†], P. Landau, and
W. Kozur, eds.; S. Häring, K.
Miethaner, and M. Petzolt, collab.; P.
Landau and W. Kozur, eds.; S.
Häring, H. Hallermann, K.
Miethaner-Vent, and M. Pezolt,
collab.; P. Landau, W. Kozur, and K.
Miethaner-Vent, eds., 389–91
Penyak, Lee M.
Rev. of S. Kirk and S. Rivett, eds., 436–37
Pereiro, James
Rev. of I. Ker, 629–30
Pérez, Louis A. Jr.
Rev. of L. E. Ramos Guadalupe, auth.;
O. García, trans., 868–69
Perin, Raffaella
Rev. of D. Kertzer, Forum Essay, 799–813

xx

GENERAL INDEX

Perry, David M.
Sacred Plunder: Venice and the Aftermath
of the Fourth Crusade, rev., 391–92
Peter, Saint
men., 824–25
Peterson, Jeanette Favrot
Visualizing Guadalupe: From Black
Madonna to Queen of the Americas, rev.,
205–06
Petráček, Tomas, auth; Derek and Marzia
Paton, trans.
Church, Society and Change: Christianity
Impaired by Conflicting Elites; In the
Maelstrom of Secularization, Collaboration, and Persecution: Roman Catholicism in Modern Czech Society and the
State, rev., 582–83
Petráček, Tomas, auth.; David Livingstone,
trans.
Man, Values and the Dynamics of
Medieval Society: Anthropological Concepts of the Middle Ages in a Transcultural Perspective, rev., 582–83
Pettegree, Andrew
Rev. of E. Rummel, trans; M. Kooistra,
annot., 837–38
Pettinaroli, Laura
La Politique Russe du Saint-Siège (1905–
1939), rev., 853–54
Peucker, Paul
A Time of Sifting: Mystical Marriage and
the Crisis of Moravian Piety in the
Eighteenth Century, rev., 628–29
Pflug, Julius, Bishop
men., 877
Philippine Church
men., 469–91, 584–85
Pilgrimage
men., 160–61, 204–05, 827–28
Pimblott, Kerry
Rev. of G. R. McNeil, H. B. Roberson,
Q. H. Dixie, and K. McGruder, 191–
92
Pincus, Debra
Rev. of D. M. Perry, 391–92
Pinheiro, John C.
Missionaries of Republicanism: A Religious
History of the Mexican-American War,
rev., 192–94
Pinner, Rebecca
The Cult of St Edmund in Medieval East
Anglia, rev., 590–91
Pius II, Pope
men., 399–400
Pius XI, Pope
men., 799–813

Pius XII, Pope
men., 184–85, 857–59
Platt, R. Eric, Melandie McGee, and
Amanda King
Marching in Step: Patriotism and the
Southern Catholic Cadet Movement,
517–44
Poisoning
men., 26–45
Pollard, John
The Papacy in the Age of Totalitarianism,
1914–1958, rev., 634–36
Pontifical Committee for Historical
Sciences
Sponsors conference “Alla ricerca di
soluzioni: Nuova luce sul V Concilio
Lateranense,” 663
Poole, Stafford, C.M.
men., 69–96
Rev. of J. F. Peterson, 205–06
Rev. of M.-T. Hernández, 439–40
Poor Clares
men., 469–91
Porete, Marguerite
men., 155–57
Posset, Franz
2016 Harry C. Koenig Prize winner for
Johann Reuchlin, 1455–1522: A
Theological Biography, 876
Poston, Lawrence
Letter to Editor, 229–31
Priest, Robert D.
The Gospel According to Renan:
Reading, Writing, and Religion in
Nineteenth-Century France, rev., 851–
53
Printy, Michael
Rev. of B. Kaplan, 175–76
Prodi, Paolo
Il paradigma tridentino: Un’epoca della
storia della Chiesa, rev., 615–16
Propaganda
men., 771–98
Pseudo-Petrarch, auth.; Aldo S. Bernardo
and Reta A. Bernardo, trans.; Tania
Zampini, ed. and introd.
The Lives of the Popes and Emperors, rev.,
406–07
Rafferty, Oliver P., S.J.
Rev. of C. Barr and H. M. Carey, eds.,
847–48
Rambaran-Olm, M. R.
John the Baptist’s Prayer or The Descent
into Hell from the Exeter Book: Text,
Translation and Critical Study, rev.,
145–46

GENERAL INDEX

Ramos Guadalupe, Luis E., auth.; Oswaldo
García, trans.
Father Benito Viñes: The 19th-Century
Life and Contributions of a Cuban
Hurricane Observer and Scientist, rev.,
868–69
Rea, Robert F.
Does Church History Matter?, rev., 118–19
Rebillard, Éric and Jörg Rüpke, eds.
Group Identity and Religious Individuality
in Late Antiquity, rev., 375–76
Recusant books
men., 545–80
Redinger, Matthew A.
Rev. of A. M. Martínez, 194–95
Reformation
men., 402–03, 403–04, 405–06, 408–10,
411–12, 443, 445, 611–12, 612–13,
613–15, 616–17, 837–38
Religion, State & Society
Publishes “Second special section on
religion and territorial politics in
southern Europe,” 666
Religious Freedom
men., 340–68
Remensnyder, Amy G.
La Conquistadora: The Virgin Mary at
War and Peace in the Old and New
Worlds, rev., 187–88
Renaissance Society of America
Program on “The Language of Reform”
at conference in Chicago, 445
Renan, Ernest
men., 851–53
Rennie, Kriston R.
The Collectio Burdegalensis: A Study and
Register of an Eleventh-Century Canon
Law Collection, rev., 149–50
Reston, James, Jr.
Luther’s Fortress: Martin Luther and His
Reformation under Siege, rev., 611–12
Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France
Publishes papers on “Les églises
chrétiennes dans la Grande Guerre:
Expériences historiographiques
européennes,” 666
Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine
Publishes articles on “Antisémitisme(s):
un éternel retour?,” 223
Rhijn, Carine van
Rev. of R. Stone and Charles West, eds.,
829–30
Ribadeneira, Pedro de, S.J., auth.; Claude
Pavur, S.J., trans.
The Life of Ignatius of Loyola, rev., 407–
08

xxi

Ribeiro, Roberto M., ed., with John W.
O’Malley
Jesuit Mapmaking in China: D’Anville’s
Nouvelle Atlas de la Chine (1737),
rev., 654–55
Richard of Saint-Vanne
men., 814–19
Riebling, Mark
Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War
against Hitler, rev., 184–85
Riedel, Christopher
Praising God Together: Monastic
Reformers and Laypeople in
Tenth-Century Winchester, 284–
317
Rippinger, Joel, O.S.B.
Rev. of P. Engelbert, O.S.B., auth;
H. O’Shea, O.S.B., trans., 632–
34
Rivers, Kimberly
Rev. of M. W. Driver and V. M.
O’Mara, eds., 162–63
Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa
Publishes articles on “Esperienza e
rappresentazione dell’Islam
nell’Europa mediterranea (secoli XVI–
XVIII),” 877–78
Roberson, Ronald G., C.S.P.
Rev. of G. Fedalto, 369–70
Robertson, Duncan
Lectio Divina: The Medieval Experience of
Reading, rev., 138–39
Rodríguez, José Manuel
Rev. of J. F. O’Callaghan, 602–03
Rolker, Christof
Rev. of K. R. Rennie, 149–50
Roman Congregations
men., 687–711
Root, Michael
Rev. of B. Hamm, auth; M. J.
Lohrmann, trans., 403–04
Rospocher, Massimo
Il papa guerriero. Giulio II nello spazio
pubblico europeo, rev., 609–10
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
men., 446
Roux, René
Rev. of S. Brock and B. Fitzgerald,
trans., introd., and annot., 137–38
Roy-Lysencourt, Philippe
Les membres du Coetus Internationalis
Patrum au Concile Vatican II. Inventaire des interventions et souscriptions
des adhérents et sympathisants. Liste des
signataires d’occasion et des théologiens,
rev., 97–117

xxii

GENERAL INDEX

Roy, Philippe J.
Bibliographie du Concile Vatican II, rev.,
97–117
Rubens, Peter Paul
men., 417–18
Rudy, Kathryn M.
Virtual Pilgrimages in the Convent:
Imagining Jerusalem in the Late Middle
Ages, rev., 160–61
Rummel, Erika, trans; Milton Kooistra,
annot.
The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito.
Vol. 3: 1532–1536, rev., 837–38
Ryan, Dominic, O.P.
Rev. of B. McGinn, 154–55
Ryder, George Dudley
men., 421–22
Rzeznik, Thomas
Rev. of C. C. D. Hughes, 428–30
Rev. of C. F. Biddle, 428–30
Sabella, Jeremy
Rev. of R. F. Rea, 118–19
Sacraments
men., 687–711
Saints’ cults
men., 507–15, 603–04
Samway, Patrick, S.J., ed. and annot.
The Letters of Robert Giroux and Thomas
Merton, rev., 645–46
Sánchez del Río, José, Blessed
Canonized as saint, 661
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
miracle, 220
Sanna, Elisabetta, Venerable Servant of God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
miracle, 220
Sant’Anselmo
men., 632–34
Saresella, Daniela
Ecclesial Dissent in Italy in the Sixties,
46–68
Sarreal, Julia J. S.
The Guaraní and Their Missions: A
Socioeconomic History, rev., 209–10
Sauerländer, Willibald
The Catholic Rubens: Saints and Martyrs,
rev., 417–18
Schedel, Hartmann
men., 164–65
Scherer, Cornelia
Der Pontifikat Gregors IV. (827–844):
Vorstellung und Wahrnehmung
päpstlichen Handelns im 9. Jahrhundert,
rev., 144–45
Schmoelz, Michael
Rev. of R. Pinner, 590–91

Schroth, Raymond A., S.J.
Rev. of A. D. Andreassi, C.O., 430–32
Sciorra, Joseph
Built with Faith: Italian American
Imagination and Catholic Material
Culture in New York City, rev., 202–03
Scutchfield, F. Douglas
Rev. of P. Samway, S.J., ed. and annot.,
645–46
Scutchfield, F. Douglas, and Paul Evans
Holbrook Jr., eds.
The Letters of Thomas Merton and Victor
and Carolyn Hammer: Ad Majorem
Dei Gloriam, rev., 433–34
Second Vatican Council
men., 97–117, 340–68, 422–23, 424–25,
46–68, 586–87, 629–30
Severus, Patriarch of Antioch
men., 137–38
Shaw, Christine
Rev. of M. Rospocher, 609–10
Shea, C. Michael
Rev. of M. D. Chapman, 178–80
Shelley, Thomas J.
Rev. of P. Moses, 644–45
Shlikhta, Natalia
Rev. of E. D. Wynot Jr., 182–84
Shuger, Debora
Rev. of J. Willis, ed., 613–15
Shusterman, Noah
The French Revolution. Faith, Desire, and
Politics, rev., 176–77
Rev. of E. C. Cage, 844–45
Sirota, Brent S.
The Christian Monitors. The Church of
England and the Age of Benevolence,
1680–1730, rev., 418–20
Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
men., 195–96
Sisters of St. John the Baptist
men., 661
Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament
Announce sale of Bensalem and Belmead
properties, 661
men., 428–30
Sixteenth Century Society and Conference
Program for Bruges conference
announced, 445
Sponsors 2016 conference, 223
Smaby, Beverly
Rev. of P. Peucker, 628–29
Smith, Seán Alexander
Fealty and Fidelity: The Lazarists of Bourbon France, 1660–1736, rev., 841–42
Rev. of E. R. Udovic, C.M., introd.,
trans., and annot., 623–24

GENERAL INDEX

Smither, Edward F., ed.
Rethinking Constantine: History, Theology,
and Legacy, b.n., 660
Smoller, Laura A.
Rev. of H. Millet and M. MaillardLuypaert, 833–34
Snape, Michael
God and Uncle Sam: Religion and
America’s Armed Forces in World War
II, rev., 432–33
Snyder, Glenn E.
Rev. of D. L. Eastman, trans., annot.,
and introd., 824–25
Sobecki, Sebastian
Unwritten Verities: The Making of
England’s Vernacular Legal Culture,
1463–1549, rev., 608–09
Société canadienne d’histoire de l’Église
catholique
Sponsors conference, “La mission dans
tous ses états (XXe et XXIe siècles):
Circulations, rencontres, échanges et
hybridités,” 445
Society for Italian Historical Studies
Announces Ezio Cappadocia Prize, 444–
45
Society of Jesus
men., 26–45, 209–10, 318–39, 373–74,
407–08, 619–20, 654–55, 821–23,
838–40, 843–44, 859–60
Soetaert, Alexander
Rev. of G. H. Janssen, 616–17
Southern Catholics
men., 517–44
Southern Historical Association
Announces John L. Snell Prize in
European History for 2016, 444
Spicer, Kevin P., C.S.C; Lucia Ceci; Roy
Domenico; Raffaella Perin; Robert A.
Ventresca; and David I. Kertzer
The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret
History of Pius XI and the Rise of
Fascism in Europe, Forum Essay, 799–
813
Stafford, Pauline
Rev. of C. Leyser and L. Smith, eds.,
140–41
Stahl, Ronit Y.
Rev. of N. J. Young, 863–65
Stanislaus of Jesus and Mary (Jan
Papczyński), Blessed
Canonized as saint, 661
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
miracle, 220
St. John’s Abbey Church
men., 201–02

xxiii

St. John’s Seminary, Camarillo
men., 69–96
Stein, Edith (St. Teresa Benedicta of the
Cross, O.C.D.)
men., 636–37
Stone, Rachel, and Charles West, eds.
Hincmar of Rheims: Life and Work, rev.,
829–30
Stratton-Pruitt, Suzanne L., ed.; Judy de
Bustamante, org.
The Art of Painting in Colonial Quito / El
arte de la pintura en Quito colonial,
rev., 438–39
Stumpf, Kilian, S.J., auth.; Paul Rule and
Claudia von Collani, eds.
The Acta Pekinensia or Historical Records
of the Maillard de Tournon Legation.
Vol. 1: December 1705–August 1705,
rev., 874–75
Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas
men., 154–55
Swan, Laura
The Wisdom of the Beguines: The Forgotten
Story of a Medieval Women’s Movement, rev., 394–95
Swann, Alaya
Rev. of R. Blumenfeld-Kosinski, 398–99
Swanson, R. N.
Rev. of F. D. Logan, 392–93
Sweeney, Douglas A.
Rev. of G. Wacker, 198–99
Sweet, Michael J.
Murder in the Refectory: The Death of
António de Andrade, S.J., 26–45
Tackett, Timothy
The Coming of the Terror in the French
Revolution, rev., 845–47
Rev. of N. Shusterman, 176–77
Takayama Ukon, Iustus, Servant of God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
martyrdom, 220
Tentler, Leslie Woodcock
Rev. of S. M. Avella, 434–36
Teresa of Ávila, Saint
men., 223, 665, 878
Teresa of Kolkata (Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu)
Canonized as saint, 661
Theologie und Glaube
Publishes articles on “Katholische Theologie unter Hitlers Regime,” 878–79
Thomas, David
Rev. of S. Noble and A. Treiger, eds.,
119–21
Thompson, Glen L., trans. and annot.
The Correspondence of Pope Julius I, rev.,
136–37

xxiv

GENERAL INDEX

Thurston, Bonnie
Rev. of F. D. Scutchfield and P. E.
Holbrook Jr., eds., 433–34
Tolan, John
Rev. of I. C. Levy, R. George-Tvrtković,
and D. Duclow, eds., 158–59
Tovey, Phillip
Anglican Confirmation, 1662–1820, rev.,
624–25
Trappist Monks of Conyers, Georgia
Receive 2016 ACHA Distinguished
Service Award, 219–20
Trigolo, Arsenio da, Servant of God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
heroic virtue, 220
Tyerman, Christopher
The Debate on the Crusades, rev., 150–51
Rev. of A. J. Andrea and A. Holt, ed.
and introd., 593–94
Tyson, John R.
Rev. of K. M. Watson, 420–21
The Way of the Wesleys: A Short Introduction, rev., 627–28
Udovic, Edward R., C.M., introd., trans.,
and annot.
Henri de Maupas du Tour: The Funeral
Oration for Vincent de Paul, 23
November 1660, rev., 623–24
Ultramontanism
men., 712–45
University of Notre Dame
Sponsors conference, “The Promise of
the Vatican Library,” 222
Unzeitig, Engelmar, Venerable Servant of
God
Pope Francis authorizes decree regarding
martyrdom, 220
Urbanian University Journal
Publishes articles on “Figure episcopali
nel Tardo Antico: L’episcopato è
sempre un bonum opus?,” 445–46
U.S. Catholic Historian
Publishes articles from U.S. Catholic
China Bureau’s conference, 666
Publishes articles on “role of language in
U.S. Catholic history,” 223–24
Publishes articles on sexuality, 447
U.S. National Park Service
Receives 2017 ACHA Distinguished
Service Award, 876
Valdés, Juan de
men., 168–69
Vanderputten, Steven
Imagining Religious Leadership in the
Middle Ages: Richard of Saint-Vanne
and the Politics of Reform; Monastic

Reform as Process: Realities and Representations in Medieval Flanders, 900–
1100; and Reform, Conflict, and the
Shaping of Corporate Identities: Collected Studies on Benedictine Monasticism, 1050–1150, rev., 814–19
Vanderputten, Steven, and Brigite Meijns,
eds.
Ecclesia in Medio Nationis: Reflections on
the Study of Monasticism in the Central
Middle Ages / Réflexions sur l’étude du
monachisme au moyen âge central, rev.,
814–19
Van Oosterhout, K. Aaron
Rev. of P. Mijangos y González, 210–11
Van Osselaer, Tine, and Patrick Pasture,
eds.
Christian Homes: Religion, Family, and
Domesticity in the Nineteenth and
Twentieth Centuries, rev., 823–24
Van Rompay, Lucas, Sam Miglarese, and
David Morgan, eds.
The Long Shadow of Vatican II: Living
Faith and Negotiating Authority since
the Second Vatican Council, rev., 586–
87
Van Valen, Gary
Rev. of J. J. S. Sarreal, 209–10
Vatican bombing
men., 771–98
Vauchez, André, ed.
Profeti e profetismi: Escatologia,
millenarismo e utopia, rev., 121–23
Velati, Mauro
Separati ma fratelli. Gli osservatori non
cattolici al Vaticano II (1962–1965),
rev., 97–117
Ventresca, Robert
Rev. of D. Kertzer, Forum Essay, 799–
813
Verkholantsev, Julia
The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome: The
History of the Legend and Its Legacy, or,
How the Translator of the Vulgate
Became an Apostle of the Slavs, rev.,
383–84
Verstegen, Ian F.
Federico Barocci and the Oratorians:
Corporate Patronage and Style in the
Counter-Reformation, rev., 617–19
Villerbu, Tangi
Les missions du Minnesota: Catholicisme et
colonisation dans l’Ouest américain,
1830–1860, rev., 426–28
Vincent de Paul, Saint
men., 623–24

GENERAL INDEX

Vincentians
men., 69–96, 841–82
Wacker, Grant
America’s Pastor: Billy Graham and
the Shaping of a Nation, rev., 198–
99
Waddell, Mark A.
Jesuit Science and the End of Nature’s
Secrets, rev., 619–20
Wagner, Bettina
Rev. of M. A. Lavin, 165–66
Wagner, Bettina, ed.; Diane Booton et al.,
trans.
Worlds of Learning: The Library and
World Chronicle of the Nuremberg
Physician Hartmann Schedel (1440–
1514), rev., 164–65
Wall, Barbra Mann
Into Africa: A Transnational History of
Catholic Medical Missions and Social
Change, rev., 652–53
Washburn, Christian D.
The First Vatican Council, Archbishop
Henry Manning, and Papal Infallibility, 712–45
Watson, Kevin M.
Pursuing Social Holiness: The Band
Meeting in Wesley’s Thought and
Popular Methodist Practice, rev., 420–
21
Weddle, Saundra
Rev. of G. Zarri, ed., 163–64
Weigand [†], Rudolf, Peter Landau, and
Waltraud Kozur, eds.; Stefan Häring,
Karin Miethaner, and Martin Petzolt,
collab.
Summa ‘Omnis qui iuste iudicat’ sive
Lipsiensis. 3 tomes. Tome 1, rev.,
389–91
Weitz, Lev
Rev. of M. S. A. Mikhail, 379–80
Wengert, Timothy
Rev. of J. Reston Jr., 611–12
Wessel, Martin Schulze, and Frank E.
Sysyn, eds.
Religion, Nation, and Secularization in
Ukraine, rev., 585–86
Whalen, Brett
Rev. of A. Vauchez, ed., 121–23
Whelan, Robin
Rev. of P. R. L. Brown, 826–27
White, Arthur
Plague and Pleasure: The Renaissance
World of Pius II, rev., 399–400
Whitford, David M.
Rev. of L. P. Buck, 405–06

xxv

Wickham, Chris
Sleepwalking into a New World: The
Emergence of Italian City Communes in
the Twelfth Century, rev., 596–97
Wicks, Jared, S.J.
Yet More Light on Vatican Council II,
Review Essay, 97–117
Wilderness
men., 251–83
Williams, Jeffrey
Rev. of D. A. Hollinger, 643–44
Willis, Jonathan, ed.
Sin and Salvation in Reformation
England, rev., 613–15
Witt, Ronald G.
Rev. of Pseudo-Petrarch, auth.; A. S.
Bernardo and R. A. Bernardo, trans.;
T. Zampini, ed. and introd., 406–07
Wolff, Uwe, auth.; Barbara Hallensleben,
ed.
Iserloh: Der Thesenanschlag fand nicht
statt, rev., 167–68
Wolverton, Lisa
Cosmas of Prague: Narrative, Classicism,
Politics, rev., 384–86
Women’s History Review
Publishes articles on Constance
Maynard, 446–47
Woods, James M.
Rev. of D. C. R. Heisser and S. J. White
Sr., 425–26
World War I
men., 856–57
World War II
men., 771–98, 857–59
Wright, A. D.
Rev. of P. Prodi, 615–16
Wright-Rios, Edward
Searching for Madre Matiana: Prophecy
and Popular Culture in Modern Mexico,
rev., 648–49
Wynot, Edward D. Jr.
The Polish Orthodox Church in the
Twentieth Century and Beyond:
Prisoner of History, rev., 182–84
Yasin, Ann Marie
Rev. of B. Mulholland, 133–35
Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita, ed.
Medicine, Religion and Gender in
Medieval Culture, rev., 594–96
Young, Ernest P.
Rev. of D. E. Mungello, 655–56
Young, Neil J.
We Gather Together: The Religious Right
and the Problem of Interfaith Politics,
rev., 863–65

xxvi

GENERAL INDEX

Young, Victoria M.
Saint John’s Abbey Church: Marcel Breuer
and the Creation of a Modern Sacred
Space, rev., 201–02
Zacchia, Paolo
men., 1–25
Zanca, Kenneth J.
Rev. of J. Childs, 408–10
Zarri, Gabriella, ed.
Velo e Velatio: Significato e
rappresentazione nella cultura figurativa
dei secoli XV–XVII, rev., 163–64

Zchomelidse, Nino
Receives 2015 Howard R. Marraro Prize
for Italian History for Art, Ritual, and
Civic Identity in Medieval Southern
Italy, 217
Zeitz, Saxony
City to host “Dialog der Konfessionen:
Bischof Julius Pflug und die
Reformation,” Exhibition, 877
Ziegler, Joseph
Rev. of N. K. Yoshikawa, ed., 594–96
Zwingli, Huldrych
men., 411–12

THE CATHOLIC
HISTORICAL REVIEW
VOL. 102

AUTUMN, 2016

NO. 4

Sacraments for the Faithful of the New World,
Jews, and Eastern-Rite Christians:
Roman Legislation from Paul III to Benedict XIV
(1537–1758)
MARIA TERESA FATTORI*
This essay analyzes papal governance of sacramental matters from the
pontificates of Paul III to Benedict XIV, providing an overview of
positions adopted over the long term pertaining to sacraments for the
faithful in the New World. It also examines the manner and timing of
the construction of the magisterial and judicial function of the papacy
regarding the governance of the sacraments for new converts in the
New World. Over 220 years, papal authority granted special abilities
and adjudicated in specific situations with ever-increasing attention.
Benedict XIV confirmed the legislation of the Roman Congregations,
incorporating it into his own measures.
Keywords: Catholic converts, Council of Trent, neophytes, sacraments, Roman Congregations

T

he origin of the relationship between sacramental matters and the papal
magisterial function predates the modern age and is rooted in the long
tradition of the Church. In the sixteenth century, just when European
Catholicism was experiencing global expansion, Protestant criticism put the
*Dr. Fattori serves on the editorial board of Cristianesimo nella storia and has taught
modern history and history of religions at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and
University of Parma (2008–14); email: mariateresa.fattori@gmail.com. An earlier version of
this essay was presented at “The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and
Beyond (1545–1700),” part of the International Congress RefoRC held in Leuven on
December 4–6, 2013. The author thanks to Wim François and Violet Soen for their generosity in the discussion and improvement of this article, as well as to John Cronin for his assistance with English terminology.

687

688

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

validity of the sacraments on trial. Faced with this challenge, the Council of
Trent’s decrees placed the sacraments at the junction between discipline and
doctrine. This also would affect sacramental practice in the New World: the
inquisition’s rigor, a desire to standardize differences, as well as to create a
framework open to limited self-regulation—all revolved around sacramental
issues. The Catholic desire for standardization approached this new religious
“other” in the Americas as well as in Asia, and this desire also touched the
rites for Eastern Christians united to the Roman apostolic see.
Comparisons between missionary practice and the rigor of the inquisition were posed on sacramental issues, between the desire to standardize
the observed differences, and that to create a framework open to limited
attempts of self-regulation. The Catholic protagonists’ standardization
attempts approached this new religious difference with the same criteria it
had designed before to handle interactions with and the conversion of
Muslims, Jews, and Christians of the Eastern rites. However, from 1570
onward, documentation regarding sacramental doubt, directed to the Holy
Office or sent to other curial congregations, began to accumulate. The
curial congregations were now called upon to resolve cases presented by
missionaries, religious superiors, or bishops regarding sacraments for the
Indians. They pronounced judgments and enacted general decrees, subsequently confirmed by pontifical authority.
The interpretation of Tridentine discipline regarding the sacraments
was conducted by three curial congregations: the Holy Office; the Congregation of Council; and, after 1622, the Congregation for the Propagation of
the Faith. They had overlapping responsibilities. Although the Council of
Trent did not impose standards on the Church’s missionary activity, decrees
concerning the sacraments played a key role in regulating the missionary
apostolate.1 Beyond the council’s rulings, concrete situations were handled
with malleable arrangements, sometimes opening a gap between discipline
and practice. The dialectic between the curial congregations also suffered in
the transition from an extraordinary ecclesiastical structure (entrusted to
religious congregations and missionary orders) to a framework that was
based on the authority of bishops and territorial churches. Missionary practice, therefore, was subject to the scrutiny of the Roman congregations,
allowing the apostolic see to use the sacraments as policy instruments whose
legitimacy could not be questioned by local political powers. Rome used the
sacramental dossiers as occasions to intervene and exert authority over
1. See John O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA, 2013);
see also the Italian translation Trento. Il racconto del concilio (Milan, 2013), pp. 215–47.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

689

Catholic churches in the New World, defining the powers of local clergy
and shifting power between regular and secular clergy.2
Through the Augustinian “compelle eos intrare” (“compel them to
enter,” interpreting the Gospel of Luke 14:23), Christians became aware of,
and experienced firsthand, the beneficial effects of fear and discipline on
those undergoing coercion. It provided an opportunity for transforming
external necessity into inner will. The “conception of love” that the sacraments expressed thenceforth consisted of a formula in which violence and
persuasion often were indistinguishable.3 Moreover, missionary activity in a
hostile or noncollateral political environment involved the engagement of
adults. The “faith” was explained to the potential faithful in understandable
and rational terms. Those adults were then asked subsequently to adopt
behavior often at odds with the socially accepted behavior of the dominant
culture, and to baptize their children immediately after birth. Conversely, in
the European situation, baptism was given to infants within a sacramental
system that codified the rites of passage, coupled with catechetical work that
began and often ended in childhood. The spread of Christianity in China
or Japan, for instance, could not rely on a political power and had to appeal
to the freedom of individuals. The Tridentine and papal magisterial acceptance of the theological interpretation of baptism as being a sacrament
imprinting “character” to the soul was a process that led to highlighting the
juridical consequences of the sacramental act.4 This process brought sacraments for neophytes into the realm of papal authority.

2. The entire collection of this legislative activity concerning the sacraments is the subject of Maria Teresa Fattori, “Introduzione. Politiche sacramentali tra Vecchio e Nuovi
Mondi, secoli XVI–XVIII,” in Politiche sacramentali tra Vecchio e Nuovi Mondi, ed. Maria
Teresa Fattori, spec. issue of Cristianesimo nella storia, 31, no. 2 (2010), 295–325; see also Fattori, “«Sempre tenendo saldo il legame con la chiesa Madre e Maestra»: sacramenti e nuovi
mondi da Paolo III a Benedetto XIV. Spunti di riflessione,” in Per Adriano Prosperi, Riti di
passaggio, storie di giustizia, ed. Vincenzo Lavenia and Giovanna Paolin, 3 vols. (Pisa, 2011),
3:87–214. For general perspectives, see Giuseppe Marcocci, “Is There Room for the Papacy
in Global History? On the Vatican Archives and Universalism,” Rechtsgeschichte. Legal History, 20 (2012), 366–67; Roberto Regoli, Papato: soggetto mondiale in prospettiva globale?, ibid.,
pp. 386–87; for a wide chronology through the lens of space, see Giuseppe Marcocci, Wietse
de Boer, Aliocha Maldavsky, and Ilaria Pavan, “Introduction: Space, Conversion, and Global
History,” in Space and Conversion in Global Perspective (Leiden, 2015), pp. 1–11.
3. Remo Bodei, Ordo amoris. Conflitti terreni e felicità celeste (Bologna, 1991), pp. 200–12.
4. For the juridical nature of the sacraments, cf. Carlo Fantappiè, “L’edificazione del
sistema canonistico (1563–1903),” in Chiesa romana e modernità giuridica, 2 vols. (Milan,
2008), 1:6–12. For the integration of medieval theology into the magisterium of the councils,
see Fabrizio Mandreoli, “Note sulla teologia sacramentaria tra il XII e il XV secolo,” in
Politiche sacramentali, pp. 327–86.

690

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

This article analyzes papal governance of sacramental matters from the
pontificates of Paul III to Benedict XIV, examining positions adopted
from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. In addition, it studies the
manner and timing of the construction of the magisterial and judicial function of the papacy regarding the governance of the sacraments for neophytes in the New World. That function was in some cases enacted in
opposition to local political power and in support of it in other cases. The
papal function was intended to mediate competition between clerics from
religious orders and clerics from parish churches or between different bishops for the control of the sacred order. The conflicts were caused by the
administration of the sacraments, regarding the control and supervision
bishops exerted over the clergy’s and confessors’ work. In the 220 years
between 1537 (the enactment of the first measure governing the sacraments for new Christians) and 1758 (the end of Benedict XIV’s pontificate), papal authority granted special abilities and adjudicated in specific
situations with ever-increasing attention. Ending the analysis with Benedict XIV is fitting, for this pontiff comprehensively examined previous
papal actions and confirmed the legislation of Roman Congregations,
incorporating it into his own measures.5 This pope’s approach to sacraments presented a coherent strategy that linked Roman politics to Jews,
the United Oriental Churches, and the New World.
The essay is divided into two parts. The first addresses papal proclamations on marriage, sacraments for Eastern-rite Christians, sacraments
for neophytes in missionary territories, and sacramental conflicts; in the
second part, Benedict XIV’s revision of Tridentine sacramental discipline
regarding marriage, sacraments for Eastern-rite Christians, and the baptism of Jews. The conclusion offers a brief assessment of Benedict XIV’s
contributions in sacramental matters.
The Council of Trent Measures and Missionary Activities
(1537–1704)
In Hispanic and Portuguese America, political conditions made missionary work the instrument that introduced religion to the dominated
population. The sacraments became the religious correlative to political
5. This analysis is based on the documentation collected in Magnum Bullarium Romanum (Rome, 1745) and America Pontificia primi saeculi evangelizationis 1493–1592, ed. Josef
Metzler, 2 vols. (Vatican City, 1991); Documenti pontifici nell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano
riguardanti l’evangelizzazione dell’America, 1592–1644, ed. Josef Metzler and Giuseppina
Roselli (Vatican City, 1995); hereafter both America Pontificia and Documenti pontifici are
cited as AP, with Documenti considered as vol. 3.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

691

submission to the Spanish or Portuguese imperial power.6 In fact, within
Catholicism, the sacraments remained obligatory acts through which individuals were integrated into a social and ecclesiastical system. The system
was therefore both dual and unitary while lacking in freedom of choice.7
1. Marriage
Marriage is the subject area where a wide range of positions were
defended in an attempt to reduce differing unions and social rituals to the
indissoluble monogamous model. Already in the fifteenth century, Jewish
and Muslim converts to Catholicism were granted economic and matrimonial privileges, with the threat that they would receive the same legal punishment as heretics if they returned to “infidel” practices and rituals.8 The
provisions for newly converted Jews later would be applied to Protestants,
to avoid the danger of their backsliding into previous practices.
The legislation for the New World started with Paul III. The constitution Altitudo Divini Consilii, issued by Paul III in 1537, addressed a
number of problems related to the validity of natural marriages contracted
by Indians, rejected polygamous marriage and incest, and set out regulations for Masses and liturgical forms appropriate for baptism. Pius V’s
Romani pontificis of August 2, 1571, touched again on the marriage of the
newly converted (see figure 1). Gregory XIII’s Populis ac nationibus of January 25, 1585, addressed the marriage of converted slaves of African origin
in Brazil.9 Two years earlier, Gregory XIII had intervened to endorse the
ordination of mestizo clergy, a decision later acknowledged by the third
6. In Goa, the canonical ruling was preceded by the Portuguese empire and the royal
power’s laws associating, at least in terms of propaganda, conversion to Christianity with
obtaining full ‘rights’ of citizenship (for the converted), see Angela Barreto Xavier, “«Conformes á terra no modo de viver». Matrimónio e império na Goa quinhentista,” in Politiche
sacramentali, pp. 419–50. But see also Boris Jeanne, “La pratique sacramentaire de la mission
à l’épreuve de Rome. La dispense des sacrements dans la christianisation de la NouvelleEspagne au XVIe siècle et les retours devant la cour pontificale,” ibid., pp. 517–50; and
Giuseppe Marcocci, “Teologia e missioni in un impero commerciale: casi di coscienza e sacramenti nel mondo portoghese, ca. 1550–1600,” ibid., pp. 451–82.
7. On the dual sacramental system see Elena Brambilla, “Battesimo e diritti civili dalla
Riforma protestante al giuseppinismo,” Rivista storica italiana, 110 (1997), 602–27, here 610–13.
8. The Cupientes Iudaeos et alios infideles, March 21, 1542, Magnum Bullarium
Romanum [hereafter MBR] (Rome, 1745), 4/1, pp. 204–06.
9. See Charlotte de Castelnau-L’Éstoile, “Le mariage des infidèles au XVIe siècle:
doutes missionnaires et autorité pontificale,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Italie et
Méditerranée, 121 (2009), 1, 95–121; see Altitudo Divini Consilii, AP 1:361–64; Romani Pontificis, in AP 2:894–95; Populis ac Nationibus, ibid., pp. 1228–30.

692

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

FIGURE 1. Pius V and Gregory XIII, two pontiffs who considered sacramental matters in the context of new converts. Images from Popes and Other Churchmen:
Twenty Portraits (London, 1825). Engravings by J.W. Cook, 1825. Wellcome
Library, London.

provincial council of Mexico City. These early interventions, happening
around the time of the Council of Trent, show that the totality of papal
power over sacramental matters was a way of affirming a spiritual power
over Ibero-American churches subject to royal patronage. Jurisdiction over
the sacraments could only be increased thereby.
Pius V’s Romani pontificis established the nullifying principle of faith
as the criterion for dissolving polygamous marriages. The converted husband could only remain with one woman: the first one married or the
woman who accepted baptism.10 Gregory XIII’s Populis ac nationibus
granted bishops and Jesuits the authority to dissolve the natural marriages
of African slaves brought to Brazil and celebrate new ones. This second
marriage was valid even in cases of conversion of the first wife before the
slave’s second marriage. Gregory XIII “cum plenitudine potestatis” established a condition for the dissolution of marriage.11
The marriage provisions established by Paul III, Pius V, and Gregory
XIII for neophytes of the American New World extended their validity to
10. Pius V, Romani Pontificis, August 2, 1571, in AP 2:894–95.
11. Populis ac Nationibus, January 25, 1585, ibid., pp. 1228–30.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

693

Christians who found themselves in similar situations anywhere, including
Europe. In fact, Benedict XIV’s law would later adopt the rules established
by the Pauline privilege.12 This privilege was based on St. Paul’s first Letter
to the Corinthians 7:12–15. On that basis, legitimate marriages are dissolved in favor of the faith (favor fidei or favor religionis) when one of the
spouses, after receiving baptism, refused to continue living with an infidel
or feared that his/her natural marriage might offend God. The Society of
Jesus and the decrees approved by the 1567 Goa council contributed to the
formulation of Pius V’s constitution, as seen in documents sent to the
Jesuit Superior General by missionaries in India and Japan from 1565 to
1569.13 The special allowances regarding new converts in the New World
applied not only to marriage but also to confession and baptism.14
2. Sacraments for Eastern-Rite Churches
Clement VIII’s pontificate (1592–1605) saw two important new
developments: the papacy placed itself at the head of a reconciliation
movement with Eastern European or Near East Christians in a Uniate

12. See Gerardo Oesterlé, “Privilège Paulin,” Dictionnaire de droit canonique (Paris,
1965), 7:229–80, here 267–68.
13. Josef Wicki, “Einige Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte der Konstitution Pius’ V.
‘Romani pontificis’ (2 Aug. 1571),” Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, 26 (1957), 212–17;
idem, “I cinque concili di Goa (1567–1606) e l’attitudine portoghese verso i costumi dell’India,” in Civiltà indiana ed impatto europeo nei secoli XVI–XVIII. L’apporto dei viaggiatori
e missionari italiani, ed. Enrico Fasana and Giuseppe Sorge (Milan, 1987), pp. 37–46; idem,
“Die Konzilien der Kirchenprovinz Goa (1567–1895),” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum,
1–2 (1981), 155–269, here 163–96; Teotonio De Souza, “The Council of Trent (1545–
1563): Its Reception in Portuguese India,” in Transkontinentale Beziehungen in der
Geschichte des Aussereuropäischen Christentums, ed. Klaus Koschorke (Wiesbaden, 2002), pp.
189–201. On the reception of the Council of Trent in Portugal, see José Pedro Paiva, “A
recepção e aplicação do Concílio de Trento em Portugal: novos problemas, novas perspectivas,” in O Concilio de Trento em Portugal e nas suas conquistas. Olhares Novos, ed. António
M. de Almeida Camões Gouveia, David Sampaio Barbosa, and José Pedro Paiva (Lisbon,
2014), pp. 13–40.
14. In fact, the special allowances regarding confession, besides granting absolution in
cases reserved to the apostolic see, also contemplated confession for newly converted Americans through a translator but not through another person or in writing. Pope Clement VIII
imposed this limit in 1602 in the decree prohibiting confession or absolution of the penitent
in absentia. On confession, see Pius V, Cum sicut (n.d.), in AP 2:931–32. A constitution of
Gregory XIII, Cum sicut exponi (first January 1583, ibid., pp. 1184–86), granted bishops the
right to absolve neophytes of the sins of heresy, idolatry, and other selected charges. See also
Sanctissimus D.N.D., July 20, 1602, MBR 5/2:460. Clement VIII granted the Jesuits permission for a ten-year period to omit certain parts of baptism, which were not considered “essential”; see Decet Romanum Pontificem, September 23, 1594, in AP 3:84.

694

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

perspective15; and a conflict typical of European Christendom appeared in
New World churches, with the various parties turning to the papacy to
manage the conflicts. In both cases sacramental matters were the focus of
attention and discussion. The return of a unified policy with the Orient, a
policy begun with Gregory XIII, was crowned with success, in a Roman
perspective, in the union of Brest with the bishops of the Ruthenian nation.
The bishops were granted communion with Rome, acknowledging papal
supremacy while retaining their own liturgy. In the same year, 1595, Pope
Clement VIII endorsed the first major Instruction of the Italian Greek rites,
the result of Cardinal Giulio Antonio Santori’s work.16 The interest in the
worldwide expansion of Catholicism characterizing the Aldobrandini pontificate may be grasped by comparing the rapprochement policy toward the
schismatic Christians of the Eastern rite (an area subjected to careful analysis by the Holy Office due to its sacramental implications) with the expansion of the faith in the New World. The first institution of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith dates back to Clement VIII, but it lost
much of its vitality with the death of Santori.17 Santori also was responsible
for the instructions that contained the main guidelines for Italian-Greek
Christians.18 The same cardinal, under Clement VIII, guided missionary
activity and gave the rule for dealing with the Eastern sacramental rite.
3. Sacraments for Neophytes
Neophytes became the subject of increasing regulation. In 1542, with
Cupientes Judaeos, Paul III established, among other privileges, that the
15. The use of this expression of Eastern Christians or Uniate Churches marks the
Roman ecclesiological point of view; on the Roman perspectives, see Vybrané otázky a perspektívy teológie vo východných cirkvách zjednotených s Rímom. Selected Questions and Perspectives on
the Theology in the Eastern Churches United with Rome, ed. Šimon Marinčák (Košice, 2014).
16. For the Brest Union, cf. Magnus Dominus, no. 116, December 23, 1595, MBR 5/2:
87–92. For the Sanctissimus Dominus o Instructio super Ritibus Italo-Graecorum, August 31,
1595, or MBR 5/2:72–73. For the ecclesiological meaning, see Vittorio Peri, “Chiesa latina e
chiesa greca nell’Italia postridentina (1564–1596),” in La chiesa greca in Italia dall’VIII al XVI
secolo, Atti del convegno storico interecclesiale (Bari, 30 aprile–4 maggio 1969), 1 (Padova, 1973),
pp. 271–469, here pp. 271–72.
17. Josef Metzler, “Die Missionsinitiativen und Unionsbemühungen in den Hauptinstruktionen Clemens’ VIII.,” in Das Papsttum, die Christenheit und die Staaten Europas 1592–
1605. Forschungen zu den Hauptinstruktionen Clemens’ VIII., ed. Georg Lutz (Tübingen,
1994), pp. 77–98; on Santori and his influence on Clement VIII’s pontificate, see Maria
Teresa Fattori, Clemente VIII e il Sacro Collegio, 1592–1605. Meccanismi istituzionali e accentramento di governo (Stuttgart, 2004); cf. also Saverio Ricci, Il sommo inquisitore. Giulio Antonio
Santori tra Autobiografia e storia (1532–1602) (Rome, 2002).
18. See Maria Teresa Fattori, “Benedict XIV and His Sacramental Policy on the Eastern Churches (1740–1758),” Logos, 53 (2012), 3–24.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

695

neophyte’s place of origin was to be considered the country where he or she
was baptized.19 In rulings before the sixteenth century, being a neophyte
was regarded as a temporary condition (related to a period after baptism).
The new convert was unable to obtain ecclesiastical dignities or receive
orders until he had reached full Christian maturity in a bishop’s eyes. In
the 1542 Cupientes Judaeos, the neophyte’s condition was unlimited in time
both for the duration of privileges and for canonical punishment concerning ritual infidelity, amounting to heresy. In 1618 the Holy Office ruled on
who were deemed newly converted, encompassing recently baptized adults,
children of new converts, and those with European blood mixed with
“indio” blood (a generic expression referring to Native Americans, Asians,
and Africans). Christians of the East and West Indies, Ethiopians,
Angolans, and other Africans were considered newly converted if they
were children of European fathers with “indio” mothers or European
mothers with “indio” fathers, even if they had been baptized in childhood.
The Holy Office also decided that those who had only one “indio” parental
line in four (commonly called “quarterones”) or one parental line in eight
(called “pucuelles”) were not to be considered newly converted. Neophytes,
so defined, benefited from indults and special pardons granted to the Jesuit
missionaries to overcome marriage impediments, in both the foro interno
and the foro externo (internal and external fora).20 Given that the “condition
of a new convert could be determined by the proportion of non-European
blood present in a person, the quality of his or her Christianity depended
not on sacramental grace or commitment to knowing Christian doctrine
but on a kind of “genetic” determinism.21
4. Sacramental Conflicts Resolved by the Congregation of the Propagation
of the Faith
Administration of the sacraments unleashed bitter conflicts between
bishops and religious orders, between regular and secular clergy, and

19. Cupientes Judaeos, et alios infideles, MBR t. IV/1, 204–06; R. Naz, “Néophyte,” Dictionnaire de droit canonique (Paris, 1957), 6:997.
20. Benedict XIV, Cum Venerabilis, January 27, 1757, no. 66, Magnum Bullarium
Romanum Benedicti Papae XIV, 4 vols. (Rome, 1746–57; 2nd ed. Graz, 1966), hereafter MBR
4:514–21.
21. Henri Leclercq does not seem aware of the 1618 definition; see “Neóphyte,” Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (Paris, 1935), 12/1:117–20. For the condition of
catechumens in the first Christian centuries, see Eugène Martène, De Antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus
Libri, 2 vols. (Hildesheim, 1967, reproduction of the 1736 Antwerp ed.), 1:31–33; for the
prohibition against neophytes taking orders or dignities; see ibid., 2:5–11.

696

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

between different religious orders.22 From the end of the sixteenth century,
the parties involved turned to the pope and curial congregations to settle
legal disputes, resolve doubts, or ask for special abilities to deal with particular situations. Sacramental matters were the main reason for disagreement, which originated in the privileges granted to religious orders
(Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, and Jesuits) in the early waves of
evangelization. Those privileges were reconfirmed by popes in the two centuries examined here, establishing the nature of the overlap and future
competition between missionary orders and the territorial churches.23 Even
in the New World, administering the sacraments and funeral rites for
Indio, Creole, Spanish, and foreign Christians led to competition between
parishes and convents as well as between episcopal authorities and the privileged missionaries.24 From the Roman point of view, the conflict and
sacramental management represented a way of exercising control over the
churches subject to royal patronage.25 It was also a way of interpreting and
applying the Council of Trent on a global level.
An extensive mass of interconnected complaints reached Rome. To
untangle the many strands snarling the churches, Rome decided to affirm
its power as the source of grace and pardon, to be the last resort for questions of conscience and interpretations of the Council of Trent. In that
period, the apostolic see exercised a role parallel to that of “Juge suprême
et docteur infaillible” in defining the faith.26
22. On the conflicts between regular congregations and the orders, see “Ordini regolari,” ed. Simona Feci and Angelo Torre, spec. issue of Quaderni storici, 2 (2005); see also
“Religione, conflittualità e cultura. Il clero regolare nell’Europa d’antico regime,” ed. Massimo
C. Giannini, spec. issue of Cheiron, 42–43 (2005).
23. Clement VIII undid the Jesuit monopoly on missions to Japan, China, the East
Indies, and the islands that had been granted by Pope Gregory XIII, placing mendicant
orders alongside the Jesuits; see Onerosa Pastoralis officii cura, December 12, 1600, MBR 5/2:
323–24. On July 10, 1615, Paul V granted broad spiritual powers to observant Franciscans
sent by Franciscan Vicar General Antonio de Trejo to the so-called “Island of Canada,” Ecclesiae universalis regimini, in AP 3:371–74.
24. Clement VIII, with the approval of the Congregation of Council, resolved the case
that the Dominicans brought to the bishops of the West Indies, allowing the order to exercise
parochial rights for Indio, Spanish, and other Christians “qui indi non sunt,” if no secular
parishes existed. The pope granted the friars the right to act as “deputy/vice parish priests”
against the bishops who denied the friars the right to give the sacraments to foreigners, especially baptism and marriage; cf. Perlatum est ad nos, September 17, 1601, in AP 3:154.
25. For the Instruction addressed to Tommaso Lapi, see Die Hauptinstruktionen
Clemens’ VIII. fur die Nuntien und Legaten an den europaischen Furstenhofen, 1592–1605, ed.
Klaus Jaitner, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1984), 1:775.
26. Bruno Neveu, “Juge suprême et docteur infaillible: le pontificat romain de la bulle
In eminenti (1643) à la bulle Auctorem fidei (1794),” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 93

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

697

The Council of Trent accepted the medieval theological approach,
seeing the effectiveness of the sacraments as depending on the correct
administration of matter and form by the proper minister. That allowed
some missionaries to opt for particular and limited adaptations, omitting
parts of the sacrament related to gestures, words, oils, water, and bread and
wine or by selecting the rite. Although the quandaries presented by the
missionaries to Rome demonstrate an obsessive search for the correct
sacramental method, Rome’s instructions defended the intangibility and
standardization of gestures. Rather than compromise, they preferred to
deny access to sacraments to the faithful or elected to abandon Christianity
in some areas, as what occurred in China.27
The ultimate creation of the Congregation for the Propagation of the
Faith by Gregory XV may be seen as an answer to the various conflicts of the
new churches.28 Gregory XV also addressed the issue of the “Malabar rites” in
the brief Romanae Sedis Antistes of January 31, 1623, which approved the
practice of the Jesuit missionary Roberto Nobili until further notice. In 1704
papal legate Charles Maillard de Tournon decided to prohibit the Jesuit
experiments. A long curial process took place. The affair was closed in 1744
with the final disapproval of de Tournon’s decrees. Benedict XIV adopted the
decision.29 The Omnium sollicitudinum imposed compliance with the whole of
the baptismal rite; prohibition against translating some definitions of Christian sanctity into local languages; and the administration of the sacraments to
low-caste Christians, even if the priests risked “contamination.”
(1981), 215–75; idem, L’erreur et son juge: remarques sur les censures doctrinales à l’époque moderne
(Naples, 1993).
27. For the crises of Chinese Catholicism, see Eugenio Menegon, Deliver Us from Evil:
Confession and Salvation in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Chinese Catholicism, in
Politiche sacramentali, pp. 551–98; for the transformation of Christianity from a global to a
local religion, see Menegon, Ancestors, Virgins and Friars: Christianity as a Local Religion in
Late Imperial China (Cambridge, MA, 2009); Giovanni Pizzorusso, “Le fonti del Sant’Uffizio
per la storia delle missioni e dei rapporti con Propaganda Fide,” in A dieci anni dall’apertura
dell’archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede: storia e archivi dell’Inquisizione (Atti
del colloquio, Roma, 21–23 febbraio 2008), ed. Andrea Del Col (Rome, 2011), pp. 393–423.
28. Inscrutabili divinae providentiae arcano, June 28, 1622, no. 58, MBR (Rome, 1756),
5/5:26–28. For the institution of the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, see Giovanni Pizzorusso, “Agli antipodi di Babele. Propaganda Fide tra immagine cosmopolita e
orizzonti romani (XVII–XIX secolo),” in Roma la cittã del papa. Vita civile e religiosa dal Giubileo di Bonifacio VIII al Giubileo di Papa Wojtyla, ed. Luigi Fiorani and Adriano Prosperi,
(Torino, 2000), pp. 476–518; idem, Il papato e le missioni extra-europee nell’epoca di Paolo V.
Una prospettiva di sintesi, in Die Aussenbeziehungen des Römischen Kurie unter Paul V. (1605–
1621), ed. Alexander Koller (Tübingen, 2008), pp. 367–90.
29. See Omnium sollicitudinum, no. 107, MBR 1:397–426.

698

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

The disputes over the “Malabar rites” among Rome, India, and the
Society of Jesus highlight the narrowing of the freedoms once enjoyed by
the Jesuit missionaries engaged in the Far East. It was due to the Holy
Office’s increasing inflexibility over the time elapsing between the
Romanae Antistes Sedis of 1623 and the Omnium sollicitudinum of 1744.
Administering the sacraments to the Scheduled Castes (Untouchables)
and the reproduction of caste segregation within the Church, which denied
equality among the baptized, were in conflict with the missionary strategy
of the Society of Jesus. The missionaries were accused of accepting “superstitious” customs, which the Jesuits instead saw as exclusively “civil” customs. On the other hand, the nature of the sacrament came to the fore
when the newly converted had to provide evidence of his or her conversion
by changing his or her clothing, family relationships, and habits. In the
end, the issue of translating the sacraments into the various new cultures
and languages, once in Rome, was transformed into the problem of the
integral and uncontaminated conservation of the “deposit of the true faith,”
whose light could be obscured by the shadow of “superstizione gentilesca”
(pagan superstition).30
The Tridentine Discipline of Pope Benedict XIV (1740–58)
In many respects, Benedict XIV’s pontificate represents a desire to
return to the full realization of the Council of Trent, particularly regarding
the sacraments. In the course of his pontificate, this pope systematically
dealt with many questions connected with Catholic rites and the sacraments’ juridical values.31 As a man of continuity, Benedict XIV was deeply
influenced by his previous service as consultor for the Holy Office (he was
involved in the dispute over the Chinese and Malabar rites, which finally
was resolved during his pontificate).
Benedict XIV carried this work out by differentiating the related
topics in which the various disciplines had to be applied. He distinguished
between situations where the neophytes lived in a mostly Catholic environment and where the Catholics lived in a mostly Protestant setting under a
“heretical” political power. He also considered the cases of Catholics under

30. This expression was used by Benedict XIV in the Omnium sollicitudinum, see Sabina
Pavone, “Tra Roma e il Malabar: il dibattito intorno all’amministrazione dei sacramenti ai
Paria nelle carte dell’Inquisizione romana (secc. XVII–XVIII),” in Politiche sacramentali, pp.
647–80.
31. See Maria Teresa Fattori, Benedetto XIV e Trento. Tradurre il concilio nel Settecento
(Stuttgart, 2015), 200–39.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

699

the “Turkish” political domination, Eastern-rite Catholics subject to a
bishop of the Latin rite, and missionaries working in an environment dominated by Eastern Orthodox Churches. His proclamations regulating rites
and sacraments for Eastern Catholics are part and parcel of this comprehensive strategy. Although some regulatory interventions seem tailored to
particular situations—replying to some concretely known abuse or to questions from missionaries, religious superiors, or bishops—in most cases the
apostolic constitutions reveal an intentionally devised plan clearly following the Council of Trent’s lines of interpretation. Above all, this pope, who
was an expert in canon law, reveals a well-organized plan concerning the
major postconciliar questions (as well as administering the sacraments).
1. The Regulation of Marriage between Catholics and Unbelievers,
between Catholics and Heretics, and among Neophytes
The first intervention by Benedict XIV in matters of marriage was not
directed at countries in the New World but rather at European nations. It
dealt with the legitimacy, granted in 1741 in the Dioceses of the United
Provinces of the Netherlands, of a form of clandestine wedding: the bride
and groom, in serious and proven circumstances, could contract marriage
without the publication of banns prescribed by the Council of Trent and
could marry in the presence of a priest other than the parish priest and with
two witnesses in attendance. Such a union would be inscribed in a register
of clandestine marriages.32
Subsequently, in 1744, Benedict XIV dealt with the marriage of
Catholics subject to the domination and persecution of the Ottoman
Empire, in the Kingdom of Serbia and in nearby areas where Christians of
the Orthodox faith also lived.33 The decision rigidly stated the wrongfulness of conduct designed to conceal or hide their faith, such as having
themselves or their children circumcised, attending services at a mosque,
giving children Turkish names, skipping Christian fasts, and/or avoiding
foods forbidden to Muslims. He asked the bishops to instill in the faithful
the idea that, although faith was preserved in the heart, it was inadequate
and would not provide salvation without sacramental acts.34 The constitu-

32. The declaratio Matrimonia, no. 34, November 17, 1741, MBR 1:87–89.
33. Inter omnigenas, no. 89, February 2, 1744, MBR 1:302–08, dealt with Eucharistic
matters, the engagement of children, spiritual parenthood, divorce, and confession.
34. “Arcendae pariter a Sacramentis Ecclesiae sunt illae Mulieres, quae nuptiarum
nomine in Turcarum contubernium admissae, celantes Chrstianae Religonis professionem,
ibi vitam agunt ab omni Religionis exercitio remotam; eisque a Pastoribus denunciandum est,

700

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

tion denied validity to marriages contracted before the Turkish Qadi (a
judge in the Shar’ia religious-legal system). Those marriages were considered mere cohabitation and excluded their contractors from the sacraments, even if the woman had been forced to marry or was married as a
child. Marriage entered into before a Turkish government official was
lawful, as long as the ceremony was purely civil and free of invocations of
the Prophet Muhammad.
This ruling was particularly rigid, especially when compared to the
matrimonial discipline applied to the newly converted and slaves in the
New World.35 Extreme conditions did not constitute a context exempting
Christians from European Christianity’s regulatory forms, even faced with
the local political power’s opposition to the religion. In other measures,
Benedict XIV drew from the assumption that being Catholic for generations implied living with stringent obligations that could only be softened
for neophytes. The constitution also established links between rites established by the Council of Trent and the Roman apostolic see’s teaching and
magisterial role as “Mater et Magistra.”
In 1745 In suprema gave new converts from Judaism, Islam, or other
religions the possibility of dissolving marriages contracted before baptism.
This dissolution was granted without questioning the first spouse as to his
or her willingness to convert,36 thus opening the door to contracting a new
marriage with a Catholic counterpart. The second marriage remained valid
even if the first spouse had been baptized before the second marriage of the
converted husband or wife. The constitution used the terms of Gregory
XIII’s Populis ac nationibus without citing it and allowed newcomers the
dissolution of previous marriages.
The constitution Apostolici ministerii munus forbade a neophyte from
Judaism giving his Jewish wife a divorce certificate.37 The woman who
ne salutis aeternae fiduciam collocent in ea Fide, quam, sine operibus mortuam, in corde
tantum utiliter conservare posse, sibi persuadent,” ibid., pp. 303–04.
35. This constitution was not received in the years 1755–58; see Marina Caffiero,
“L’inquisizione romana e i Musulmani: le questioni dei matrimoni misti,” Cromohs, 14 (2009),
pp. 1–10, nn. 7–8, http://www.fupress.net/index.php/cromohs/article/view/15493/14732
36. In suprema, no. 117, January 16, 1743, MBR 1: 483–485, addressed to Martino
Innico, nuncio in Venice.
37. Apostolici Ministerii munus, no. 38, September 16, 1747, MBR 2:329–32. See
Marina Caffiero, Battesimi forzati: storie di ebrei, cristiani e convertiti nella Roma dei papi
(Rome, 2004), pp. 73–110; see the English translation Forced Baptisms: Histories of Jews,
Christians, and Converts in Papal Rome (Berkeley, 2012).

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

701

refused to convert was affected seriously, since, under Jewish law, she was
still married. Instead, the husband was free to contract a new marriage with
a Christian woman. The case ruled on by Benedict XIV in 1748 was singular and complex. The new convert from Judaism had been married previously to a “heretical” wife. Benedict XIV resolved the question of
whether the first marriage was valid or should be re-contracted and, in so
doing, addressed the question in terms of Jewish, civil, and canon law.38 He
concluded that, after the Jew’s baptism and the Protestant’s abjuration,
they must contract a new marriage, since the first was null and void due to
the “breaking impediment, called disparity of worship” (disparitas cultus).
Important in this context is not the solution but rather the legal procedure
used to untangle the matter. In fact, after analyzing the sources, the pope
ruled that “the impediment that comes from diversity of religion was determined by the use and practice of the whole Church, a practice that had the
force of law.” The woman heretically baptized by a minister was subject to
canon law and the common practice of the Church, whereas that practice
did not apply between two married people belonging to different, nonChristian religions. A marriage contracted between two baptized persons,
one Catholic and the other “heretic,” was valid but illicit. In fact, the
heretical baptism imparted a Christian character to the baptized. But it was
particularly the status of the Catholic confession that made this case different from previous ones regarding marriage between a Chinese or Japanese Christian and a non-Christian wife or husband.39
The straightforwardness of the disciplinary positions did not prevent
the Roman practice of remedying even the most singular situations such as
consanguinity in a new convert’s marriage.40
One outcome of the pope’s regulatory interventions was the straining
of relations between Catholics and non-Catholics. Predecessors had provided adaptable solutions that were assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, in the desire to create clear governance, Benedict XIV dealt with each
case to enact general measures that interpreted and confirmed the Council
of Trent.
38. Singulari Nobis, February 9, 1748, MBR 3:4–15, addressed to Cardinal Enric
Stuart, Duke of York.
39. Benedict XIV assumed the 1669 decrees of the Holy Office (edited in the Costituzioni apostoliche appartenenti alle missioni della Cina e del Tunkino, Parigi, 1676) and other
decisions of Gregory XIII granting the faculty to dispense neophytes from Japan.
40. Cum Venerabilis, no. 66, January 27, 1757, MBR 4:514–21, confirmed the Holy
Office decree of July 29, 1756. The faculty granted to Jesuit missionaries was based on previous papal decisions.

702

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

In other cases, the dissemination of Tridentine decrees in a given territory was the crucial element in deciding on a marriage’s validity. In fact,
a marriage between Catholics celebrated before a heretical civil magistrate
was invalid if the Tridentine decrees had been published in that diocese.
This fact compelled Catholics to wed before a rector of the Catholic parish
church in the form prescribed by the council, “in ratione sacramenti,
ratione contractus” (in virtue of the sacrament, in virtue of the contract),
exclusively in the Tridentine form.41
Therefore, lacking that form, the union entered into by a couple
amounted to a grave wrongdoing. The wife was illegitimate in the eyes of
the Church and God, and the children from the marriage were deemed
illegitimate. However, such contracts were valid if entered into by a
Catholic and a heretic (or between heretics) or if they were contracted in a
diocese where the Tridentine decrees had not been published.42
The constitution Magnae Nobis admirationis clarified the impediments
to marriage between a Catholic and an infidel/heretic, and was directed to
the bishops of the Kingdom of Poland, to whom the pope entrusted the
task of warning Catholics against contracting such marriages, condemned
by the apostolic see.43 A previously contracted marriage was supposed to be
a way of promoting the heretic’s conversion, and the bishops’ action was to
follow the “abiurata prius Haeresi” clause as indicated by the 1710 Holy
Office. The pope urged bishops to explain to Catholics the severity of the
grave dangers deriving from the mixture of faiths. In cases of previously
contracted marriages, the papal authority was willing to permit ob torto collo
exceptions.44 The Benedectine legislation on mixed marriages for the Low

41. Redditae sunt, September 17, 1746, Supplemento, MBR 3:583–84, was S.
Giuseppe’s answer to the Carmelitan Paolo Simoni.
42. This solution was adopted in the case of a wedding celebrated in Bulgaria where
publication of the Tridentine decrees was unproven; see Caffiero, “L’inquisizione romana e i
Musulmani.”
43. Magnae Nobis admirationis, no. 51, June 29, 1748, MBR 2:413–17. The constitution was based on Urban VIII’s letter of December 30, 1624 (quoted from the edition by Cardinal Albizzi in De Inconstantia in Fede, Amstelaedami, 1683, p. 37, no. 217); and in the letters of June 25, 1706, and July 23, 1707, by Clement XI (quoted from the edition Brevium et
Epistolarum, Rome, 1724).
44. On mixed marriages, see Mauro Bucciero, I matrimoni misti. Aspetti storici e canonistici (Rome, 1997); Pieroberto Scaramella, “I dubbi sul sacramento del matrimonio e la questione dei matrimoni misti nella casistica delle congregazioni romane (secc. XVI–XVIII),”
Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée, 121 (2009), 75–94; on the passage
between the pre-Tridentine marriage and the Tridentine Tametsi, see Cecilia Cristellon, La

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

703

Countries was extended very soon to Malabar for mixed marriages between
Catholics and Protestants.
2. Sacraments for Eastern-Rite Catholics
The primary documents regarding the sacraments for Eastern
Catholics under Benedict XIV were Etsi Pastoralis of May 2, 1742, dedicated to the sacraments of the Greeks in Italy; Demandatam of December
24, 1743, for Greek-Melkites; and Eo Quamvis of May 4, 1745, for missionaries addressing the Copts of Egypt. To these documents can be added
the decree containing discussion of the marriage of a deacon who had been
ordained as a child: Anno Vertente of June 19, 1750.
The pope undertook the task of regulating sacramental matters for the
Eastern Catholic Churches in three central apostolic constitutions (already
cited), in the reformation of the Euchologion for the Eastern Churches, as
well as in a treatise dedicated to the sacraments, originally conceived as
forming part of the De Synodo Dioecesana and published later as the letter
De Sacramentis (On the Sacraments).45
Between 1753 and 1754 Benedict XIV wrote on the Eastern rites;
preparatory material for this later was organized as a Letter of commentary
on Euchology. The Letter reflected on the customs, abuses, and traditions
of the Melkite, Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Ruthenian
Churches. The need to bring clarity to the relationship between the Latin
rite and the Eastern rites led Benedict XIV to tackle the liturgical relations
and correspondences between the Latin-Catholic Church and the Eastern
Churches united with Rome. A similar need for further insight into the
Eastern Churches’ rites and sacramental practices is evident in the correction and publication of liturgical texts. Those corrections were continued
carità e l’eros. Il matrimonio, la Chiesa, i suoi giudici nella Venezia del Rinascimento (1420–1545)
(Bologna, 2010), pp. 259–70.
45. Manuscripts of the letter De Sacramentis were kept in part in the Secret Vatican
Archive (hereafter ASV) and were later moved to the Apostolic Vatican Library or the library
of the University of Bologna, Mss. 268, 4 vols. The ASV manuscripts form the basis for the
edition Benedicti XIV Papae Opera inedita, Primum publicavit Franciscus Heiner (Freiburg am
B., 1904). On those manuscripts, see also Orietta Filippini, “«La fama non meritata di novatore». Spigolature a proposito di redazione, conservazione e trasmissione di alcune opere lambertiniane,” in Storia, medicina e diritto nei trattati di Prospero Lambertini—Benedetto XIV, ed.
Maria Teresa Fattori (Rome, 2013), pp. 173–90. On the work of correcting liturgical books,
see Pierre Batiffol, Histoire du bréviaire romain (Paris, 1895), pp. 276–323; Suitbert Bäumer,
Histoire du bréviaire, 2 vols. (Paris, 1905), 2:371–401.

704

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and other commissions after Pope Urban VIII had amended these texts in the first part of the
seventeenth century. Benedict XIV took up this work with renewed vigor.
The main constitutions regulated the circumstances in which an Eastern
rite could be most fully celebrated and in which it was amended according
to the terms of the Council of Trent.
The first constitution, Etsi pastoralis, published in May 1742,46
addressed all of the sacraments and specific cases such as the marriage of
clergy, as well as compliance with Tridentine rules relating to spiritual
knowledge, consanguinity, and spiritual affinity. Benedict XIV was
addressing the Italian-Greek clergy as well as Eastern-rite Greek or Albanian-speaking Catholics in Sicily and other parts of Italy under the jurisdiction of a Latin bishop. Management of relationships with these non-Latin
rite communities began with Pope Leo X and continued with Clement
VIII. Benedict XIV showed a willingness to maintain the Greek rite yet
also sought to avoid ritual mixing and any type of ritual conflict. He
decided to permit the Greek clergy and faithful to have their rite, and he
exercised control on the ritual forms. However, at the same time, he did
not wish Latin clergy and faithful to adopt the Orthodox liturgical tradition. With this in mind, the Etsi pastoralis established the ways that the
faithful could pass from one rite to another; restricted the celebration of
Mass following an Eastern rite by a Latin priest (and vice versa); limited
the celebration of Mass following the Latin rite in Greek churches (and
vice versa), with confession as the sole exception (a Greek priest, possibly
married, also could absolve Latin penitents, with the bishop’s permission);
and regulated ritual options in the case of mixed marriages between Latin
Catholics and Greek Catholics for the individuals concerned and their
children. In his overall understanding of Eastern liturgy, Benedict XIV
eliminated abuses and superstitions, attempting to reduce conflict in cases
of the coexistence of bi-ritual clergy and in cases of marriage between
people of different rites.
The Tridentine sacramental discipline was even applied over and against
differing customs in the fields of marriage and ordination. In the field of
sacred orders, where only the pope could exempt irregularities, the Greeks
were not granted exemptions with respect to canonical age of ordination and
the verification of the candidate’s assets, studies, and training processes.
46. Etsi pastoralis, no. 57, MBR 1:167–85; see Vittorio Peri, “P. P. Rodotà e gli studi
sulla Chiesa Bizantina in Italia,” in Pietro Pompilo Rodotà, Dell’origine, progresso e stato presente del Rito greco in Italia (Cosenza, 1986), pp. 23–35.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

705

The “Defense of the Eastern Church” was resumed in the constitution
Demandatam of December 24, 1743, and intended for Cyril, the GreekMelkite Patriarch of Antioch. It aspired to be the primary reference text.47
As in the Greek-Italian case, the pope recommended the use of the correct
missal for Greek Melkites as well, whose unaltered articles in the printed
Propaganda edition dated back to the Fathers of the Church. But only the
apostolic see’s confirmation and its link with Rome made the ancient
Melkite cult inalterable. The missal could not be corrupted by sections
introduced by the celebrants nor be belittled by missionaries of the Latin
rite. The transition from the Greek to the Latin rite was prohibited except
in the case of Latinizantes—Greeks born of Greek parents who, for lack of
a Greek priest, had been baptized according to the Latin rite. Once these
individuals reached the age of reason, they were questioned and asked to
indicate their preferred rite.
In the Eo quamvis constitution, Benedict XIV responded to questions
regarding baptism/confirmation, “communication” between the Copticschismatic and Catholic rites, and the condition of a deacon ordained as a
child.48 Catholic missionaries could, at the same time, baptize and confirm
faithful Copts in the absence of Coptic priests but not the Latin faithful.
In fact, the use of the Greek rite was tolerated within precise juridical
limits, but its proselytism was illicit. In the Latin rite it was a “horror and
a mistake” for baptism and confirmation to be conducted at the same time.
The “natural” amount of time separating the individual’s birth from his or
her maturity needed to be duly respected between the two sacraments
(baptism/confirmation) in the Latin rite.
For the other sacraments, things were different. In the case of ordination
of a deacon between seven and fourteen years of age, as was customary among
the Copts, Benedict XIV prescribed what was dictated by the practice of the
Roman tribunals: the deacon was not forced or obliged to pray the divine
office, because mature consent to the way of life and obligations connected to
the clerical state were missing. The sacrament was valid (provided it was conferred with the necessary form, matter, and intention of the bishop) but was
illicit. As a result, such deacons were not bound to observe the vow of chastity
47. Demandatam, no. 87, MBR 1:290–96. Benedict XIV approved the 1736 Synod of
Monte Libano; also see Imposto Nobis, no. 43, MBR 3:359–63.
48. Eo quamvis, no. 129, May 4, 1745, MBR 1:511–22, addressed to Giusto Maraghi,
general vicar of Egypt and to the Franciscan Jacopo from Cremisir, rector of the apostolic
missions in Egypt. In 1750 Benedict XIV dealt with other questions relating to sacraments;
see Anno vertente, June 19, 1750, MBR 3:286–90.

706

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

and other obligations/vows that would be expected in such circumstances,
since a free and explicit will had not been expressed. Once the boy had
reached the age of maturity, he should be questioned. If he consented to
remain in the order, he would be obliged to follow the law of chastity; if he
did not give his consent, he could return to the lay state. There was a significant difference between baptism and the other six sacraments. Baptism, even
if it occurred against one’s will, in a “natural” way obliged a person to observe
the law of the Gospel, whereas the clerical state could only be accepted and
undertaken by free will. The requirement of freedom in asking for and receiving baptism, as indispensable for the validity of the sacrament, was deliberately omitted by the pope, as is evident in the cases below.
3. Baptizing Jews
Edicts concerning baptism addressed the terms of the sacrament’s legitimacy for children presented by relatives who did not hold parental rights
under civil law or the baptism of infants without their parents’ consent (invitis parentibus).49 The terms of validity for baptism invitis parentibus were
determined by life-threatening conditions, presentation, and favor fidei. The
favor fidei, in fact, allowed the converted mother or converted grandparents
to offer children or grandchildren for baptism, even if the father or other
person legitimately exercising parental authority was opposed. The baptism
was not permitted if there was a danger of “perversion,” as indicated in the
constitution Inter omnigenas, and baptism was strictly prohibited when motivated by a wish for concealment or for “superstitious” reasons.
Benedict XIV substituted the will of the Church for the insufficient
will of the parents or inadequate parental authority. As opposed to the case
of ordination, in which the improperly given sacrament was valid but did
not enjoin the obligations related to the ecclesiastical state onto the subject
who had not chosen them freely, baptism, even if improperly administered,
remained valid and placed the baptized in a condition subject to the
Church’s authority—hence the decision to remove children from their parents if there was a danger of perversion.50
A new precedent regarding Jews had been created through the baptisms imposed by Charlemagne upon the Saxons, as well as by King Sise49. Assent and will became important in matters of baptizing Jewish adults; see
Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, MBR 2: 186–237; Probe te meminisse, December 15, 1751,
ibid., pp. 417–42; on controversial Roman trends, see Caffiero, Battesimi forzati, pp. 1–100.
50. See Postremo mense, MBR 2:211.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

707

buto (cited at the IV Council of Toledo). They served as a model for the
pressured baptisms practiced by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in the
Iberian Peninsula in 1492. Benedict XIV did not, however, believe that
there was sufficient evidence that his predecessors had, in fact, approved of
King Sisebuto and Charlemagne’s use of violence. Moreover, since ecclesiastical discipline in Spain had been relaxed in the late-fifteenth century,
the Spanish bishops did not oppose the king. Benedict XIV believed that
rulers were entitled to make rules for private matters. Having made them
slaves in war, Princes were able to force weakened infidels to be baptized
and were able to force them to leave their kingdoms via public edicts
should they refuse baptism; or for fear that they might instigate rebellions,
or even try to pervert others.
The analysis went on to present cases in which the baptism was valid:
if an adult neither consented to, nor explicitly rejected, baptism (a case
decided by a 1703 Holy Office ruling provided to Jean-Baptiste de la Croix
Chevrière de St. Vallier, bishop of Quebec); if the person manifested a
contrary intention but did not “consistently oppose the threats and violence”; and if the person initially refusing baptism eventually submitted.
Benedict XIV suggested that the baptism had to be “perfected” with a
second conditional baptism (sub conditione) in cases of doubt; that is, if
some doubt remains about the conferred baptism in facto or in jure, arising from an article of truth, which is not decided by the Church, but
about which authors and theologians write, the Jew should not be considered to be baptized, but his case should be reconsidered, and he be
baptized sub conditione.

Thus the pope did not take contrary intention into account, unless
expressly manifested up until the last moment, nor did the exercise of violence remove the baptism’s value.51 He reiterated that baptism could not be
51. Benedict XIV, “Nell’Udienza,” February 28, 1747, Bullarium, 4 tomes (Venice,
1768), tome 2, pp. 85–109, here p. 99: “Demum Principum gesta legem praescribere privatis
nequeunt, cum fas sit Regibus Infideles devictos, captivosque suos vi ad Baptismum impellere,
edictoque sancire, ut illud accipere si recusant, a Regno eliminentur; id autem Regibus licet non
sine causa; metuunt enim, ne ipsi aliquando ad rebellionem deficiant, aut alios ad infidelitatem
perducere moliantur.” Benedict XIV, ibid., p. 104: Demum quotiescumque aliqua ex parte de
collato Baptismate dubitetur aut in facto, aut in jure; cum ex facto articulus juris oriatur, de quo
nihil adhuc certi Ecclesia statuit, Theologorum autem, scriptorumque sententiae divisae sunt;
Hebraeus jam lustratus non remitti, sed retineri debere, & baptizari sub conditione . . . .” Benedict XIV confirmed the Holy Office’s 1727 decision. The case was analyzed by Lambertini in
the Florentine lawsuit, which was discussed and resolved between July 27, 1726, and March
29, 1727; see Thesaurus resolutionum S. Congr. Concilii (Rome, 1739), 3:346, 350; 4:30.

708

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

forced; a Jewish fiancé could not force his fiancée to convert (although he
had greater power over her than a Christian fiancé) nor could popes force
the conversion of Jewish subjects in the Papal States. But he did legitimize
the exercise of psychological violence: popes had a stated desire for the
conversion of Jews—where violence had never been used beyond the obligation to listen to one sermon a week, as determined by Nicholas III’s constitutions and confirmed by Gregory XIII.
Benedict XIV did not expressly state a source for the criterion in favor
religionis. This criterion was applied in a Portuguese royal decree of 1559,
in situations similar to those described by the Bolognese pope. According
to the 1559 decree, in fact, orphaned children were given to Christian families to be instructed in the faith after a forced baptism.52 Benedict XIV also
might have found that criterion in apostolic constitutions on marriage,
opting for the possibility of polygamous new Christians choosing to stay
with the converted wife “in favorem religionis” (in favor of religion).
According to the pope, the primacy of Christianity authorized the proper
use of reason in the case of a child desiring baptism against his or her
father’s wishes and the acceptability of a grandmother offering a child
against parental authority. In dubious situations and other case histories,
that criterion had decisive value.
Conclusion
From the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, the bulk of the legislation
on the sacraments was produced by a constant activity of the Roman
bureaucracy (Propagation of the Faith, Holy Office, and Congregation of
Council). This systematic effort produced a jurisprudence having force of
law, an activity that originated the ius missionum. The interventions of
Benedict XIV were directed not only to enforce Tridentine principles but
also to clarify the confused, sometimes contradictory, set of legal precedents. The religious and social effects of this effort of “Tridentinization”
on the relationships between missionaries and converted faithful are open
to future evaluation by historians. The relationships between the norms
and particular cases, in the missionary fields, were characterized by exceptions and practical or doctrinal tolerance, even when solemnly stated by
pontifical bulls.
Benedict XIV deliberated on specific aspects of the seven sacraments,
which he analyzed, accepted, or rejected, through a comparison and
52. For the 1559 decree, see Marcocci, Teologia e missioni, p. 464.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

709

scrutiny that took both the Eastern Catholic tradition’s canons and debates
with the Protestant tradition into account. Finally, in reviewing the sources
of the Eastern rites, the pope also kept in mind situations encountered by
the Catholic Church in the course of worldwide expansion.
Benedict XIV dealt with the issue of the sacraments in the New
World in a qualitative and quantitative way that differed from his predecessors. His methods drew on a large quantity of Roman decisions not only
from popes but also from the various departments of the Curia whose
deliberations were accepted by the papal Magisterium, sifting through a
sedimentation accumulated over almost two centuries. The pope created a
summary of the previous decisions regarding the sacraments to provide the
bishops with clear and “traditional” guidelines. He approached the material
in a systematic way, distinguishing not only between those involved
(Roman Catholics, Eastern-rite Catholics, and converts) but also the contexts in which the regulations were to be applied: whether Catholics were
a majority or a minority; whether the context involved a Protestant majority or was “under the Turkish yoke”; and whether the Catholics of the
Eastern rite (such as Italian-Greek individuals, Melkites, and Copts) were
subject to a Latin bishop or lived in areas with a schismatic majority.
These measures by Benedict also addressed various marital situations.
In particular, they regulated mixed marriages between a neophyte and an
unbeliever or between a Catholic and a Christian “heretic,” subordinating
marriage to baptism and regulating marriage between Catholics of different rites. In this way the materia, the form and the ministry of all seven
sacraments were admitted or rejected in their different individual aspects
in the Latin/Catholic tradition, with a comparison and analysis that took
the Eastern liturgical tradition into account, yet, however, inserted it into
the Tridentine ecclesiological and jurisdictional context.
The procedure of Benedict XIV’s regulatory interventions addressed
individual cases to enact general measures. This corpus of norms responded
to a desire for clarity and discipline, which, without setting aside the work
of his predecessors, confirmed a certain direction taken and interpreted the
Council of Trent in the light of the Roman Congregations’ case law.
But if the period of time between the Council of Trent and Benedict
XIV’s pontificate (1545–1758) is considered, it is clear that Roman attention to the subject of regulatory intervention grew and led to decisionmaking, decisions that used disciplinary tools with different qualifications
and values in terms of doctrinal or Magisterial legal commitment. Parallel

710

SACRAMENTS FOR THE FAITHFUL OF THE NEW WORLD

to the growth of the Roman center’s disciplinary attention, the legislative
activity of the synods and territorial councils knew a period of decrease and
faded from bishops’ interest.
Also important is the transformation of the notion of neophyte, highlighting a sense of belonging linked to family identity and “blood” rather
than to the sacramental act and profession of faith, as well as the duration,
method, and content of catechumenal and catechetical teaching. In a way
that is not always clear, the concept of neophyte refers to converts from
Judaism and Islam, as well as to Christian children of mixed marriages
between a European and a non-European. They were in a “suspect” condition, always at risk of “Judaizing.” In those cases, the newly converted
Jews of the Iberian Peninsula were placed on par with heretics. The neophyte of mixed European and Indian blood benefited from privileges in
regard to matrimony and inheritance. But did the same doubts remain
regarding the evaluation of the faith of New World converts that were
applied to the Marranos and Moriscos of the Iberian Peninsula?53
Administering the sacraments to the faithful of the New World led to
various forms of experimentation, sometimes not so much to adapt the
sacraments to the encountered realities but rather to adapt the encountered
realities to the sacraments. Baptism and marriage, in particular, were loci
where more creative solutions were implemented such as a “privilege of
faith” that became a juridical privilege. That privilege, systematized by
Benedict XIV, had been applied previously regarding forced baptisms in
the Iberian Peninsula.
Catholicism directed at missionary contexts transformed the “acts of
effective salvation” into the conditions essential for salvation and into the
instrument of the hierarchical structuring of the ecclesiastical institution. If
baptizing as many as possible was the direction indicated by Rome (except
in cases where there was risk of “perversion” or a “superstitious” intention),
some of the sacramental practices led to doubts as to the effectiveness of
the conversion of converts who were never admitted to the sacrament of
Holy Orders and rarely received the Eucharist. Orders to baptize—even
against the individual’s will, against the parents’ or the baptized’s intentions, and when a form of violence was used—demonstrated a clear desire
53. Louis Thomassin dealt with the situation of neophytes not allowed to request
orders or obtain ecclesiastical dignities “ex defectu fidei”; see Thomassin, Ancienne et nouvelle
discipline de l’Église, 4 vols. (Bar-Le-Duc, 1864–67), 4:104–10. See also “Néophyte,” Dictionnaire de droit canonique, p. 997.

MARIA TERESA FATTORI

711

to incorporate every single soul, contradicting the doctrine of baptism as
necessarily a free and voluntary act. There lurks the desire, visible even in
cases that appear consistent with Council of Trent measures, to stem or
circumscribe the ongoing spread of disbelief, superstition, and deviance.
In the end, the acts of conflict resolution, responses to questions, and
interpretations of cases strengthened the Roman pontiff’s power to block
what should be prevented and liberate all the good possible for the lives of
the faithful. Hence, in relation to otherness, Tridentine “sacramental law”
historically became a place where the plenitude of papal power both to
restrict and to liberate manifested itself. In the global reality of Catholicism, sacramental matters reaffirmed the bond between the Church
“Mater et Magistra” and the rite, rendered inviolable by a correct application of Tridentine terms.

The First Vatican Council, Archbishop
Henry Manning, and Papal Infallibility
CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN*
Although Henry Edward Manning, archbishop and later cardinal of
Westminster, often is labeled an extreme ultramontanist, he can be
more accurately described as holding a “moderate” view of infallibility
similar to the one defined at the First Vatican Council and held by
Cardinal John Henry Newman. Manning thought that the Council’s
definition of papal infallibility came at an opportune moment; he also
accepted a wider range of secondary objects that can be defined infallibly by the pope than did Newman.
Keywords: First Vatican Council; Manning, Cardinal Henry;
papal infallibility; ultramontanism

T

he history of the First Vatican Council is presented frequently as a
clash between the radical or absolute ultramontanists and the minority bishops who were able to thwart the majority from defining a recent
and extreme doctrine of papal infallibility. It is now commonplace to list,
as the most noted “radical” or “extreme” ultramontanists, theologians such
as Louis Veuillot (1813–83); William G. Ward (1812–82); and Henry
Edward Manning, archbishop and later cardinal of Westminster (1808–
92; see figure 1). Although perhaps Ward and Veuillot can be labeled
extreme ultramontanists, this article will show that Manning is more accurately described as holding a “moderate” view of infallibility similar to the
one defined at the First Vatican Council and held by Cardinal John Henry
Newman (1801–90; see figure 2). This thesis is based on Manning’s published Catholic works both prior to and after the Council and therefore
represents his constant view of the matter, a view that he thought was consistent with what had been explicitly taught since the sixteenth century. To
this end this article will examine Manning’s understanding of papal infal-

*Dr. Washburn is associate professor of dogmatic theology in the Saint Paul Seminary
School of Divinity at the University of Saint Thomas, email: wash0777@stthomas.edu. This
research was supported in part through a grant provided by the Center for Theological Formation at the Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity.

712

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

713

FIGURE 1. Henry Manning, archbishop and later cardinal of Westminster. From
Lytton Strachey, Eminent Victorians (Garden City, NY, 1918), frontispiece.

libility, focusing on his view of the subject of papal infallibility, the object
of papal infallibility, and the definitive nature of papal definitions.
Moderate Infallibilism and Extreme Infallibilism
In the early 1970s, the Lutheran theologian George A. Lindbeck reintroduced the terms moderate infallibilism and extreme or absolute infallibilism
into the ecclesiological controversies following the Second Vatican Council.1 It was Jesuit theologian Avery Dulles, however, who was to give the
term moderate infallibilism a distinctly Catholic meaning. Dulles explains
that “moderate infallibilism” has two characteristics. It affirms, first, that
the pope is infallible (otherwise it could not be moderate infallibility) and,
second, that papal infallibility is limited and therefore “subject to inherent
conditions which provide critical principles for assessing the force and
meaning of allegedly infallible statements.”2 It is in this sense that the term
1. George A. Lindbeck, Infallibility (Milwaukee, 1972).
2. On the use of these terms, see Avery Dulles, “Moderate Infallibilism,” Teaching
Authority & Infallibility in the Church, ed. Paul Empie, T. A. Murphy, and Joseph Burgess,

714

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

moderate infallibilism is used here, which is congruent with the First Vatican Council’s Pastor aeternus,3 as explained in Vinzenz Gasser’s Relatio.4
There are four concrete limiting conditions that characterize this moderate
infallibilism. The first condition pertains to the subject—that is, the pope
must be speaking as pope with supreme authority and not merely as a doctor
privatus. Second, the teaching must be presented to the universal Church.
Third, the pope must propose that the teaching be held definitively.
Finally, the object of the teaching must be on a matter of faith or morals.
Often by way of contrast to Manning, Newman, Bishop Josef Fessler
(1813–72), and Bishop Gasser (1809–79) are described as teaching a moderate infallibilism that maintained these distinctions.
Dulles defines extreme infallibilism, on the other hand, as that type of
infallibilism that “questions or denies the limitations and conditions
emphasized by moderate infalliblism.”5 Ward is cited most often as an
extreme infallibilist, since he appears to have thought that all papal documents, including decrees of Roman congregations that deal with theological matters, contain infallible definitions.6 Manning, in both his day and
[Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VI], (Minneapolis, 1980), pp. 81–100, here pp. 81–82;
Dulles, “Infallibility Revisited,” America, August 4, 1973, 55–58; and Dulles, “The Papacy:
Bond or Barrier,” Origins, 3 (1974), 705–12. Even Newman was pleased by the moderate tone
of Pastor aeternus. See Dulles, “Newman on Infallibility,” Theological Studies, 51 (1990), 434–
49, here 444. Of course, if that is all that is required for moderate infallibility, then the Council’s definition is essentially moderate. Dulles seems to concede as much. Lindbeck argues that
Walter Kasper and Karl Rahner are both “moderate infallibilists.” This is not quite correct,
since they do not hold to the doctrine of infallibility at all and have instead essentially replaced
it with indefectability. Some Protestant historians still employ Lindbeck’s categories; see
Mark E. Powell, Papal Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue (Grand
Rapids, MI, 2009), pp. 17–18.
3. Newman found the First Vatican Council’s definition “moderate.” Dulles, “Newman
on Infallibility,” pp. 444, 446.
4. Gasser’s Relatio is present in Giovan Domenico Mansi, Nicolò Coleti, Gabriel Cossart, and Philippe Labbe, Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectio: in qua præter ea quæ
Phil. Labbeus, et Gabr. Cossartius S.J. et novissime Nicolaus Coleti in lucem edidere ea omnia insuper suis in locis optime disposita exhibentur, quæ Johannes Dominicus Mansi . . . evulgavit (Florence, 1927), 52: cols. 1204–32. There also is an English translation of Gasser’s Relatio:
Vinzenz Gasser and James T. O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on
Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I (Boston, 1986). Gasser explicitly
responded to the objection that the Council was attempting to define the “extreme opinion”
of a certain school of theology; see Gasser’s Relatio, in Mansi et al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova,
52: col. 1218.
5. Dulles, “Moderate Infallibilism,” p. 82.
6. Cuthbert Butler described Ward’s position on infallibility in this way:
He held that the infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., should not be restricted to
their formal definitions but ran through the entire doctrinal instructions; the decrees of

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

715

ours, is often labeled as “extreme”; however, almost invariably scholars do
so without either defining what is meant by this term or demonstrating
that he meets this definition of “extreme.”7 If they do offer proof, it is usually the same three or four quotations selected out of Manning’s more than
700 pages written on the topic. Generally, the case against Manning is
based on the following three points. First, Manning clearly made claims
that appear “extreme” when he said, for example, that the First Vatican
Council “makes all pontifical acts infallible”8 or when he claimed that he
recognized “the infallible certainty of all his [Pope Pius IX’s] declarathe Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope and published with his authority,
thereby were stamped with the mark of infallibility, in short “his every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Ghost.”

Cuthbert Butler and William Bernard Ullathorne, The Vatican Council: The Story from Inside
in Bishop Ullathorne’s Letters (London, 1930), 1:73. On Veuillot, see John C. Rao, “Louis
Veuillot and Catholic ‘Intransigence’: A Re-Evaluation,” Faith and Reason, Winter 1983,
282–306. A grave injustice has been done to Manning in listing him with Ward and Veuillot,
as the Council Fathers do not seem to have taken the views of Ward and Veuillot seriously,
yet Ward and Veuillot tend to dominate the histories covering the First Vatican Council.
Theologians such as Giovanni Perrone, S.J. (1794–1876), who certainly held a moderate view
of infallibility, at least as defined by Dulles, are rarely treated. See Giovanni Perrone, Praelectiones Theologicae (Paris, 1842), 2:1017–44.
7. Some scholars label Manning as an “extreme infallibilist” or some other equivalent
expression. See August Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of
Persuasion (Garden City, NY, 1981), p. 298; Terence L. Nichols, That All May Be One:
Hierarchy and Participation in the Church (Collegeville, MN, 1997), p. 227; Ian Ker, John
Henry Newman: A Biography (New York, 1990), pp. 615, 658; and Hermann Josef Pottmeyer,
Towards a Papacy in Communion: Perspectives from Vatican Councils I and II (New York, 1998),
pp. 80–82. Mark E. Powell refers to Manning as holding “maximal infallibility”; see Papal
Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), p. 49.
See also C. S. Dessain, “What Newman Taught in Manning’s Church,” in Infallibility in the
Church: An Anglican-Catholic Dialogue (London, 1968), pp. 59–80, here p. 60; John T. Ford,
“Different Models of Infallibility?,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 35
(1980), 217–33, here 221; and Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and
Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium (New York, 1996), p. 178.
Other scholars lump Veuillot, Ward, and Manning together. See Dulles, “Moderate
Infallibilism,” p. 82; Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the
Magisterium in the Church (Collegeville, MN, 1997), p. 211; Margaret O’Gara, Triumph in
Defeat: Infallibility, Vatican I, and the French Minority Bishops (Washington, DC, 1988), pp.
69–72; Margaret O’Gara, “Understanding Infallibility,” in Sapere teologico e unitá della fede:
studi in onore del Prof. Jared Wicks, ed. Aparicio Valls, María del Carmen, Carmelo Dotolo,
and Gianluigi Pasquale (Rome, 2004), pp. 519–34; and Hans Küng, Structures of the Church
(London, 1965), p. 327. Even Klaus Schatz places Manning with Veuillot and Ward,
although without the usual accusation of extremism; see Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its
Origins to the Present (Collegeville, MN, 1996), p. 156.
8. Henry Edward Manning, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance
(London, 1875), p. 14, emphasis added.

716

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

FIGURE 2. Image of Cardinal John Henry Newman. From The Poems of John Henry
Newman, afterwards Cardinal (New York, 1910), frontispiece.

tions.”9 Second, Manning took a vow “to do all” in his power to obtain the
definition of the infallibility of the papal magisterium at the Council. Finally,
it is claimed that Manning was disappointed by the moderate definition that
was passed at the Council; and then, upon his return to England, he began
a process of exaggerating the definition to make it say what he wished.
Manning’s Conversion (1835–50)
The issue of infallibility occasionally came up in Manning’s works
published while he was an Anglican. During this period, he held that
scripture and antiquity were the sole rules of faith.10 Manning also asserted
that the Catholic rule of faith is false, since “churches both may err, and
have erred.”11 The issue, however, proved pivotal in his conversion to
Catholicism. In October 1845, his friend,12 Newman, converted to
9. Henry Edward Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council: A
Pastoral Letter to the Clergy &c. (London, 1867), pp. 33–34, emphasis added.
10. Henry Edward Manning, The Rule of Faith (London, 1838), pp. 25, 85.
11. Manning, The Rule of Faith, p. 26.
12. Newman and Manning’s friendship became increasingly strained over the years.
Their friendship was filled with tension by the 1860s, but Newman could still speak of “his
duty of friendship” to Manning. Ker, John Henry Newman, p. 612.

AUTHORCHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

717

Catholicism, but Manning, not convinced by Newman’s theory of development, was not quite ready to take this step. He fell ill shortly thereafter,
and during his convalescence he began to read the Fathers and Melchior
Cano, O.P. (1509–60). It was in the latter that Manning found the argument that brought him into the Church: the abiding presence of the Holy
Spirit in the Church.13 By 1847, Manning was convinced that the infallibility of the Church was a consequence of the “third person of the blessed
Trinity” and that this Church was the Catholic Church.14 Nevertheless,
Manning continued to vacillate, but the “Gorham judgment” was the final
straw.15 For Manning and other high church men, the Gorham judgment
contradicted the clear teaching of the early Church; it also showed to Manning the need for an infallible judge in matters of faith. On April 6, 1851,
he was received into the Catholic Church and two months later was
ordained a Catholic priest. In 1865 he was chosen to be archbishop of
Westminster. What is important for our purposes is that Manning’s solution to the theological problem raised by Newman was not merely a theory
of development but the need for an infallible judge of those developments,
a position that Manning would maintain consistently through the remainder of his life.
Manning’s Catholic Period Prior to the First Vatican Council (1850–70)
In his book, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost (1865), Manning
is mostly concerned with the infallibility of the Church rather than with
the infallibility of the pope. Manning argued that on the day of Pentecost,
the Holy Ghost united indissolubly with the mystical body of Christ. On
account of this insight, Manning

13. Kenneth Parker, “Henry Manning and Neo-Ultramontanism: The Anglican Context for an Oxford Movement Convert’s Faith in Papal Infallibility,” in Authority, Dogma, and
History: The Role of the Oxford Movement Converts in the Papal Infallibility Debates, ed. Kenneth L. Parker and Michael J. G. Pahls (Palo Alto, 2009), pp. 95–128, here p. 102.
14. Parker, “Henry Manning and Neo-Ultramontanism,” pp. 102–03.
15. James Pereiro, Cardinal Manning: An Intellectual Biography (New York, 1998), p.
108. Anglican Bishop Henry Phillpotts of Exeter examined the priest George C. Gorham
and found that his views on baptismal regeneration were not orthodox. Gorham appealed the
decision, and in 1850 the judicial committee of the Privy Council ordered that the bishop of
Exeter induct Gorham into the vicarage of Brampford Speke in the Anglican Diocese of
Exeter. See Peter Benedict Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High
Churchmanship, 1760–1857 (Cambridge, UK, 1994), p. 94; and Benjamin O’Connor, “An
Introduction to the Oxford Movement,” in Authority, Dogma, and History, ed. Parker and
Pahls, pp. 9–44, here p. 40.

718

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
saw at once that the interpretations of doctrines of the living Church are
true because Divine, and that the voice of the living Church in all ages is
the sole rule of faith, and infallible, because it is the voice of a Divine
Person.16

He concluded that “all appeals to Scripture, alone, or to Scripture and
antiquity, whether by individuals or by local churches, are no more than
appeals from the divine voice of the living Church, and therefore essentially rationalistic.”17
In The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Manning does not frequently take up the issue of papal infallibility;18 nevertheless, the reader can
glean a number of important elements of his thought in the mid-1860s. He
states that
16. Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, or, Reason and
Revelation (London, 1865), p. 28.
17. Ibid.
18. The terminology used throughout this article is relevant to the argument herein.
The First Vatican Council did not use terms such as papal infallibility, infallible statements, or
infallible propositions; instead, it employed the expressions infallibility of the papal magisterium
and irreformable definitions. It sometimes is argued that the former terms are really popular
theological terms and are easily open to misinterpretation. Therefore, these “popular” terms
should not be used by serious historians and theologians. John T. Ford, “Infallibility—
Terminology, Textual Analysis, and Theological Interpretation: A Response to Mark
Powell,” Theological Studies, 74 (2013), 119–28, here 122. On the contrary, there are three
very good reasons for employing these terms. First, although these terms may be used
popularly, they were used consistently by serious theologians, past and present. Cardinal
Tommaso de Vio, hardly a writer given to popular expressions, used the following terms when
discussing what the First Vatican Council later called “irreformable definitions”: infallible
judgment, definitive judgment, final sentence, ultimate decision, and definitive sentence. See
Christian D. Washburn, “Papal Infallibility, Vatican I, and Three 16th-Century Views,”
Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 44 (2012), 143–70. Similar expressions can be found in the
work of other prominent theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Henry Manning, John
Henry Newman, Joseph Fessler, and Giovanni Perrone. In the English translation of Fessler’s
work, for example, the phrase papal infallibility occurs eight times; see Fessler, The True and
the False Infallibility of the Popes: A Controversial Reply to Dr. Schulte (London, 1875), pp. 15,
35, 36, 39, 59, 78, 80, 129. In the German edition on Fessler’s work this occurs somewhat
less frequently, although the phrase päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeit is still used. Fessler, Die wahre
und die falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Päpste: zur Abwehr gegen Hrn. Prof. Dr. Schulte (Vienna, 1871),
8 (two times), 11, 24, 37, 38. Other examples can be found in Giovanni Perrone’s De Romani
Pontificis infallibilitate: seu Vaticana definitio contra novos haereticos: asserta et vindicata (Turin,
1874), p. 139. Second, terms such as infallibility of the papal magisterium and irreformable definitions are no less open to misunderstanding than terms like papal infallibility. What opens
the two former terms to profound misunderstanding is the lack of a theological context. So
terms such as papal infallibility are only misleading if a theological context is not provided.
Third, theologians are not bound to use slavishly only those terms used by the magisterium.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

719

the Definitions and Decrees of Pontiffs, speaking ex cathedra, or as the
Head of the Church and to the whole Church, whether by Bull, or Apostolic Letters, or Encyclical, or Brief, to many or to one person, undoubtedly emanate from a divine assistance, and are infallible.19

As noted above, it is precisely this type of quotation when not carefully
read that has given the impression that Manning is an extremist.20 He does
not, however, intend by his phrase “whether by Bull, or Apostolic Letters,
or Encyclical, or Brief, to many or to one person” that simply anything that
the pope writes is infallible. Rather, Manning is suggesting that as long as
certain conditions are met—that is, that the pope speaks ex cathedra and to
the whole Church—the pope is not bound to issue an infallible statement
in any one particular type of document.
Manning also takes up the extent of the object of infallibility, which are
those things that pertain to matters of “faith and morals.” This includes not
only the whole of divine revelation but also “all those facts or truths which
are in contact with faith and morals.”21 There is an interconnectedness of
the various types of teachings that make up the object of infallibility, and he
presents them in three distinct spheres or circles of truth. The first is concerned with revelation; the second, with papal and conciliar definitions of
apostolic tradition; the third, with theological judgments and dogmatic
facts. Thus the Church has an infallible knowledge of the original revelation, but the Church’s judgment also extends to secondary objects.22
Concerning these secondary objects, Manning holds that the Church’s
infallibility even extends to those truths that belong to the natural order.
There is nothing extraordinary in this claim, since clearly some truths such
as the existence of God and his attributes can be known by both the light
of natural reason and the light of supernatural revelation.23 This is true for
those naturally knowable moral laws that also are taught in supernatural
revelation. Manning, however, also includes as an object of infallibility
those revealed truths that are connected with natural ethics, politics, and
philosophy24 such as transubstantiation and the constitution of humanity.25
As there is nothing inherently problematic with these terms as long as an individual
understands what is intended by them, these terms are useful stylistically and theologically so
that the same phrases are not repeated over and over.
19. Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, p. 81.
20. Pereiro, Cardinal Manning: An Intellectual Biography, p. 227.
21. Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, pp. 83, 118.
22. Ibid., p. 100.
23. Ibid., p. 121.
24. Ibid., p. 123.

720

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Likewise, Manning includes in the object those matters “which affect the
welfare of the whole Church” such as the condemnation of propositions:
again, a view held by Newman even after the Council.26
In 1867 Manning was in Rome for the commemoration of the 1800th
anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Peter. During his stay, two important
events took place. First, Pius IX announced publicly his intention to call
the First Vatican Council on June 26, 1867.27 Second, on the eve of June
29 (St. Peter’s Day), Matteo Liberatore, S.J. (1818–92), drew up and proposed to certain bishops a vow to say certain prayers every day for a conciliar definition of papal infallibility. Manning and Bishop Ignaz von Senestrey of Regensburg (1818–1906) together took this vow. Decades later in
1881, Manning summarized his vow with Senestrey as “to do all in our
power to obtain the Definition of Papal Infallibility.”28 It is Manning’s
own summarized account given fourteen years later that has in part led
some scholars to conclude that Manning was an extremist.
There are a number of good reasons to conclude that such an assessment of the oath is unwarranted. First, there is nothing either immoral or
extreme about taking an oath to accomplish some end. It is, after all, a
pious and longstanding custom for saints and others to make vows to
obtain some end, so the act of making a vow as such can hardly be evidence
of “extremism.” Second, the actual text of the vow is preserved in Special
Collections of the Pitts Theology Library at Emory University29 and is relatively straightforward:
25. Ibid., p. 83.
26. “The infallibility, whether of the Church or of the Pope, acts principally or solely
in two channels, in direct statements of truth, and in the condemnation of error. The former
takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter stigmatizes propositions as heretical, next
to heresy, erroneous, and the like. In each case the Church, as guided by her Divine Master,
has made provision for weighing as lightly as possible on the faith and conscience of her children.” John Henry Newman, Conscience and Papacy: [Letter to the Duke of Norfolk], ed. Stanley
L. Jaki (Pinckney, MI, 2002), p. 135.
27. Klaus Schatz, Vaticanum I, 1869–1870 (Paderborn, 1992), 1:199.
28. Edmund Sheridan Purcell, Life of Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, 2
vols. (New York, 1895–96), 2:420. Stanley L. Jaki, introduction, in Manning, The True Story
of the Vatican Council (Pinckney, MI, 1996), p. vii–xxxii, here p. xvi.
29. There is a handwritten note by Manning on the back of his personal copy of the
pamphlet Un Nuovo Tributo a S. Pietro, specifying the date on which he took this vow. He
then had the pamphlet bound in the front of his personal copy of Petri Privilegium: Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese (London, 1871). The author thanks staff members at
Emory University’s Pitts Theology Library for their help in locating this copy of Manning’s
vow.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

721

Most Holy Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter, “I, [Henry Edward Manning], motivated by the desire to offer up to you and to your successors
in the Apostolic See, a tribute of singular devotion, which on the one
hand compensates You and the Church for the outrages committed
against the Roman See and on the other hand allows me to honor her
better, I vow to hold and profess even at the price of my blood, if necessary, that doctrine already very common among Catholics, which teaches
that when the Pope authoritatively defines as universal teacher, that is ex
cathedra, what should be believed in matters of faith or morals, is infallible, and that therefore his dogmatic decrees are irreformable and binding
on conscience, even before they receive the subsequent consent of the
Church.”30

First, Manning simply vowed to define a doctrine of limited infallibility
that was “already very common”—held by theologians such as Cajetan and
Bellarmine. Second, the vow contains all of the basic components that
would be defined eventually by the Council such as the pope must act as
“universal teacher,” he must issue a definition, his definition must be on a
matter of “faith or morals,” and his definition does not require the consent
of the Church to be irreformable. Finally, Manning’s phrase—“to do all”
in his power—has been read as if Manning intended to use any means in
order to accomplish his end. One may note, however, that the offending
phrase is not present in the actual oath. Although certainly Manning used
his influence to accomplish his end like other figures, including Newman,
there is no evidence that he acted in a dishonest manner. Manning was
simply more successful than others. Therefore, his vow to “do all in our
power” should be understood as his desire to do lawfully all in his power
even if it required his own martyrdom.
30. “Beatissimo Principe degli Apostoli, San Pietro, Io N. N. mosso dal desiderio di
offerire a Voi, ed in voi ai Vostri Successori nella Cattedra Apostolica, un tributo di singolar
devozione, che da una parte compensi Voi e la Chiesa degli oltraggi fatti alla Sede Romana,
e dall’ altra impegni me a meglio onorarla, fo voto di tenere e di professare, quando occorresse,
anche a prezzo del Sangue, quella dottrina già comunissima fra i cattolici, la quale insegna,
che il Papa nel definire autorevolmente in qualità di maestro universale, come dicesi Ex
Cathedra, ciò che debba credersi in materia di fede o di costume, è infallibile; e che perciò i
suoi decreti dommatici sono irreformabili ed obbligano in coscienza, anche prima che siano
seguili dall’assentimento della Chiesa.”
“Piacciavi, o gloriosissimo S. Pietro, di offerire a nome mio questo voto al divin Fondatore della Chiesa, dal quale discendono a Voi ed ai vostri Successori tutte le prerogative del
sommo Pontificato e del supremo Magistero. E ottenetemi d’essere quindi innanzi così stretto
alla vostra Cattedra, e così docile all’ autorità dei vostri Successori, ch’ io partecipi, per
costante fermezza nella fede, al sovrano bene di non errare mai nella via della salute.” Matteo
Liberatore, Un nuovo tributo a S. Pietro / [P. Liberatore] (Rome, 1867), pp. 19–20. This
pamphlet also was printed in Civiltà Cattolica, 10 (1867), 641–51; the vow is at 649.

722

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

One of the first effects of Manning’s vow was the composition of a
pastoral letter treating the coming Council in 141 pages entitled The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy.
Manning’s pastoral has several aims: to explain what transpired during his
recent visit in Rome, to give a short account of the theology of the papacy,
and to explain why a council was necessary at that point in the life of the
Church. It is this final aim that occupies most of the treatise, and his
answer is that the heresy of Gallicanism had begun to threaten the welfare
of the entire Church.31 Manning’s pastoral is not intended as a detailed
explanation of the doctrine of infallibility, and his discussion of this topic
is entirely subordinate to his attempt to refute Gallicanism. Therefore, he
does not dwell on either the nature or the extent of papal infallibility, but
his passing comments in this pastoral letter are sufficient to reconstruct to
some extent his views on the topic in 1867.
Manning notes that
the infallibility of the Church is the ordinary medium through which the
material object, that is, the doctrine, of Divine faith becomes known to
us. It is, therefore, of the highest necessity that we should clearly understand what is that medium, or order, which God has ordained for the
promulgation and perpetuity of His revelation.32

Manning is not attempting to construct some newly excogitated doctrine
of infallibility but is attempting to teach that which is common amongst
various theological schools. Thus he provides a long list of citations from
Francisco Toledo (1532–96), Francisco de Suarez (1548–1617), Gregorio
de Valencia (1549–1603), François du Bois (1581–1649), André Duval
(1564–1638), Francisco Macedo (1596–1681), Thyrsus González de Santalla (1624–1705), and Celestino Sfondrati (1644–96). From these Manning concludes that “such is the teaching of all Catholic doctors at this day,
and it is, I think, a thing certain by faith.”33 There are two things to note
about this list. First, almost all of the theologians cited are Jesuit theologians; therefore, it is their doctrine that he makes his own. Second, he fails
to cite the three theologians who will be important in Gasser’s Relatio:

31. Henry Edward Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council
(London, 1867), p. 79. For Manning, Gallicanism is not only a heresy but also a fabrication,
for it has “no antecedent traditions, no roots in the theology of the great Church of France”;
see Manning, ibid., p. 52.
32. Ibid., p. 57.
33. Ibid., p. 62.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

723

Tommaso de Vio, O.P. (1468–1534); Melchior Cano, O.P. (1509–60);
and St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (1542–1621).34
Moreover, it is clear that Manning follows these theologians by
naming a series of limiting conditions to the pope’s ability to define infallibly. Thus, concerning the subject of infallibility, Manning approvingly
cites Sfondrati, who teaches that the pope does “some things as man, some
as prince, some as doctor, some as pope; that is, as head and foundation of
the Church.” Sfondrati adds that “it is only to these (last-named) actions
that we attribute the gift of infallibility.” He concludes, “Not every action
of the pope is papal, so not every action of the pope enjoys the papal privilege.”35 Manning uses expressions of the other authors, saying that the
pope must act “as Pontiff,” and he must intend to act as the “supreme
judge” when making an infallible declaration.36 What is interesting is that
Manning does not use the term personal in reference to the infallibility of
the pope in this work. Unfortunately, Manning has very little to say about
the object of infallibility; however, he does restrict it to a “judgment of
faith” or a judgment of “faith and morals.”37
Manning mentions in passing a number of papal documents that he
thinks contain examples of ex cathedra definitions. He includes documents
from the early Church such as Pope Innocent I’s condemnation concerning
original sin38 and certain unspecified “Pontifical acts” that preceded the
councils of Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople
III.39 This view that there are a number of dogmatic utterances by popes
in the early Church cannot be said to differ substantially from Newman’s
own view after the Council.40 In the period since the Council of Trent,
34. The only “modern” theologians cited by Gasser’s Relatio are the following sixteenth-century theologians: Cajetan: cols. 1206 (2x), 1212; Pigge: col. 1218; Cano: col. 1206;
Bellarmine: col. 1218. On their relative importance at the First Vatican Council, see Washburn, “Papal Infallibility,” pp. 143–70.
35. Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council, p. 59.
36. Ibid., pp. 33, 36, 38, 47, 60.
37. Ibid., pp. 60, 64.
38. Ibid., p. 79. Manning does not give a citation, although this is probably Innocent’s
letter contained in CSEL 44, pp. 701–03.
39. Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council, p. 77.
40. “I have already, in speaking of the Asiatic Writers, drawn attention to the striking
dogmatic utterance of the great Council of Antioch in the third century, declaratory of the
eternity of the Divine Genesis; a still more authoritative Voice issued about the same time
from the West, from the Apostolic See, and to the same effect. It is a great misfortune that
the series of dogmatic Tomes of the Ante-Nicene Popes have not been preserved to us; a fragment of one of them remains, and it accidentally contains an assertion, indirect but clear, of

724

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Manning only lists a “few out of many” and includes Pope Pius V’s Ex
omnibus afflictionibus (1567), Pope Clement XI’s Unigenitus (1713), Pope
Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei (1794), and Pope Gregory XVI’s Dum acerbissimas
(1835).41 Manning holds that four of Pius IX’s documents contain infallible definitions: Ineffabilis Deus (1854),42 Gravissimas inter (1862), Quanta
cura (1864), and the Syllabus of Errors (1864).43 Of these last two documents, less debate surrounds the status of Quanta cura, as most theologians
thought that it contained infallible definitions.
It is in this context that many scholars wrench one of Manning’s statements from its proper context and conclude that Manning held an extreme
doctrine of infallibility. Manning states that the bishops “recognized the
voice of Peter in the voice of Pius, and the infallible certainty of all his declarations and condemnations.”44 There are three things that must be said
about this frequently cited text. First, Manning was offering an interpretation of the bishops’ response to the allocution of Pius IX of June 26 in
which they affirmed that they accepted all that Pius had taught. Second,
Manning does not mean by the term all that every one of Pius’s writings is
infallible but, rather, all his declarations that meet the mentioned criteria.
In this sense, Manning applies the term to Ineffabilis Deus, Gravissimas
inter, Quanta cura, and the Syllabus of Errors from Pius’s pontificate up to
1867.45 It should be noted that Pius IX had issued fifty papal pronouncements by 1867, including twenty-six encyclicals.46 Third, Manning here
does not say, like Ward, that the pope is infallible in all his teachings, but,

the very doctrine we desiderate in certain other writers, the eternal existence of the Son. It is
in Pope Dionysius’s notice of some supposed heresy at Alexandria, which overzealous ecclesiastics had brought before the Holy See. The portion which remains to us of his letter is written in a tone of authority and decision befitting an Infallible Voice.” John Henry Newman,
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical (London, 1895), p. 296.
41. Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council, p. 78.
42. Ibid., p. 78.
43. Henricus Denzinger and Adolfus Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum [hereafter
ES], (Rome, 1967), nos. 2890–96. Manning here states that “[t]he Encyclical Quanta cura,
and the Syllabus or compendium of eighty condemnations in previous encyclicals and allocutions—all these had been at once received by them as a part of the supreme teaching of the
Church, through the person of its head, which, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost,
is preserved from all error. They did not add certainty to that which was already infallible. I
have no hesitation in saying that the Encyclical and Syllabus of 1864 are among the greatest
acts of this Pontificate.” Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council, p. 34.
44. Manning, ibid., pp. 33–34, emphasis added.
45. Ibid., pp. 8, 34, 78.
46. Claudia Carlen, Papal Pronouncements: A Guide: 1740–1978 (Ann Arbor, 1990),
1:31–39.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

725

rather, he limits the power to “condemnations” and “declarations.” Manning uses the term declaration or declare in two senses. The first sense of the
term declaration is broad and includes many pontifical acts that are not
infallible.47 The second sense is narrow and is equivalent to “definitions” in
the later Pastor aeternus.48 This problem of finding the correct term to use
should not be surprising, since the First Vatican Council had not yet convened at the time; even after its meeting, the problem was not entirely
resolved by the use of the term definition, which even today in theology still
has more than one sense.
Manning is clear that the decrees of general councils made apart from
their head do not impose the obligation of belief or obedience upon the
Church. Nor is a council truly general if it is apart from its head or without
subordination to him.49 As noted, Manning’s exposition is most concerned
with refuting Gallicanism; consequently, one of his central principles is
that “the declarations and condemnations of the head of the Church apart
from the episcopate are infallible.”50 The relationship of a pope to a council
works in such a way that a council is merely a gathering of bishops apart
from its head. His basic point is that the pope is always constitutive of a
council, a point made repeatedly by the schools.51 When Manning speaks
about papal infallibility, however, the object changes so that only the “dec47. Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council, pp. 6, 28, 35, 38, 39.
48. Ibid., pp. 8, 23, 34, 59, 78, 79, 88.
49. Ibid., p. 71.
50. Ibid., p. 23, emphasis added.
51. Manning’s view is entirely traditional on this point. Bellarmine, for example,
defines a general council as “Generalia dicuntur ea, quibus interesse possunt & debent Episcopi totius orbis, nisi legitime impediantur, & quibus nemo recte praesidet, nisi summus Pontifex, aut alius eius nomine. Inde enim dicuntur oecumenica: id est, orbis terrae Concilia.”
Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini Politiani Societatis Jesu, de controversiis
Christianae fidei, adversus hujus temporis haereticos (Paris, 1613), IV.I.IV, vol. 2, p. 3. Juan de
Torquemada defines a general council as “Concilium universale catholicae ecclesiae est congregatio maiorum praelatorum ecclesiae auctoritate Roman. pon. speciali convocata ad aliquid
communi intentione solenniter tractandum in religione Christiana papa in ipso concilio
praesidente vel aliquo loco sui”; see Torquemada, Summa de ecclesia . . . una cum eiusdem apparatu, nunc primum in lucem edito, super decreto Papae Eugenij IIII. in Concilio Florentino de
unione Graecorum emanate (Venice, 1561), lib. III, cap. 5, p. 278r. Dominico Giacobazzi
defines a general council as “Concilium est congregatio praelatorum ex universo orbe et
aliarum personarum authoritate, & de voluntate papae convocatarum ad aliquid communi
intentione communiter tractandum in religione christiana, papa in ipso concilio praesidente
vel alio loco ejus, & aliquando Christi, sive ipsiusmet concilii authoritate suffulta”; see Giacobazzi, De Concilio tractatus, in Sacrosancta concilia ad Regiam editionem exacta: quae nunc
quarta parte prodit auctior / studio Philip. Labbei, & Gabr. Cossartii Soc. Jesu presbyterorum
(Paris, 1903), 0:3.

726

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

larations and condemnations” can be issued apart from the episcopate. In
this case Manning intends by the term apart not that the pope is separate
from the rest of the Church but rather that the gift of infallibility is given
not only to the Church but also to Peter.52
Eventually, portions of this text were read to the pope, and Newman
associated this act with the “intrigue, trickery, and imperiousness” of those
who supported the definition.53 Newman then suggested that Manning
was “putting out extreme views.”54 It is hard to understand why Newman’s
judgment of Manning’s pastoral was so harsh, since it is not at all clear why
having one’s work read in the presence of the pope is a type of intrigue.
After all, the pope was just as free to reject Manning’s work as he was to
approve it. Some scholars seem to assume that Newman’s reason for
describing Manning’s work as “extreme” was the seemingly unlimited
nature of Manning’s views on the object of infallibility; however, this view
does not seem sustainable in light of Newman’s other correspondence prior
to 1867. First, Newman at this point clearly accepted the truth of the infallibility of the pope, so this cannot be the source of objection.55 Second, in
a July 21, 1867, letter to Henry Wilberforce, Newman was clear that “he
had never taken any great interest in the question of the limits and seat of
infallibility.”56 Moreover, Newman went on to defend the Church’s infallibility with respect to dogmatic facts—that is, a type of secondary object.
He even seemed to hold that the condemnation of Jansenius’s book as
52. Manning, The Centenary of Saint Peter and the General Council, p. 18.
53. John Henry Newman, Letters and Diaries, ed. Charles Stephen Dessain, Francis J.
McGrath, et al., vol. 1– (London, Oxford, New York, 1961–), 23:367.
54. Ibid.
55. In a letter to Isy Froude dated November 21, 1869, Newman states, “I have ever
held the pope’s infallibility as an opinion, and am not therefore likely to feel any personal anxiety as to the result of this Council”; see ibid., 24:377, emphasis added. Again, after the Council, Newman stated, “I have for these 25 years spoken in behalf of the Pope’s infallibility.”
Newman then goes on to give instances of where he did this. Ibid., 26:139.
56. Ibid., 23:275. Newman, in a July 16, 1866, letter to Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder,
was clear that he wanted to limit the extent of papal infallibility so that matters were not infallible simply because they were utterances of the pope; however, it also is clear that he accepted
all those secondary objects that “directly relate to the depositum”—that is, which “are related
to, which bear upon, the depositum.” Newman gave a number of examples of what he considered were related to the depositum. Thus he held that “the church (or Pope) can determine
the sense of the depositum—she can declare its implicit meanings—she can declare what contradicts it—she can declare what in its nature subserves it (i.e. pious opinion) or is prejudicial
to it (i.e. what is erroneous, false, near heresy, savoring of heresy, etc.)—she can declare its
concrete manifestations, as the inspiration originally given at Pentecost is carried out in the
particular Epistle to the Hebrews (i.e. that it is canonical) or that certain five truths of the
depositum are contradicted in the Augustinus of Jansen (i.e. a dogmatic fact).” Ibid., 22:262.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

727

heretical is infallible.57 Even to Ward, whose claims were probably extreme,
Newman could write that the “theological differences” between them were
“unimportant in themselves,”58 concluding, “I protest then again, not
against your tenets, but against what I must call your schismatical spirit.”59
The issue against which Newman fought vigorously was what he perceived
as the ultramontanists’ attempt to turn their “opinions into dogmas”60—that
is, the defining of the infallibility of the pope’s magisterium61—and it is this
which is the “extremism” on which Newman poured his invective.
Two years later in 1869, Manning addressed a second pastoral letter
to his diocese, titled The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the
Roman Pontiff. This letter had a twofold aim. First, Manning principally
intended it as a response to those who believed “the doctrine to be true, but
its definition to be inopportune.”62 Second, Manning intended to give a
historical account of papal infallibility to show that it is an ancient doctrine
and that Gallicanism, which denies this doctrine, is essentially a novelty. In
this work he devotes a mere ten pages out of the 151 to a treatment of the
various aspects of the doctrine; the bulk of the text is clearly more concerned with the truth of the doctrine than with the nature or extent of
papal infallibility.
Manning’s explanation of the doctrine of papal infallibility in this pastoral is heavily indebted to Bellarmine. He states that “no better analysis
can be found than that of Bellarmine,”63 and he really does nothing more
than simply translate and rearrange elements from Bellarmine’s Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos.
Manning’s citation of Bellarmine is important, for Bellarmine recognized
significant limits to the exercise of papal infallibility, and Manning adopts
these. Bellarmine holds that the pope can be considered in four distinct
ways: as a private person, as a private doctor, as pontiff alone with his
counselors, and as pontiff with a general council.64 Both Catholics and
heretics agree that the pope, even as pope with either his counselors or with
a general council, may err in controversies as to particular facts and that the
57. Ibid., 23:276.
58. Ibid., 23:216.
59. Ibid., 23:217.
60. Ibid., 23:217.
61. Ibid., 24:377.
62. Henry Edward Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman
Pontiff: A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, &c. (London, 1869), p. 27.
63. Ibid., p. 58.
64. Ibid.

728

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

pontiff, as a private doctor, may err even in questions of faith and morals.
Bellarmine, however, also held that when the pope qua pope acts together
with a general council or when he acts alone as the supreme head of the
Church, he cannot define anything heretical to be believed by the whole
Church.65 Manning goes on to explain that it is precisely this distinction
that the words ex cathedra intend to express. They
exclude all acts of the Pontiff as a private person or as a private Doctor,
and confine the character of infallibility to those acts which are promulgated from the Chair of supreme authority as Universal Doctor of the
Church in faith and morals.66

This is exactly what will be explained later both by Newman and by Gasser
in his Relatio.67
Manning was sensitive to the issue of limits, and he rejected the position of those who argued that there was an elaborate set of criteria by
which an ex cathedra decision would be known. He writes:
We have been lately told, by those who desire to hinder the definition of
this doctrine by secular opposition rather than by theological reason, that
there are some twenty opinions as to the conditions required to authenticate an utterance of the Pontiff ex cathedra. I will therefore venture to
affirm that no other conditions are required than this: That the doctrinal
acts be published by the Pontiff, as Universal Teacher, with the intention
of requiring the assent of the Church.68

This definition may seem expansive, but it really is not. His conditions
based on this passage amount to three. First, it must be a doctrinal act;
second, it must be taught by the pope as universal teacher; third, the pope
must intend to bind the universal Church. This may seem brief, but it must
be remembered that even Fessler’s explanation written after the Council

65. Ibid., p. 59.
66. Ibid., p. 60.
67. Newman, Conscience and Papacy: [Letter to the Duke of Norfolk], p. 129. Gasser:
“Continetur actus, seu qualitas et conditio actus infallibilis pontificiae definitionis; tum
scilicet pontifex dicitur infallibilis cum loquitur ex cathedra. Formula ista utique in schola est
recepta, et sensus huius formulae uti habetur in ipso corpore definitionis est sequens; scilicet
quando summus pontifex loquitur ex cathedra, primo non tanquam doctor privatus, neque
solum tanquam episcopus ac ordinarius alicuius dioecesis vel provinciae aliquid decernit, sed
docet supremi omnium christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens.” Gasser, Relatio,
in Mansi et al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova, vol. 52, col. 1225.
68. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, p. 60.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

729

states that there are only two conditions by which an ex cathedra decision
may be recognized.69 Manning makes it clear later in the pastoral that by
“doctrine,” he means “faith and morals,”70 which includes secondary
objects such as “dogmatic facts,”71 a position with which Newman
agreed.72 Newman thought that it was true that the Church could issue an
infallible definition on this third set of objects, but he did not believe that
this opinion was taught definitively.
From this pastoral we are able to discover some of the other papal documents that contained infallible definitions, in Manning’s view. As he
mentions these documents in passing, it is evident that he is attempting
neither to create an exhaustive list nor to justify their presence in such a list.
Nevertheless, a short list can be constructed of some of the documents that,
according to Manning, contained infallible definitions: Pope Innocent I’s
condemnation of Pelagianism (417),73 Pope Alexander VIII’s condemnation of the so-called philosophical sin (1690),74 Pope Innocent X’s Cum
occasione (1653) condemning five propositions of Jansen,75 and Pope Pius
VI’s Auctorem fidei (1794) condemning the Synod of Pistoia.76 Manning
also includes a document by Pope Innocent XI without specifying the
name. Theologians have at various times considered both his Caelestis
pastor (1687) and Cum alias (1699) as containing infallible statements.77
Given the quantity of the documents produced by the papacy in its 1800year history, Manning’s list is relatively short.
Manning is clear that the pope’s infallibility is not dependent in any
way on the consent of the Church. He writes that
the doctrine maintained by me, under the guidance of every great master
of theology of all Schools, Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, so far as I

69. Fessler, The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, p. 65.
70. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, p. 105.
71. Ibid.
72. Ker, John Henry Newman, p. 611. Dulles, “Newman on Infallibility,” pp. 445–46.
73. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, pp. 120,
142–44.
74. This is probably the most objectionable of the listed texts, since this appears to be
a decree of the Holy Office and not an act of the pope as such. Denzinger and Schönmetzer,
ES, nos. 2290–92.
75. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, p. 104.
Denzinger and Schönmetzer, ES, nos. 2001–07.
76. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, pp. 66,
118, 144. Denzinger and Schönmetzer, ES, nos. 2600–2700.
77. Denzinger and Schönmetzer, ES, nos. 2201–69, 2351–74.

730

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
know, excepting only theologians of the Gallican school, is, that judgments ex cathedra are, in their essence, judgments of the Pontiff, apart
from the episcopal body, whether congregated or dispersed.78

There are two things to note about Manning’s position. First, he clearly
believes his views to be entirely consistent with those of the schools. Second,
Manning is not pitting the pope against the bishops but rather suggesting
that the definitive judgment is an “act of the Pontiff . . . perfect and complete in itself.”79 By the term perfect, a term with a long history in Catholic
theology,80 Manning simply means “whole” and “complete” so that nothing
needs to be added to the papal act in order to render it infallible. This does
not detract from the Church’s infallibility, for, as he notes, the apostles did
not cease to be infallible because Peter was. In the same way, “the infallibility of the church does not diminish the infallibility of councils.”81
Finally, Manning was aware of the criticism of extremism that was
being leveled against him and others. He sought to answer these objections
head on. Thus Manning writes:
The Pontifical judgments ex cathedra must be either fallible or infallible.
If it be immoderate or exaggerated to affirm them to be infallible, how is
it not equally immoderate or exaggerated to deny their infallibility?
Either way the affirmation and the denial are equally absolute, trenchant,
and peremptory. I see just as much, and just as little, moderation in the
one as in the other. Either both are moderate or neither. And yet those
who affirm the Pontifical infallibility are held up as warnings, and they
who deny it as examples; the latter as patterns of moderation, the former
as exaggerated and extreme. But they are both in extremes. Aye and no
are equally exclusive, and admit of no degrees.82

Manning’s second pastoral letter, The Oecumenical Council and the
Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, was received in various ways. Bishop
William Bernard Ullathorne (1806–89), for example, thought that it
was “moderate,” although he was critical of Manning’s appendix in
78. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, p. 142,
emphasis in original.
79. Ibid.
80. The Council of Chalcedon (451) adopts precisely this language. “Following therefore the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ, the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity.” Denzinger and Schönmetzer,
ES, no. 301. See also Alois Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, trans. John Bowden
(Atlanta, 1975), p. 546.
81. Manning, The Oecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, p. 34.
82. Ibid., p. 146.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

731

which recent work by Bishop Henri-Louis-Charles Maret (1805–84)
was criticized.83 It is clear that in his preconciliar Catholic works, Manning had three main goals. First, he sought to refute the Gallican
“heresy”; second, he wanted to prove that an infallible decision on this
topic was opportune; and third, he wanted to affirm the doctrine of the
infallibility of the papal magisterium. His preconciliar works should be
read with these ends in mind. It must be admitted, however, that Manning was not primarily concerned with enumerating and explaining the
“limits” of this infallibility.
At the First Vatican Council
Manning returned to Rome for the Council in November 1869;84 he
was eventually elected to the Deputatio de Fide on December 14.85 At the
Council, Manning made two important contributions. First, he was instrumental in ensuring that the topic of the infallibility of the papal magisterium came up for a vote. Second, he helped to defeat Gallicanism by
ensuring that the phrase ex sese non autem ex consensus ecclesiae (of himself
and not from the consent of the Church) was inserted into the decree.86
Eventually, the Council defined the following in Constitutio dogmatica
prima de ecclesia Christi, known by its incipit Pastor aeternus:
as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX
CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and
teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he
defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals (de fide vel moribus) to be
held (tenendam) by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine
Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining (definienda) doctrine
concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions (definitiones) of
the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the
church, irreformable.87

83. Butler and Ullathorne, The Vatican Council, 1:146–47. The work criticized by Manning was Henri-Louis-Charles Maret, Du concile général et de la paix religieuse (Paris, 1869).
84. Arthur Wollaston Hutton, Cardinal Manning (Boston, 1892), p. 139. Purcell, Life
of Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, 2:426.
85. Frederick J. Cwiekowski, The English Bishops and the First Vatican Council,
[Bibliothèque de la revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 52], (Louvain, 1971), p. 124.
86. Powell, Papal Infallibility, p. 67. Butler and Ullathorne, The Vatican Council, 2:157.
Cwiekowski, The English Bishops and the First Vatican Council, p. 271.
87. “Romanum pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens, pro suprema sua apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de
fide vel moribus ab universa ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato

732

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

For the purposes of this argument, there are several things to note about
the First Vatican Council’s definition of the infallibility of the papal magisterium. First, concerning the object of infallibility, the Council both
restricted it and left it open in different respects. The Council clearly
restricted irreformable definitions to matters that pertain to “faith or
morals.”88 On the other hand, the Council intentionally left open certain
questions concerning secondary objects of infallibility. The First Vatican
Council affirmed that when the pope defines infallibly a matter of faith or
morals, this is “to be held (tenendam) by the universal Church.”89 The
Council used the technical term tenendam rather than credendam in its definition of papal infallibility, precisely so that the object of infallibility was
not restricted to revealed truths.90 This is made clear by Gasser’s Relatio,
which offered an official explanation of the schema that was being presented for the vote. In it, Gasser explained that the Council intended that
the pope is infallible in teaching both revealed truths and those nonrevealed truths without which the deposit of faith cannot be “preserved and
expounded.”91 What is important for our purposes is that Manning underPetro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor ecclesiam suam in
definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit; ideoque eiusmodi Romani
pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae irreformabiles esse.” Norman
Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (London and Washington, DC, 1990), 2:816,
emphasis in original.
88. On the history of the phrase faith and morals, see Piet Fransen, “A Short History of
the Meaning of the Formula ‘Fides et mores,’” in Hermeneutics of Councils and Other Studies,
ed. H. E. Mertens and F. de Graeve (Leuven, 1985), pp. 287–318. Maurice Bevenot, “Faith
and Morals in Vatican I and in the Council of Trent,” Heythrop Journal, 3 (1962), 15–30. John
Mahoney, The Making of Moral Theology (Oxford, 1987), 120–74. Johann Beumer, “Res fidei
et morum: Die Entwicklung eines theologischen Begriffes in den Dekretem der drei letzten
Okumenischen Konzilien,” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 2 (1979), 112–34.
89. Denzinger and Schönmetzer, ES, no. 3074.
90. At the First Vatican Council a Schema de ecclesia was drawn up that, if approved/
defined, would have solemnly defined that the magisterium can/could solemnly make definitions/define on secondary objects of infallibility. The proposed canon IX read, “Si quis dixerit,
ecclesiae infallibilitatem ad ea tantum restringi, quae divina revelatione continentur, nec ad
alias etiam veritates extendi, quae necessario requiruntur, ut revelationis depositum integrum
custodiatur; anathema sit.” Mansi et al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova, vol. 51, cols. 539–53.
Before the First Vatican Council could take up this schema, the Council was prorogued
indefinitely on account of the Franco-Prussian War.
On the distinction between “tenendam” and “credendum,” see the following works:
Francis Aloysius Sullivan, “Note: The ‘Secondary Object’ of Infallibility,” Theological Studies,
54 (1993), 538–39; and Umberto Betti, La Costituzione Dommatica “Pastor Aeternus” del Concilio Vaticano I (Rome, 1961), pp. 389–404.
91. Gasser, as the relator of the deputation of the faith, stated that the secondary object
of infallibility was “theologically certain,” and he went on to note that the denial of the magisterium’s ability to teach infallibly on secondary objects was “a very grave error.” Thus Gasser

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

733

stood that the Council did not pronounce on the extent of the secondary
object of infallibility.92 Second, the Council also noted that infallibility is
restricted to “definitions” concerning faith or morals. On July 16 Gasser
gave his final relatio to the general congregation and explained precisely
how the term define is to be understood. The word define was not to be
understood in a merely “forensic” sense (in sensu forensi) but was intended
to convey that the pope “directly and definitively pronounces his sentence
about a doctrine which concerns faith or morals so that each one of the
faithful can be certain of the mind of the Roman Pontiff.”93
Finally, the Council intended that only when the pope exercises his
office in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority as the teacher of all
writes, “Hinc omnes omnino catholici theologi consentiunt, ecclesiam in huiusmodi veritatum authentica propositione ac definitione esse infallibilem, ita ut hanc infallibilitatem negare
gravissimus esset error. Sed opinionum diversitas versatur unice circa gradum certitudinis,
utrum scilicet infallibilitas in hisce veritatibus proponendis, ac proinde in erroribus per censuras nota haereseos inferiores proscribendis debeat censeri dogma fidei, ut hanc infallibilitatem ecclesiae negans esset haereticus; an solum sit veritas in se non revelata, sed ex revelato
dogmate deducta, ac proinde solum theologice certa.” Mansi et al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova,
vol. 52, col. 1226. Gasser continues, “Unde sicut nemine diffitente haereticum est ecclesiae
infallibilitatem in definiendis fidei dogmatibus negare, ita in huius decreti Vaticani vim non
minus haereticum erit negare summi pontificis per se spectati infallibilitatem in definitionibus
dogmatum fidei. In illis autem in quibus theologice quidem certum, non tamen hactenus
certum de fide est ecclesiam esse infallibilem, etiam infallibilitas pontificis hoc decreto sacri
concilii non definitur tanquam de fide credenda. Qua vero certitudine theologica constat haec
alia obiecta praeter dogmata fidei comprehendi inter ambitum infallibilitatis, qua pollet ecclesia in suis definitionibus, eadem certitudine tenendum est ac erit ad haec etiam obiecta
extendi infallibilitatem in definitionibus editis a Romano pontifice.” Mansi et al., Sacrorum
conciliorum nova, vol. 52, col. 1227. Later on July 16, Gasser again took up the secondary
object of infallibility in a Relatio on chapter 4 of Pastor aeternus. Mansi et al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova, vol. 52, col. 1316.
92. In a letter to Aubrey de Vere, Manning wrote, “The Infallibility is defined, but not
its extent.” To William Maskell, former chaplain to Anglican Bishop Henry Phillpotts of
Exeter, he wrote, “The extension of his Infallibility is [a] matter of theology. The Council
intended not to touch the extension of his Infallibility. You are therefore free, debita reverentia, to regard this as matter of theology.” Shane Leslie, Henry Edward Manning: His Life and
Labors, p. 231.
93. “Iam paucissimis verbis dicam, quomodo a Deputatione de fide verbum istud definit
sit accipiendum. Utique Deputatio de fide non in ea mente est, quod verbum istud debeat
sumi in sensu forensi, ut solummodo significet finem impositum controversiae, quae de
haeresi et de doctrina, quae propie est de fide, agitata fuit; sed vox definit significant, quod
papa suam sententiam circa doctrinam, quae est de rebus fidei et morum, directe et terminative proferat, ita ut unusquisque fidelium certus esse possit de mente sedis apostolicae, de
mente Romani Pontificis; ita quidem, ut certo sciat a Romano pontifice hanc vel illam doctrinam haberi haereticam, haeresi proximam, certam vel erroneam etc. Ergo hic est sensus
verbis definit.” Mansi et al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova, vol. 52, col. 1316.

734

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Christians that these pronouncements can be considered irreformable definitions. As Gasser explained, this was intended to exclude anything the
pope decrees as either a private teacher or the bishop and ordinary of a particular diocese.94 Moreover, the Council intended to assert the supreme
authority of the pope by the insertion of “ex sese non autem ex consensus ecclesiae” into the text of the conciliar decree. The Council also intended to
exclude any possible revival of Gallicanism by affirming that the infallibility of any definition is not dependent on the consent, either preceding or
succeeding, of some part of the Church.95
After the First Vatican Council
In 1870, almost immediately after the conclusion of the First Vatican
Council, Manning issued another pastoral letter, The Vatican Council and Its
Definitions, which was more than 250 pages long.96 This pastoral and the
previous two pastoral letters were published in Petri Privilegium: Three Pastoral Letters (London, 1871). Manning’s third pastoral reveals an important
shift in his emphasis. The previous pastorals had been directed principally
against Gallicanism and the inopportunity of the definition, whereas little
discussion was devoted to either the subject or the object of infallibility.
Manning now formally took up the issue of the “limits” of papal infallibility, a topic that he had not treated since his days as an Anglican. There
were probably two reasons for this shift. First, Manning had obtained his
earlier goal—the defeat of Gallicanism—and he could now deal with other
issues. Second, Manning now had a clear magisterial definition of papal
94. “Continetur actus, seu qualitas et conditio actus infallibilis pontificiae definitionis;
tum scilicet pontifex dicitur infallibilis cum loquitur ex cathedra. Formula ista utique in schola
est recepta, et sensus huius formulae uti habetur in ipso corpore definitionis est sequens; scilicet quando summus pontifex loquitur ex cathedra, primo non tanquam doctor privatus,
neque solum tanquam episcopus ac ordinarius alicuius dioecesis vel provinciae aliquid decernit, sed docet supremi omnium christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens.” Mansi et
al., Sacrorum conciliorum nova, vol. 52, col. 1225.
95. Richard F. Costigan, “The Consensus of the Church: Differing Classic Views,”
Theological Studies, 51 (1990), 25–48, here 26; Richard F. Costigan, The Consensus of the
Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I (Washington, DC, 2005),
pp. 1–2. Georges Dejaifve, “Ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae,” Eastern Churches
Quarterly, 14 (1962), 360–78. Heinrich Fries, “Ex sese, non ex consensu ecclesiae,” in Volk
Gottes: Zum Kirchenverständnis der katholischen, evangelischen und anglikanischen Theologie.
Festgabe für Josef Höfer, ed. Josef Höfer, Remigius Bäumer, and Heimo Dolch (Freiburg,
1967), pp. 480–500.
96. Henry Edward Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions: A Pastoral Letter
to the Clergy (London, 1870).

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

735

infallibility with which to work. This definition probably also gave birth to
two other new emphases: the object of infallibility, to which he devotes an
entire chapter, and the “personal” nature of papal infallibility, which he
also discusses at length. In total, his treatment of the Council’s definition
is about fifty pages in length. In contrast, Ullathorne issued a pastoral letter
on the Council in the same year, but his treatment of the definition of the
infallibility of the papal magisterium was a mere four pages.97
As we have seen, prior to the Council Manning believed that there
were clear limits to papal infallibility. The only thing that is really new in
his third pastoral letter in this regard is his explicit use of the term limits.
The first limit he mentions is that the pope must be teaching ex cathedra.98
So he explains:
The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the
Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a
private person, or as a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as sovereign
of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to
error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is,
when, as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals.99

Another new aspect of Manning’s postconciliar teaching was his discussion of the “personal” infallibility of the pope, a subject that came up
repeatedly at the Council. He uses the term personal, which he derived
from Scholastic terminology, to exclude all doubt as to the source from
which infallibility is derived. The privilege of infallibility is personal, in as
much as it attaches to the Roman pontiff as a public person distinct from,
but inseparably united to, the Church. He is clear that the pope’s infallibility is not personal in the sense that it is attached to the private person,
as the “newspaper theologians” mistakenly took it.100
Second, Manning recognized that the Council’s definition limited the
object of infallibility to doctrines of faith and morals. For Manning, the
phrase faith and morals signifies “the whole revelation of faith and the whole
way of salvation through faith; or the whole supernatural order, with all that
is essential to the sanctification and salvation of man through Jesus
Christ.”101 To justify this rather broad interpretation of the object of papal
97. William Bernard Ullathorne, The Council and Papal Infallibility: A Letter Addressed
to the Clergy and the Laity of the Diocese of Birmingham (London, 1870), pp. 23–27.
98. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 65.
99. Ibid., p. 64.
100. Ibid., p. 109.
101. Ibid., p. 66.

736

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

infallibility, Manning cites a large number of authors, including Hervaeus
Natalis (c. 1250–1323); St. Antoninus (1389–1459); Melchior Cano;
Domingo Báñez, O.P. (1528–1604); Francisco de Suarez; Gregorio de
Valencia; Robert Bellarmine; and Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696–
1787). He notes that, in most cases, these authors did not use the phrase
faith and morals, using instead at least sixteen synonyms that reveal the
extent of the object of infallibility.102 These formulas range from “things
pertaining to the spiritual health of souls” to “things pertaining to the natural and divine law.”103 Therefore, the phrase fides et mores was understood
by most theologians as significantly broader than matters directly pertaining
to divine revelation. Manning is also clear that the Church claims no jurisdiction over “the processes of philosophy or science” nor over “the principles
proper to such philosophy or science.”104 The pope can only judge whether
these are in “conformity or variance” with the deposit of faith.105
The primary (although Manning prefers the term direct) object of
infallibility is revealed truths, and Manning’s presentation of it here is
more detailed than, but not substantially different from, that of his previous presentations. He includes in the object the extent of the canon, the
authenticity of scriptures, and “the true interpretation of Holy Scripture.”106 He also holds that the pope is infallible in determining what is
opposed to revelation.107 He argues, however, that the doctrinal authority
of the Church is not confined merely to matters of revelation; he extends
the authority to secondary objects of infallibility. Although these truths are
not revealed, they are necessary for the “promulgation, explanation, and
defense of revelation.”108
The object of infallibility, then, is not only the whole revealed Word of
God (i.e., primary objects) but also secondary objects (i.e., “all that is so in
contact with revealed truth, that without treating of it, the Word of God
could not be guarded, expounded, and defended”).109 These truths include
truths of science, truths of history, dogmatic facts, and minor censures,
although he notes that this list is not exhaustive.110 On this point, Manning
102. Ibid., p. 71.
103. Ibid., p. 69.
104. Ibid., p. 84.
105. Ibid., pp. 83–84.
106. Ibid., p. 72.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid., p. 73.
109. Ibid., p. 84.
110. Ibid.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

737

could be criticized for an unwarranted and deceptive extension of the object
of infallibility that went beyond the text of the Council. In this analysis,
Manning is like those who, disappointed by the texts of the Second Vatican
Council, invoke the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” in an attempt to make
conciliar documents say what in fact they do not say. There are two reasons
why this analogy does not hold. First, those who invoke the “spirit of Vatican II” often do so in a way that is contradictory to the plain meaning of
the Council’s documents. The First Vatican Council, as noted above, intentionally had employed the term tenendam rather than credendam so that the
object of infallibility would not be restricted to primary objects.111 So,
although Manning’s assertion of secondary objects of infallibility certainly
went beyond the text of the Council, it was clearly not contrary to either the
text or the intention of the Council. Second, Manning does not represent
the Council as having defined what secondary objects are part of the object
of infallibility. Instead, he clearly asserts that “this extension of the infallibility of the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all theologians, at least
theologically certain; and, in the judgment of the majority of theologians,
certain by the certainty of faith.”112 Manning, as is clear from his text, meant
by “all theologians” all approved theologians of the schools.113
Manning gives a number of examples of what he thinks are secondary
or “indirect” objects of infallibility. First, the doctrinal authority of the
Church is infallible in defining certain truths of natural science, such as the
existence of substance, and certain truths of natural reason, such as the
immateriality of the soul or the form of the body. Second, it extends also
to certain truths of the supernatural order that are not revealed such as the
authenticity of certain texts or versions of Holy Scripture. Manning cites
as an example of this the Tridentine decree that declared that the Vulgate
edition is authentic.114 Third, there are truths of human history that are not
revealed such as that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, that a particular council is an ecumenical council, and that the pope is the legitimate successor
of Peter.115 In each case, the Church can define such matters precisely so
that one can have a certain faith.

111. See footnote 92.
112. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 84.
113. On the development of the secondary object of infallibility see Luis Gahona
Fraga, El objeto indirecto de la infalibilidad en Santo Tomás de Aquino: La Carta Apostólica “Ad
tuendam fidem” a la luz de la teología tradicional (Toledo, Spain, 2004), pp. 163–257.
114. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 74.
115. Ibid.

738

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Manning also holds that the Church is infallible in defining nonrevealed truths of biblical interpretation, and here Manning makes an odd
distinction. He distinguishes between the “literal and grammatical” sense
and the “theological and doctrinal” sense. The “literal and grammatical”
sense determines whether the words of scripture have a particular grammatical meaning, which for Manning is merely a question of fact. He even
calls this a “dogmatic fact” and likens it to that which had been denied by
the Jansenists. The “theological and doctrinal” sense, however, is a matter
of dogma. It is not at all clear why he does not include the “literal and
grammatical” sense as a primary object of infallibility. Most theologians
through the nineteenth century would have included the wording of divine
revelation as a primary object. On this point he departs from Bellarmine.116
For Manning, the Church also can teach infallibly on the approbation of
religious orders117 and the canonization of saints, a view that was taught
not only by Aquinas, Cano, and Bellarmine but even by Newman.118 The
pope also can define infallibly that which is a “false philosophy and false
science.”119 By science, Manning simply means knowledge, and he points out
that this has happened in the past. Finally, the pope also is infallible in theological conclusions—that is, conclusions resulting from two premises, of
which one is revealed and the other evident by the light of reason.120
Manning also includes within the object of infallibility theological
censures. Prior to the Council, all parties agreed that the pope could assign
infallibly the major censure of heresy to a proposition that was contrary to
divine revelation. Ward, Newman, and Manning all agreed that the pope
can assign infallibly even minor censures to propositions. Newman, for
example, had admitted that minor censures that indicate the falsity of a
teaching such as “erroneous, false, near heresy, savoring of heresy” could be
116. See Christian D. Washburn, “St. Robert Bellarmine on the Authoritative Interpretation of Sacred Scripture,” Gregorianum, 94 (2013), 55–77.
117. This was commonly taught by theologians as well; however, Cano is a rather
notable exception. Albert Lang, Die Loci Theologici des Melchior Cano und die Methode des
dogmatischen Beweisses (Hildesheim, 1974), pp. 7–15.
118. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, pp. 70, 95. St. Thomas Aquinas
taught: “Quia tamen honor quem sanctis exhibemus, quaedam professio fidei est, qua
sanctorum gloriam credimus, pie credendum est, quod nec etiam in his iudicium Ecclesiae
errare possit.” Aquinas, Quodlibet., IX, q. 8. a. un., ed. Raymundi M. Spiazzi (Turin, 1956),
p. 194. Cano, De locis theologicis, 5:191, 195. Bellarmine wrote, “Altera [sententia] est
Catholicorum, asserentium, certum esse Ecclesiam non errare in Sanctorum canonizatione,
ita ut sine ulla dubitatione sancti ab Ecclesia canonizati venerandi sint.” Bellarmine, De Controversiis, VII.I.IX, vol. 2, p. 702. Dulles, “Newman on Infallibility,” p. 446.
119. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 73.
120. Ibid., p. 79.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

739

defined infallibly.121 Manning, like Ward, went further than Newman and
argued that the pope can define other censures infallibly, such as “temerity,” “scandal,” and “offensive to pious ears.” Manning affirms this possibility but for different reasons than Ward.122 Manning argues that, since
the minor censures all relate to the moral character of propositions, they fall
within mores. Manning is again affirming what he takes to be the position
of the schools. He notes that “all Catholic theologians, without exception
. . . teach that the Church is infallible in all such censures” but adds that
theologians differ as to whether the pope’s ability to do this is itself de fide
or merely a theological certainty.123
Probably the most controversial aspect of Manning’s exposition in The
Vatican Council and Its Definitions is his understanding of the term definition.
Manning writes, “[T]he word ‘definition’ has two senses, the one forensic
and narrow, the other wide and common,” and he argues that the term
definienda in the Council’s decree is to be understood in the wide sense.124
Many authors cite his adoption of the “wide” sense of this term as further
evidence of his “extreme” understanding of papal infallibility, since they
argue that the whole point of the Council was to make sure that papal infallibility is understood narrowly.125 These authors generally focus on the terms
wide and narrow and give the distinct impression that these terms should be
121. Newman, Letters and Diaries, 23:262.
122. There was a minor controversy between Ward and Ryder in the years leading up
to the Council over the issue of the infallibility of minor censures. Ward, The Authority of Doctrinal Decisions Which Are Not Definitions of Faith: Considered in a Short Series of Essays
Reprinted from “The Dublin Review” (London, 1866), pp. 1–29. Ignatius Ryder wrote a book
challenging Ward’s book on four points: (1) the value of the doctrinal instructions of papal
encyclicals, as such; (2) the connection of the infallible utterances of the Church with the
depositum; (3) the value of the censures attached to propositions; and (4) the Galileo case. H.
I. D. Ryder, Idealism in Theology: A Review of Dr. Ward’s Scheme of Dogmatic Authority
(London, 1867), p. 13. Ward responded to Ryder with his A Letter to the Rev. Father Ryder
on His Recent Pamphlet (London, 1867), pp. 5, 16–17, 21–23. Ryder, in turn, responded with
his A Letter to William George Ward, Esq., D.Ph. on His Theory of Infallible Instruction (London,
1868), pp. 10–11. Ward was not only replying to Ryder in these works; he was simultaneously
replying in the Dublin Review. See, for example, Ward, “Minor Doctrinal Judgments,”
Dublin Review, October 1867, 333–47. On the eve of the Council, Ward wrote his De
infallibilitatis extensione that also treats the issue. Ward, De infallibilitatis extensione: theses
quasdam et quaestiones theologorum (London, 1869).
123. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 80.
124. Ibid., p. 93.
125. Dessain, “Infallibility: What Newman Taught in Manning’s Church,” p. 59. Ford,
“Different Models of Infallibility,” p. 225. Butler and Ullathorne, The Vatican Council, 2:216.
Powell, Papal Infallibility, p. 66. Cwiekowski, The English Bishops and the First Vatican
Council, pp. 278–79.

740

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

understood so that a wide definition would render considerably more papal
statements infallible than the more restrictive, narrow definition. Manning,
however, simply means by the narrow sense of the term definition “the logical
act of defining by genus and differentia,”126 whereas the wide sense of the
term definition is “an authoritative termination of questions which have been
in doubt and debate.”127 Manning argues that the First Vatican Council uses
the word definition in “the wide and common sense.” Here an example might
be useful to explain precisely what Manning means by this distinction. The
Council of Nicea did not define in Manning’s “narrow sense” the nature of
consubstantiality, the genus of which would be “identity” and the differentia
of which would “be pertaining to the substance.” The magisterium usually
does not give a definition in the narrow or proper sense of the term, by which
a definition is said to signify the essence. The Council of Nicea did define in
Manning’s “wide” sense that Christ is consubstantial in such a way that it
intended to end the debate then raging in the Church. So, in this case, the
magisterium intended to define authoritatively that something is true—that
is, the Son is consubstantial with the Father—without having to indicate
with logical specificity the essence of what is being defined or without ever
defining the genus or differentia of consubstantiality.128
Manning does not provide a list of documents containing infallible
decrees, and he mentions fewer documents that contain infallible definitions than he did in his other pastoral letters. He explicitly mentions
Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam, Unigenitus, and Auctorem fidei as
containing infallible definitions.129 He spends seven pages explaining the
history and doctrine of Boniface VIII’s Unam sanctam. Unfortunately,
Manning does not, like Fessler, tell us if there are one or more infallible
definitions in the document.130 Unlike in his previous pastoral, Manning
makes no mention of Quanta cura and the Syllabus. After the Council,
Newman affirmed the infallibility of Quanta cura but denied it to the Syllabus.131 Whatever the case, surely a mark of “moderate infallibilism”
126. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 93.
127. Ibid., p. 94.
128. The same thing is illustrated by the Church’s definition that the unity of Christ is
a union of hypostasis without ever having defined the essence of hypostasis.
129. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, pp. 13–14.
130. Manning, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, pp. 55–62.
Fessler, The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, pp. 66, 70.
131. There are a number of Newman scholars who have mistakenly denied that
Newman considered Quanta cura infallible. See, for example, Sheridan Gilley, Newman and
His Age (London, 1990), pp. 374, 376. Newman, however, clearly writes: “[W]ho will dream
of saying, be he Anglican, Protestant, unbeliever, or on the other hand Catholic, that

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

741

cannot be to grant the infallibility to the definitions of Quanta cura while
denying it to the definitions of the Syllabus of Errors.132 Notable theologians such as Matthias Joseph Scheeben (1835–88) and Cardinal
Camillo Mazzella (1833–1900)133 would continue to affirm the infallibility of the Syllabus, whereas others such as Newman and Fessler denied its
infallibility.134
Another criticism of Manning is that his understanding of papal infallibility meant that infallible definitions from the papal magisterium were a
frequent occurrence in the life of the Church. Ward’s view was that definitions, doctrinal expositions, and all sorts of minor censures fall under the
object of the pope’s infallible magisterium; so Ward’s view on the frequency of infallible propositions can be said to be “frequent” by any standard of measure. In contrast, Newman thought that infallible definitions
are relatively rare in the history of the Church.135 The problem with the
language of “frequent” or “rare,” as Ward will later point out, is that “when
the question is asked whether infallible definitions are rare events—no
answer can be given to such a question, until one understands what is the
assumed standard of rarity or frequency.”136 It is difficult to know precisely
the difference between Newman and Manning on this issue; however,
what is certain is that they are both quite far from Ward. First, Manning
and Newman both have on the theoretical level far more limits on the
infallibility of the papal magisterium than Ward. Second, if their stated
views are examined on the number of documents alleged to contain infallible definitions in the reign of Pius IX, for example, Newman holds to two
and Manning holds to four out of a total of fifty-six documents (including
twenty-six encyclicals) by Pius IX before 1870.137 Newman’s acceptance of

Honorius on the occasion in question did actually intend to exert that infallible teaching voice
which is heard so distinctly in the Quanta cura and the Pastor æternus?” Newman, Letter to the
Duke of Norfolk, p. 121.
132. “The Syllabus of Pius IX,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1912), 14:368.
For a brief summary of the various schools of thought on the infallibility of Quanta cura, see
Renhold Sebott, Religionsfreiheit und Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat. Der Beitrag John Courtney
Murrays zu einer modernen Frage, [Analecta Gregoriana, vol. 206], (Rome, 1977), pp. 210–14.
133. Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1873), vol. 1, no. 510. Camillo Mazzella, De religione et ecclesia: prælectiones scholastico-dogmaticæ (Rome, 1885), p. 822.
134. Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, pp. 87–106. Fessler, The True and the False
Infallibility of the Popes, p. 18.
135. Newman, Conscience and Papacy: [Letter to the Duke of Norfolk], p. 139.
136. Ward, Essays on the Church’s Doctrinal Authority (London, 1880), p. 506.
137. Carlen, Papal Pronouncements: A Guide: 1740–1978, 1:31–40.

742

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

the infallibility of Quanta cura leaves unspecified the exact number of infallible definitions contained therein, but presumably it is more than one. In
contrast, Ward held to literally hundreds of infallible acts in Pius’s reign,
although, after the Council, he modified his view under the influence of
Giovanni Perrone.138 Moreover, Newman and Manning both noted that
Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei contains infallible definitions. This bull contains
eighty-five censures, but the exact number of infallible censures is an open
question. Since Newman and Manning were both in agreement that the
pope can be infallible in determining minor censures that pertain to the falsity of a teaching, this potentially means hundreds of infallible acts. Again,
almost all parties—including Manning, Ward, Newman, and Fessler—
also considered canonizations infallible (even if they also thought that this
object was not defined at the First Vatican Council); thus, there would
have to be literally hundreds of infallible acts. Therefore, for both Newman
and Manning, the term rare did not quite mean what it has come to mean
today.139 In 1869 Newman had noted with great perspicacity that the doctrine of the infallibility of the papal magisterium was a “retrospective doctrine,” because “it brings up a great variety of questions about past acts of
Popes—whether their decrees in the past ages are infallible, whether they
are not.”140
Finally, Manning again takes up the issue of the relationship of papal
infallibility to the Church as a whole, affirming that papal infallibility
exists apart from the rest of the Church. He now cites a number of
medieval texts to show that the term apart and the theory itself have a long
history.141 He also responds to the charge that papal infallibility is somehow an infringement on the power of the episcopacy:
I do not understand why the bishops should have to renounce their episcopal authority in consequence of the definition of Pontifical authority.
138. Ward, Essays on the Church’s Doctrinal Authority, p. 462.
139. The Lutheran-Catholic dialogue asserted that there were only two infallible acts.
Empie, Murphy, and Burgess, eds., Teaching Authority & Infallibility in the Church, pp. 49–51.
On the other hand, recent scholars such as Schatz have concluded that the following seven
documents contain infallible definitions: (1) Leo I’s Tomus ad Flavianum (449); (2) Agatho’s
Omnium bonorum spes (680); (3) Benedict XII’s Benedictus Deus (1336); (4) Innocent X’s Cum
occasione (1653); (5) Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei (1794); (6) Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus (1854); and
(7) Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus (1950). Klaus Schatz, Vaticanum I, 1869–1870, 3:331–
39. Klaus Schatz, “Welche bisherigen päpstlichen Lehrentscheidungen sind ‘ex cathedra’? Historische und theologische Überlegungen,” in Dogmengeschichte und katholische Theologie ed.
Werner Löser, Karl Lehmann, and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (Würzburg, 1985), pp. 404–22.
140. Newman, Letters and Diaries, 24:378.
141. Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions, p. 106.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

743

This prerogative is not only as ancient as the Church herself, but has
been, moreover, always exercised in the Roman Church, without the
divine authority and the rights conferred by God on the pastors of the
Church being thereby altered in the least degree. Its definition therefore
would in no way go to change the relations between the bishops and their
head. The rights of the one and the prerogatives of the other are well
defined in the Church’s divine constitution; and the confirmation of the
Roman Pontiff’s supreme authority and magisterium, far from being
prejudicial to the rights of bishops, will furnish a new support to them:
authority and magisterium, since the strength and vigor of the members
is just so much as comes to them from the head.142

Manning briefly returns to the issue of infallibility in Caersarism and
Ultramontanism (1874) but only to note that infallibility is necessary so that
the Church can delineate precisely what constitutes the limits of its authority in faith and morals. The Vatican decrees and Manning’s work, however,
provoked a response by William Ewart Gladstone (1809–98), with whom
Manning had a lifelong friendship.143 Gladstone had charged that the First
Vatican Council’s definition of the infallibility of the papal magisterium
entailed that Catholics could not be good citizens and that Catholics were
required to renounce their “moral and mental freedom.”144 The Catholic
response was immediate, and a long list of prominent Catholics responded,
including Ullathorne, Msgr. Thomas John Capel; Robert Montagu; Henry
James Coleridge, S.J.; Bishop Herbert Vaughan of Salford; and Canon
Henry Neville.145 Manning and Newman, however, were probably the
most important, although they responded in quite different ways to the
challenge set forth by Gladstone.146 Manning’s work, titled The Vatican
Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (1875), is not concerned principally with the issue of infallibility. In fact, he notes that infallibility has no
bearing on the issue of civil allegiance at all.147 He emphasizes the limita-

142. Ibid., p. 188.
143. The correspondence of Manning and Gladstone has been collected and edited by
Peter C. Erb and is contained in four volumes. Volume 4 pertains to their public debate. Peter
C. Erb, ed., The Correspondence of Henry Edward Manning and William Ewart Gladstone: The
Complete Correspondence 1833–1891 (Oxford, 2011–13).
144. William Ewart Gladstone, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance:
A Political Expostulation (London, 1874), p. 24.
145. Jaki, introduction, in Newman, Conscience and Papacy: [Letter to the Duke of
Norfolk], pp. xi–xv.
146. Paul Misner, Papacy and Development: Newman and the Primacy of the Pope
(Leiden, 1976), p. 150.
147. Manning, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance (New York,
1875), p. 88.

744

ARCHBISHOP HENRY MANNING AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

tions placed on the exercise of the papal magisterium by simply producing
eleven pages of quotations from his Petri Privilegium.148
Manning notes that the definition of the First Vatican Council
“makes all pontifical acts infallible.”149 This is the same type of language
that probably persuades some to think that Manning’s doctrine is extreme;
but in the context of his work it is not so. Later in the work he makes it
clear that those doctrines that emanate from the pope are not necessarily
infallible, but only those teachings that meet certain conditions. Thus
infallible teachings must pertain to faith and morals, which excludes “all
other matter whatsoever.”150 He also notes that the pope is infallible when,
“and only when[,]” he speaks ex cathedra as “the pastor and doctor of all
Christians.”151 But when the pope speaks as a “private person, or a private
doctor, or as a local bishop, or as sovereign of a state,” his teachings or
directives are excluded from the gift of infallibility, and “in all these acts the
Pontiff may be subject to error.”152
Manning’s final significant discussion of the infallibility of the papal
magisterium is in his The True Story of the Vatican Council, first published
in 1877.153 Here Manning attempts to give a history of the Council—particularly with respect to Pastor aeternus, which need not be examined at
length here. What is important is how Manning explains the doctrine of
the infallibility of the papal magisterium, but there is, in fact, very little
new here, as most of the material is virtually identical with the exposition
contained in his pastoral letters. He notes that the decree describes infallibility as “a charisma of indefectible faith and truth.”154 He then refutes the
common objection leveled against Pastor aeternus that it had made infallibility a personal attribute of the pope. Manning insists that the decree
excludes “personal” infallibility since the word charisma is used to express

148. Ibid., pp. 157–60, quoting Petri Privilegium, pp. 119–22, and Manning, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, pp. 161–69, quoting Petri Privilegium, pp.
56–60, 66, 78, 84.
149. Manning, The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, p. 14, emphasis
added.
150. Ibid., p. 164.
151. Ibid., p. 163.
152. Ibid.
153. Manning, The True Story of the Vatican Council, ed. Stanley L. Jaki (Pinckney, MI,
1996).
154. Ibid., p. 181. “Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma Petro
eiusque in hac cathedra successoribus divinitus collatum est, . . .”: Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2:816.

CHRISTIAN D. WASHBURN

745

not a gratia gratum faciens—that is, a grace that makes a person pleasing to
God, but a gratia gratis data, or a grace the benefit of which is for others,
such as prophecy or healing.155 The Council defines that this infallibility
extends to all matters of faith and morals, but it does not define where the
limits of faith and morals are to be fixed.156 He also reaffirms that the definition teaches that the doctrinal declarations of the pontiff are infallible in
and of themselves by divine assistance and not from the consent of the
Church to which they are addressed.157 There is nothing in this work that
moves beyond what he already claimed in his pastorals.
Conclusion
It is difficult to see how Manning acquired the reputation for being an
“extreme” or “maximal” infallibilist based on his published works, most of
which are concerned with refuting the Gallican heresy and demonstrating
the opportune timing of the First Vatican Council’s definition. Although
it is true that on rare occasions he used misleading language, on the whole
his works exhibit a prudence of language that is hardly characteristic of an
extremist. It is clear that Manning viewed the definition of the infallibility
of the papal magisterium as a victory for his position: a position that he
thought was that of the theological schools since the sixteenth century.
Despite his critics’ claims to the contrary, on a number of points Manning’s
views on the subject and object of infallibility were held by his “moderate”
contemporaries such as Newman and Fessler, including the infallibility
both of dogmatic facts and of Pius IX’s encyclical Quanta cura. There are
two crucial points on which Manning and Newman disagreed. First, Manning believed that the Council’s definition of papal infallibility came at an
opportune moment. It is probably for his zeal in pursuing its definition
that he is labeled an extremist. Second, with respect to the object of infallibility, Manning seems to include a wider range of secondary objects that
can be defined infallibly by the pope than did Newman. Manning, like
Newman, understood himself to be in continuity within an ongoing theological tradition that in its explicit form extended back to theologians of
the sixteenth century, which is why Newman’s and Manning’s positions
are ultimately so similar.

155. Manning, True Story of the Vatican Council, p. 185.
156. Ibid., p. 191.
157. Ibid., p. 190.

A Church of Two Steeples:
Catholicism, Labor, and Ethnicity in
Industrial New England, 1869–90
PATRICK LACROIX*
Drawing evidence from militant ethnic newspapers, historians have
long known of conflict between Irish Americans and the French Canadians of New England in the nineteenth century. Alternative sources
now bring greater clarity to this multifaceted struggle. Diocesan correspondence and documents from press outlets unassociated with the two
communities further emphasize French Canadians’ attempts to resist
assimilationist forces but better define the source of such assimilationist
sentiments. Whereas the Irish working class aimed to integrate the new
Catholic element into a labor movement that it largely controlled, Irish
American bishops recognized that the Church’s institutional interests
demanded cultural accommodation.
Keywords: Franco-American history, French Canadian Church,
immigrants, Irish American Catholics, labor

A

ddressing his American peers in 1929, famed Canadian historian
Arthur Lower reflected on the past, present, and future of New England’s Franco-American community. That community, he found, was
driven by the missionary zeal encapsulated in the old formula Gesta Dei per
Francos (the deeds of God through the French) and by the certainty that it
would “come out on top” in the struggle of cultures.1 Struggle there certainly was, in the pursuit of cultural preservation in a foreign, seemingly
hostile environment. Yet it is striking that in the time since Lower’s piece
appeared, there have been few reassessments of the relationship of French
*Mr. Lacroix is a PhD candidate and instructor at the University of New Hampshire,
email: patrick.lacroi@hotmail.com. The author expresses his gratitude to Ellen Fitzpatrick;
Rev. Robert Hayman, director of archives, Diocese of Providence; Robert Johnson Lally,
archivist and records manager, Archdiocese of Boston; and Sister Rita-Mae Bissonnette,
R.S.R., chancellor and delegate for religious, Diocese of Portland. He also thanks David Ferrara, Molly Boddy, and Keira Anderson for their comments on the manuscript.
1. Arthur R. M. Lower, “New France in New England,” New England Quarterly, 2
(1929), 278–95, here 294–95.

746

PATRICK LACROIX

747

Canadian immigrants to the host society in late-nineteenth-century New
England. Scholars have taken the assimilationist designs of Catholic
authorities in the region, often Irish American, as a matter of fact,
although there are grounds for skepticism. This article seeks to offer critical reinterpretations of assimilationist forces in that environment and to
better define the ethno-cultural conflict in which French Canadian immigrants were engaged.
When, following the Civil War, dire economic conditions pushed
French Canadians onto the soil of the old Puritan enemy, “as Normans
overrunning and taking possession of another England,” Catholicism had
already gained a foothold in the region by way of Irish immigration.2 That
did not, however, ensure French Canadians a hearty welcome. Friction
within the labor movement and the issue of religious accommodation produced ethnic tensions. The more recent immigrants were decried for their
“clannishness, the ignorance of the mass of them, and the patriarchal
authority of their religious leaders.”3 Historians have, accordingly, emphasized the insularity, in the interest of cultural preservation, of the French
of New England in both the labor movement and the Catholic Church. In
so doing, numerous scholars have perpetuated historical myths or the language of historical actors without its context. Among these myths is that
of Catholic bishops deploying sustained efforts to Americanize French
Canadians between 1869 and 1890. In fact, the bishops of New England
recognized that immigrants’ distinct culture was a boon to their faith and
to church interests. It was Anglo-Irish workers, supported by Irish “labor
priests,” who were most interested in assimilation. Episcopal policy pleased
neither Irish labor activists nor the most ardent French Canadian nationalists. Reading the past through the sources left by the latter in particular,
historians have related the tale of an oppressive Catholic Church that cared
not for minority cultures. By turning to diocesan correspondence and looking beyond nationalist mouthpieces, this article reconsiders episcopal
policy in New England and better defines the assimilationist forces with
which immigrants from Quebec contended.4

2. Prosper Bender, “The French Canadians in New England,” New England Magazine,
12, (1892), 569–77, here 569–70.
3. Edwin A. Start, “A Model New England Village,” New England Magazine, 9
(1891), 701–19, here 711.
4. One important resource is Boston’s Globe, which had a regional scope and revealed
a friendly disposition toward both French Canadians and organized labor, thus providing an
opportunity to depict interethnic and labor relations beyond the disparaging rhetoric of
nativist and ethnic outlets.

748

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

Despite its volume, French Canadian settlement in New England
figures marginally in immigration studies. In John Higham’s survey,
French Canadians are left out of the conversation on anti-Catholicism
and are not mentioned in connection to the “[c]risis of the Eighties.” Jay
P. Dolan acknowledges them as “often overlooked in the history of American immigration” but leaves it to others to delve deeper. Borrowing from
Tamara K. Hareven’s work on Manchester, John Bodnar remains silent
on the extent to which French Canadians fit the pattern of integration
typical of European immigrants. Timothy Meagher’s work on Worcester,
more helpfully, draws attention to economic competition between
Catholic immigrant groups. The task for scholars is still to set the French
Canadian case in conversation with broader immigration studies and then
to contextualize better the group’s relationship to other immigrants and
preexisting institutions.5
Cultural Affirmation, Cultural Apartness
Pushed at mid-century by population pressures and soil exhaustion,
the French Canadians of the St. Lawrence River valley sought seasonal
work and became farmhands in Vermont and loggers in Maine. In far
greater numbers, they found employment in Boston’s hinterland as it
became the heart of American textile manufacturing. Often recruited by
traveling mill agents, there were already more than 100,000 French Canadians in New England by 1870; they were twice that number a decade
later, and, in 1890, their population stood at 365,000. Massachusetts alone
could boast well over 40 percent of those numbers. There seemed to be no
stopping the exodus from Quebec. From 1885 to 1890, the French Canadian element in Massachusetts and Rhode Island grew by 50 percent. Fall
River and Lowell in Massachusetts and Manchester in New Hampshire,
remained the largest centers of French Canadian population in the region
through the last two decades of the century.6

5. John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (New
Brunswick, NJ, 2002), pp. 15–17, 35–67, 77–87; Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the Present (Garden City, NY, 1987), pp. 133–34, 153–
54, 178–80; John E. Bodnar, The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America
(Bloomington, 1985), pp. 62, 76–77, 96; Timothy J. Meagher, Inventing Irish America: Generation, Class, and Ethnic Identity in a New England City, 1880–1928 (Notre Dame, 2001), pp.
12, 58, 100, 214–17, 288–89, 346–49.
6. Ralph D. Vicero, “Immigration of French Canadians to New England, 1840–1900:
A Geographical Analysis” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1968), pp. 149–55,
213, 275, 289.

PATRICK LACROIX

749

Priests, printers, and professionals, with whom community life
became increasingly organized, followed the migrant laborers. So it was
also with countless towns from the mouth of the Connecticut River,
through the industrial heartland, and into Maine. In Lowell, Fall River,
and other locations, the Irish population had a better and bigger footing,
but the sheer volume of immigration from Canada threatened what control
the Irish had achieved over their industrial environment and religious existence in the United States. Indeed, by 1890, French Canadians constituted
a majority of the Catholic population in the Dioceses of Burlington, Portland, and Manchester.7
By 1869, the immigrant population had reached a critical mass that
demanded distinctive structures, as seen in the establishment of seven
national parishes by the bishops of New England that very year. The episcopacy carved national parishes from contiguous territorial jurisdictions to
provide for the spiritual care of a minority who lived in the midst of the
dominant group. The first French national parish was instituted in
Burlington by Bishop John Bernard Fitzpatrick of Boston in 1850. Since
Canadian migrants and immigrants stayed aloof from church services
rather than joining Irish congregations, the parish, a “basic social unit,” was
endowed with cultural properties in the interest of keeping French speakers in the Catholic fold. Irish American protests did not sway the course of
this episcopal approach to diversity: there were eighty-six French Canadian
national parishes by 1891. This policy of founding national rather than
geographical parishes did not apply to French Canadians exclusively;
German immigrants went through the same struggle for recognition and
established their own “social units” along cultural lines in the same period,
although without the spectacular confrontations that marked Canadians’
national existence in the United States.8

7. Robert Rumilly, Histoire des Franco-Américains (Montreal, 1958), p. 133. On demographic questions, see Leon E. Truesdell, The Canadian Born in the United States: An Analysis
of the Statistics of the Canadian Element in the Population of the United States 1850 to 1930 (New
Haven, 1943); Gilles Paquet, “L’émigration des Canadiens français vers la Nouvelle-Angleterre, 1870–1910: prises de vue quantitatives,” Recherches historiographiques, 5 (1964), 319–70.
8. Canadian migrant workers and their elites widely subscribed to the ideology of survivance, or “cultural survival via language and faith.” They believed that the loss of their language would lead to estrangement from their traditions and to religious perdition, hence the
importance of religious institutions that would uphold their distinct heritage. See Mason
Wade, “The French Parish and Survivance in Nineteenth-Century New England,” The
Catholic Historical Review, 36 (1950), 163–89, here 175; Thomas T. McAvoy, A History of the
Catholic Church in the United States (Notre Dame, 1969), pp. 271–74; Jay P. Dolan, The Immigrant Church: New York’s Irish and German Catholics, 1815–1865 (Baltimore, 1975), pp. 4–5,

750

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

Conscious of their subaltern status, French Canadians asserted both
their inherited cultural identity and their new, freely accepted civic identity. They manifested in view of all their traditions and culture as well as
their commitment to the Republic and its institutions.9 They appropriated
symbols that would gain them—on their own terms—a place in the host
country. That they did annually on St. John’s Day, the feast day of their
national patron. On June 24, 1873, for instance, representatives from thirteen local sociétés St. Jean Baptiste joined with one another in Lowell to
celebrate their shared culture. Congregating first at St. Joseph’s church,
residents and visitors then assembled at South Common and, at ten
o’clock, launched their traditional procession. In what one reporter termed
“an unusual attraction,” more than 1000 people marched through Lowell
“with their imposing banners and regalias and rich music.” Residents had
decorated houses, shops, and public buildings; “the words ‘Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité,’ and ‘Papineau, Lafayette and Washington,’ were conspicuous upon American flags suspended across the street in the central portion
of the city.” A light lunch awaited the marchers when they reached the
local fairgrounds. There, public addresses were given in celebration of the
community’s national heritage.10
Public processions offered a nonthreatening vehicle for French Canadian affirmation and cross-cultural exchange. Their significance grew as
the events themselves became more complex and always better attended.
On June 24, 1881, the Globe observed that “the French Canadians made

71–73, 86; Robert B. Perreault, Franco-American Life and Culture in Manchester, New Hampshire: Vivre la Différence (Charleston, 2010), p. 49.
9. French Canadians saw in a constitution that was blind to culture the foundation for
a mosaic society. They fit the analytical framework advanced by Lawrence Fuchs, who writes
of “a kind of voluntary pluralism in which immigrant settlers from Europe and their progeny
were free to maintain affection for and loyalty to their ancestral religions and cultures while
at the same time claiming an American identity by embracing the founding myths and participating in the political life of the republic.” St. John’s Day celebrations were clear evidence
of this. In such practices, French Canadians were emulating the immigrant groups that preceded them, including the Irish and Germans. This article contends that New England’s
Catholic episcopacy embraced this vision in some measure, as seen in the then-growing pattern of specifically French parishes. See Fuchs, The American Kaleidoscope: Race, Ethnicity, and
the Civic Culture (Hanover, 1990), p. 5; Bessie Bloom Wessel, An Ethnic Survey of Woonsocket,
Rhode Island (New York, 1970), p. 244. See, on expressions of this double loyalty after the
Flint Affair, “Nos améliorations,” L’Indépendant, January 6, 1888, 2; “La ‘Catholic Review’ de
Troy et les Franco-Canadiens de Fall River,” L’Indépendant, January 24, 1890, 2.
10. “St. John’s Day,” Boston Daily Globe, June 25, 1873, 5. Louis-Joseph Papineau
(1786–1871) led the Parti Patriote in Lower Canada before the Rebellion of 1837 and, as
such, led the opposition to the British colonial administration.

PATRICK LACROIX

751

the most extensive and imposing display ever witnessed” in Lowell.11 The
following year, in Woonsocket, “[t]he celebration of St. John’s day . . .
called together one of the largest assemblages of French-Canadians ever in
New England. All business was suspended here and in neighboring Rhode
Island and Massachusetts towns.”12 On that occasion, 4000–5000 people
rode in from surrounding areas, some of whom were privileged to hear a
sermon from Pierre-Jean-Baptiste Bedard (see figure 1), a young and energetic priest of Fall River. To outsiders, the projected image was generally
positive: in 1883, the Worcester gathering would occur “in a style that
reflects credit upon [French Canadians] . . . Everything has passed off so
well in the celebration that the managers are receiving nothing but words
of praise from everybody.”13
The pursuit of a distinctive national existence as American citizens,
encouraged by community leaders, was taken as a paradox by some
observers for whom naturalization entailed assimilation. “You cannot be
loyal Americans and loyal French Canadians at the same time,” one public
servant would soon tell these leaders.14 Manifestations of French Canadian
nationalism were initially seen as benign but, by the Eighties, the immigrants’ growing cultural assertion was cause for concern, especially among
the Irish, who saw their livelihood threatened by workers who remained
apart from their struggle for better working conditions. This was made
clear in Fall River, where organized labor was then slowly cohering, only
to be undermined by French Canadian strikebreakers who would not join
a movement dominated by men from the British Isles.
Assimilationism as an Extension of Labor Militancy
Americanization was inextricably linked to the working-class aspirations of such immigrant groups as the English and Irish. Gary Gerstle
writes of “working-class Americanism,” whereas Russell Kazal presents
“the formation of a more unified working class out of an ethnically divided
work force” as “a kind of assimilation.” In New England specifically, the
Irish occupied a crucial “in-between” position. As James Barrett explains,
“[i]nside the labor movement, the Catholic church, and the political

11. “St. John’s Day—French-Canadian Parade at Lowell,” Globe, June 25, 1881, 3.
12. “St. John’s Day—The Day at Woonsocket,” Sunday Globe, June 25, 1882, 7.
13. “St. John’s Day,” Globe, June 26, 1883, 1.
14. Carroll D. Wright, in “Part I: The Canadian French in New England,” Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor [hereafter MBSL] Thirteenth Annual Report (Boston, 1882),
p. 12.

752

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

FIGURE 1. Pierre-Jean-Baptiste Bedard, pastor of Notre Dame de Lourdes parish
in Fall River, MA, 1874–84. Image from Notre Dame de Lourdes Memorial Book
(Fall River, MA, 1983), p. 11.

organizations of many working-class communities, the Irish occupied a
vital position as Americanizers of other groups.”15 The disciplining of
other groups and their integration in the labor movement would serve their
working-class ends. French Canadians, they argued, had to internalize
their (Irish American) form of radical citizenship, which the newer immigrants were initially reluctant to do on account of their transitory lives in
factory cities. The hostility of Irish Americans thus had an economic foundation, one that did not preclude but instead invited assimilation.
Unlike other immigrant groups, the French Canadian community had
the opportunity to put ethnic prejudice on trial in a hearing that proved to
be symbolically charged. In 1881, in its latest annual report, the Bureau of
Statistics of Labor of Massachusetts identified French Canadians as “the
15. Gary Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism: The Politics of Labor in a Textile City,
1914–1960 (New York, 1989); Russell Kazal, “Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and
Reappraisal of a Concept in American Ethnic History,” American Historical Review, 100
(1995), 437–71, here 438, 465; James Barrett, “Americanization from the Bottom Up: Immigration and the Remaking of the Working Class in the United States, 1880–1930,” Journal of
American History, 79 (1992), 996–1020, here 1001–02.

PATRICK LACROIX

753

Chinese of the Eastern States” for their migratory patterns and alleged
opposition to ten-hour workday legislation. “They care nothing for our
institutions,” the report stated. French Canadians’ symbolic deployments
evidently had their limits. In response, local sociétés St. Jean Baptiste held
meetings and drafted resolutions contesting the findings and the language
of the bureau. Pressure built, and bureau “chief” Carroll D. Wright, who
had authorized the final report, summoned those who challenged it to a
hearing that would put the alternative view on the public record.16
French Canadian leaders from all parts of New England descended on
Boston on Tuesday, October 25, 1881. Sixty men assembled before
Wright in the formality of the State House’s Green Room to contest the
Bureau of Statistics’ prejudiced language and to act publicly against ethnic
epithets. Attorney Hugo Dubuque of Fall River examined those present.
Of course, as all participants and observers knew, these were not formal
legal proceedings; they would be of no judicial, political, or economic consequence. Yet the leaders seized the opportunity to give voice to their community’s concerns, and in this endeavor they found unexpected sympathy.
French Canadians’ hostility was temporarily muted as Wright, whose
name appeared on the report, now alternatively claimed impartiality, ignorance, and sincere concern.17
Alongside Dubuque, one of the principal figures of the hearing was
Ferdinand Gagnon, “who has sent circulars . . . and obtained reports, and
he has had a great experience, probably a larger experience than any of the
rest of us, in this matter.”18 His Travailleur, published in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1874 to 1892, provided political and social leadership and
earned its founder the title of father of the Franco-American press.19
Before Wright and Dubuque, Gagnon explained that French Canadians
were putting down roots and building permanent lives in the United
States. Other representatives explained that their countrymen did not
object to the legislation for the ten-hour workday nor was their time in the
United States determined by the wages they would earn. They noted the
failure of the patriation schemes of the Canadian government and

16. MBSL, “The Canadian French,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 3–9.
17. MBSL, “The Canadian French,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 9–15, 25–26, 84–
87; “The French Canadians,” Globe, October 26, 1881, 2.
18. Hugo Dubuque, in MBSL, “The Canadian French,” Thirteenth Annual Report, p. 15.
19. Robert B. Perreault, “Survol de la presse franco-américaine,” in “Quatrième Colloque de l’Institut français: Le journalisme de langue française aux Etats-Unis,” ed. Claire
Quintal (Quebec City, 1984), pp. 9–34.

754

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

Quebec’s Catholic Church. In reality, the settlement process was not so
straightforward or unilinear: factory strikes and economic downturns, kinship networks, colonization schemes in Quebec, the convenience of rail
lines between factory cities and between New England and Quebec, and
other conditions favored a high degree of geographical mobility among
French Canadians. Yet, this meticulous contestation of the report’s facts,
with unity in purpose and near-unanimity of opinion, made a powerful
impression. Wright pledged to include these representatives’ statements in
the bureau’s next report.20
If the street theater of St. John’s Day had not conveyed commitment to
the host society, orderly proceedings in the halls of civil authority might do
so. French Canadians, criticized for their dubious loyalties and their ghettoization, were now taking part in the democratic discourse of the country
and signaling to native-born Americans that they would not overturn the
existing order of society. In this sense, this joint effort by Wright, Gagnon,
and Dubuque was itself a masterful piece of theater in which French Canadians could recast themselves. The latter not only challenged prejudice; they
affirmed themselves culturally and politically off of the street.
The hearing was also significant for the light it shed on the relationship between ethnicity and labor. As Wright receded into the role of
observer, blame for the prejudiced report fell upon the men whom bureau
agents had interviewed: English and Irish workers. Dubuque and others
explained that Canadian workers would not take part in strikes, “not wanting to be mixed up in any breach of the peace.”21 J. D. Montmarquet of
Lewiston, Maine, added that workers
could not obtain [the ten-hour law] except through strikes and all the
disorders inseparable from this evil, and this is forbidden by order of the
priests, and we generally obey our priests because we know that they
always guide us in the right path.22

Prejudice did not arise from substantially different economic conditions
across ethnic groups; rather, English and Irish workers resented French
Canadians’ isolation, which undermined the strength of a budding labor
movement.
20. MBSL, “The Canadian French,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 9, 15–23, 27–36,
53. On the complex pattern of settlement in the United States, see Yukari Takai, Gendered
Passages: French-Canadian Migration to Lowell, Massachusetts, 1900–1920 (New York, 2008).
21. Gagnon, in “The Canadian French,” MBSL, Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 25–26.
22. Montmarquet, in “The Canadian French,” MBSL, Thirteenth Annual Report, p. 53.

PATRICK LACROIX

755

In addition to the minutes of the hearing, the bureau’s next report
included a study of the living and working conditions in the leading mill
towns of Massachusetts. Residents of Fall River seemed to find their town
“in constant turmoil,” whereas the workers of Lowell and Lawrence were
“quiet.”23 In response to the interest of a member of the State House, who
noted this very fact, Wright opted to inquire. Housing conditions for
immigrant workers in the Merrimack towns were said to be “very bad,”
“demoralizing,” Wright’s agents found.24 But there was worse. Regarding
Fall River, one man explained, “I never saw a dirtier set of people, or a
more filthy city, in my life.” Whereas in Boston respectable men discussed
the roots of prejudice, workers from Fall River’s predominantly French
Canadian Flint Village walked over “[d]ead rats and chickens and other
refuse” on their way to work. In some yards, “the privies [were] exposed”
and overflowing.25 The expansion of industry had led to such a rapid influx
of workers, many foreign-born, that housing and services would long
remain inadequate. Regarding working conditions, “[b]ad cotton, stealing
time, and a constant and steady ‘grind,’ constitute the three greatest complaints in Fall River to-day,” one worker reported.26 While disobeying the
ten-hour law, corporations in that city compensated for the expected losses
by accelerating the work, increasing fines, and having employees labor
without pay. This “grind,” unmatched elsewhere, and poor company housing contributed to the growth of labor activism.27
Other cities were not fertile ground for the type of labor activism that
defined Fall River. Manchester’s Amoskeag Company successfully blocked
unionization until the twentieth century. “I do not think there is a labor
union in the city,” asserted one Manchester mill agent in 1883, “the efforts
of Fall River agitators having failed in this direction. There has been but
one general strike in this city, and that occurred thirty years ago and failed.”
The only exception through the period at hand was a strike fomented by
the Knights of Labor in 1885. Local labor associations paraded through
Lowell in 1889, but there, too, capital and labor were spared extensive
strife. In Manchester and Lowell, the twin matters of unionization and

23. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, p. 195.
24. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, p. 284;
“Labor in Manchester,” Globe, October 15, 1883, 2; “Senators in Manchester,” Globe, October 16, 1883, 4.
25. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 276–82.
26. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 337–38.
27. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 254–55,
266, 272, 301, 352.

756

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

strikebreaking being moot, no clear fracture emerged between Anglo-Irish
and French Canadian workers. “There were but few complaints entered
against particular nationalities in Lowell,” the Bureau of Statistics found,
“though the operatives thought the French Canadians should not work for
so low a figure.”28 In Fall River, major strikes occurred in 1870, 1875,
1879, and 1884, and all were interspersed with more limited stoppages.29
At times, the spark was minuscule. Labor disruptions provided a “resting
spell” for workers who sought to evade “the grind.”30 Longer strikes
resulted from material issues, such as wage cuts or corporations’ refusal to
reverse wage cuts, although in a broader sense they enabled workers to
voice their dissatisfaction collectively with living and working conditions.31
Labor protest, as noted, had an ethnic dimension. As J. D. Montmarquet explained, his compatriots obeyed their French Canadian priests in all
things, including their exhortation to respect their new country’s public
order and to remain aloof of labor agitation. Concurrently, their Irish coreligionists took to public spaces and picketed with the blessing of their Irish
pastors. Indeed, ambiguity in Catholic teaching produced divergence over
organized labor between the Quebec and American episcopacies. The bishops of Quebec, many of them removed from the ills of industrialization,
condemned the Knights of Labor for their dubious activities. Grand Master
Terence Powderly, an Irish American Catholic, countered that the Knights
had “no affiliation with any communistic or socialistic order.” Members
were not oath-bound, and their activities could “be told to the Catholic
priest either in or out of the confessional.” To many Irish Americans,
Catholics might reconcile labor activism with their faith if transparent in
the former and unequivocal in their rejection of revolutionary schemes. Irish
American bishops were accordingly reluctant to denounce the Knights. The
different views of Canadian and Irish prelates on the labor issue is attribut-

28. “Labor in Manchester,” Globe, October 15, 1883, 2; “Parade in the City of Spindles,” Globe, August 26, 1889, 2; MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth
Annual Report, p. 207; Tamara K. Hareven and Randolph Langenbach, Amoskeag: Life and
Work in an American Factory-City (New York, 1978), pp. 23–24. On efforts to prevent unionization, see MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 341,
347–48.
29. Anthony Coelho, “A Row of Nationalities: Life in a Working Class Community:
The Irish, English, and French Canadians of Fall River, Massachusetts, 1850–1890” (PhD
diss., Brown University, 1980), p. 7.
30. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, pp. 276,
345; “Both Sides,” Globe, March 15, 1889, 1.
31. Philip T. Silvia Jr., “The Spindle City: Labor, Politics, and Religion in Fall River,
Massachusetts, 1870–1905” (PhD diss., Fordham University, 1973), pp. 81, 106.

PATRICK LACROIX

757

able in part to the Church’s privileged position as a corporatist partner of
British colonial authorities, in Lower Canada, and to the history of social
mobilization and protest in Ireland, where Catholics faced a host of legal
and political penalties. Further causes of division are to be found in the rural
origins of the priests who followed Canadians south and in their concern for
the domestic economies of migrant families.32
In Fall River, the battle lines were drawn in 1879 when Bedard, one
such priest, was “accused of being in active sympathy with the manufacturers, of recommending his parishioners to go to work, of having French
operatives brought to his house, where they were met by mill superintendents and engaged as knobstick [strikebreaking] spinners.” While Irish
workers circulated a petition for Bedard’s removal, Bishop Thomas Hendricken of Providence (see figure 2), a native of Ireland, asked the French
Canadian pastor to remain silent on labor activism.33
Unequal relations of power were central to the industrial system as
well as the Church. The Bureau of Statistics depicted capital as “the educated factor in the alliance between capital and labor; it is this distinction
which gives capital power.”34 That view met the tacit approbation of
French Canadian priests, who saw themselves as the educated factor in
other spheres. These priests were paternalistic in their concern for the natural order of society, social peace, and moral behavior. Pastors like Bedard
were spokesmen for the laity in a way that would preclude mass mobilization or strike action. But the rationale was also economic: some French
Canadian families indeed were only seeking to earn wages for a short time
before returning to Quebec, an endeavor that would be undermined by
prolonged or recurrent strike action.
The success of Anglo-Irish labor activists in Fall River depended on
the integration of French Canadians in working-class rituals. That became
apparent in the strike that paralyzed select factories for more than two
months in 1884. An effort was then made to halt strikebreaking and
improve striking workers’ image by preventing that which French Cana-

32. See Diocese of Portland Archives and Records (hereafter DPAR), T. V. Powderly
to James Augustine Healy, May 18, 1885, Bishop Healy Papers (1875–1900), “Correspondence—Misc. 1876–1896 (9.2)”; M. A. Corrigan to unnamed, Mar. 28, 1888, Healy Papers,
DPAR: “Letters from Bishops—Archbishops—Cardinals (4)”; Jay P. Dolan, The Irish Americans: A History (New York, 2008), pp. 168–73; “The Strike Over,” Globe, February 10, 1886,
2; “Barnaby Mill Strikers,” Globe, March 2, 1886, 8.
33. “Fall River—A Recreant French Catholic Priest,” Globe, July 21, 1879, 2.
34. MBSL, “Fall River, Lowell, and Lawrence,” Thirteenth Annual Report, p. 191.

758

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

FIGURE 2. Bishops involved in navigating issues with Irish and French Canadian
Catholics in New England from 1869 to 1890. Left to right, top row: Thomas
Hendricken, bishop of Providence; and James Augustine Healy, bishop of Portland, ME. Left to right, bottom row: John Joseph Williams, archbishop of Boston;
and Louis Laflèche, bishop of Trois-Rivères, Quebec. Images from John Gilmary
Shea, The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church of the United States (New York, 1887), pp.
19, 29, 33, 39.

dian pastors feared, public disturbances. Labor leaders coordinated efforts
to ensure effectiveness and improved their image. “It is the purpose of the
union to confine the strike within the limits set and controlled by themselves,” the Globe asserted.35 As it had previously found,
[t]he reign of loud-mouthed demagogues is over. Operatives are not
likely now to be led to take foolish or desperate risks . . . They have
learned by hard experience the benefits of union, and organized and sys-

35. “Fall River’s Strike,” Globe, February 6, 1884, 4.

PATRICK LACROIX

759

tematic methods of actions, and are not likely to be led blindly in a heedless mob.36

The strikers would uphold public order, and French Canadians’ objections
would be made moot.
Neither ethnic group can take full credit for the detente that followed
the strike of 1884. Manufacturers lost their united front. Managers ceased
importing operatives from Canada. Some boys entered the mills to spare
their families eviction from company tenements, but twenty-two French
Canadian men refused to work when invited to break the spinners’ strike.
Increasingly, union boss Robert Howard reported, even boys regarded
strikebreaking as a “disgrace.”37 The strike did not have the ethnic overtones of the stoppage of 1879: now the “knobsticks” were unspecified children, debtors, and “dead-beats.” French Canadian workers still remained
aloof of the activities of organized labor; as of 1884, they were simply “neutrals.”38 But the episode revealed that their coreligionists and coworkers
needed their cooperation and were willing to alter tactics in order to overcome French Canadian separatism. Perhaps were they also aided by Hendricken’s admonition of Bedard in 1879.
A sense of common cause steadily grew. Dubuque wrote of diminishing animosities in 1888, and soon striking weavers won sympathy for their
“civil deportment and good manners.” Remarkably, it was in Flint Village,
a center of French Canadian population, as the Globe reported, that “the
strikers [were] thickest.” The “knobsticks,” for their part, were acquaintances and relatives of overseers. Opinion had changed among Canadians.
One reporter wrote of a mill worker formerly of Richmond, Quebec:
Of course he was too loyal to be a “scab,” but he did hope the corporations would give in at once and let him go to work again. He was an
exception to the rule, however, for most of the French weavers whom
The Globe man talked with were glad the strike had come on, and felt
sure of final victory.39

36. “Fall River . . . No Danger of a Factory Strike,” Sunday Globe, December 24,
1882, 7.
37. “Forty Shots at Fall River,” Globe, March 19, 1884, 1; “The Longest But One,”
Sunday Globe, April 6, 1884, 2; “Big Fall River Mills,” Globe, August 24, 1884, 3.
38. “The Longest But One,” Sunday Globe, April 6, 1884, 2;
39. Hugo A. Dubuque, Le Guide canadien-français [ou Almanach des adresses] de Fall
River, et notes historiques sur les Canadiens de Fall River (Fall River, 1888), p. 163; “True to
Duty,” Globe, March 14, 1889, 1; “Both Sides,” Globe, March 15, 1889, 1.

760

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

At the same time a boarding-house keeper named Girard threatened to
expel the first worker “to return to work before the strike is at an end.”40
The “antagonistic” English and Irish in Fall River held French Canadians in low regard for the cultural separatism that was reflected in organized labor. Yet, the tactics of “agitators,” precisely designed to prevent agitation, begin to show that theirs was a distinctively assimilationist
movement, meant to break the Canadians’ isolation and enroll them in
American working-class action. By contrast, another manifestation of
French Canadian separatism, which soon overshadowed the strike of 1884,
would underscore the American Catholic episcopacy’s interest in the
accommodation of the minority group’s aspirations.
Cultural Accommodation as Church Interest
Following Franco-American editor Jules Paul Tardivel, Mason Wade
divided the American episcopacy into two camps: the assimilationists, who
had little regard for the national parish, and the accommodationists, for
whom cultural preservation ensured religious fidelity. The rapid increase in
national parishes testifies to the efforts of the second group. Yves Roby has
also written of two groups of bishops but did not provide any names except
for Hendricken’s in the first camp. Unsubstantiated claims about the
ascendency of assimilationist ideas before 1890, as with Armand Chartier,
grant primacy to the nationalist narrative of a hostile, repressive institution.
“As is commonly known,” Philip T. Silvia has written, only citing Wade
on national parishes,
the predominantly Irish hierarchy promoted the territorial and opposed
the ethnic parish concept, believed in assimilation, and were trying to
eliminate survivance. . . . They were convinced that a one-language (English) church would facilitate administration, help repress ethnic rivalry,
and pave the way for native-American acceptance of Catholicism as
something more than a ‘foreign’ religion.41

Yet Wade himself challenged that narrative by citing numerous examples
of episcopal cooperation across borders and devotion to the French Cana-

40. “Weavers Do Not Weaken,” Globe, March 15, 1889, 1.
41. Tardivel, La Situation religieuse aux Etats-Unis: Illusions et réalités (Lille, 1900), p.
200; Wade, “The French Parish and Survivance”; Chartier, The Franco-Americans of New
England: A History (Manchester, Worcester, 1999), p. 72; Roby, The Franco-Americans of New
England: Dreams and Realities (Sillery, Canada, 2004), pp. 121–22, 140–41; Silvia, “The
Spindle City,” p. 423.

PATRICK LACROIX

761

dian cause. There are, then, grounds for contesting “common knowledge”
and the story of episcopal hostility, this story having been imported from
militant French Canadian newspapers with little attention to other outlets
or church documents.
French Canadians’ public rituals in Fall River, where on St. John’s
Day, 1883, a crowd of 4000 turned out for celebrations, were mirrored in
other parts of New England.42 French Canadians’ physical investment in
public spaces, from city hall to the local fairgrounds, across neighborhoods
and parishes, manifested cultural vitality, permanence, and the internalization of the symbols of the Great Republic. The French Canadian people of
Fall River were not unique in their civic and cultural aspirations. Yet, much
as Fall River was exceptional in organized labor, so, too, it was in the manifestation of religious grievances. The context of the Flint Affair reveals a
story of religious activity that is more complex than French Canadians’
unmovable dedication to their heritage alone, or the strict assimilationist
policy of a Hibernian Church.
From the establishment of French Canadian parishes in from 1869 to
1890, the bishops of New England showed concern for cultural preservation. Bishop James Augustine Healy of Portland (see figure 2), who had
Irish and African American ancestral roots, risked alienating the Irish
faithful by banning the Ancient Order of Hibernians from his diocese. He
enjoyed positive correspondence with the clergy of Quebec on the provision of spiritual care for the French-speaking Catholics of his diocese.
Healy and Bishop Antoine Racine of Sherbrooke, where the former’s sister
resided, collaborated to provide priests for Canadian rail workers in
Maine.43 Archbishop John Joseph Williams of Boston (see figure 2), who
for eight years had studied in Montreal, proceeded in the same line. The
Canadian episcopacy, for its part, acknowledged the challenge standing
before Healy and Williams. Archbishop Elzéar-Alexandre Taschereau of
Quebec noted that

42. The mills closed at noon for the occasion. “St. John’s Day,” Globe, June 26, 1883,
1; “St. John’s Day at Haverhill,” Globe, June 25, 1886, 2; “Manchester Stormed,” Globe, June
27, 1890, 5.
43. James Augustine Healy, draft, 1876, Healy Papers, DPAR: “Correspondence—
Misc. 1876–1896 (9.2)”; Warranty deed, Oct. 19, 1883, Healy Papers, DPAR: “Bishop
Healy—Personal (9.1)”; Antoine Racine to Healy, Aug. 9, 1887, Healy Papers, DPAR: “Letters from Bishops—Archbishops—Cardinals (4)”; Racine to Healy, Jan. 2, 1889, Healy
Papers, DPAR: “Letters from Bishops—Archbishops—Cardinals (4).”

762

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES
[t]he zeal of American priests is powerless against this evil [indifference,
apostasy] because our poor Canadians, on account of a sentiment that is
no doubt unreasonable, but unfortunately all too real, keep away from
churches occupied by priests who speak a foreign tongue.44

American bishops proved to be responsive to this warning.
French Canadians’ dissatisfaction with the Church cannot be taken as
a sign of ill will on the part of their bishops. Nor was the episcopacy’s
acknowledgment of the civic and cultural aspirations of French Canadians
a mere matter of personal preference: it was good policy in an institutional
sense. Priest Léon A. Bouland justified the creation of a national parish by
explaining to Williams that an interruption of his missionary work might
erase all past efforts and lead to the alienation of French Canadians, on
account of their “impressionable” nature.45 If not addressed on their own
terms, these immigrants might swell the ranks of Protestantism. The
expansion of the Church required a cautious integration of this new
Catholic element.
A sense of urgency marked Bouland’s letter: “[t]he key point is that the
church be officially founded, and then subscriptions, pew rents, and members will be drawn in increasing numbers from day to day.”46 It was no mistake that subscriptions came before souls. Previous missionary work had
revealed that potential subscribers were demanding a French-speaking
priest, with the hint that fund-raising efforts would fail if the episcopacy
decided otherwise. If, following the establishment of a French Canadian
national parish, a bishop chose an Irish prelate as its pastor, the flock might
well desert it or fail to provide for its upkeep or for the pastor’s needs. The
financial viability of the Church in New England was at stake, as was the
expansion of Catholicism in America. A purely assimilationist policy would

44. “Le zèle des prêtres américains est impuissant contre ce mal [l’indifférence, l’apostasie] parceque [sic] nos pauvres Canadiens, par un sentiment déraisonnable sans doute, mais
malheureusement trop réel, se tiennent éloignés des églises desservies par des prêtres parlant
une langue étrangère.” Archives of the Archdiocese of Boston (hereafter AABo), E. A.
Taschereau to John Joseph Williams, Nov. 20, 1871, Williams Papers, 5:25 (author’s translation). Thomas H. O’Connor, Boston Catholics: A History of the Church and Its People (Boston,
1998), p. 123; J. T. Dumontier to James Augustine Healy, Dec. 27, 1877, Healy Papers,
DPAR: “Letters from Clergy (1875–1889) (9.1).”
45. Léon A. Bouland to John Joseph Williams, July 6, 1880, Williams Papers, AABo,
1:19.
46. “Le point capital est que l’Eglise soit officiellement fondée, alors souscriptions, rentes
de bancs et membres afflueront en plus grand nombre, de jour en jour.” Léon A. Bouland to
John. Joseph Williams, July 6, 1880, Williams Papers, AABo, 1:19 (author’s translation).

PATRICK LACROIX

763

halt such expansion and in time deplete parish coffers.47 Although they
might not have understood it, French Canadians’ staunchest advocates in
this foreign environment may well have been their “foreign” bishops.48
The Flint Affair sprang from simmering hostilities between the
French and the Irish in Fall River. In 1882 and 1883, Fall River’s bilingual
priest Thomas Briscoe added to tensions by preventing French Canadians
from holding a naturalization meeting on church grounds and by blocking
the creation of a national parish from his mixed Franco-Irish one. The first
of these two events sparked the creation of the nationalist mouthpiece le
Castor (“the Beaver,” a traditional symbol) by Henri Boisseau and Hugo
Dubuque, both formerly of Saint-Hyacinthe. The second event was troubling for immigrants who considered national parishes a right rather than
a privilege granted to them by proactive bishops.49
The crisis erupted when Bedard of the parish of Notre Dame de Lourdes in Flint Village died in summer 1884. Hendricken appointed as a successor a French Canadian priest who soon left. Samuel McGee, a Canadian born of Irish parents, followed. The community would settle for no
less than a pastor of French Canadian stock and attempted to persuade
Hendricken to reconsider his choice. As such hopes faded, so did decorum.
A staged indictment of Hendricken might lead to excommunication.
Instead, the French Canadians of Flint Village held a mock strike. By
protesting and boycotting religious services at key junctures, they disrupted
and then paralyzed the temporal and spiritual affairs of Notre Dame. In
this, they benefited from respected lay leaders who could mold the com47. Bishop Louis de Goesbriand of Burlington, Vermont, went further by arguing that
these very immigrants were called upon to convert Protestant America. See Frances H. Early,
“French-Canadian Beginnings in an American Community: Lowell, Massachusetts, 1868–
1886” (PhD diss., Concordia University, 1979), p. 208.
48. The shortage of priests from Quebec produced tensions that were neither party’s
doing. In 1871 Taschereau wrote of his inability to send priests to the United States due to a
shortage in Quebec. It is unclear how quickly that situation changed. Roby cites one prelate
who, in 1884, noted the difficulty of finding Canadian prelates thirty years earlier, whereas
they could now “recruit as many as we want.” A more in-depth study is required. See
Taschereau to Williams, Nov. 20, 1871, Williams Papers, AABo, 5:25; Roby, Franco-Americans, p. 26; Robert W. Hayman, Catholicism in Rhode Island and the Diocese of Providence
1780–1886 (Providence, 1982), pp. 278–79.
49. Silvia, “The Spindle City,” pp. 373–77; Dubuque, Guide canadien-français, p. 163.
The twin objectives challenged by Briscoe, Canadians’ pursuit of American citizenship and
cultural autonomy, is emblematic of the supposedly irreconcilable forms of integration to
which immigrants subscribed. See Rumilly, Histoire, pp. 105–12; Hayman, Providence 1780–
1886, pp. 268–80.

764

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

munity’s efforts. These men understood the internal mechanisms of the
Church; they were also aware of the importance of public image. Disturbances that accompanied their protest movement were kept within the
confines of the community and organizing meetings were held behind
closed doors. They would try to prevent discordant behavior; indeed, they
condemned threats and cases of violence, just as English and Irish labor
leaders had sought to do that very year within their own movement.50
McGee resigned. His successor, Owen Clarke, closed the church on
his bishop’s order in February 1885, thus locking out the faithful. Hendricken’s decision to place Notre Dame under interdict redefined the confrontation. This extreme measure countered a number of administrative
and purely religious principles that the hierarchy deemed essential to their
mission. The raising of revenue was one, as the upkeep of buildings and
pastors was dependent on the generosity (or religious spirit) of the flock.
Moreover, the episcopacy previously had reprimanded priests who denied
the sacraments to parishioners who could not pay pew rents or church
tithes. Hendricken was failing in his duty to protect the institutional interests of the Church, a situation that could not last. The Church as a whole
could not bear the message that this would send in terms of the value of
spiritual care.51 Gagnon understood this. Far from lending his support to
the nationalist cause, he heeded episcopal counsel to keep the matter quiet.
When one reader lamented insufficient coverage of the controversy in the
pages of Le Travailleur, Gagnon answered in the following terms:
Our Holy Father Leo XIII has clearly expressed his desire that the
Catholic press no longer discuss the acts of bishops in their authority, for
his tribunal is the only one where such acts may be judged. It is a duty of
ours to heed the desire of the visible head of the Church, and we confidently await Rome’s ruling on the N.D. de Lourdes [the parish of Flint
Village], Fall River, affair.52

50. See “Church Trouble at Fall River,” Globe, November 19, 1884, 6; “A Question of
Nationality,” Globe, December 22, 1884, 1; “Fall River’s French Catholics,” Globe, June 4,
1885, 1; “Quiet, if not Devout,” Globe, September 14, 1885, 4; “Fall River’s French Church,”
Globe, November 23, 1885, 8.
51. “In Open Rebellion,” Globe, February 15, 1885, 2; J. A. Healy to C. Ouimet, July
30, 1879, Healy Papers, DPAR: “Letters from Clergy (1875–1889) (9.1).”
52. “Notre Saint Père Léon XIII a clairement fait connaître son désir que la presse
catholique ne discute plus à l’avenir les actes d’autorité des évêques, mais que son tribunal est
le seul où ces actes doivent être jugés. Nous nous faisons un devoir de répondre à ce désir du
chef visible de l’Eglise, et nous attendons avec confiance la décision de Rome sur l’affaire de
N. D. de Lourdes, de Fall River.” Gagnon, Le Travailleur, September 22, 1885, 2 (author’s
translation).

PATRICK LACROIX

765

Evidently the French Canadian community was split over the good faith
of its American episcopacy and the promise of justice.53
In response to a rumored lifting of the interdict, a committee of
parishioners “voted not to attend mass” on September 13, 1885. While
Williams looked for a solution that would enable both parties to save face
and protect the Church’s image and interests, Hendricken reopened Notre
Dame and installed a new pastor, Peter Feron. Also Irish Canadian, Feron
fared little better than Clarke. One parishioner explained that Feron “talks
Canadian, but he looks like an Irishman.” The Globe suggested that the
bishop might have been caught off guard, not having “[given] sufficient
importance to the existing race prejudices.” Although Hendricken’s decision not to appoint another French Canadian priest sparked the troubles,
the issue was not merely one of heritage. Liturgical and ritualistic differences had emerged between the Quebec and Irish churches; French Canadians were concerned about the “foreign” control of parish affairs, in which
they were financially invested.54 Another meeting of the French Canadian
community occurred, this one at the hall of the société St. Jean Baptiste, to
determine the course of further “strike” action.55 In the end, Feron played
the part of a caretaker. During the winter he stepped aside, and Hendricken promoted his recently appointed assistant, Joseph Laflamme of
Saint-Hyacinthe. So the crisis ended.56
Whereas Wright was able to evade the hostility of the Canadian
immigrants, Hendricken became the object of ferocious criticism and the
53. On Gagnon’s dissent from the hard-line nationalist press—notably that of Fall
River—and support for conciliation, see “Quelques réflexions de circonstance,” Le Travailleur, October 2, 1885, 2; “Quelques suggestions de circonstance,” Le Travailleur, October
6, 1885, 2; “Notes du rédacteur,” Le Travailleur, November 3, 1885, 2.
54. “Church Trouble at Fall River,” Globe, November 19, 1884, p. 6; “In Open Rebellion,” Globe, February 15, 1885, p. 2; “Quiet, if not Devout,” Globe, September 14, 1885, p.
4; Silvia, “The Spindle City,” pp. 422–24; Hayman, Providence 1780–1886, p. 183; Evelyn
Savidge Sterne, Ballots and Bibles: Ethnic Politics and the Catholic Church in Providence (Ithaca,
NY, 2003), p. 4.
55. “Fall River’s French Catholics,” Globe, June 4, 1885, 1; “Quiet, if not Devout,”
Globe, September 14, 1885, 4; “Fall River’s French Church,” Globe, November 23, 1885, 8.
56. Aware of the conflict, Blessed Louis-Zéphirin Moreau, bishop of Saint-Hyacinthe,
was likely willing to provide a priest to spare his American counterparts from continuing
embarrassment. See “A Question of Nationality,” Globe, December 22, 1884, 1; “Fall River’s
French Catholics,” Globe, June 4, 1885, 1; “Quiet, if not Devout,” Globe, September 14, 1885,
4; “Bishop Hendricken at Fall River,” Globe, September 18, 1885, 1; “To Have a French
Pastor,” Globe, September 22, 1885, 1; “Fall River’s French Church,” Globe, November 23,
1885, 8; “Approaching a Crisis,” Globe, November 29, 1885, 6; “A French-Canadian
Wanted,” Globe, December 11, 1885, 4.

766

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

symbol of a supposedly assimilationist episcopacy. And yet, early in his
tenure, Hendricken had been as mindful of the institutional interests of the
Church as his peers further north. He had fought an outburst of nativism
that coincided with the arrival of French Canadians. He had found and
appointed a French Canadian priest, Bedard, to care for Flint Village at a
time when the task was especially difficult. Hendricken spoke French and
sent Irish students to Montreal to learn the language.57 Although there is
little extant evidence that would provide a clear view of Hendricken’s
thoughts through the Flint Affair, his actions cannot be ascribed to prejudice or outright assimilationism. More likely would be stubbornness in
upholding episcopal authority and interest in preventing a difficult precedent from being set.58 For its part, Hendricken’s admonition of Bedard in
1879 had more to do with integration in labor relations than cultural
assimilation through church mechanisms.
The Flint Affair often is taken as evidence of an assimilationist
Church, but the event was, in fact, an exception in the first two decades of
mass French Canadian immigration.59 That the community protested so

57. Hayman, Providence 1780–1886, pp. 205, 264, 293.
58. Hayman offers some of these explanations. Rumilly alludes to the bishop’s initial
good will with Bedard’s French Canadian successor and his “iron will” as the conflict developed. For Silvia, the bishop may have felt threatened by reinvigorated nationalistic discourse.
While he awaited instructions from Williams, Hendricken met with a Globe reporter and
explained that French Canadians “are looking for a decision as an act of justice and necessity
which, had they kept quiet, would probably have been granted to them long ago as a favor,
which is the only way it could have been granted.” If Hendricken had immediately folded to
the discontented’s demands, immigrants in other localities then might have cited the case of
Fall River as evidence of a right to a priest of their nationality, even when only Irish priests were
available. This might lead to embarrassment. The episcopacy saw the appointment of French
Canadian priests as a privilege. See Hayman, Providence 1780–1886, p. 271; Rumilly, Histoire,
p. 106; Silvia, “The ‘Flint Affair’: French-Canadian Struggle for ‘Survivance,’” The Catholic
Historical Review, 65 (1979), 414–35; “Quiet, if not Devout,” Globe, September 14, 1885, 4.
59. Gagnon challenged Montreal’s Le Monde, “which attributed a persecuting spirit to
all of New England’s bishops” (“qui attribuait une volonté persécutrice à tous les évêques de
la Nouvelle-Angleterre,” author’s translation); see Rumilly, Histoire, p. 111. Only Hendricken
had shown himself unjust, and this occurred due to Irish advisers, Gagnon explained. Indeed,
with the Flint Affair still unresolved, the bishops of Springfield and Manchester granted
Canadian communities three new parishes to be led by pastors of their nationality. An
exchange in French in 1886 between Bishop Lawrence Stephen McMahon of Hartford and
a Canadian delegation revealed the former’s recognition of the immigrant community’s financial support to the Church when accommodated and his willingness to compromise. See
Rumilly, Histoire, pp. 107–08, 111, 116–17; on accommodation in Connecticut, see Dolores
A. Liptak, “The Bishops of Hartford and the New Immigrants (1880–1920),” U.S. Catholic
Historian, 1, no. 2 (1981), 37–53.

PATRICK LACROIX

767

vigorously indicates that French Canadians had come to expect accommodation in the appointment of pastors of their “race.” Undoubtedly many
clergymen of Irish heritage were dismayed by French Canadians’ unwillingness to Americanize, as they had sought to Americanize the Church in
the interest of their own integration. Members of the upper clergy may
have shared this concern, but overall they were sympathetic to Canadians’
aspirations. It is quite telling that in drafting a letter in 1886 to Cardinal
Giovanni Simeoni, prefect of the Congregation for Propagation of the
Faith, Williams slipped into French a number of times, caught himself,
crossed out those passages, and returned to English. Then there was the
content of the letter. The time had come to select a new bishop of Providence, as Hendricken had died. With the support of the local episcopacy,
Williams forwarded to Rome the names of three candidates and added that
“[a]ll these gentlemen know French which we consider essentiel for Providence. Messr. [Matthew] Harkins [and] Briscoe speak it very well.”60
Just as bishops and other senior clergy reached out to French Canadians, so immigrants sought to enroll the former in their process of self-definition in the United States. For these immigrants, it did not suffice for
bishops to establish national parishes: a public enactment of their commitment to parishioners’ national existence was likewise expected. On
Thanksgiving Day in 1873, Bishop David William Bacon of Portland took
part in just such a ritual in Manchester, offering a sermon in both French
and English and installing Joseph Augustin Chevalier as priest of the
newly dedicated church of St. Augustine. On that day, the procession was
led by O. L. Messier, commander of his société St. Jean Baptiste, and a
detachment of the Manchester police. In this way, senior American clerics
offered their blessing to French Canadians’ cultural affirmation and to
their growing civic engagement.61
Bacon’s successor acknowledged this duty. As rain fell upon St. John’s
Day processions in Massachusetts on June 24, 1886, a march of a different
kind was taking place in Brunswick, Maine. There, French Canadians gathered for the consecration of a new church. The mills were idled as people
gathered to celebrate nationality and faith. The parish of Brunswick was to
be a mixed one: although a majority of attending clergymen were Irish, the
event was held on the terms and on the day of French Canadians. The
60. John Joseph Williams to Cardinal Simeoni, draft of letter, July 21, 1886, Williams
Papers, AABo, 5:12. Emphasis in original.
61. “Manchester, N. H.—Dedication of a Catholic Church,” Globe, November 28,
1873, 8.

768

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

French band escorted Healy to the church, where he addressed parishioners
and distinguished guests in French and English. Healy committed himself
publicly to the care of recent immigrants. All took place under the watchful
eye of Bishop Louis Laflèche of Trois-Rivières, Quebec (see figure 2), the
senior member of the clergy in attendance on that day. Through the following years, it would fall upon priest James P. Gorman, whom Laflèche had
anointed in Quebec, to hold the cultural middle ground in Brunswick as the
French-speaking population continued to grow.62
Fall River’s Briscoe was in Brunswick on St. John’s Day in 1886. He
was not oblivious to Healy’s efforts to accommodate French-speaking
Catholics. By virtue of his connection to the Flint Affair, which he had
weathered by Hendricken’s side, Briscoe was aware of the national question facing his French Canadian coreligionists and its impact on religious
affairs. Perhaps indeed because of this connection, Williams and his suffragan bishops preferred Boston priest Matthew Harkins as a successor to
Hendricken, and the Holy See gave its assent.63
Harkins reached out meaningfully and symbolically to the French
Canadian community. Within weeks of his appointment in 1887, he visited the first French parish of Woonsocket alongside Bishop Elphège
Gravel of Nicolet, Quebec. The next month Harkins held the first confirmation ceremony of his episcopacy at Fall River’s church of Notre Dame
and addressed his flock in eloquent French. On the same day he blessed
the standards of Dubuque’s Ligue des Patriotes, a cultural education society.
Through the following years, Hendricken’s successor carried out a policy
of accommodation and fully participated in the ceremonial life of French
Canadians.64 The Church was not a bastion of assimilationist feeling, as is
commonly thought; through the first two decades of their organized
national existence in the United States, the bishops of New England were
sensitive to the dual pursuits of French Canadians.65

62. “Father Gorman’s Pride,” Globe, June 25, 1886, 2.
63. “Father Gorman’s Pride,” Globe, June 25, 1886, 2; Williams to Simeoni, draft of
letter, July 21, 1886, Williams Papers, AABo, 5:12.
64. “Reception to Bishop Harkins,” Globe, April 27, 1884, 2; Silvia, “The Spindle
City,” pp. 420–25; Hayman, Catholicism in Rhode Island and the Diocese of Providence 1886–
1921 (Providence, 1995), p. 67.
65. “The Canadians [were], then, making progress, under the trusteeship of Irish bishops. Perhaps their impatience follow[ed] from this progress, a sign of their strength,” wrote
Rumilly, who acknowledged assimilationist tendencies within the episcopacy but only found
Archbishop James Gibbons of Baltimore as one who might fit the brand (“Les Canadiens réalisent donc des progrès, sous la tutelle des évêques irlandais. Peut-être leur impatience

PATRICK LACROIX

769

The French Canadian community’s efforts to affirm its loyalty and
cultural vitality by way of public rituals endured. Manchester’s convention
of 1890 mirrored the festivities of St. John’s Day in Lowell many years earlier. Residents adorned the leading streets in preparation for the three-day
convention, announced as “the most important event in the history of the
French population of the State.”66 Representatives from twenty sociétés
discussed naturalization and the survival of French culture. On the second
day, the delegates feted their civic and cultural identities at City Hall and
toasted President Benjamin Harrison. On the third day, for which most
workers were granted leave, the city erupted in celebration, beginning with
a grand parade and ending with activities at the local fairgrounds. Lafayette
and Washington were present in their habitual form, as was Fall River’s
Dubuque.67
Conclusion
New France, Lower remarked in 1929, was “a colony of Christ in the
New World. . . . Supreme efforts were made to begin it and maintain it as
a citadel of Catholicism.”68 The bishops of New England were faced with
a similar project in the nineteenth century, a task made more complex by a
clash of cultures. As seen in their symbolic deployments, French Canadians’ religion was linked to their distinct heritage. An assimilationist
approach in church affairs would only alienate them; the flowering of the
American Catholic citadel required their careful integration through cultural accommodation. The episcopacy thereby substituted for the melting
pot a policy of ethno-cultural mosaic, which survived in New England’s
landscape in the form of two-steeple towns.
Communities with two parishes—one historically Irish, the other historically French—reflect a muddled relationship between coreligionists who
also happened to be coworkers and, in time, fellow citizens. That relationship has marked indelibly the arc of former factory towns from the mouth
of the Connecticut River to Lewiston and Brunswick. Both memory and
geography carry forth into today’s historical imagination a tale of hostility,
and although Franco-Irish relations were conflictual in many respects, further deductions are unwarranted. Pressure to assimilate assuredly was pres-

grandit-elle en raison même de ces progrès, signe de leur force.”). See Wade, “The French
Parish and Survivance,” p. 185; Rumilly, Histoire, pp. 129, 131 (author’s translation).
66. “Will Toast the President,” Globe, June 23, 1890, 2.
67. Ibid.; “Manchester Stormed,” Globe, June 27, 1890, 5.
68. Lower, “New France in New England,” p. 279.

770

A CHURCH OF TWO STEEPLES

ent, but there are solid grounds on which to contest the episcopacy’s part in
this movement. If nothing else, two-steeple towns are a testament to the
possibility of accommodation within Catholic structures.
While Lower offered his take on the subject, Bessie Bloom Wessel
wrote of an “Irish theory of Americanization.”69 It has become increasingly
evident that that theory was most forcefully advanced not by the episcopacy, but by the Irish working class and their “labor priests” alongside English immigrant workers. French Canadians had to be integrated into the
practices of radical citizenship. The budding unions of Fall River, the preeminent site of ethno-cultural struggle, sharpened the contrast in the attitudes of the two communities and made assimilation all the more pressing.
There, the practice of strikebreaking declined sharply from 1884, as
French Canadians recognized Irish Americans’ tacit invitation and ceased
intervening as knobsticks. As their lives in the United States became more
settled, these latest immigrants changed in their understanding of labor
activism. In religion, although some lay leaders challenged the bishops, the
latter proved to be considerate of both the institutional interests of the
Church and the cultural preoccupations of French Canadians, which overlapped and merged.
Unlike the American Constitution, the Catholic Church in the United
States was not blind to culture. The successive arrival of Irish, Germans,
French Canadians, and Italians imposed difficult decisions upon bishops at
a time when the Church had no formal policy on national societies and the
establishment of national parishes. As mass immigration, much of it
Catholic, boomed, the Church had great leeway in molding civil society and
defining intercultural relations and did so without public oversight. In this,
it justified Protestant fears of creeping un-American institutions and values.
As Catholic prelates and laymen gathered for a national congress in Baltimore in 1889, the tide turned. Church authorities responded to the “[c]risis
of the Eighties” by speaking against national societies and vaunting their
patriotic credentials. To maintain the citadel required a change in tack.
National parishes would remain, but the French Canadians of New England and other immigrant groups quickly were losing their most powerful
allies in the preservation of their distinct culture.70

69. Wessel, Ethnic Survey, p. 244.
70. On the Congress’s Americanizing resolution and French-Canadian protests, see
“Nos sociétés nationales,” Le Travailleur, December 17, 1889, 2; “Le Congrès de Baltimore,”
L’Indépendant, January 31, 1890, 1.

Who Bombed the Vatican?
The Argentinean Connection
PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK*
Little is known in the English-speaking world about the bombing of
the Vatican city-state during World War II or about the controversy
surrounding the identity of the culprits once responsibility for the
attack, and the damage it caused, had been denied by the major belligerent powers. This article gives a documented and eyewitnessed
account of the bombing; revisits the controversy in the light of files
now available in the National Archives, London; and offers a plausible conclusion about the identity of those responsible and the reason for
the attack.
Keywords: Argentina, Vatican bombing, World War II, propaganda

A

t 8:10 pm on the evening of November 5, 1943, a small, unidentified,
low-flying aircraft, which had circled the area for some time beforehand, dropped five bombs on the 110-acre territory of Vatican City and
disappeared into the night. At the same moment a squadron of Allied aircraft, which earlier had taken part in an extensive bombing raid on the
Adriatic coast of Italy between Ancona and Pescara, was passing over
Rome and returning to its airbase in North Africa.1
Sir D’Arcy Osborne, the British minister to the Holy See who had
taken refuge in the neutral territory of Vatican City when Italy declared
war on England (see figure 1), was in the Santa Marta building next to the
Vatican City wall and noted the sound of overhead aircraft. “I said that
most of them were Allied,” he recorded. But Major Sam Derry, an escaped
British prisoner of war who was with him at the time, said: “‘You hear that

*Ms. McGoldrick is a retired academic and visiting scholar at Middlesex University,
London, email: patmcgoldrick@hotmail.com. Unless otherwise indicated, the author has provided English translations in this article. The author would like to thank the journal’s anonymous reviewers and Elizabeth Foxwell, staff editor of The Catholic Historical Review, for the
many helpful comments and suggestions from which this article has benefited.
1. The National Archives, London (hereafter TNA), German Air Force (GAF) reconnaissance report, November 5, 1943, HW5/388 CX/MSS/3502, Inter Service (2).

771

772

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

FIGURE 1. Sir D’Arcy Osborne, British minister to the Holy See 1936–47, n.d.
Photo courtesy of the British Embassy to the Holy See.

one now. That is German.’ Whereupon there was the sound of bombs very
near and the doors and the windows, and the whole building shook.”2
Monsignor Dominico Tardini, secretary of the Congregation for
Extraordinary Affairs, was in a corridor on the top floor of the four-storied
Governorate Palace, the main Vatican administrative building at the back
of St. Peter’s Basilica that houses offices and apartments for senior members of the Curia and visiting dignitaries. He was en route to his study
when another bomb exploded next to the building. It blew in all the windows, caused extensive structural damage, and destroyed his study. There
were, he recorded, “no human victims. But one could have been me if I had
reached my study.”3
2. London, British Library, Sir D’Arcy Osborne, Diary, entry for November 5, 1943,
Egerton Collection.
3. Dominico Tardini, Actes et documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la seconde guerre mondiale
(hereafter ADSS), 7 (Vatican City, 1980), pp. 688–89: “Nessuna vittima umana. L’unica sarei
forse stato io stesso, se mi fossi trovato nel moi studio (ero, invece, nel corridoio, avviato verso
lo studio).” All twelve volumes of ADSS are available online at http://www.vatican.va/
archive/actes/index_fr.htm.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

773

At the same time Bernardino Nogara and his wife, Ester, were having
dinner in another part of the same building. Nogara was a member of the
board of directors of Banca Commerciale Italiana, Italy’s largest private
bank, and the papal delegate responsible for running the Amministrazione
Speciale per la Santa Sede, the Vatican City state treasury.4 Because Vatican buildings were unheated throughout the war, Norgara and his wife, in
an effort to keep warm, had taken to living in one small room at the rear
of their immense apartment in the Governorate. As a consequence, they
escaped the worst effects of the blast. But they heard two women screaming and raced to the service area of their apartment. As Ester recorded in
a letter to her granddaughter, “arriving at the laundry area, I saw two legs
quivering under a bed: they were those of the maid . . . I did not know if
she was carried under there by the blast or if she herself took refuge there.”
As Bernardino helped the woman out, “with great care because the room
was full of glass and pieces of doors and windows,” Ester served them
cognac to help steady their nerves. She then went to inspect the damage to
the rest of the apartment. On seeing the blown-in windows, demolished
doors, and walls of which there was left “not even a trace,” and the amount
of glass and debris strewn across what had been her elegant apartment,
Ester herself began to tremble, “and even I had to have a finger of cognac.”5
Five bombs were dropped on the Vatican that evening. The first
exploded outside the palace of Cardinal Nicola Canali, president of the
Pontifical Commission for Vatican City. This was the bomb that shook,
but did not damage, the Santa Marta building. The full force was taken
instead by the palace, where windows, shutters, and doors were blown in
and the interior sheered by splinters of flying glass and debris. But the
sturdy structure of the building itself remained intact, save for pockmarks
along its masonry caused by shrapnel. The second bomb hit the roof of the
Mosaic Studio (see figure 2), which also housed the conservation laboratory, and which was located half-way between St. Peter’s Basilica and the
Vatican railway station. Here the damage was considerable. The roof and
walls came crashing down, and rows of steel cabinets that contained an

4. Francesco Pacelli, Diario della Conciliazione (Vatican City, 1959), p. 141.
5. Antonietta Nogara Osio, Diari e pagine sparse (Verona, 1989), pp. 103–07: “Giunti in
guardaroba ho visto due gambe che si agitavano sotto al letto: erano quelle della cameriera . . .
non so se portata là sotto dallo spostamento d’aria o se rifugiatasi: vi ho lasciato il Nonno [Bernardino Nogara] perché lui la tirasse fuori coi dovuti riguardi perché tutta la stanza era piena
di vetri e di pezzi di porte e finestre. . . . Ho ubbriacato l’una e l’altra di cognac e ho lasciato
che mi raccontassero per lasciarle sfogare: poi sono andata a vedere i disastri e ritornata poi da
loro è cominciata la tremarella a me e allora mi sono bevuta un dito di cognac anch’io.”

774

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

FIGURE 2. Damage in the Mosaic Studio after the November 1943 bombing of the
Vatican. Photo by Luigi Felici, Vatican photographer. Repr. in Augusto Ferrara,
1943: Bombe sul Vaticano (Vatican City, 2010). Photo reproduced by permission of
the author.

irreplaceable collection of various shades and gradations of petrified
glass—the tesserae used to create and repair religious mosaics—were blown
to smithereens. In addition to the structural damage, numerous mosaics
and many paintings undergoing restoration were badly damaged, including
copies of Raphael’s Seated Madonna, an Angel by Fra Angelico, a Madonna
by Murillo, and an original painting of The Good Sheppard by Seitz. Bomb
fragments and flying debris from the explosion ricocheted off nearby buildings, destroying almost all the glass in the Palace of the Tribune, which
housed diplomats from South America and China, and leaving the handcarved reliefs on the travertine edifice of the railway station badly scoured
and pitted. The third bomb exploded beside the south wing of the Governorate where it did considerable damage to offices and apartments along
that side of the building (see figure 3). But as it exploded so close to St.
Peter’s Basilica, it also blew in all the windows of the apse of the basilica
and pierced the great golden window forming the centerpiece of Bernini’s
baroque masterpiece The Dove of the Holy Spirit. However, the explosion
did not damage the interior of the basilica itself.6 Margarita de Wyss, a
6. Report to Benito Mussolini on bombing of the Vatican City, November 6, 1943,
TNA, GFM36/474 Frames 096686 to 096690; Irish Minister, Vatican, to Foreign Office,

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

775

FIGURE 3. Damage in the Governorate Palace, the main Vatican administrative
building, after the November 1943 bombing of the Vatican. Photo by Luigi Felici,
Vatican photographer. Repr. in Augusto Ferrara, 1943: Bombe sul Vaticano (Vatican City, 2010). Photo reproduced by permission of the author.

well-connected Swiss journalist, managed to gain admission to the scene,
obtained a firsthand account of some of the turmoil that followed, and
recorded the following in her diary:
In the tiny neutral State, people who didn’t expect anything of the sort
were simply thrown off their balance. Very old priests living in the fourth
floor [of the Governorate] and usually moving with slow dignity were
seen in the front of the building before the smoke and dust raised by the
bombs subsided. A great commotion ensued; everybody ran to the place
of the bombardment to see what happened.7

Dublin, November 7, 1943, TNA, HW12/294/124863; ADSS, 7, pp. 688, 691; Jane
Scrivener, Inside Rome with the Germans (New York, 1945), diary entries for November 7 and
8, 1943, pp. 49–51. Jane Scrivener was the pen-name of Mother Mary St. Luke (born Jessica
Lynch), an American nun who worked for the Vatican Information Service.
7. M[argarita]. de Wyss, Rome under the Terror (London, 1945), diary entry for
November 6, 1943, p. 155.

776

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

The fourth and fifth bombs were dropped some way from these main
buildings on two separate embankments of the old Leoine Wall; the
broadcasting tower and administrative headquarters of the Vatican radio
station were located atop the wall. As the fourth bomb exploded, Vatican
Radio, which had been broadcasting normally up until that moment, suddenly went off the air, “and the bulletins at 20.15 (English), 20.45
(German) and 21.00 (Spanish) were not given.” Since this was the tiny,
landlocked territory’s main means of communication with the outside
world, “it was necessary to work through the night to bring the equipment
back to some level of functionality.” The fifth and final bomb did not
explode, giving rise to early reports that only four bombs had been
dropped, but had it done so, damage to the radio station and its capacity
to broadcast undoubtedly would have been much greater.8
The first indication to the outside world that something had happened
came a mere fifty-five minutes later, at approximately 9 pm, when Germancontrolled Rome Radio stayed on air beyond its usual closing time and
announced that an important communiqué was about to be issued.9 The
communiqué, picked up by the BBC Monitoring Service at 2:27 am,
reported that “[a] criminal air raid attack” had been made against the Vatican
City “which is being protected by Reich troops,” that it was probable “the
attack was directed against St. Peter’s Basilica,” and that “a thorough and
conscientious enquiry will not fail to denounce to the whole world the
authors of this criminal act.” German and Far Eastern radio stations repeated
this report throughout the night, but their reports changed a “criminal air
raid attack” to “an Allied air raid attack.” It was not until 9:15 am that
Allied-controlled Radio Sardinia first reported the incident, adding that
The Allied air force had no reason to bomb the Seat of the Vicar of Christ.
Therefore it is easy to understand who is responsible for this grave offence
against the neutrality of the Vatican City and the Catholic religion.10

The litany of denials had begun.
As the massive clean-up operation commenced early that morning,
Cardinal Luigi Maglione, Vatican secretary of state, transmitted a brief
communiqué about the incident to Vatican representatives around the
8. BBC Radio Monitoring Report, November 5, 1943, TNA, FO371/37548/
R11359; Report to Mussolini on bombing, November 6, 1943, TNA, GFM36/474 Frames
096686 to 096690.
9. De Wyss, Rome under, diary entry of November 6, 1943, p. 154.
10. BBC Monitoring Report, November 5, 1943, TNA, FO371/37548/R11359.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

777

world, giving no indication of the suspected culprits or the full extent of
the damage. Shortly thereafter, a formal note was delivered to the representatives of the German, British, and American governments protesting
the violation of the neutral state’s rights under international law and
requesting an immediate investigation into the incident to establish the
identity of those who, “on a clear moonlit night” and in a plane that had
“circulated the Vatican City for sometime beforehand,” were responsible
for this reprehensible attack.11
In Rome first editions of the Fascist newspaper Il Messaggero were
already on the streets, proclaiming in block headlines, as the newspaper
continued to do for some days to come, the “Outrage” committed “by
Gangsters against the Center of Christianity,” a “Criminal Anglo-Saxon
attack on Vatican City,” and the “Angry protest of Roman’s Republican
Fascists against this wicked attack on the world center of Catholicism.”12
In addition, on November 7 the newspaper carried a Berlin report that
cited many European, although mostly Axis-controlled, newspapers “and
as many Argentinean papers” that deplored the Allied attack. It suggested
as motive Allied anger at a Vatican statement, issued a week earlier, that
German troops were respecting the integrity and neutrality of the Vatican
city-state since their occupation of Rome in September 1943.13 The people
of Rome were not convinced. As one diarist recorded:
The papers, naturally, publish columns of hysterical condemnation of the
brutality of the British in daring to attack the Pope’s own property and
to endanger his life . . . But in spite of all the printer’s ink, and all the
radio propaganda, the people of Rome are already saying with conviction
“i Tedeschi”[the Germans].14

But this was not to last. Although newspaper and radio reports
claimed that the Vatican had invited German experts to survey the damage
11. ADSS, 7, pp. 689, 690; Osborne to Foreign Office, November 6, 1943, TNA,
FO371/37548/R11404.
12. “Attentato di Gangsters contro il Centro della Cristianità,” Il Messaggero, November 6, 1943, p. 1; “Il Criminale Attacco Anglo-Sassone sulla Città del Vaticano,” November
7. 1943, p. 1; “Dopo il Bombardamento Anglo-Sassone della Città del Vaticano,” November
8, 1943, p. 1: “Vibrata protesta del Fascismo repubblicano romano per il nefando attentato
contro il centro del mondo cattolico.”
13. Il Messaggero, November 7, 1943, 1. With the fall of fascism in July 1943, Germany
occupied Italy, rescued Mussolini, and set him up in September 1943 as head of a now
German-controlled puppet government, the Italian Social Republic, in Salò at Lake Guarda
in northern Italy.
14. Scrivener, Inside Rome, diary entry for November 6, 1943, p. 48; see also de Wyss,
Rome under, diary entry for November 7, 1943, p. 155.

778

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

and examine the bomb fragments, this was not so. The Vatican established
its own team of Italian experts—the engineer Enrico Galeazzi; the nephew
of Pope Pius XII, Carlo Pacelli; and the governor of Vatican City, Cardinal
Canali—who would examine the fragments and make their report.15 To
this day that report has never been published. But almost immediately, key
details began to circulate around Rome—specifically, that the bombs were
British. Thereafter, further evidence seemed to implicate the Allies. Tardini was informed by a British cleric that November 5, Guy Fawkes Day,
was a traditionally anti-Catholic day in England. An American pilot
“reported seeing an Allied plane dropping its load on the Vatican,” and
Monsignor Walter S. Carroll, an American priest working at Allied headquarters in Algeria, reported that
[i]n a conversation with the American Chief of Staff during the past
week I was informed very confidentially that they [the Americans] feel
that the bombing of the Vatican is probably attributed to an American
pilot who lost his way.16

Suspicion of Allied culpability was further fueled by the curious reticence on the part of the British to issue an outright denial. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, at 7:55 am on November 6, Baron Ernst von
Weizsäcker, the German ambassador to the Holy See, telephoned
Maglione to say that he had been “authorized by the German High Command to state explicitly that neither German bombs nor German bombers”
were responsible.17 This was followed on November 10 by an official
response from Berlin stating that “[n]o German aircraft was south of the
Livorno-Ancona line at the time in question” but that the “type and origin
of the bombs” could be identified “if experts of the German Luftwaffe were
permitted to make a detailed on the spot examination.”18 In the United
States President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a full investigation and on
November 13 Harold Tittmann, U.S. chargé d’affaires to the Holy See,
was able to report that “[a] reply has now been received from General
Dwight Eisenhower which establishes beyond any doubt that the attacking
aircraft was not an Allied aircraft.”19 By contrast, although Osborne, in
acknowledging Maglione’s note, observed that British Foreign Secretary
Anthony Eden had previously given assurances that Allied pilots flying
15. Scrivener, Inside Rome, diary entry for November 6, 1943, p. 49.
16. ADSS, 7, p. 689nn6, 7. Emphasis in original.
17. Ibid., p. 697n3.
18. Ibid., pp. 697–98.
19. Ibid., pp. 695–96, 702.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

779

over Rome “would be specifically ordered to ensure that no bombs fell in
the vicinity of Vatican,” the formal reply from London, when it came on
November 15, was both circumspect and terse. Devoid of explicit denial of
British involvement, it referred merely to a communiqué issued on
November 7 by Allied Forces headquarters in Algiers, to the effect that it
was “manifestly impossible to establish beyond doubt the fall of bombs
from aircraft participating in night operations,” but on the night of
November 5 “crews adhered to their standing instructions and did not
bomb the Vatican City.”20 Although initially nobody in Rome held the
Allies responsible:
Now, however, the situation has changed. The noisy and eloquent
German-Italian propaganda has brought results, especially when confronted with the dry and short Allied communiqués. Many Italians say:
“The Anglo-Saxons must be guilty if they keep so quiet,” and doubt
about the Huns’ fault spreads.21

The reason for British reticence is found in the Foreign Office files: In
a “Most Secret” telegram Harold Macmillan, the British minister in
Algiers, informed the Foreign Office: “I think we probably did bomb the
Vatican.”22 On the night in question seven British Boston bombers were in
action over Castelnuovo di Porto, just north of Rome. One developed
engine trouble and jettisoned its bombs through clouds over an unknown
location so it could lighten its load and return to base. These, it was
thought, must have been the bombs that fell on Vatican City. Only later
did a sharp-eyed Foreign Office official spot that, by all accounts, it had
been a clear, moonlit night over Rome at the time of the bombing, and
thus the impaired Boston aircraft could not have been responsible.23
In the meantime, Italian newspapers were reporting that Joseph Stalin
had sent a telegram to Winston Churchill congratulating him on bombing
the Vatican. Osborne asked London for a denial. But in what must have
been a fit of exasperation, the Foreign Office replied that “it was no more
necessary for us to issue a denial” than to issue a denial “of every other
report of the same kind published in the Axis press” and made no further

20. Ibid. pp. 691–92, 703–04.
21. de Wyss, Rome under, diary entry November 10, 1943, p. 157.
22. Resident Minister [Harold Macmillan], Algiers, to Foreign Office, London,
November 8, 1943, Telegram 2269, TNA, FO371/37548/R11402.
23. Annotated report on the bombing of Vatican City, TNA, FO371/37548/R11476.
See also TNA, AIR8/438/MS21715.

780

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

comment.24 This was unfortunate, as the lack of a forceful and unqualified
denial by the British has led to the belief, long since commonplace among
Italian historians but more recently also asserted by British historian
Richard Overy, that it was the British who bombed the Vatican on the
night of November 5, 1943.25 Overy’s argument is based on finding a copy
of the Macmillan telegram, referred to above, in an Air Ministry file.
However, he failed to notice the subsequent report of the official Air Ministry inquiry into the incident, passed to Churchill. It gave a detailed
account of the activities of each British aircraft operating near Rome that
night; established that the impaired Boston had jettisoned its bombs over
Arce, some 50 miles southeast of Rome; and made it “quite clear that
bombs dropped on Vatican City were not dropped by Allied aircraft of this
command.”26 The veracity of this account is given credence by the fact that
the Air Ministry was quite willing to acknowledge, at least in private, that
British bombers had damaged Vatican property inadvertently during a
March 1944 bombing raid on Rome, giving no reason to believe that it
would, in an internal classified document, deny the earlier November incident if evidence indicated that it was responsible.27 Thus the available Foreign Office and Air Ministry files seem, quite clearly, to exonerate the
British. But if the British were not responsible, then who was? And why?
According to Eitel Möllhausen, chargé d’affaires at the German
Embassy in Italy, none of the authorities in Rome could provide any explanation, and “all were swimming in a sea of conjecture.”2 A confidential
report commissioned by Benito Mussolini was likewise unable to identify
those responsible, whereas the fact that he commissioned it in the first
place strongly suggests that the action did not originate with the Italian
Social Republic (RSI) or the National Republican Air Force (ANR).29 It
was perhaps the Vatican itself that received the first indication of the iden24. A[nthony]. Rumbold, Foreign Office minute, November 12, 1943, TNA, FO371/
37548/R11595.
25. Richard Overy, The Bombers and the Bombed (London, 2013), p. 346. See also
Cesare De Simone, Venti angeli sopra Roma (Milan, 1993), p. 312, although De Simone
wrongly dates the incident to December 5, 1943; Harold H. Tittmann, Inside the Vatican of
Pius XII (New York, 2004), p. 192; Andrea Tornielli, Pio XII. Eugenio Pacelli. Un uomo sul
trono di Pietro (Milan, 2007), p. 407; and Pietro Cappellari, Santita, chi è stato? Bombe angloamericane sul Vaticano 1943–1944 (Bologna, 2011), pp. 21–28, 49–59.
26. M.A.C. Post to Air Ministry, November 10, 1943, TNA, AIR 19/215/4284; War
Cabinet, November 8, 1943, TNA, CAB 65/36/151.
27. Freedom Algiers to Air Ministry, March 25, 1944, TNA, AIR 19/215/2857.
28. Eitel Möllhausen, La carta perdente (Rome, 1948), p. 152.
29. Report to Mussolini on bombing, November 6–10, 1943, TNA, GFM36/474.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

781

tity of the culprit. On November 8, 1943, in a telephone conversation
intercepted by the Servizio Speciale Riservato, a division of the Servizio di
Informazione Militare (SIM) that routinely monitored telephone calls
from Rome and the Vatican, an Italian priest contacted a high-level Vatican Jesuit, Pietro Tacchi Venturi, with important information. He had, he
explained, just returned from the Viterbo Air Force base, north of Rome,
where he learnt from someone who had been present throughout the entire
operation that the bombing had been carried out by Roberto Farinacci and
a Roman pilot in an Italian Savoia-Marchetti aircraft “with 5 bombs on
board destined to strike the Vatican radio station, because Farinacci was
convinced it transmitted military information to the enemy.”30
Farinacci, the Ras or party boss of Cremona, belonged to the fanatically
pro-German and extreme anticlerical wing of the Fascist Party and championed violent squadristi methods of silencing political opponents. A first
lieutenant and pilot in the Italian Air Force during the Second Ethiopian
War (1935–36), he lost his right hand in a grenade accident and thereafter
returned to Italy to resume publication of his Cremona-based newspaper, Il
Regime Fascista, from which he launched a series of vitriolic attacks against
the Vatican, accusing it of being antifascist and broadcasting anti-Axis
propaganda from its radio station.31 Farinacci’s accusations were not without foundation. From 1940 onward, the Axis powers had long suspected the
Vatican of sending secret military intelligence to the enemy from its transmitter and accused it of using its public broadcasts to launch a series of
unrestrained attacks on National Socialism. On May 3, 1940, the Vatican
had sent an urgent, encrypted signal to Belgium and the Low Countries,
30. Ugo Guspini, L’orecchio del Regime (Milan, 1973), pp. 248–49: “È la sacrosanta
verità che abbiamo potuto appurare attraverso la testimonianza di persone che sono state presenti a tutto lo svolgimento della manovra. Era un apparecchio Savoia-Marchetti, con a bordo
5 bombe destinate a colpire la stazione radio vaticano, perché Farinacci era convinto che essa
trasmettesse al nemico notizie di carattere militare!” This document is not found in the
Servizio Speciale Riservato files in the Archivio Centrale dello Stato (ACS), Rome. But Guspini was one of those who intercepted and recorded telephone conversations, and often
worked from documents in his personal possession that were not lodged with the ACS. The
author thanks the archivist at the ACS for providing this information. See also Augusto Ferrara, 1943 Bombe sul Vaticano (Vatican City, 2010), pp. 22–23.
31. For Roberto Farnacci, see TNA, GFM36/185 Frames 033970 to 033974. See also
Romano Canosa, Farinacci, il superfascista (Milan, 2010), pp. 230–34; Matteo Di Figlia, Farnacci, il radicalismo fascista al potere (Rome, 2007), pp. 209–10; Harry Fornari, Mussolini’s
Gadfly: Roberto Farinacci (Nashville, 1971), pp. 160–61. For his attacks on the Vatican, see
Osborne’s reports on Regime Fascista, June 1941, TNA, FO371/30174/R15886, R16610 and
R16734. Also Owen Chadwick, Britain and the Vatican during the Second World War (New
York, 1986), p. 186.

782

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

warning that Adolf Hitler was about to invade and occupy their territories.32
But Italian military intelligence (SIM) had broken the Vatican ciphers; and
Count Galeazzo Ciano, Italian foreign minister and Mussolini’s son-inlaw, warned the Holy See’s nuncio to Italy, Monsignor Borgoncini Duca,
that “we read everything and Mussolini reads everything.”33 On January 22,
1940, Vatican Radio was first to broadcast to the world that “Jews and Poles
are being herded into separate ghettos, hermetically sealed and pitifully
inadequate for the economic subsistence of the millions destined to live
there.”34 From that date onward, Vatican Radio broadcasts unleashed an
intermittent series of direct and vigorous attacks on the “New Order” in
Europe; its totalitarian structure; pagan foundation; profoundly un-Christian racist ideology; and the appalling suffering and devastation it inflicted
on peoples in the occupied territories across Europe.35
As might be expected, the Allies were quick to seize upon the propaganda opportunity thereby provided. Reports of these broadcasts, occasionally a little embellished, were regularly carried by both the British and
American news services, and incorporated into the BBC’s Radio London
transmissions to Europe.36 Since Vatican Radio was considered a reliable
32. Cardinal Luigi Maglione to nuncios in Brussels and the Low Countries, May 3,
1940, ADSS, I, pp. 436–37.
33. Monsignor Borgoncini Duca to Cardinal Luigi Maglione, March 31, 1940, ADSS,
I, p. 436n2, and ADSS, I, pp. 412–13.
34. Quoted in “Vatican Denounces Atrocities in Poland; Germans Called Even Worse
than Russians,” New York Times, January 23, 1940, 1, 5.
35. Brief excepts of some broadcasts are found in Robert Speaight, Voice of the Vatican
(London, 1942), and The Tablet; see, for example, “The World Week by Week,” The Tablet,
January 27, 1940, 1; “The World Week by Week” and “Persecution and Persistence,” February
3, 1940,. 2, 8; “The Church Abroad,” March 15, 1941, 9; and “News, Notes and Texts from
All Parts,” April 26, 1941, 9–10. But the original transcripts, made by the BBC Monitoring
Service between 1940 and 1947, are held by the Imperial War Museum (IWM) at its site in
Duxford, England, although unfortunately in a deteriorating condition. The author is grateful
to Stephen Walton, the IWM Duxford archivist, for his help in providing this information.
36. See, for example, “Vatican Denounces Atrocities in Poland,” pp. 1, 5; “Vatican
Amplifies Atrocity Reports,” New York Times, January 24, 1940, 8; “Vatican Continues
Atrocity Charges,” January 25, 1940, 4; “Vatican Stresses Rift with Germany,” April 4, 1940,
8; “Vatican Again Notes Persecution in Reich,” April 9, 1940, 10; “Vatican Declares Nazis
Broke Pact,” September 16, 1940, 5; “Vatican Radio Scores All Who Pledge a ‘New Order,’”
September 17, 1940, 5; “Vatican Says Nazism Is Foe of Christianity; Lists Persecutions in
Reich to Support Charge,” November 20, 1940, 1, 3; “Vatican Accuses Nazis,” April 2, 1941,
2; “Vatican Held ‘Anti-Axis,’” June 3, 1941, 4; and “‘Martyr’s Fate’ of Poland,” The Times
(London), January 23, 1940, 6; “Polish Priests Shot” and “Nazis at Work in Poland and
Bohemia,” January 25, 1940, 6; “Nazi Barbarities in Poland,” January 29, 1940, 6; “Iron Hand
in Poland,” January 31, 1940, 7; “End of Rome Visit,” March 12, 1940, 8; “Dutch Roman
Catholics’ Clash with Nazis,” February 14, 1941, 3.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

783

source of information, especially in Italy, the danger was that these broadcasts would become a focal point for antifascist opposition movements.37
Even in France, the outspoken comments of the Vatican’s French-language broadcaster, Belgian Jesuit Emmanuel Mistiaen, were transcribed,
printed, and clandestinely circulated to anti-Vichy groups as La Voix du
Vatican.38 At first, the Nazis tried to jam the transmissions. But in May
1941, as they grew in intensity and frequency, Hitler pressured Mussolini
to denounce the Lateran Treaty, invade the Vatican, and close down the
radio station.39 In the face of such an overwhelming threat, and much to
the dismay of the British Foreign Office, the Vatican toned down its
attacks on National Socialism. Thereafter such attacks were rare and made
only in the most general and attenuated of terms. As A. W. G. Randall of
the Foreign Office commented, “this means a serious loss to our propaganda.”40 Initially he urged the Vatican to continue broadcasting its critical
commentaries, although later he conceded:
I do not think anything is to be gained by any further approach to the
Pope at the moment . . . The Vatican wireless has been of the greatest
service to our propaganda and we have exploited it to the full. No other
neutral power would, in the face of this have persisted so long in furnishing us with useful material and risking violent criticism from powers with
which it is in ordinary diplomatic relations.41

In terms of its criticism of National Socialism, therefore, Vatican
Radio had been silenced effectively. But this raises a question: If the Vatican authorities were unprepared to risk occupation in 1941 when the situation was less precarious, why would they risk it in September 1943 when
their tiny city-state was surrounded by the might of the German army, and
they knew that their ciphers had been broken? There is no evidence to suggest the Vatican was transmitting military information to “the enemy” in
September 1943. Thus the questions arise: What was the real reason

37. Simona Colarizi, L’opinione degli italiani sotto il regime 1929–1943 (Rome, 2000),
pp. 371–73.
38. Jacques Adler, “The ‘sin of omission’? Radio Vatican and the anti-Nazi struggle,
1940–1942,” Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50 (2004), 396–406, here 397, 399,
400–05. See also Robert Graham, “La Radio Vaticana tra Londra e Berlino,” La Civiltà Cattolica, 127 (1976), 132–50, here 136–38.
39. On German pressure on Mussolini to denounce the Lateran Treaties: May 3, 1941,
TNA, FO371/30177/RI4778.
40. A. W. G. Randall to Mr. Nichols, May 14, 1941, TNA, FO371/30177/RI5185.
41. A. W. G. Randall, Foreign Office minute, July 21, 1941, TNA, FO371/30177/
RI7051.

784

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

behind the bombing, and why did Farinacci undertake it at that particular
point in time?
After the fall of fascism and the abduction of Mussolini in July 1943,
Farinacci evaded arrest by fleeing to Germany where he hoped to be
appointed leader of a new German-backed Italian counter-government.
Indeed, Hitler at one point openly considered such a possibility. But Farinacci made the strategic error of disparaging Mussolini to Hitler, totally
underestimating the personal bond between the two dictators, and as a
consequence earned Hitler’s extreme displeasure and was excluded from
any potential post in Mussolini’s newly reconstituted Italian Social Republic at Salò in September 1943.42 As Joseph Goebbels recorded in his diary:
From the Führer’s talk with Farinacci, it is evident we cannot use this
man on any grand scale. Nevertheless we are making sure of keeping control of him. The Führer gave him to Reichsführer SS [Heinrich] Himmler to take care of for the present.43

Farinacci returned to Cremona at the end of September 1943, where
it was widely rumored that he received monthly payments of 150,000 lira
from his German handlers. Thereafter he ruled Cremona as a pro-German
province, published pro-German articles in his newspaper, and took it as a
particular compliment that Radio London habitually referred to him as
“Herr Farinacci.”44 It would appear, then, that by September 1943, Farinacci, having misplayed his cards with Hitler, had lost his power base in
both Germany and Italy and had become a mere Nazi factotum in Italy. As
shall be argued here, if he was the willing bomber of Vatican City on the
night of November 5, 1943, he was acting on the instructions of his Nazi
controllers, who were anxious it should appear that the British bombed the
Vatican. Their reasons stretched all the way across the Atlantic to the other
side of the world.

42. Canosa, Farinacci, pp. 299–303. See also J. Alfassio Grimaldi and Gherardo Bozzetti, Farinacci, il piu fascista (Milan, 1972), pp. 225–27; F. W. Deakin, The Brutal Friendship
(London, 1962), pp. 496–97; and Fornari, Mussolini’s Gadfly, pp. 205–09.
43. Joseph Goebbels, Die Tagebücher von Joseph Göbbels, ed. Elke Fröhlich (Munich,
1993), Teil II, Band 9, July 27, 1943, p. 177: “Aus der Unterredung, die der Führer mit Farinacci hat, kann entnommen werden, daß dieser Mann für uns in großem Stil kaum zu
gebrauchen ist. Aber trotzdem wird man ihn sich sichern. Der Führer ergibt [!] ihn zur vorläufigen Betreuung an den Reichsführer SS Himmler.”
44. Fornari, Mussolini’s Gadfly, p. 210; see also Grimaldi and Bozzetti, Farinacci, pp.
236–37.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

785

The Argentinean Connection
On September 23, 1939, just weeks after the outbreak of war in
Europe, the foreign ministers of the American republics, including the
United States, met at Panama and reaffirmed their common commitment
to inter-American neutrality and solidarity under the terms of the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace,
signed at Buenos Aires in December 23, 1936.45 But in December 1941,
subsequent to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States entered the
war against the Axis and was anxious that, in keeping with the principle of
solidarity, the American republics would either join the Allies or at least
break off diplomatic relations with Axis countries. By January 1943, in
accordance with principles adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Conference in
January 1942, all but one of the South American republics had done so.
The one exception was Argentina where, particularly within some sections
of the military, a deeply conservative Catholicism, independent nationalism, and resentment of U.S. hegemony in the region combined to ensure
that the country retained its neutrality and continued to maintain diplomatic relations with the Axis powers.46
The military was heavily influenced by its high regard for German
military prowess; by the fact that many of its officers had trained in military
academies in Germany; and by the fact that, although the United States
was unwilling to supply Argentina with weapons, Germany offered at least
the promise of so doing.47 When, in June 1943, it was rumored that a proAllied and anti-neutrality candidate was being proposed as the main contender in the country’s forthcoming democratic but hopelessly corrupt
elections, this more right-wing element in the military staged a coup d’état
and established an authoritarian military regime under President Pedro
Pablo Ramírez that reaffirmed the country’s policy of neutrality.48

45. For the meeting of foreign ministers of the American republics for consultation
under the inter-American agreements of Buenos Aires and Lima, held at Panama September
23–October 3, 1939, see Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1939. The
American Republics (Washington, DC, 1957), pp. 15–41.
46. David Scheinin, “Argentina: The Closest Ally,” in Latin America during World War
II, ed. Thomas M. Leonard and John F. Bratzel (New York, 2006), pp. 183–204, here pp.
195–96.
47. Robert A. Potash, The Army & Politics in Argentina 1928–1945 (Stanford, 1969),
pp. 4–5, 117–18, 168–70.
48. Potash, Army & Politics, pp. 218–19; Ronald C. Newton, The “Nazi Menace” in
Argentina, 1938–1947 (Stanford, 1992), pp. 298–300.

786

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

The Catholic Church welcomed the coup and gave the new regime its
wholehearted backing when it outlawed communism, promoted traditionalist Catholics to government office, and mandated compulsory Catholic
education in all state schools.49 Likewise, a decade earlier, the Argentinean
clergy had supported the authoritarian regimes in Spain, Portugal, and
Italy when these countries enshrined the privileged position of the
Catholic Church in their constitutions and also mandated traditional
Catholic teaching in their schools. In June 1941, it was Italy’s Axis partner
Germany that, at least from a distance, seemed to be saving Christian
Europe from atheistic communism when it declared war on the Soviet
Union.50 In the light of these developments, the Catholic Church in
Argentina gave the strong impression of being pro-Axis, and, as will be
discussed, this opinion was shared by Allies and Axis alike. In the immediate aftermath of the coup, the British ambassador to Argentina, Sir
David Kelly, put this point directly in June 1943 to the papal nuncio to
Argentina, Monsignor Giuseppe Fietta:
Prompted by the Nuncio’s communicative mood, I questioned him closely
as to the view very commonly held amongst foreigners that the Argentine
clergy were, broadly speaking, sympathisers with the Axis. He replied that
while the proportion of Axis sympathisers among the clergy might be
higher than among laymen, owing especially to the question of Russia, it
was definitely untrue that the Axis sympathizers were a majority.51

This more nuanced view suggests that, although a significant proportion within the clergy were indeed decidedly pro-Axis, the majority were
primarily attempting to protect Catholic values and institutions, and supported only those aspects of Axis policies, both at home and abroad, which
seemed best suited to protect and promote the interests of the Catholic
Church. But this is a fine distinction, and, as Kelly pointed out, “the commonly held view” was that the clergy were pro-Axis.
Another not inconsiderable influence in determining Argentina’s
stance on neutrality was the fact that, as in World War I, it benefited economically from neutrality by being able to export its goods—particularly to

49. Jorge A. Nallim, Transformations and Crisis of Liberalism in Argentina, 1930–1955
(Pittsburgh, 2012), pp. 118–21; Luis Alberto Romero, A History of Argentina in the Twentieth
Century, trans. James P. Brennan (University Park, PA, 2002), p. 92; Potash, Army & Politics,
p. 225.
50. Nallim, Transformations, pp. 48–50; Scheinin, “Argentina: The Closest Ally,” pp.
187–88.
51. David Kelly to Anthony Eden, June 28, 1943, TNA, FO371/33514.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

787

Great Britain, a major importer of Argentinean beef—safely across the
Atlantic in its neutral ships.52 But this independent stance incurred the
wrath of the United States, which accused the government of being proNazi and at one point even considered invading the country to install a
more compliant regime.53 But common sense prevailed, and instead an
extensive propaganda campaign against Argentina and a later export
embargo were launched in an attempt to bring the country into line.
In April 1942 Ambassador Kelly forwarded to the Foreign Office a
report “regarded as wholly reliable,” which stated that “while the Church is
one of the main opponents of the Axis in occupied countries, misinformed
Catholic circles are one of the main tools used by Axis propaganda in this
Hemisphere.” To counter this, a Catholic Intercontinental Committee had
been established, under the auspices of the Archdiocese of New York, to
enable eminent and respected Catholics from the occupied countries to
disseminate within these “Catholic circles the truth about the persecution
of the Church in their countries” and “the real aims of the war.” Kelly
observed that this was, from a propaganda perspective, “a plum.”54 But an
even more potent propaganda opportunity for Argentinean consumption
presented itself when, on September 8, 1943, the Germans occupied
Rome, and the tiny territory of Vatican City found itself completely surrounded by Hitler’s army. Almost immediately, and continually throughout September and October, the Allied press in Britain and the United
States published a series of alarming reports about the precarious position
of the pope: “Pope a prisoner in the Vatican”; “Germans reported to have
occupied Vatican City”; “Danger to Pope is that Hitler will kidnap him”;
52. Scheinin, “Argentina: The Closest Ally,” pp. 194–95; Romero, The History of
Argentina, p. 82.
53. Information first provided by Maurice Halperin, chief of the Latin American OSS
section assigned to plan the invasion, to Ronald C. Newton in June 1980: see Newton, The
“Nazi Menace” in Argentina, p. 431n2. This was corroborated by British ambassador to the
United States Edward Wood, Lord Halifax, when he told London via an August 1943
telegram that he had just been visited by two members of the U.S. State Department, Mr.
Bensal (possibly Philip Wilson Bonsal, later U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, Colombia, and
Cuba) and Mr. Duggen (possibly Laurence “Larry” Duggan, head of the Latin American
desk during World War II and later implicated in Soviet espionage). They informed him that
State Department officials “are toying with the idea of covert intervention in Argentina”
(TNA, FO371/33515/A7313). No document confirming the plan has ever been located, and,
according to Halperin, it was abandoned after the German defeat at Stalingrad when “it was
clear there was no longer a need for it.” See Don S. Kirschner, Cold War Exile: The Unclosed
Case of Maurice Halperin (Columbia, MO, 1995), pp. 79–82.
54. On the development of a Catholic Intercontinental Committee (C.I.C.) for propaganda in fascist and isolationist Catholic milieux, see TNA, FO238/293.

788

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

“tanks and guns now surround Vatican City” and those who attempt to
enter will be “shot without warning”; “Voice of Pope is silenced. Germans
have closed the doors of St Peter’s and mounted machine guns on the
colonnade under the windows of the Vatican”; “several Cardinals have
been placed under house arrest”; “Pius XII” has “strongly protested his
status as a virtual prisoner . . . and refused to see the German commander,
Field Marshal General Albert Kesselring.” On October 3, Roosevelt
described the Allied advance on Rome as a “Holy Crusade to liberate the
Eternal City, the Vatican and Pius XII,” and on the same day Archbishop
Francis J. Spellman of New York addressed a crowd of 75,000 at the Polo
Grounds in New York City for a religious service to pray for the city of
Rome and the pope. The archbishop did not exhort the attendees to pray
for the sparing of the pope’s life—“for death to him in his agony of suffering would be a mercy”—but rather asked for prayers for the pope’s “cause,
the cause of Christ, the cause of right, the cause of civilization.’”55
Although the occupation of Rome certainly had caused panic in the
Vatican and invasion remained an ever-present possibility, these reports
were wildly exaggerated.56 But they had the desired effect. On September
18, Kelly in Argentina was pleased to inform London that the “[l]eading
55. See “Nazis Occupy Rome, Take Milan After Siege,” New York Times, September
11, 1943, 1–2; “Nazi Vatican Step Alarms Catholics,” New York Times, September 11, 1943,
4; “Vatican Closely Guarded,” New York Times, September 12, 1943, 44; “Vatican Radio
Calm in Ring of Germans,” New York Times, September 14, 1943, 1; “Pope Objects in Vain
to Nazis on Isolation of Vatican City,” New York Times, September 17, 1943, 1, 5; Anne
O’Hare McCormick, “Abroad: Where Is the Government of Italy?,” New York Times, September 18, 1943, 16; “Germans Seize Church Dignitaries Entering Territory of Vatican
City,” New York Times, September 22, 1943, 1, 4; “Italians Maintain Fight on Germans,”
New York Times, September 19, 1943, 1, 41; Daniel T. Brigham, “German Ravaging of Rome
Is Feared,” New York Times, October 3, 1943, 38; “Vatican Prepares for Worst,” New York
Times, October 7, 1943, 8; Daniel T. Brigham, “‘Kidnap’ Plot Reported,” New York Times,
October 7, 1943, 8; Daniel T. Brigham, “Pope Surrounded by Germans’ Guns,” New York
Times, October 9, 1943, 4; “Pope Said to Be Prisoner,” New York Times, October 9, 1943, 4;
and “Germans Report Vatican ‘Attack,’” New York Times, October 10, 1943, 36. See also
“Argentina and the Vatican,” The Times (London), September 21, 1943, 3; “The Pope ‘A
Prisoner,’” The Times (London), September 27, 1943, 3; “Prayers for Rome in America,” The
Times (London), October 5, 1943, 3; and “The Pope ‘Virtually a Prisoner,’” The Times
(London), October 9, 1943, 4. Spellman quote: “The Archbishop’s Address,” New York
Times, October 4, 1943, 10.
56. For the panic created by the German invasion of Rome, see Tittmann, Inside the
Vatican, pp. 185–87. For the threat of invasion, see: Goebbels, Die Tagebücher, Teil II, Band
9, July 27, 1943, p. 171; also Ernst von Weizsäcker, Memories of Ernst von Weizsäcker, trans.
John Andrews (London, 1951), pp. 290–91; and Rudolf Rahn, Ruheloses Leben (Dusseldorf,
1949), p. 233.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

789

article in ‘Nacion’ today” reported that the “Vatican is infested by German
troops” and with indignation protested that “[n]ever has it been possible to
believe anyone would dare do such a thing.”57 On the same day German
ambassador Eric Otto Meynen warned Berlin that the “alleged threat to
the Vatican is being made much of by enemy Press sources here. Increased
counter-measures are advisable.”58 From Berlin, German Foreign Minister
Joachim von Ribbentrop sent a telegram to Weizsäcker in Rome to inquire
if it was true that the pope had refused to receive Field Marshal
Kesselring.59 Weizsäcker replied immediately that it was not true. Neither
Kesselring nor his representatives had requested such an audience.60 Two
days later, on September 20, Kelly informed London of rumors that the
“Argentine Government are [sic] hoping to find opportunity in German
treatment of the Vatican for rupture of relations with Germany.”61 These
rumors were quickly given prominence in Allied press reports.62 In
London, a Foreign Office official suggested “we might have a word with
the BBC asking them to ‘pile on’ the German treatment of the Vatican.”63
On September 21, Ribbentrop contacted Weizsäcker again and, specifically citing the extremely hostile and damaging reports in the Argentinean
press, requested from him a detailed denial that, when it was received, was
immediately transmitted from the Wilhelmstrasse to “All Stations” with
instructions that it “should be disseminated in every way” in order “to
oppose this enemy propaganda.”64 But, as previously noted, by October 3
Roosevelt had entered the fray, characterizing the advance on Rome as a
“Holy Crusade” to liberate the Vatican, while Spellman in New York was
giving lurid accounts of the suffering of the pope in Nazi captivity. In an
57. Kelly to Foreign Office, September 18, 1943, TNA, FO371/33586/A8606.
58. Eric Otto Meynen to Berlin, September 18, 1943, TNA, HW12/292/123198.
Allied press reports of the Nazi threat to the Vatican were carried as headline news on an
almost daily basis by the Buenos Aires Herald, La Prensa, and (to a lesser extent) La Nacion
between September 17, 1943, and October 29, 1943.
59. Franz von Sonnleithner to Weizsäcker, September 17, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808
Frame 277990.
60. Weizsäcker to Ribbentrop, September 18, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frame
277991.
61. Kelly to Foreign Office, September 20, 1943, TNA, FO371/33586/A8642.
62. “Argentine Shift Seen Likely Now,” New York Times, September 20, 1943, 5;
“Argentina and the Vatican,” The Times (London), September 21, 1943, 3.
63. R. Henderson, Foreign Office minute, September 21, 1943, TNA, FO371/33586/
A8642.
64. Sonnleithner to Weizsäcker, September 21, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frame
277995; Weizsäcker to Ribbentrop, September 22, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frames 278001
to 278002; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Berlin, to All Stations, September 23, 1943, TNA,
HW12/292 Frames 123088 to 123089.

790

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

attempt to put an end finally to this onslaught of damaging propaganda,
Ribbentrop instructed Weizsäcker to secure from the pope himself a public
denial of these reports and persuade the Curia to issue an official statement
confirming the impeccable behavior of German troops toward the Vatican.
In return for this, Weizsäcker was authorized, on behalf of his government,
to offer the following oral declaration: “The Reich Government affirms
that Germany fully respects the Sovereignty and Integrity of the Vatican
State and the German Armed Forces presently in Rome are behaving
accordingly.”65 However, by October 1943 Pius XII had every reason to
distrust any pledge offered by the Reich government. As cardinal secretary
of state, he had personally signed the Reichskonkordat in July 1933, only to
find its guarantees violated almost before the ink of his signature had
dried.66 Thus Weizsäcker, in the report of his October 9 audience with
Pius XII, noted that the pope was unwilling to associate himself with any
such statement and would prefer a text in which the Vatican merely
acknowledged a declaration of intent made in the first instance by the
Reich government itself.67 Protracted negotiations continued until Octo-

65. Ribbentrop to Weizsäcker, October 7, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frames 278073
to 278074: “Die Reichsregierung stellt demgegenüber fest., dass Deutschland die Souveränität und Integrität des Vatikanstaates in vollem Umfange respektiert und dass in Rom
anwesende deutsche Wehrmachtsangehöge sich entsprechend verhalten.” An earlier version
of this telegram is found at TNA, GFM34/808 Frames 278045 to 278046, but this is an
unsent draft, as it contains handwritten corrections and lacks the transmission control data
found on sent telegrams. The telegram sent on October 7 is much shorter and makes no mention of providing the Vatican with a written declaration of intent or of protecting Vatican
City from combat, as is found in the earlier draft. Since Ribbentrop had a late-afternoon
meeting with Hitler on October 6, as documented by National Archives and Records Administration (Washington, DC) T84/387 Frame 000602 and the October 7 telegram sent just
after midnight from his special train (Sonderzug), it is likely that the edited and less substantial
version was issued at Hitler’s instruction.
66. For Pius XI’s protest at these violations, see his March 14, 1937, encyclical, Mit
Brennender Sorge, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_
enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html. For a documented account, see The Persecution of
the Catholic Church in the Third Reich (London, 1940). This book was based on reports to the
Vatican by Josef Müller (part of the Catholic resistance in Germany who later survived the
concentration camp Flossenbürg) and then-monsignor Johannes Neuhäusler (who later survived Dachau and became auxiliary bishop of Munich). It was edited by German Jesuit
Walther Mariaux; passed to the Foreign Office in London by Osborne; authenticated by a
specialist, Dr. Alfred Wiener of the Wiener Library, London; and published (anonymously
to protect the authors from arrest) by Burns Oates in agreement with, and partly funded by,
the British Foreign Office. See TNA, FO371/24421/C2652 and FO371/50068; and Harold
C. Deutsch, The Conspiracy Against Hitler in the Twilight War (Minneapolis, 1968), p. 123.
67. Weizsäcker to Ribbentrop, October 9, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frames 278086
to 278088.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

791

ber 29 when, finally, the Vatican issued an official statement that had been
mutually agreed upon by the parties, although it did not fulfill all of
Ribbentrop’s wishes:
To put an end to unfounded rumors . . . Germany, in accordance of her
policy so far of respecting . . . the Sovereign rights and integrity of the
Vatican City . . . is resolved to respect them in the future. The Holy See,
in acknowledging that German troops have respected the Roman Curia
and the Vatican City, has taken note of this assurance.68

Meanwhile, on September 24, Meynen in Buenos Aires had reported
that the local enemy press continued to exploit the alleged threat to the
Vatican and advised that “a heightened counteraction” was required.69 On
October 15, he warned that the situation was now serious and urgent
action needed:
[The] policy of neutrality entails as prerequisites that no harm should
befall the Holy See. . . . The situation in the Vatican remains the centre
of discussion here. Enemy propaganda here is making great efforts, so far
successful, to advance the theme of alleged endangerment of the Pope’s
freedom of action to stir up the whole Catholic Church in America
against us, and to supply the Argentine with grounds for breaking of relations. The effect is still more prejudicial for us in that Fascist circles are
not united. Viewed from here, it appears that our counter-measures are
not strong enough. It is not sufficient to merely correct [sic] enemy
reports. I again suggest [countermeasures].70

On October 24, he further warned that he had been advised by the
nuncio (presumably the same Monsignor Fietta to whom Kelly had spoken
earlier) that the local clergy were extremely agitated by these reports and
that the Catholic Church in Argentina had now “abandoned its proGerman stance.”71 Given that President Ramirez of Argentina was a
deeply devout Roman Catholic, there was a real danger that, although initially he was a supporter of neutrality, these reports would be sufficient to
drive him into the arms of the Allies and break off diplomatic relations

68. ADSS, 7, pp. 684–85.
69. Meynen to Berlin, September 24, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frame 278015:
“Angebliche Bedrohung Vatikans von Feindpresse hier stark missbraucht. Erhöhte Gegenwirkung ratsam.”
70. Meynen to Berlin, October 15, 1943, TNA, HW12/293/124335. The final word
is indecipherable, but, in the context, “countermeasures” seems most likely.
71. Meynen to Berlin, October 24, 1943, TNA, GFM34/808 Frame 278071.

792

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

with Berlin.72 The Reich government was at this point wholly dependent
on Argentina for its trade, banking, and foreign exchange facilities in Latin
America, since, as neighboring countries joined the Allies, they systematically expelled German diplomats, confiscated German businesses, closed
German bank accounts, and rolled up the German intelligence networks in
their area, all of which subsequently moved to Argentina as the last friendly
Latin American country open to them.73 The intelligence networks were
especially important in October 1943. British intercepts of clandestine
links between Siegfried Becker, the head of Himmler’s Sicherheitsdienst
(SS) in Latin America (and at the time resident in Buenos Aires), and
Walter Schellenberg, chief of Amt VI (foreign intelligence) in Himmler’s
Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) in Berlin, reveal that, in addition to
regional economic and political intelligence, Berlin particularly wanted
reports about the United States: new developments in its military economy
and armaments programs, the possibility of war between the United States
and Russia, and the likelihood of a second front being opened up in
Europe. These details would provide Germany with information vital for
the prosecution of its war on the Continent.74 It was clear, then, that if this
last key foothold in Latin America was not to be lost, something urgently
needed to be done. Already Jewish arrest squads in Europe had been
instructed that no Jews of Argentinean nationality were to be touched—
the only group in the whole of Europe for which such an exception was
made.75 But the question remains: Did Berlin also stage-manage the
bombing of the Vatican with British bombs to discredit the Allies in the
eyes of the Argentineans? Such a tactic had proved successful two years
earlier when the Germans bombed the Hungarian city of Kaschau (now
Košice in Slovakia) with Russian bombs, intending to discredit Russia in
the eyes of the Hungarians and propel them into war on the Axis side
against the Soviet Union.76 Although no decisive documentary evidence
can be cited in support of such a theory, and the nature of the mission was
such that little would have been committed to writing, nevertheless very
72. R. Henderson, Foreign Office minute, September 21, 1943, TNA, FO371/33586/
A8642.
73. Ronald C. Newton and H. S. Ferns, “Disorderly Succession: Great Britain, the
United States and the ‘Nazi Menace’ in Argentina, 1938–1947,” in Argentina between the
Great Powers, 1939–46, ed. Guido di Tella and D. Cameron Watt (Oxford, 1989), pp. 111–
36, here p. 117.
74. The intercepts for 1943 are found in TNA, HW19/250. See especially
HW19/250/662, HW19/250/972, and HW19/250/1297.
75. TNA, GFM34/2770 Frame E421532 and GFM34/2702 Frame E411977.
76. TNA, FO371/37548/R11488; see also J. Lee Ready, World War Two. Nation by
Nation (London, 1995), p. 130.

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

793

persuasive circumstantial evidence can be presented that strongly suggests
that this was a Nazi-inspired operation stage-managed for propaganda
purposes in Argentina.
On November 3, a German Air Force pilot on the last reconnaissance
mission of the day reported seeing a single, unidentified aircraft flying low
in the area around Rome, in what may have been a trial run for the attack
two days later.77 Thomas Joseph Kiernan, Irish ambassador to the Holy
See, reported that “light signals were seen from the hills just before the
bombing,” which may have been signals to the circling Savoia-Marchetti
that the returning Allied air squadrons were about to pass over Rome, providing overhead camouflage for an attempt to implicate the Allies.78
Immediately after the attack, Walter Reuschle, a German major accompanied by two officers, presented himself at the Vatican as part of an engineering corps anxious to investigate the damage and offer support. In fact,
according to Möllhausen at the German Embassy in Rome, Reuschle was
head of a propaganda unit. In the early hours of the morning it was he who
transmitted the first radio reports about the bombing that were retransmitted around the world by Axis radio stations.79 As discussed, Reuschle’s
reports implicated the Allies at an hour when no such information was yet
available and asserted, with a confidence that could only have been borne
of prior knowledge, that “a thorough and conscientious enquiry will not fail
to denounce to the whole world the authors of this criminal attack.” Möllhausen was given to understand that Reuschle had been admitted to the
Vatican to investigate the damage, and both radio and press reports made
similar claims. But this was not so:
Soon after it happened several important German officers presented
themselves at the Vatican, full of concern, and ready to conduct a thorough investigation on the spot. Although the press stated that they did
so, it was untrue, for their services were politely declined and they were
not admitted.80

Undoubtedly Reuschle gave the impression that he had inspected the
damage to give credibility to his reports. But repeated German Foreign
Ministry requests that their experts be allowed to examine the bomb sites

77. German Air Force (GAF) reconnaissance report, November 3, 1943, TNA,
HW5/385 CX/MSS/3480/T5.
78. Irish Minister, Vatican, to Foreign Secretary, Dublin, November 7, 1943, TNA,
HW12/294/124863.
79. Möllhausen, La carta perdente, p. 151.
80. Scrivener, Inside Rome, p. 48.

794

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

indicate that none had done so. Their solicitous offer that their technical
experts would be able to identify the “type and origin of the bombs” indicates that the German Foreign Ministry also was quite confident the
bombs would be found to be British and thus must have been complicit in
the plot.
Over the next few days Ribbentrop’s Wilhelmstrasse sent out seven
lengthy briefings on the incident to its representatives around the world.
Each briefing was accompanied by explicit instructions that each one was to
be given a prominent place in all radio and press reports, that emphasis be
placed on the shock of the German people by the attack, that a storm of
indignation had swept across the entire Catholic world, and that it was now
clearly demonstrated that the English and the Americans were “inimical to
religion” and “powers hostile to Europe and devoid of any sympathy for
European life and culture.”81 On November 6, 1943, the Argentine newspaper El Pampero, which was financed by the German Embassy, was first to
report in block headlines that the Allies had bombed the Vatican, that the
intention was to destroy St. Peter’s Basilica, and that German officers who
had been admitted to the scene were informed by “a high Vatican dignitary”
that this was a deliberate attack on the world center of Catholicism.82
In the German Embassy in Rome, Möllhausen was surprised when
Ribbentrop telephoned him “about the bombing last night” and asked,
“what did the Pope say?” When Möllhausen replied that the pope had said
nothing, Ribbentrop was astonished—“Incredible! A bomb falls on his
head and he says nothing!”—and instructed Möllhausen to go immediately
to the pope “and be careful he does not give you just a mild statement.”
Möllhausen sidestepped such an impossible task by observing that this was
more within the competence of the German Embassy to the Holy See
(Weizsäcker’s embassy) than his embassy, the German Embassy to Italy.83

81. See TNA, HW12/294/124824; HW12/294/124964; HW12/294/124778;
HW12/294/125028; HW12/294/124826; HW12/294/124902; and HW12/294/124904.
82. “Bombardearon El Vaticano: La Basilica de San Pedro Era el Objetivo del Raid
Aliado,” El Pampero, November 6, 1943, 1: “Un grupo de oficiales alemanes qui se dirigió
inmediatamente después del raid al lugar . . . entró en contacto con un alto dignatario de la
iglesia, el cual expresó su convencimiento de un carácter netamente provocativo de este atentado contra el centro del mundo católico.” A microfilm of this newspaper is available at the
New York Public Library, ref ZZAN-3871.
83. Möllhausen, La carta perdente, p. 153: “la bomba di questa notte . . . il Papa che
dice?” “Il Papa non dice niente.” “Ribbentropp: ‘(Doll!) Incredibile! Gli casca una bomba sulla
teste e non dice niente! . . . Andate subito dal Papa e state attenti affinchè non vi faccia eine
säuselnde Erklärung!’”

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

795

But he took seriously Ribbentrop’s instruction that he take action.
Although in his postwar memoirs he maintained that Farinacci was the
culprit and that Farinacci never denied it, he organized a public demonstration against the British and made it known to the Italian Foreign Ministry that German diplomats were displeased by the lack of a forceful statement by the pope.84 On November 8, the Italian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs reported to Mussolini:
Counsel Möllhausen let it be clearly understood that there exists in
German diplomatic circles a certain resentment concerning the Supreme
Pontiff who . . . has not shown sufficient firmness in denouncing the
attack “certainly carried out by an English aircraft against the Vatican
City” . . . Moreover . . . in the space of 24 hours, he was able to organize
. . . a noisy demonstration . . . against the “English attack” and to reject
the accusation doing the rounds in Rome against unknown fascist pilots
who would on their own initiative have let fall 5 disgraceful bombs on the
Vatican City.85

The pressure to secure a public condemnation of the British by the
pope was intense. But it never came. By now, the Vatican had learnt the
truth about the bombing and, unwilling to play any part in the deception,
was not about to provide official confirmation that the bombs were British.
As noted, the results of its official investigation were never published. In
an attempt to counter the rumors, the Vatican’s public position, based on
the report of engineer Galeazzi, was that it was impossible to arrive at any
definite conclusion about the origin of the bombs from the remaining fragments.86 Since Ribbentrop had not secured the statement he wanted, he
fabricated it. On November 9, the Wilhelmstrasse issued a further briefing
to all stations:
The central position should be given to today’s statement by Engineer
Galeazzi, the director of technical services at the Vatican City, who
84. Ibid., pp. 152–53.
85. Report to Mussolini on bombing, November 8 and 10, 1943, TNA, GFM36/474
Frames 096685 and 096691: “Il Console Moellhausen questi mi ha lasciato chiaramente
intendere che nel l’ambiente diplomatico germanico esiste un certo risentimento nel riguardi
del Sommo Pontefice il quale . . . non ha dimostrato sufficiente fermezza nello stigmatizzare
l’attentato ‘certamente compiuto da aerei inglesi contro la Città del Vaticano.’ . . . Moellhausen mi ha inoltre espresso la sua viva soddisfazione per essere riuscito, nello spazio di 24
ore, ad organizzare . . . una rumorosa manifestazione . . . contro ‘l’attentato inglese’ e per respingere l’accusa fatta circolare in Roma contro incogniti aviatori fascisti che avrebbero di loro
iniziativa lasciato cadere le 5 deprecate bombe sulla Città del Vaticano.”
86. ADSS, 7, p. 705n2.

796

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?
maintains that the bombs dropped on the Vatican were English small
caliber bombs.87

This, of course, was false. But puzzled as Ribbentrop must have been
by the pope’s failure to speak out and condemn the attack, when he had
clear evidence that the bombs were British, a stratagem was devised to discover the pope’s true position on the matter and perhaps to lure him into
an unguarded statement that could later be used for propaganda purposes.
On November 14, a proven and reliable agent of the RSHA Amt IV
(Gestapo), who knew Pius XII well from the pope’s service as papal nuncio
to Germany, was sent to Rome with specific instructions: secure a meeting
with the pope and obtain his views on a number of important issues but
primarily on the bombing of Vatican City. Because the informant was
known to the pope and was acting as a “secure” courier from the nuncio in
Berlin, he was granted an audience. During a one-hour conversation, the
pope told the informant that “according to the common view in Vatican
circles, the bomb attack had been ‘staged’ by radical fascist elements” and
that “it was considered likely these elements had been supported by the
SS.” When SS-General Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the chief of RSHA, passed
the informant’s report to the German Foreign Ministry, Ribbentrop must
have known that the propaganda plot had failed and that he now would
never obtain the sort of statement he wanted from the Vatican to implicate
the British.88
Nevertheless, El Pampero in Argentina continued to headline its accusations against the Allies, reporting that the bombing had been mutually
agreed upon with Stalin at the Moscow conference and that such a move
finally exposed the hypocrisy of the Allied false promise to safeguard the
Vatican. It faithfully reproduced the German Foreign Ministry’s fabrication that the Vatican had identified the bombs as British and added that
the British had all but admitted that their Boston bombers were responsible.89 But other news sources, which had initially carried El Pampero’s ver-

87. German Ministry of Foreign Affairs to All Stations, November 9, 1943, TNA,
HW12/294/125028.
88. Ernst Kaltenbrunner to Ribbentrop, December 16, 1943, TNA, GFM34/730
Frames 262341 to 262342: “daß nach allgemeiner Ansicht in Vatikan der Bombenabwurf von
radikalen faschistischen Kreisen ‘inszeniert’ worden sei. Auch wird viefach als wahrscheinlich
angesehen, daß diese Kreise hierbei von der SS unterstützt worden seien.”
89. “Profundo Dolor Causo Al Papa El Bombardeo: El Vaticano ya no Cree en las
Falsas Promesas Aliadas,” and “El Bombardeo al Vaticano Habría Sido Acordado en la Conferencia de Moscú,” El Pampero, November 7, 1943, pp. 1, 3, 4; “Son Británicas las Bombas
Arrojadas en la Santa Sede,” November 8, 1943, p. 3; “Se Confirma Que Son Inglesas Las

PATRICIA M. MCGOLDRICK

797

sion of events, quickly countered in the following days with reports of
Allied denials, the Vatican’s statement that it was not possible to identify
the origin of the bombs, and a London report that the whole affair was “a
carefully planned German propaganda effort to bring odium on the
Allies.”90 In the absence of a Vatican statement, the media reports were
confusing and contradictory, and the identity of the bomber remained a
mystery. But on December 24, as part of his Christmas address to the College of Cardinals that was broadcast live around the world, Pius XII made
his only public reference to the attack: “Such an attack, deliberately
planned and dishonorably and unsuccessfully screened behind the
anonymity of the pilot is,” he said, “a symptom . . . of the moral decadence
of conscience to which some erring minds have sunk,” thereby indicating
to the whole world that he was fully aware of the false flag nature of the
bombing.91 In January 1944, when Argentina finally broke off diplomatic
relations with Germany, any potential objection that might have been
raised by the local Argentinean clergy had thus been silenced effectively.
So, who bombed the Vatican? Although not conclusive, all the available evidence points to a carefully choreographed but unsuccessful German
propaganda operation, willingly executed by the extreme anticlerical fascist
Roberto Farinacci, who never denied it, at the behest of his Nazi paymasters in Berlin, who were anxious to counter damaging Allied propaganda
in Argentinean newspapers that threatened their diplomatic relations with
that country—their last foothold and listening post in Latin America. If
Bombas Arrojadas En El Vaticano,” November 9, 1943, pp. 2; “Bombardearon el Vaticano
Aviones Mosquito y Boston,” November 10, 1943, pp.1, 3; “Los Yanquis Querrían que el
Papa Abandone el Vaticano,” November 13, 1943, p.3; “Invitan A Evacuar Los Civiles Del
Vaticano,” November 14, 1943, p. 2; Alexander von Hohenbach, “La Religión y la Inglesia
Católicas son el Principio del Fascismo Republicano,” November 16, 1943, p.1.
90. “‘Vatican Bombing’ A Propaganda Plan: Effort to bring Odium on the Allies,”
Buenos Aires Herald, November 7, 1943, p. 6; “Pope to Investigate Vatican Bombing,”
November 8, 1943, p. 4; “Designs on the Vatican,” November 9, 1943, p. 3; “Bombing of the
Vatican,” November 10, 1943, p. 4; “Vatican Bombing: why British Denial was delayed,”
November 11, 1943, p. 4. La Prensa, “Argel Destaca que Ningún Avión Aliado Voló en la
Noche del 5 Sobre los Alrededores del Vaticano,” November 7, 1943, pp. 1, 6; “En Francia
Atribuyen a los Germanos el Ataque al Vaticano,” November 9, 1943, pp. 1, 6; “Conócense
Detalles del Ataque Aéreo a la Ciudad del Vaticano,” November 10, 1943, pp. 1, 7. “El
Ataque Aéreo a la Ciudad del Vaticano,” La Nacion, November 7, 1943, pp. 2; “Acerca del
Ataque a la C, del Vaticano,” November 8, 1943, p. 2; “Acerca del Ataque a la C. del Vaticano,” November 9, 1943, p. 2; “El Bombardeo de la Santa Sede No Fué Obra Aliada,”
November 10, 1943, p. 3; “Acerca del Ataque a la c. del Vaticano,” November 11, 1943, p. 2.
91. ADSS, 7, 731. For the full text in English, see “Bombing of Vatican Planned, Pope
Says,” New York Times, December 28, 1943, 12.

798

WHO BOMBED THE VATICAN?

this is a correct interpretation of the available evidence, then it finally provides an explanation for an otherwise puzzling incident in the middle of
World War II—the bombing of Vatican City. Although Pius XII may
have been aware of the identity of the culprit and the false-flag nature of
the bombing, he was probably never aware of its real purpose, of the
Argentinean connection that provided its motive, or of the extent to which
the Vatican had become a mere pawn in the propaganda war between the
Axis and Allied powers.

Forum Essay
KEVIN P. SPICER, C.S.C; LUCIA CECI; ROY DOMENICO;
RAFFAELLA PERIN; ROBERT A. VENTRESCA;
AND DAVID I. KERTZER
The Pope and Mussolini:The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism
in Europe. By David I. Kertzer. (New York: Random House, 2014.
Pp. xv, 551. $20.00. ISBN 978-0-8129-8367-8.)

INTRODUCTION BY KEVIN P. SPICER, C.S.C.
(STONEHILL COLLEGE)
The Pope and Mussolini examines the relationship between the Holy
See and the Italian Fascist government, primarily through the lens of their
respective leaders, Pope Pius XI and Benito Mussolini. In 1907 the fiftyyear-old Achille Ratti, the future Pius XI, took on the position of prefect
of Milan’s Ambrosian Library. Four years later, the service and skills he
displayed in this position led Pope Benedict XV to name Ratti prefect of
the Vatican Library. Immediately following World War I, Benedict called
on Ratti again to serve as apostolic visitor to the newly constituted Polish
government. By 1921, Ratti had demonstrated sufficient leadership skills
that Benedict recalled him to Italy and named him archbishop of Milan.
Ratti held this position for less than a year as, upon Benedict’s death, the
conclave on February 6, 1922, elected him pope on the fourteenth ballot.
Ratti chose Pius as his pontifical name.
By contrast to the religiously devout Ratti family, Benito Mussolini
grew up among anti-Catholic “rabble-rousers and revolutionaries” (p. 19). A
charismatic entrepreneur, Mussolini engaged in numerous endeavors to capture the attention of Italy’s radically disenfranchised public, including founding his own newspaper, Il Popolo d’Italia (The Italian People), and organizing
revolutionary cells to push for political and societal change. By March 1919,
such efforts led to the establishment of a Fascist movement. Within two
years, the movement gained sufficient support to win thirty-five parliamentary seats to form a coalition with the old conservative elite in an effort to
thwart the growth of socialism in Italy. In late October 1922 approximately
26,000 of Mussolini’s followers “marched” on Rome to take over the Italian
government permanently. In reality, a consortium of military leaders and the
799

800

FORUM ESSAY

heads of industry led a push for Mussolini to be appointed prime minister, a
step to which King Victor Emmanuel III acquiesced.
Surprisingly, after Mussolini’s political appointment, his parliamentary actions did not reflect his anti-Catholic past. Rather, the new prime
minister made sweeping overtures to the Holy See to ensure its support.
Such steps included placing crucifixes in classrooms, courthouses, and hospitals; restoring the Catholic chaplaincy core to the military; increasing
state pay for clergy; and mandating Catholic catechism be taught in Italian
elementary schools. Pope Pius welcomed such measures, especially as they
reflected the goals for his papacy expressed in his first encyclical, Ubi
arcano, promulgated in December 1922. In it, Pius made it clear he
rejected modern society’s turn from Christianity and proposed a plan to
“bring about the Kingdom of Christ on earth” (p. 49). Thus refraining
from falling into an adversarial relationship with Mussolini, Pius radically
altered his outlook by looking benevolently upon the new prime minister.
To ensure the continuation of these positive developments, Pius also
appointed Pietro Tacchi Venturi, S.J., a historian whom he knew from his
time as prefect of the Ambrosian Library, as a liaison between himself and
Mussolini and his government.
In April 1923 the Holy See publicly began to withdraw its support
from the Popular Party, the Italian political party most aligned with the
Catholic Church. This was not a sudden move but a shift that expressed
Pius’s distrust of politicians and political parties in general that proposed
to speak or act in the interests of Roman Catholicism. Mussolini welcomed
Pius’s support and demanded the Popular Party’s “unqualified support” (p.
57). This demand and the pontiff’s stance eventually led to the removal of
Don Luigi Sturzo as leader of the Popular Party. Tacchi-Venturi worked
behind the scenes to help orchestrate Sturzo’s removal. Before September
1923, Tacchi-Venturi had ironed out a program of collaboration between
the Holy See and Mussolini’s government. Even the editors of La Civiltà
cattolica, the Holy See’s unofficial organ, reversed their hostile stance
toward Fascism to reflect the change in tone of the Fascist-Vatican relationship. As Kertzer concludes, “the Fascist revolution had become a
clerico-Fascist revolution” (p. 68).
In June 1924 the murder of Giacomo Matteotti, a leading socialist and
critic of Mussolini, and the implication of government collusion fostered
by the opposition, challenged the continuation of Fascist government rule.
Despite growing public mistrust of Fascism, Pius, through his emissary
Tacchi-Venturi, maintained his support of Mussolini. Such backing, in

FORUM ESSAY

801

part, contributed to Mussolini’s ability to remain in office and, by 1926,
ultimately enabled him to consolidate the Italian government into a Fascist
state. In February 1929 this collaboration led to the signing of the Lateran
Accords that, among other concessions, made Roman Catholicism “the
only religion of the State” and established Vatican City “as a sovereign territory under papal rule” (p. 106).
The Lateran Accords, however, did not always guarantee a smooth
working relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers. The pope’s
unrelenting demands to ensure the integrity of Italy’s Catholic foundation
increasingly taxed the Italian prime minister’s patience. Mussolini’s vision
for his nation did not always correspond with those of the Holy See’s. In
response, Mussolini exerted his political upper hand by implementing
severe measures against Church interests, which included disbanding all
Catholic Action youth groups. To counter such acts, Tacchi Venturi was
ever ready to intervene and work out any misunderstandings of earlier
arrangements between the government and the Church in an effort to
appease both sides. Despite the Church having to be content with such
arrangements and interjections, in the end, the Fascist government eventually protected church interests and organizations like Catholic Action.
Through the early 1930s, Mussolini had expressed almost no antisemitism in his public pronouncements or political actions. This would
soon change, however, through the influence of Tacchi Venturi and Adolf
Hitler. Both men professed a rabid, hate-filled antisemitism that portrayed
Jews as leaders of global conspiracies detrimental and harmful to national
and ecclesial interests. And both men endeavored to convince Mussolini of
the need to make antisemitism politically and socially tangible through
concrete measures.
Tacchi Venturi also endeavored to convey his almost cosmic antisemitic vision to Pius. Such efforts were bolstered by the antisemitism of
Jesuit Superior General Wlodzimierz Ledóchowski, who also attempted to
influence Pius and other notable church leaders. Prejudice toward Jews was
not new for Pius. As apostolic visitor to Poland, he had observed firsthand
the deep Christian antisemitism of Poland’s overwhelming Catholic
inhabitants, which had become infused increasingly with the secular claim
at the time that linked Jews to the rise of Bolshevism and socialism in
Europe. Pius remained leery of Jews—especially those in central and eastern Europe—and doubted their ability to support his vision for a Christian
Europe. Still, the pope’s unfavorable outlook on Jews never descended to
the level of Tacchi Venturi’s or Ledóchowski’s antagonistic hatred.

802

FORUM ESSAY

Increasingly, Pius had redirected his focus to the rising tensions
between the German Catholic Church and National Socialism. Although
in July 1933 the Holy See had concluded a concordat with Germany, the
German government viewed it much less seriously than Mussolini
regarded his formal compact. Infractions against the concordat multiplied
as the German episcopate increasingly spoke of a new Kulturkampf. To
address such concerns, Pius turned to Mussolini to intercede with Hitler
on the Church’s behalf. Initially, Mussolini conveyed the Holy See’s concerns but soon turned his attention to other matters and ignored the pope’s
pleas for intercession.
Italy remained too limited a project for Mussolini, who desired an
empire. In 1935 he attempted to make this a reality when the Italian army
invaded Abyssinia. The pope at first tried unsuccessfully to dissuade Mussolini from the invasion. Among the pope’s primary concerns was the
safety of Catholic missionaries in Africa. By contrast to Pius, the Italian
Catholic clergy overwhelmingly supported the military effort with prayers
and sermons that whipped up support for the war effort. Not everyone in
the universal Church, however, was pleased with the events happening in
Europe and Africa. Arthur Hinsley, the new archbishop of Westminster in
Great Britain, publicly criticized both the war and Mussolini. Although his
predecessors were elevated regularly to the rank of cardinal, the pope
passed over Hinsley. The support for Mussolini was not limited solely to
the Vatican. In 1936, on Mussolini’s request, Ledóchowski had the antiFascist editor of the Jesuit magazine America replaced by a cleric who was
much more sympathetic to Fascism.
By 1937, the almost unconditional support of the Church for Mussolini and Fascism gradually began to weaken. This development had much
less to do with any anti-Fascist stance and much more to do with Mussolini’s growing alliance and eventual reliance on Hitler and Nazi Germany.
In December 1937, following in the steps of Germany’s 1933 decision, Italy
withdrew from the League of Nations. The action unsettled Pius who
feared a greater alliance between Italy and Germany. When Hitler visited
Rome in May 1938, Pius left Vatican City for his summer palace in Castel
Gandolfo, ordered the Vatican museums closed, and instructed Catholic
bishops not to attend any celebrations given in Hitler’s honor.
The alliance between Hitler and Mussolini continued to strengthen.
In July 1938 Mussolini embraced tenets of National Socialism’s racial antisemitism by initiating a campaign against Italian Jews with the publication
of “Manifesto of Racial Science.” Clearly antisemitic in nature, the “Manifesto” did not completely incorporate Nazism’s worship of blood. Still, in

FORUM ESSAY

803

its late July edition, La Civiltã Cattolica published the “Manifesto” and
supported it with the caveat that it needed greater clarity to ensure that it
did not promote the “worship of blood . . . that ran counter to Catholic
teachings on the universality of humankind” (p. 293).
As Mussolini embarked on his antisemitic campaign, his fellow Fascists had already returned to repressing Catholic Action in Italy and government officials were encouraging Fascist party members to withdraw
from Catholic Action. Pius sent Tacchi Venturi to work out a compromise
to end this development and restore a positive working relationship with
the Fascists. Successful as always, Tacchi Venturi achieved an agreement
whereby the Fascists would allow Catholic Action to continue unimpeded
provided the Church withheld any criticism of the impending racial laws
against Jews. Thus, in early September 1938, when the Italian government
instituted new racial laws that ejected all Jewish students and teachers from
Italy’s public schools, along with other discriminatory measures, the
Church remained silent. Furthermore, any priests who challenged the new
laws were silenced quickly in a cooperative effort between the government
and the Holy See.
Pius looked upon the developments with unease. He greatly feared
that Fascism would soon mirror National Socialism in its view and relationship with the Church. At the same time, other pressures faced Pius
when William Phillips, the U.S. ambassador to Italy, spoke to a Vatican
official and made it known that the United States would welcome a denunciation by the pope of Italian racial laws. A few days later, before an audience for the staff of Belgian Catholic radio, Pius strayed from a prepared
text and stated,
Every time I read the words “the sacrifice of our father Abraham,”…
referring to a phrase in the priestly blessing during Mass, “I cannot help
but be deeply moved.” His voice trembled. “It is impossible for Christians
to participate in anti-Semitism. We recognize that everyone has the right
to self-defense and can undertake those necessary actions to safeguard his
legitimate interests. But anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually we are
all Semites.” (p. 320)

L’Osservatore Romano published the pontiff’s address but did not include
any mention of his words against antisemitism. The absence of the pope’s
condemnation of antisemitism reflected the conflict of the pope with his
Vatican officials—including Eugenio Pacelli, the Holy See’s secretary of
state—over how to respond to the “Jewish Question.” In particular, failure
to exempt baptized Catholics of Jewish heritage from the racial laws greatly

804

FORUM ESSAY

troubled the pope, who requested that Tacchi Venturi address this issue
personally with Mussolini.
In November 1938, before Pius could respond further to the implementation of the racial laws and the tightening of the alliance between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, the elderly pontiff suffered a
debilitating heart attack. Before this time, Pius was planning to further
challenge Mussolini and Hitler. The pontiff had requested that John
LaFarge, an American Jesuit expert on racial prejudice, prepare an encyclical that would challenge racial antisemitism. The pope also worked on an
address critical of both Fascism and National Socialism. Before either could
be proclaimed or spoken, on February 10, 1939, Pius died. Many years after
World War II, scholars located copies of the encyclical and speech, and discovered that they were “far from the ringing denunciation of the Fascist
regime that Mussolini had feared” (p. 373). Pacelli, as papal camerlengo and
later as Pope Pius XII, ensured that the documents were not released publicly as he charted a course different than his predecessor. Instead of taking
a harder line against Italian racial laws, in November 1940 La Civiltà Cattolica supported them by comparing Italy’s “racial campaign favorably to
Germany’s” (p. 390). Only a few years after that date, German forces
invaded Italy and soon rounded up Italian Jews living in Rome for deportation to the death camps. Pius XII issued no public protest.

COMMENTS OF LUCIA CECI
(UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA, TOR VERGATA, ITALY)
The Pope and Mussolini belongs in a series of works written in the wake
of the opening of the Vatican Archives in 2006, when it became possible
to consult materials relating to the pontificate of Pius XI. This led to a new
wave of research and the creation of important international networks,
which, however, did not substantially change the essential interpretation
that had been outlined in previous studies based on other archives and documents. How does David I. Kertzer’s book fit into this scenario?
One of the first aspects that strikes the reader in The Pope and Mussolini is its narrative style. In fact, the author develops the story through
vivid descriptions of places and characters, providing details of not only
their physical features but also their psychology and general background.
Through these excellent storytelling skills, Kertzer is able to engage even
the reader who previously was unaware of Pius XI’s evolving attitudes
toward Fascism. This narrative structure gives extra weight to the book
“because [in Primo Levi’s words] a piece of writing has all the more value
and all the more hope of diffusion and permanence, the better it is under-

FORUM ESSAY

805

stood and the less it lends itself to equivocal interpretations.”1 Nevertheless, it would have been useful to address more directly some of the theoretical issues raised by the above historical reconstruction of events, especially in relation to such themes as Catholic nationalism, the sacralization
of politics, and the attitude of the Catholic Church toward the legitimation/ antagonism of totalitarianism.
In the first part of the book, the meticulous use of the archives forms
the backbone of the scientific reconstruction. In the “Fatal Embrace”
between Pius XI and Benito Mussolini, there is a crucial passage regarding
the acquiescence of the Holy See toward the violence of the Blackshirts at
the beginning of Fascism. This phase is of the utmost importance, because
past studies regarding the Church and Fascism have all too often concentrated on the 1930s. In his reconstruction of Mussolini’s rise to power,
Kertzer predominantly concentrates on Pius XI and his closest collaborators. These include, above all, Pietro Gasparri and Pietro Tacchi Venturi,
whose private lives are described in unprecedented detail. What emerges is
a disquieting picture of the Church and its leaders involved in establishing
the conditions regarding the solution of the Roman Question and their
attitude toward the violence of the Blackshirts that aimed to remove Mussolini’s responsibility from the “excesses” of the Fascists in the provinces,
including such acts as the killing of Giovanni Minzoni, the young parish
priest of a small town outside Ferrara who was clubbed to death. The story
that unwinds follows the negotiations between the Holy See that led to the
Lateran Treaty. This path incorporated the Matteotti crisis, the Holy Year
of 1925, and the failed assassination attempt on Mussolini—all events that
provided the Vatican with the opportunity to confirm further its support of
the Fascist leader and to isolate the “Partito Popolare” of Luigi Sturzo.
The second part focuses on “Enemies in Common”: socialists, Protestants, Masons, and Jews. What emerges here is a form of tactical complicity and reciprocal manipulation between Pius XI and Mussolini. This relationship, for the Vatican, led to the solution of the Roman Question and
the privileges guaranteed through the signing of the Concordat, whereas
Mussolini benefited from the national and international prestige he
obtained for reuniting the state and the Church, and regaining the consensus of Catholics. However, it must be said that there was more than just an
agreement based on mutual advantage between the Church and the Fascist
regime involving the perception of common enemies. In fact, there was a
1. Primo Levi, “Dello scrivere oscuro [On Obscure Writing],” (1976), in Other People’s
Trades (New York, 1989), pp. 169–72, here p. 170.

806

FORUM ESSAY

much deeper form of convergence based on the concept of authority, on a
criticism of liberal and democratic ideals, on discipline, and on mistrust in
any form of discussion or debate.
The final part of the book discusses the end of Pius XI’s pontificate,
in which he became increasingly intolerant toward Fascism, Nazism, and
antisemitism. The volume confirms the isolation of Pius XI from the
Curia, Mussolini’s increasing ill feelings toward the aging pontiff, and the
pope’s decision to condemn antisemitism and Fascism. There is, however,
a particular point that needs to be underlined: Kertzer offers a complex
reconstruction of this phase regarding the change of position of the pope
but does not fall into the trap of using the final months of his pontificate
to reinterpret the general attitude of Pius XI toward Fascism and antisemitism. The late and solitary reconsideration on the part of the aging
pontiff cannot cancel his many years of support for Mussolini’s regime,
despite the fact that the renewed embrace between the Vatican and Fascism through Pius XII makes Pius XI’s final battle seem almost heroic.

COMMENTS OF ROY DOMENICO
(UNIVERSITY OF SCRANTON)
I reviewed David I. Kertzer’s The Pope and Mussolini for the American
Historical Review,2 so my conclusion is on record: Kertzer has treated us to
yet another of his fine studies. I was happy to learn, moreover, that the
Pulitzer Prize jury for biography apparently agreed with me. These disclosures aside, I would like to explore here in more detail some of the ideas
found in the book.
In his discussion of Pius XI’s 1931 condemnation of Fascist violence,
Non abbiamo bisogno, Kertzer hits upon one of the book’s key issues: the
day-to-day development of church-state relations. What does one expect
from the other, and are these expectations reasonable? To start, the period
beginning with Benito Mussolini’s appointment as prime minister through
1929 could be considered a success, for the Holy See at least, in that the
Vatican city-state was carved out of Rome, and the Italian government recognized Catholicism’s status and privilege. Beyond that, however, relations
often depended on what Kertzer identifies as the pontiff’s distinction
between good Fascism—“that which recognized the Church’s rights and
followed its precepts—and bad Fascism, which did not” (p. 161). Despite
2. Roy Domenico, rev. of David I. Kertzer, The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History
of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe, American Historical Review, 120 (2015), 1560–61.

FORUM ESSAY

807

the gains of the Lateran Pacts, Pius argued against “those who would turn
Fascism into pagan worship of the state” (ibid.). Yet no one was turning
Fascism toward state idolatry; that had all along been an essential pillar of
Fascist thought. Boiled down past a couple of shared principles like anticommunism or suspicion of parliamentary democracy, Pius probably
expected more from the Fascists and fell into wishful thinking by assuming
he could work with the “good” ones. The dichotomy, nevertheless, sets up
a number of contrasts that aid our understanding of church-state politics:
the more conciliatory Cesare De Vecchi on one side, for example, and the
belligerent, anticlerical Roberto Farinacci on the other. Unfortunately for
Pius, Mussolini gave every indication of siding more with Farinacci than
with De Vecchi. One might extend this to the international level with
higher stakes and greater tragic consequences—between good Italian Fascism and bad German Nazism. Pius hoped that cultivating Italian Fascist
goodwill might enable him to use or rely on it for support against the less
friendly Germans. What amount of cooperation could Pius expect? How
“good” could Mussolini and Italian Fascism be? Could they help tame
Hitler’s viciousness? Unfortunately, no.
Kertzer shows that the good/bad notion also had implications for cultural issues. Catholics placed great emphasis on the care of souls and moral
health; but would the Fascists comply? Pius expected Mussolini, as the
good duce, to ensure that Italians remained buoni cristiani. This could
mean, for instance, that the Church wanted Protestant missionaries out of
Italy, or enforcement of restrictions on skimpy bathing suits and—an idea
particularly dear to Pius—dancing while in beachwear. Kertzer illustrates
how this led to disagreements and disappointments. The regime was happy
to hound the missionaries, but its efforts simply ran out of steam when it
encountered some judicial snags. On the question of public decency or
buon costume, something very much at the core of the Catholic vision, the
Blackshirts were even less reliable. Although they may have given the pontiff hints of approval, cleaning up the beaches was not very high on their
agenda, and, as Kertzer shows, they went their own way in organizing seaside outings. Did “bare legs” and “partially uncovered bosoms” truly irk the
duce? Did he really resent Archbishop Elia Dalla Costa of Florence’s
reproach of Fascist philistines as “pagan and savage”? (pp. 167–69). Probably not. Finally, returning to The Pope and Mussolini in the current U.S.
political climate gave me some new matters to ponder. Although I make
no “historical” claim, as some have, that Donald Trump is a reincarnation
of Mussolini (Silvio Berlusconi comparisons make more sense), recent
Evangelical appeals to one who quite frankly makes no serious claim as a
devout believer made Kertzer’s book all the more provocative and valuable.

808

FORUM ESSAY

COMMENTS OF RAFFAELLA PERIN
(CA’ FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE, ITALY)
At first glance, what impresses the reader of David Kertzer’s book on
Pius XI and Mussolini is the adoption of a non-academic style more characteristic of fiction writing, yet it does not renounce historical rigor and
provides an enjoyable reading experience for both experts and the general
public. Although Kertzer often lingers on personal and private anecdotes
regarding the numerous politicians and members of the clergy implicated
in the history of the interwar period—for which it must be noticed the
large recourse to the coeval literature and memoirs—they are employed not
only to convey a spirit of a “spy story” but also to deepen the mentality of
those personalities. Moreover, the book is based on an outstanding documentary collection at the Vatican Archives as well as American, Italian,
and French national archives and on a huge international historiography.
Among the several problematic aspects of Pius XI’s attitude toward
the Fascist regimes outlined by Kertzer, two main features characterized
the entire pontificate: Pius XI’s anticommunism and his parabola concerning antisemitism, two points that are in a sense connected. In fact, reinforcing the heritage of a classical Catholic aversion for communist ideology
and a traditional Catholic anti-Judaism, Pius internalized the stereotype of
the “Jewish Bolshevik” during his service under Pope Benedict XV as
nuncio to Poland. Kertzer writes: “The conviction that the Western
democracies failed to understand the Communist threat would stay with
him the rest of his life” (p. 14). The memory of the antisemitic prejudice
toward Russian communists was recalled by Pius XI during his noteworthy
meeting with Mussolini on February 11, 1932, when the pope still marked
a difference between Russian and Italian Jews, the latter to be considered
an exception. Nevertheless, in February 1937, when Jesuit Superior General Włodzimierz Ledóchowski insisted on the necessity of stressing the
role of Jews as champions of communist propaganda in the encyclical
against communism, Pius XI noted down on the border of the Ledóchowski letter, next to the sentence concerning the Jews, the following
order: “Verify” (p. 211). The issued encyclical Divini Redemptoris did not
contain any reference to the Jews. If antisemitic prejudice had accompanied
a large part of Pius’s life, how was it possible that it had been excluded
from the anticommunist encyclical? Kertzer claims that from the meeting
with Mussolini in 1932 “much had happened since then” (p. 212). Maybe
the question would have deserved a little wider reflection, since, as Kertzer
well shows throughout the book, the stereotype found fertile ground in La
Civiltà Cattolica. One reason may be ascribable to the long durée. As

FORUM ESSAY

809

Kertzer has highlighted in another important book, The Popes against the
Jews (New York, 2001), Leo XIII was the first pope to avoid public invectives against the Jews, ushering in a new custom that saw his successors
abstaining from employing antisemitic expressions in their public statements. Still, the Catholic press, even the closest to the Holy See like the
Jesuits’ review or the Osservatore Romano, continued the spread of antisemitic stereotypes. This was due to many factors (such as the nature of prejudice and the loss of preeminence of the Jewish Question) but in the end
to the slowness by which changes were accomplished in the Catholic
Church on subjects concerning theology and doctrine, above all when a
systematic deliberation was missing. Therefore, if Pius XI was not the first
wanting to avoid public statements against the Jews (and moreover wanted
to introduce the condemnation of antisemitism in the decree concerning
the society Amici Israel, albeit with well-known limits), he was the one in
1938, as Kertzer claims, whose attitude “toward the Jews were now evolving away” from the ones persisting in some of his collaborators (p. 289).
The last year of Pius XI’s pontificate, especially the days before his death,
is well reconstructed by the author, who adds abundant particulars and
renders the worrying, agitated atmosphere in the Vatican and in Mussolini’s circle. Regarding the attitude toward racism, antisemitism, and the
Italian racial laws, Kertzer delineates the key figures such as Ledóchowski,
Pietro Tacchi Venturi, Giuseppe Pizzardo, and Eugenio Pacelli in an original and unprecedented way, revealing unknown details. He also rightly
distinguishes the pope’s position from theirs, but there still remains the
unanswered question: why in his last year of life did the pope undertake
several initiatives such as commissioning an encyclical on racism and antisemitism from a nearly unknown American Jesuit, talk several times about
racism and “exaggerated nationalism” in his public speeches, refuse to
legitimate the word race, talk about the common ancestry of Jews and
Christians, and stress the Semitic origins of Christianity in private and
public discourses? A hypothesis suggests itself: the crisis with the Fascist
regime in conjunction with the Italian antisemitic campaign made the
pope understand he had to do something; in particular, he realized that he
needed help to deal with the theological question concerning the Jews that
had become more and more central in his mind during summer 1938.
Having failed to stop Mussolini’s antisemitic propaganda by claiming that
racism and Christianity were incompatible, Pius XI recoiled in the defense
of the converted, still waiting for the encyclical to be issued. But he died,
and his attempts were buried with him.
It cannot be denied, as Kertzer admonishes in his final note, that the
Vatican did not succeed in opposing the rise of the dictators and their racist

810

FORUM ESSAY

ideologies, when it was not even complicit (p. 405). Nonetheless, having
brought to light in a masterly manner all these new documents, this book
should give to other historians the chance for a wider understanding of the
reasons why it happened.

COMMENTS OF ROBERT A. VENTRESCA
(KING’S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, WESTERN UNIVERSITY, LONDON,
ONTARIO, CANADA)
Please see Ventresca’s review in ante, 100 (2014), 630–32.

RESPONSE OF DAVID I. KERTZER
(BROWN UNIVERSITY)
First, I would like to thank Nelson H. Minnich, editor of The Catholic
Historical Review, for suggesting this extended discussion of my recent
book, The Pope and Mussolini, as well as to Kevin P. Spicer for providing
an excellent précis and to the four colleagues who have offered their own
expert perspectives on the book and on some of the issues it raises.
No historical attempt to deal with the relationship between the
Roman Catholic Church and European fascism can avoid controversy and
when, as in the case of my own book, the focus is on a pope himself, the
controversy is likely to be all the greater. The opening in 2006 of the Vatican archives (and, with it, other ecclesiastical archives) for the papacy of
Pius XI (1922–39) offered an opportunity to shed new light on what has
long been a thorny—and highly consequential—topic. Much of the initial
rush to publication focused on the Vatican’s relation with Nazi Germany,
partly due to the fact that the portion of the archives dealing with correspondence with Germany was opened earlier, in 2003. There are still,
today, few major studies examining the relationship between the Vatican
and the Italian Fascist regime that have used in a significant way both Vatican (and other ecclesiastical) archives as well as the vast, rich Italian secular archives for this period. I thank Lucia Ceci and Raffaella Perin, especially for their praise of the “meticulous use of the archives” (Ceci) evident
in my book.
I would agree with Ceci’s remark (and her book, Il papa non deve parlare, on Pius XI and the Ethiopian war [Rome, 2010], is one of the best of
the studies based on the newly opened archives along with Italian state
archives) that the newly available materials have not altered dramatically
our understanding of this history. But I would add a couple of caveats.
First, as evidenced by contrasting Robert Ventresca’s comments here with

FORUM ESSAY

811

those of the other three discussants (and with my book), it is clear that
important areas of disagreement about this history still remain. Evidence
recently made available from the ecclesiastical archives (here I think especially of the central Jesuit archives as well as the Vatican archives) does, in
fact, greatly strengthen our understanding of exactly what the nature of the
Vatican-Fascist relationship was. I would add that, as I hope I showed in
my book, the enormous mass of materials available in the Fascist
archives—that is, the Italian state archives—previously has only very partially been plumbed. Using secret police informant reports and the reports
of police investigations, along with the mass of diplomatic reports and a
variety of other documents, allows a triangulation with church archival
materials that now gives us a much richer understanding of what was going
on in these dramatic years.
Ventresca expresses concern that I describe the relationship between
the Vatican and Mussolini as a “partnership” (p. 630), attributing to me the
view that the two had a “shared vision of remaking Italy by re-Catholicizing it” (p. 631). Ceci and Perin, by contrast, see just such a partnership,
which Ceci refers to as “a much deeper form of convergence based on the
concept of authority, on a criticism of liberal and democratic ideals, on discipline. . . .” I certainly never argued that Mussolini sought to re-Catholicize Italian society. I don’t believe I could have been any clearer in writing
that Mussolini did not have a religious bone in his body and was entirely
cynical in his partnership with the Vatican. I would add that, in addition
to the ideological convergences cited by Ceci, there was what could be
called a cynical attitude on the part of the pope himself in seeing Mussolini
as an instrument (albeit one he viewed as an instrument of God, who
works in strange ways) to return Italian society to the church after a half
century of what the Vatican regarded as hostile, democratic, and secularizing Italian governments.
All that said, as I discuss at length in my book, there was always an
implicit tension between the two “totalitarianisms,” a conflict that Pius
himself noted in making use of this term. Accordingly, my book reconstructs the history of tensions with Mussolini throughout Pius XI’s papacy,
from the pope’s anger over Fascist violence against churches and churchmen in the 1920s, through Mussolini’s unhappiness with Catholic Action
as an exception to his desire to have a Fascist monopoly over all Italian
social life, to the pope’s unhappiness with the Ethiopian war and especially
Mussolini’s growing alliance with Hitler—a man despised by Pius XI. But,
in each case, the story I tell is not one of simple opposition but something
much more nuanced. Catholic Action enlisted the support of the Fascist

812

FORUM ESSAY

government to accomplish its “moral” goals, the pope blamed Fascists outside Mussolini’s control for the antichurch violence, and in practice the
only Vatican protests over the racial laws regarded “mixed marriages”
involving Catholics.
I hope that one of the valuable contributions of my book is providing
new archival documentation describing all the demands that Pius XI made,
month after month, on the Italian dictator to live up to his end of their bargain. I do not believe we have ever gotten such rich insight into just how
incessant these demands were nor what exactly they consisted of. And here,
as Roy Domenico mentions in his comments, I also documented how the
pope hoped to use Mussolini as his intermediary with Hitler in an effort to
get the Führer to let up on his persecution of the Church in Germany.
I devote a considerable section of The Pope and Mussolini to the racial
laws and the controversial question of the Church’s antisemitism and its
relation to the Fascist regime’s campaign against Italy’s Jews. Ventresca
writes that my argument regarding the quid pro quo secret agreement made
between the pope and Mussolini to prevent the pope from publicly criticizing the racial laws “is not sustained by the evidence” (p. 632). I have no
idea on what basis Ventresca offers this opinion. There is a rich body of
documentation in the Vatican archives offering a day-by-day account of
the negotiation of this secret deal, by which Mussolini offered to let up his
pressure on Italian Catholic Action in exchange for a papal promise not to
allow any Church criticism of his upcoming antisemitic campaign. I have
read the documents from the Vatican archive and cite them in considerable
detail in the book. Of course, the story of the ensuing months is a more
complicated one, involving fears by those around the pope that he would
renounce church support for Mussolini. But I think there can now be no
doubt that a secret agreement was reached between the pope and Mussolini only weeks before the first racial laws were announced. I thank Perin,
one of the major experts in this history, for commenting that, in reconstituting the Vatican’s role in the racial laws, I delineate “the key figures . . .
in an original and unprecedented way, revealing unknown details.”
Of course, one of those key figures was Eugenio Pacelli, then the
pope’s number-two official as his secretary of state and soon to become his
successor as Pius XII. Ventresca, who has written a biography of Pacelli,
acknowledges that he was guided “by an overriding commitment to détente
in Italo-Vatican relations” yet tries to put distance between the future pope
and the Fascist regime by rejecting my characterization of him as Mussolini’s “most powerful ally in the Vatican.” My characterization is based

FORUM ESSAY

813

on what I found in the archives—here, most importantly, the archives of
the Fascist regime—that is, the state and foreign ministry archives, hundreds of whose documents are cited in my book. I document other important allies of Mussolini, including the Superior General of the Jesuit order.
But none had the power that Pacelli did.
Among other aspects of this history recounted in The Pope and Mussolini is my reconstruction of an urgent request that Mussolini made of
Pacelli—through the Italian ambassador to the Holy See—immediately
following Pius XI’s death. The Duce was desperate to ensure the destruction of the hundreds of copies of the speech the pope had planned to give
the next day to all the bishops of Italy—a speech that Mussolini believed
would condemn his embrace of Hitler. And indeed, Pacelli did not hesitate
to do Mussolini’s bidding. If this is what “an overriding commitment to
détente in Italo-Vatican relations” (Ventresca, p. 632) entails, it is hard for
me to see how this does not qualify Pacelli at the time as Mussolini’s most
powerful ally in the Vatican.

Review Essay
Reforming Reform: Steven Vanderputten’s
Monastic Histories
JOHN HOWE*
Ecclesia in Medio Nationis: Reflections on the Study of Monasticism in the
Central Middle Ages / Réflexions sur l’étude du monachisme au moyen âge
central. Edited by Steven Vanderputten and Brigite Meijns. [Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, ser. 1, studia 42.] (Leuven: Leuven University Press,
2011. Pp. 215. €45,00. ISBN 978-90-5867-887-4.)
Reform, Conflict, and the Shaping of Corporate Identities: Collected Studies on
Benedictine Monasticism, 1050–1150. By Steven Vanderputten. [Vita
Regularis: Ordnungen und Deutungen religiosen Lebens im Mittelalter, Abhandlungen 54.] (Zurich: LIT Verlag, 2013. €34,90. ISBN
978-3-643-90429-4.)
Monastic Reform as Process: Realities and Representations in Medieval Flanders, 900–1100. By Steven Vanderputten. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013. Pp. xiv, 247. $55.00. ISBN 978-0-8014-5171-3.)
Imagining Religious Leadership in the Middle Ages: Richard of Saint-Vanne
and the Politics of Reform. By Steven Vanderputten. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015. Pp. xvi, 244. $49.95. ISBN 978-0-80145377-9.)

R

eform is rarely defined. Nevertheless, it was an important concept to
Latin Church Fathers, particularly to St. Augustine, whose fascination with the early chapters of Genesis led him to meditate on how, after
the fall, human beings necessarily needed to be reformed—an act that,
thanks to the Incarnation, would be a reformatio ad melius. That patristic
tradition was famously analyzed at the time of the Second Vatican Council
in Gerhart Ladner’s The Idea of Reform, which presented reform as a leitmotif of ecclesiastical history, or “the free, intentional and ever perfectible,
multiple, prolonged and ever repeated efforts by man to reassert and augment values pre-existent in the spiritual-material compound of the

*Dr. Howe is professor of history and co-director of the Medieval and Renaissance
Studies Center at Texas Tech University, email: john.howe@ttu.edu.

814

J OHN HOWE

815

world.”1 For Ladner, reform was always progressive and always “in
progress.” He himself never completed his general history of the idea of
reform, but his work spawned a small school of reform studies, more successful with the later Middle Ages that were saturated with reform discussions than with the central Middle Ages where post-Carolingian monks
and Roman reformers often preferred different terminology.2 Reform in
the modern world has evolved into a vague model for gradual, positive
change, usually employed without the same level of scrutiny given to parallel paradigms of change such as renaissance or revolution.3
Medieval reform narratives are getting new attention, thanks to the
work of Steven Vanderputten. Starting with a doctoral dissertation on
medieval monastic historiography (University of Ghent. 2000),4 he has
been urging a reexamination of the whole paradigm of monastic reform.
His publications, aided by major fellowships and research professorships,
are extraordinarily numerous. He even coordinated 220 conference sessions and roundtable discussions on “Reform and Renewal” at the 2015
Leeds International Medieval Congress. In contrast to earlier reform historiography, however, “reform” often now appears within “scare quotes” or
accompanied by hints that it has acquired so much dysfunctional baggage
that perhaps it ought to be abandoned as a research paradigm.
Does reform now obscure more than illuminate? To clarify the issues,
it may be helpful to introduce four of Vanderputten’s recent books. The
earliest is Ecclesia in Medio Nationis: Reflections on the Study of Monasticism, an edited volume stemming from a 2009 conference at the University
of Leuven that sought to showcase current scholarship on Western religious communities of 900–1050, focusing especially on their relationships

1. Gerhart B. Ladner, The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in
the Age of the Fathers, rev. ed. (New York, 1967), p. 35.
2. See Christopher M. Bellitto and David Zachariah Flanagin, eds., Reassessing Reform:
A Historical Investigation into Church Renewal (Washington, DC, 2012); and Lester L. Field
Jr., Gerhard Ladner and the Idea of Reform: A Modern Historian’s Quest for Ancient and Medieval
Truth (Lewiston, NY, 2015), esp. pp. 353–416.
3. There is no comprehensive study of the concept of reform. On aspects, see Richard
Kieckhefer, “Reform, Idea of,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols. (New York, 1982–89),
10:281–88; “Riforme,” Dizionario degli istituti di perfezione, 10 vols. (Rome, 1974–2003),
7:1748–63; and Julia Barrow, “Ideas and Applications of Reform,” in The Cambridge History
of Christianity, Vol. 3: Early Medieval Christianities, 600–1100, ed. Thomas F. X. Noble and
Julia H. Smith, (New York, 2008), pp. 345–62.
4. Steven Vanderputten, Sociale perceptie en maatschappelijke positionering in de middeleeuwse monastieke geschiedschrijving (8ste–15de eeuw), 2 vols. (Brussels, 2001).

816

REFORMING REFORM

to the outside world. Here, five papers in French and two in English
demonstrate that “the historiography of the first monastic reforms has been
profoundly renewed over the course of the last twenty years” (34). Particularly distinguished are Isabelle Rosé on monastic community life from the
ninth through the twelfth centuries (pp. 11–45) and Florian Mazel on the
relationship between monasticism and the aristocracy in the tenth and
eleventh centuries (pp. 47–75). When juxtaposed with Vanderputten’s
introduction to Reform, Conflict, and the Shaping of Corporate Identities (pp.
ix–xxxii), a volume containing ten of his collected studies that focus specifically on central medieval Flemish monasticism, they offer an overview of
the increasingly sophisticated regional history that Vanderputten has been
developing and disseminating.
Two recent books from Cornell University Press present his conclusions about reform narratives. In the first, Monastic Reform as Process, Vanderputten studies “the so-called Lotharingian reform” (p. 9; note also pp.
81–82, 133, 187–88). He examines seven monasteries in tenth- and
eleventh-century Flanders: Saint-Bertin, Bergues-Saint-Winnoc, Marchiennes, Saint-Amand, Saint-Bavo, Saint Peter at Ghent, and Saint-Vaast.
Few would contest his belief that monastic change was “processual” in
nature, not a series of “flashpoints” in which charismatic abbots suddenly
turned chaotic monasteries into models of reform (p. 9). His source analyses
illuminate tangential matters such as abbatial leadership (pp. 193–202),
Saint-Bertin’s connections with England (pp. ii, 69–71), hagiography’s role
in reform (pp. 73–76), and books available at the Abbey of Marchiennes in
the second quarter of the eleventh century (pp. 203–04). The main purpose,
however, is to deconstruct traditional reform narratives systematically, especially by signaling gaps in contemporary monastic records, highlighting
their vagueness about what “good abbots” actually did, and stressing how
local politics shaped each monastery’s unique development. Some readers
might consider this a little tendentious inasmuch as argumenta ex silentio are
rarely decisive when dealing with medieval sources. Vanderputten himself
sometimes fills in the blank spaces, as when, for example, he states that
“actual evidence of lay patronage to these institutions is scarce but, particularly in the case of Saint-Bertin, the lack of charter evidence is misleading”
(p. 62). His useful cautions against the homogenizing effects of general
models (pp. 3, 99) may be somewhat undercut by his contrasts between
first- and second-generation monastic reformers (pp. 102–03, 126, 154)
and his foreshadowing of a third wave of reforms in the early-twelfth century (pp. 166, 183). He concludes that historians have often been led astray
by reform narratives and that “reform remains something of a black hole”
into which all sorts of historical reality can get sucked—a “literary theme”

J OHN HOWE

817

whose plotlines of decline and renewal obscure the unique historical circumstances of ecclesiastical institutions (pp. 186–89).
In Imagining Religious Leadership . . . Richard of Saint-Vanne and the
Politics of Reform, Vanderputten continues his argument by deconstructing
the medieval and modern biographies of Richard of Saint-Vanne (d.
1046), one of the most famous monastic reformers of Flanders. He carefully dates and analyzes the literary sources to document how Richard was
imagined and reimagined over the centuries (pp. 14–41). He claims that
Richard “did not conceive of himself in the first place as a monastic
reformer, an abbot, or even a monk” (p. 10). Richard allegedly identified
himself as a Christian ruler and leader, not as an abbot, a thesis supported
by his departure on a pilgrimage, his flirtation with eremitical withdrawal,
and his ruling through “word and deed”—a model of Christian leadership
associated by Vanderputten with the secular clergy described in St. Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care (pp. 15, 47–49, 51). This is not too convincing in the light of similar conduct by many contemporary abbots and of
Vanderputten’s failure to note that all abbots had been specifically enjoined
to teach through “word and deed” by Benedict himself.5 Vanderputten
doubts that Richard considered himself a reformer, because his political
alliances with local bishops and counts allegedly clashed with Benedictine
withdrawal from the world (pp. 143–44, 160). Moreover, he finds “no evidence” that Richard pursued a reform program that proposed coherent
innovative approaches to monastic discipline or government (pp. 102, 115,
123, 138), implicitly eliminating as reform activity Richard’s achievements
in reinforcing existing monastic best practices, promoting prosperity,
assembling libraries, and securing pious donations. Vanderputten concludes that Richard’s “stature as a great ‘apostle of reform’ is doubtful, that
he did not initiate a true reform movement, and that his involvement in
changing lay morality was less confrontational, and less selfless, than some
have thought” (p. 160). Even readers who are not completely convinced
will welcome the helpful appendices that include a “Chronology of Major
Events in Richard’s Life” (pp. 165–67), an edition and translation of the
Vita Rodingi attributed to Richard (pp. 169–85), “Monastic Reading at
Saint-Vanne” (pp. 187–89), an “Overview of Richard’s Priors” (p. 201),
and an “Overview of Richard’s Successors” (p. 203).
How does skepticism about the monastic reform paradigm relate to
reform’s broader use in historiography, ecclesiastical and otherwise?
5. Rule of Saint Benedict ii, ed. and trans. Bruce L. Venardi, [Dumbarton Oaks
Medieval Library 6], (Cambridge, MA, 2011), pp. 22–23.

818

REFORMING REFORM

Because Vanderputten’s monastic history approaches reform questions
from the bottom up, not from the top down, it has generated better source
editions and analyses.6 It promotes revisions that are necessary insofar as
the traditional sweeping reform narratives of Ernst Sackur, Kassius
Hallinger, and others sometimes seemed to present changes in monastic
practice and identity as spontaneous manifestations of some sort of monastic “general will,” obscuring local factors such as the decisive roles played
by monastic patrons. But flawed applications do not necessarily invalidate
the reform model itself.
It might be useful to step back and acknowledge the existence of
broader reform discussions. Vanderputten, in the books reviewed here,
nowhere cites the work of Ladner. Nor did the Leeds sessions dedicated to
reform that he coordinated, none of which were devoted to normative latemedieval reform debates (although several did examine reform aspects of
late-medieval heresies). Vanderputten’s Monastic Reform does include a
general footnote reference to Giles Constable’s Reformation of the Twelfth
Century (New York, 1996) but not to its more universal perspective on
reform. Obviously the early-modern Reformation is not irrelevant. Christians in the central Middle Ages, like other medieval Christians, attempted
to organize their churches aided and guided by selected readings from the
Bible, the Fathers, ancient monastic rules, late antique and Carolingian
ecclesiastical legislation, and increasingly sophisticated canon law. Without recognizing this more general reform dynamic, of which monastic
reform was one subspecies, it becomes more difficult to evaluate how
Christian reform traditions influenced the oddly progressive mentality of
the Western world or whether, and if so how, reform models might be
applied to other civilizations.
One danger with not engaging thoroughly with broader reform discussions is that some of their earlier preconceptions can linger on. Today,
scholars generally recognize that reform initiatives in the tenth and
eleventh centuries were sponsored by kings, nobles, and bishops who
rebuilt churches and monasteries and sought out impresarios of reform to
help them train or recruit the personnel they needed to staff them. This
supersedes an earlier reform narrative, dominant through the mid-twenti6. Examples include Acta Synodi Atrebatensis, Vita Autberti, Vita Gaugerici; Varia scripta
ex officina Gerardi exstantia, ed. Steven Vanderputten and Diane J. Riley, [Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalia 270], (Turnhout, Belgium, 2015); Vita, miracula, translatio et
alia hagiographica sancti Arnulphi episcopi Suessionensis, ed. Renée Nip, [Corpus Christianorum
Continuatio Mediaevalia 285], (Turnhout, Belgium, 2015).

JOHN HOWE

819

eth century, which had defined reform as an attempt by churchmen to liberate themselves from feudal ties and to free the Church from the hands of
the laity. When Vanderputten assumes that lay patronage was antithetical
to the spirit of Benedictine monastic reform, he is accepting a dichotomy
of dubious applicability to pre-Gregorian reforms and to some later ones.
Reform narratives are less problematic once it is recognized that, in the
post-Carolingian world, lay and clerical reformers often worked together
as partners in piety and profit.

Book Reviews
GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS
The Many Faces of Christ: The Thousand-Year Story of the Survival and Influence of
the Lost Gospels. By Philip Jenkins. (New York: Basic Books. 2015. Pp. ix, 326.
$27.99. ISBN 978-0-465-06692-6.)
Even readers with a casual interest in Christian apocrypha know the familiar
myth of the “lost gospels”—that a developing Orthodox Church created a canon
that served their theological and political interests, declared all other texts about the
early church “apocryphal,” and effectively suppressed the literature until its rediscovery in the past few centuries. Jenkins aims to correct this “questionable historical
narrative” (p. 6) by demonstrating instead that apocryphal texts continued to be
valued and employed—even created—by the Church long after efforts to close the
canon in the fourth century.
Philip Jenkins focuses on what he calls the “long middle” of Christian history,
between 400 and 1500 (p. 25). He traces the use of supposedly “lost gospels”
throughout the period, either through references in other works (including a mention of the Gospel of Thomas in 1285), manuscripts (the Gospel of Peter, for example,
is found in an eighth-century codex), compilations of earlier texts (such as Jacob de
Voragine’s The Golden Legend), festivals (created based on traditions found in such
texts as the Protevangelium of James or the Dormition of Mary), doctrines (Christ’s
Descent to Hell from the Gospel of Nicodemus), and their use in literature and drama
(the Descent is used prominently, for example, in Dante Alghieri’s Inferno and in
the York Mystery Plays).
Certainly the Church did on occasion encourage churchgoers to avoid some
texts, but outside the stretch of the Roman Empire, they were less able to do so.
Jenkins discusses the use and survival of apocrypha in areas such as Britain, Ireland,
Armenia, and Ethiopia. He notes also that, in some areas, the shape of the Bible
was much different, including the expansive Ethiopic canon. Not only were apocryphal texts available in these areas, some were even considered canonical.
Jenkins illustrates well that early apocrypha that continued to fill a need in the
Church were never lost, whereas those that did not merely fell out of use. Only in a
few cases, he argues, were texts actually actively suppressed; for the most part, they
simply “lost their audiences, perhaps because they were felt to be irrelevant or oldfashioned,” or their contents were “absorbed into more substantial or better-written
works” (p. 32). New apocrypha were also created to satisfy new needs, and some
attention is paid by Jenkins to apocrypha created by the Bogomils such as the Secret
Supper (pp. 179–82) and modern texts such as the Archko Volume (pp. 246–47).
820

BOOK REVIEWS

821

Some texts are missing, of course. Jenkins could say more about apocrypha circulating in Syriac Christianity (of which he is quite knowledgeable), and apocrypha
created in late antiquity—particularly in Coptic Christianity, where we see the creation of the genre of “pseudo-apostolic memoirs,” but also in the West and Greek
East—to establish festivals and shrines for the post-Constantinian world.
For the most part, Jenkins is positive about the value of reading apocryphal
texts for understanding Christian history and art, but at the end of the book he
strays into apologetic territory, decrying efforts to change the canon and championing the canonical texts as better “historical documents” (p. 252). Also, Jenkins’s
argument that apocrypha were rarely suppressed lacks some certainty. This is
observable in his constant back-and-forth statements about their suppression (e.g.,
“ordinary people were losing access to the old traditions,” p. 235) and their
endurance (e.g., only two pages later appears, “Noncanonical scriptures were never
wholly absent from church life,” p. 237).
Jenkins’s arguments are not entirely new to scholars of Christian apocrypha
and cognate disciplines such as medieval studies, many of whom have been trying
to bring attention to late-antique and medieval apocrypha for some time. But he
masterfully assembles a broad range of historical data about these more recent
works and their use in the “long middle.” There is something new here even for the
seasoned scholar, and Jenkins presents the material in a way that is captivating for
nonscholars.
York University, Toronto

TONY BURKE

The Jesuit Suppression in Global Context: Causes, Events, and Consequences. Edited by
Jeffrey D. Burson and Jonathan Wright. (New York: Cambridge University
Press. 2015. Pp. xii, 297. $99.95. ISBN 978-1-107-03058-9.)
At first glance, this book appears to be a publication stemming from a conference, yet it is not. Rather, the editors explain in the book’s first pages that it is fruit
of an initiative that experienced delays.
The volume certainly enters in the dynamic of two complementary movements coexisting in the Jesuit historiography since the second half of the last century. On the one hand, the time when only the members of the order (but also its
enemies) were protagonists of the writing of its history is definitively over; more
and more authors are examining it, as shown by the rich bibliography of Jesuitrelated topics published each year (c. 1500–2000 titles most recently). On the other
hand, only very few of these authors dare to propose overviews, whereas the variety
of particular, sometimes very limited, topics continues to surprise. Would the time
of all kinds of Historia Societatis, as those published in the past, also be over? Such
valuable exceptions as the works of Spanish Jesuit Manuel Revuelta González, La
Compañía de Jesús en la España Contemporánea (3 vols., Madrid, 1984–2008), or his
German confrère Klaus Schatz, Geschichte der deutschen Jesuiten (1814–1983) (5
vols., Münster, 2013), make the answer less easy, although the tendency shown by

822

BOOK REVIEWS

the contemporary bibliography seems to confirm such a hypothesis, as this book
does as well.
In conformity with this dominant tendency of the Jesuit historiography of the
last decades, its aim is to contribute to further research on the themes faced here as
belonging to the universal and not just the Jesuit history of the eighteenth century.
Thus, the editors identify the specific perspective that guided the contributors in the
transnational and global dimension of the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Such
an approach is also visible in the international range of the authors: besides both editors, thirteen other scholars contributed to the book (four of them are Jesuits).
Fourteen essays that compose the volume are organized in three parts as the
title indicates; they correspond to causes (three articles), events (six articles), and
consequences (five articles) of the suppression. In the first part, in chapter 1, Dale
K. Van Kley discusses one of the most classical themes of Jesuit history: the conspiracy, recalling that both the enemies of the Society as well as its members used
this pattern of interpretation in diverse contexts and with often changing political
and theological implications.
One volume’s editor, Jeffrey D. Burson, is also the author of its second article,
which is dedicated to the participation of the French Jesuits in the Enlightenment.
Having contributed much to that movement, they were at the same time strong
opponents of its more radical components. This apparently contradictory attitude
explains, at least in part, how such a paradoxical alliance against the Ignatian order,
as the one formed by Jansenists and the philosophes, was possible.
Thomas Worcester focuses in his essay (chapter 3) on one of the biggest
defenders of the Jesuits, Archbishop Christophe de Beaumont of Paris. His support
could have been for them not only a help but also a liability, because of the effects
that his statements might have had among the components of the French politicoecclesiastical scene of that time.
As for the second part of the volume, chapters 4 and 5 treat the impact of the
Jesuit suppression for the foreign missions in South America (essay of Maurice
Whitehead) and in China (article of R. Po-chia Hsia).
On the contrary, the rest of the contributions of this part are more Europeanfocused: Emmanuele Colombo and Niccolò Guasti provide an overview of the
Society’s expulsion from Portugal and Spain (chapter 6); Christopher Storrs discusses the 1773 suppression in the Savoyard State (chapter 7), Thomas M.
McCoog introduces the relation of John Thorpe, an English Jesuit who was the
eyewitness of the same event in Rome (chapter 8), whereas D. Gillian Thompson
focuses on the vicissitudes of the French Jesuits in 1756–1814 (chapter 9).
As for the third part of the book, among the variety of problematics discussed
here, emerge such themes as the continuity between the pre- and post-1773 Society
(contributions by Daniel L. Schlafly and Paul Begheyn in chapters 10–11), the for-

BOOK REVIEWS

823

tunes and misfortunes of the ex-Jesuits in Central-Eastern Europe (chapter 12 by
Paul Shore) and in Italy (chapter 13 by Niccolò Guasti), with special focus on their
involvement in sciences (chapter 14 by Louis Caruana).
The book has no conclusion, but the omission is probably deliberate, considering that its editors clearly state in the introduction (pp. 1, 10) that they do not
pretend to provide answers but rather seek to stimulate further debate and
inquiries. They are certainly right while insisting that the last word about the suppression has not yet been said. Will it ever be?
Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu

ROBERT DANIELUK, S.J.

Christian Homes: Religion, Family, and Domesticity in the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries. Edited by Tine Van Osselaer and Patrick Pasture. (Leuven: Leuven
University Press. 2014. Pp. 227. €39,50 paperback, ISBN 978-94-62-70018-5.)
Historians of women have subjected the concepts of domesticity and separate
spheres to critical analysis for many years, but in this collection of essays emerging
from a project at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, historians of religion “re-address the omnipresence of this feminine archetype” (p. 7). The essays in
Christian Homes mostly conclude that domesticity is a useful tool to work with—
and to work against. The nine authors in the collection cover considerable geographical breadth—from the United States through Great Britain, Western
Europe (especially France), and Scandinavia. Some contributions focus on prescriptive sources about religion and domestic life (notably Bernhard Schneider’s
essay on German Catholic masculinity), whereas others examine practices and
experiences of Christian domesticity. Recognizing that the scholarship on the
“angel in the house” originated in a Protestant, Anglo-American world, the editors
emphasize Catholicism, although there are Protestant exceptions (Alexander Maurits writing on the domestic life of Swedish pastors and Jonathan H. Ebel on
American religious interpretations of World War I).
The most successful essays suggest that Catholicism inflected domestic ideology
in ways that set it apart from the better-known Protestant version. Magali Della Sudda
presents this argument effectively in her essay on the Ligue patriotique des françaises,
an early-twentieth-century organization of Catholic Frenchwomen opposed to the
secularizing initiatives of the Third Republic. Instead of seeing the domestic sphere as
separate and sheltered from the world of politics, Della Sudda argues, Catholics
claimed that the state was composed of a multitude of families. Women’s participation
in politics as members of households (but not as individual voters) was thus fundamental to Catholic conceptions of democracy. Rejecting “the indivisible Nation concept,
inherited from the Revolution” (p. 146), French Catholics instead imagined the
household as the fundamental unit of Christian democracy.
This insight into Catholic interpretations of the relationship between the
domestic and the political resonates through many of the strongest essays in the collection, particularly those that examine “domestic” spaces that Barbara Welter, in

824

BOOK REVIEWS

her classic 1966 essay on “The Cult of True Womanhood,” might not have recognized.1 The homes of the stigmatics who feature in Paula Kane’s chapter, for
instance, were hardly refuges from moral challenges of state and market. As pilgrimtourists trooped through bedrooms to watch stigmatic women bleed, they believed
they were witnessing atonement for the world’s sins. Similarly, the ceremonies in
which interwar Belgian families enthroned images of the Sacred Heart in their
homes affirmed the openness of domestic spaces and their intimate connection to a
political order that acknowledged Christ’s reign over human society. The chateaux
of the aristocratic Arenberg family, at the center of Bertrand Goujon’s contribution,
and the charitable home visits practiced by the male members of the Society of St.
Vincent de Paul that Matthieu Brejon de Lavergnée describes similarly upset the
expectations of gendered separate spheres. Alana Harris’s closing essay on English
Catholics in the mid-twentieth century draws our attention to the growing impact
of ideas about domesticity on Roman Catholicism: the church “family” conceived of
the Eucharist “as a familial, ‘domestic’ and redemptory meal rather than a visual,
atoning, and hieratic sacrifice” (p. 180, emphasis in original).
The essays of Christian Homes represent a necessarily partial approach to a
large question, and, as one expects, they are uneven, not least in their facility with
English. Nonetheless, they represent a useful reminder that the historians’ “angel
of the home” was often tacitly Protestant. They suggest that Catholicism is a useful
avenue of inquiry into a conceptual tool—the cult of domesticity—that, in spite of
extensive critique, remains important to our notion of European modernity.
CAROL E. HARRISON

University of South Carolina

ANCIENT
The Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul. Translated with an Introduction
and Notes by David L. Eastman. [Writings from the Greco-Roman World,
vol. 39.] (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press. 2015. Pp. xxv, 469.
$79.95 clothbound, ISBN 978-1-62837-091-1; $59.95 paperback, ISBN
978-1-62837-090-4.)
David L. Eastman has filled a gap in scholarship by collecting many of the
ancient martyrdom accounts of Ss. Peter and Paul into a single sourcebook. The
sourcebook includes fifteen martyrdom accounts from the second to seventh centuries, plus thirty references from patristic authors of the first six centuries. Each
martyrdom account is presented with an historical introduction, an edition of its
text in Greek, Latin, or Syriac, and an annotated English translation. As part of the
Society of Biblical Literature series on writings from the Greco-Roman world, The
Ancient Martyrdom Accounts of Peter and Paul makes these primary sources accessi-

1. Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820–1860,” American Quarterly,
18 (1966): 151–74.

BOOK REVIEWS

825

ble to a broad readership, with the most recent and sometimes only-available English translations of its selections.
After the volume’s list of “Abbreviations for Primary Sources” (pp. xi–xiii),
most of the volume is the presentation of fifteen martyrdom accounts (pp. 1–385):
Part 1 includes four accounts that are about Peter (chapters 1–4), part 2 has five
about Paul (chapters 5–9), and part 3 collects accounts that refer to both apostles
(chapters 10–14, including two texts in chapter 10). Part 4 is “a broad selection of
the most significant examples” (p. 389) of patristic references to the martyrdoms of
one or both apostles (chapter 15, pp. 387–443). Parts 1, 2, and 4 are organized
chronologically; part 3 is not. The volume’s back matter includes a bibliography
(pp. 445–55), scripture index (pp. 457–62), and general index (pp. 463–69).
These sources attest to the traditions of Peter’s crucifixion upside-down and
Paul’s decapitation, both of which are normally celebrated on June 29. But variants
and competing traditions are also preserved in this volume. For example, some traditions claim that Peter was killed on the same day a couple of years before Paul;
others claim that both were killed on the same day of the same year (e.g., 57 or 67);
and yet others imply that both were killed on different days of the same year. One
Syriac account even claims that “Shimeon Petra” (Simon Peter) was killed “with the
sword” (p. 379). Moreover, there are differing accounts for the preparation and
burial of Peter, the exhuming and translation of Peter’s remains, the location of
Paul’s execution, Paul’s burial(s), and the rediscovery of Paul’s head, as well as other
interesting details, such as what each apostle may have proclaimed as his last words
and whether he appeared to others after his death.
Eastman’s introductions and annotations guide readers to consider how some
of these traditions may have reflected developments in church politics, creedal terminology, canonization, and other matters of historical and theological interest. So
readers have the pleasure of thinking through various issues and options, as they
anticipate the completion of Eastman’s book-length study (Killing Peter and Paul:
Traditions of the Apostolic Martyrdoms [Oxford, forthcoming]).
Once Eastman’s study has been completed, it would be useful to publish a
second, revised edition of Ancient Martyrdom Accounts. Desiderata would be references to the most important manuscript variants for texts and translations, increase
in the Syriac font size, the addition of “patristic” sources from other languages (e.g.,
Syriac), and development of a comprehensive index of references to primary sources
(including the martyrdom accounts, patristic references, and other texts). Perhaps
the chapters could also be resequenced by chronology, language, and location so as
to help readers to situate the martyrdom accounts by time and place, enabling further consideration of possible developments within and between accounts. (Based
on the current chapter numbers, a more useful sequence might have been: 5, 1, 2,
6, 9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12, 3, 7, 14, 13, 4, 8.)
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

GLENN E. SNYDER

826

BOOK REVIEWS

Treasure in Heaven: The Holy Poor in Early Christianity. By Peter R. L. Brown.
[Richard Lectures for 2012.] (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
2016. Pp. xxviii, 162. $22.95. ISBN 978-0-8139-3828-8.)
Peter Brown has been worrying about early Christian poverty for quite some
time. Treasure in Heaven is the third installment in a trilogy encompassing Poverty
and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (Hanover, NH, 2002) and Through the
Eye of a Needle (Princeton, 2012). In that sense, it is something of a prequel.
Whereas those first two volumes tracked Christian ideas, practices, and debates
regarding wealth, charity, and holy authority from the fourth to the sixth centuries,
Treasure in Heaven traces those same charged issues back to the first Christian
communities. At the same time—and in line with a broader trend in late-ancient
studies that Brown himself has helped to stimulate—it relocates their geographical
center from the Greco-Roman Mediterranean to Greater Syria and Egypt.
In a characteristically self-reflective introduction (pp. xi–xxv), Brown sets out
the central problems explored in the book: the tension in early Christianity between
support of the “real” poor and the “holy” poor—those religious leaders whose pious
industry might exempt them from the hard labor to which the majority of ancient
men and women were bound—and the question of whether those “holy” poor
should be maintained by other Christians or work to support themselves. Across
the six chapters of this book—originally given as the 2012 Richard Lectures at the
University of Virginia—Brown persuasively uses these problems, already latent in
the Pauline Epistles, as the organizing principles for a taxonomy of the various
forms of ascetic praxis and monastic community that developed in the Near East
in the first five centuries AD.
Brown retells what is, in many ways, a familiar story of the development of
Christian authority figures and communities: the activities of St. Paul and others in
the first two centuries (chapters 1–2); the hardening of the monarchical episcopate by
the middle of the third century (chapter 2); and the flourishing of asceticism in Syria
(chapter 4) and Egypt (chapters 5–6). And yet his keen focus on the “spiritual
exchange” (a phrase used throughout the book) of wealth yields new perspectives on
many old problems. Notable in this regard is the inclusion of the Manichaean Elect
and Hearers within a continuum of Jewish/Christian (and especially Syrian)
approaches to the communal maintenance of ascetic virtuosos (chapter 3). In seeking
to explain the contrast between the “angelic” ascetics of Syria and the self-consciously
“Stakhanovite” (p. 80) monks of Egypt, Brown brings into productive juxtaposition
topics as disparate as the economic prosperity of the late-antique Near East and the
emphases of Syriac exegetes of the Fall (pp. 56–64), or Egyptian framing of poverty
as hunger and Alexandrian theological discussions of the Resurrection (pp. 98–101,
106–08). The results are stimulating evocations of what might be called the monastic
sociology of these two regions in the fourth century. A short conclusion considers the
convergence of these Syrian and Egyptian traditions—and the loosening of tensions
regarding financial support—in the fifth and sixth centuries. Brown suggests a simple
answer: the step-change in donations to Christian communities meant that almsgivers no longer had to choose between “holy” or “real” poor.

BOOK REVIEWS

827

This is a book to be read as a whole. The opening discussions of Pauline
injunctions, and (often patrician) ancient attitudes toward work and religious
entrepreneurs—perhaps inevitably, somewhat peripatetic in their chronological
and geographical contexts—store up rich rewards for the later chapters (which constitute the real heart of the book). Its signal merit is to open up new vistas: not least,
in its tantalizing pan-Eurasian coda (pp. 114–18), which leaves the reader with a
sense that Brown—and no doubt many others—will continue to worry about the
“poor” in late antiquity for some time to come.
Balliol College, Oxford
The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities

ROBIN WHELAN

Pilgerwege ins “Heilige Land”: Beiträge zur Religionsgeografie der Alten Kirche. Edited
by Ulrich Fellmeth and Ulrich Mell (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 2012.
Pp. 128. €31,95 paperback. ISBN 978-3-631-60025-2.)
This little volume is the result of a symposium on early Christian pilgrimage
to the Holy Land, organized in 2009 at the Universität Hohenheim in Stuttgart.
The focus of the conference (and of these proceedings) was on the beginnings of
Christian pilgrimage to Palestine in the fourth century and the early pilgrimage
accounts in relation to changing theological perceptions with regard to religious
geography and travel to sites of Christian memory. The volume contains six contributions (all in German) of different length and varying scholarly significance.
The volume opens with a fairly superficial contribution by Marion Giebel
about the beginnings of pilgrimage to Palestine starting with Constantine’s mother
Helena (who, despite recent scholarly consensus, is unfortunately considered here
as a pilgrim), the journey of the Bordeaux pilgrim (333) and then focusing in particular on the itinerary of Egeria, who visited the Holy Land and the nearby regions
at the end of the fourth century. The second article, by Hanswulf Bloedhorn, also
focuses on Egeria’s journey, which the author dates past 390 instead of the generally accepted date of 381–84, and summarizes her travels to and along Jewish
memory sites. Ulrich Fellmeth discusses Constantine’s religious and church-building policies. Fellmeth deals with matters that have filled extensive bookshelves: the
development of Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and the nature of his religious conviction, and the influence of the emperor’s Christianity on his religious
policy. He argues fittingly that Constantine’s religious policy was more pragmatic
than dogmatic, that he did not prohibit pagan practices, and that his program of
church building—twenty-two ecclesiastical buildings are known to have been constructed during his reign—fit well with his strategy to make Christianity visible. A
second article by Fellmeth discusses the fourth-century pilgrim’s accounts in the
context of the geographical circumstances of the period—in particular, the Roman
network of roads as we know it from written itineraria and so-called itineraria picta
or maps, the best known of which is the Tabula Peutingeriana. Fellmeth reconstructs the sources of information the early pilgrims had at their disposal, the routes
they (may) have followed, and the means of transportation. The best articles have

828

BOOK REVIEWS

been preserved for the last. Ulrich Mell provides an interesting discussion on the
concept of holy or sacred from a theological perspective. He argues that the idea of
Christian sacredness goes back to Jewish precursors; in particular, the city of
Jerusalem was considered sacred to the Jews, and Christians adopted this idea. The
last contribution, by Oliver Dyma, also focuses on Jerusalem and Jewish religious
travel to the holy city for the celebration of the various religious festivals; Jews also
visited the sites of their patriarchs. Although the author does not explicitly say so,
Christian religious travel from Constantine onward must have been inspired by
Jewish travel to Jerusalem and the patriarchal tombs of the Second Temple period.
The topic of Christian pilgrimage and religious geography has received considerable attention in the scholarship of early Christianity and in late-antique studies concerning the Holy Land. Fundamental questions have been raised: Was there
Christian religious travel to Jerusalem and Palestine before the age of Constantine?
Were there Christian holy sites before Constantine, and if not, how and why did
places become sacred? Why and when did the Christian theology regarding locality
change? These questions are not addressed in this volume, which offers nice introductions but unfortunately lacks in-depth discussion of important issues concerning early Christian pilgrimage, accounts of pilgrims, and sacred geography as raised
in recent scholarship.
JAN WILLEM DRIJVERS

University of Groningen

MEDIEVAL
The Apocalypse in the Early Middle Ages. By James T. Palmer. (New York: Cambridge University Press. 2014. Pp. 254. $29.99. ISBN 978-1-107-449-091.)
James T. Palmer’s new book is a carefully presented, groundbreaking study of
apocalyptic thinking that successfully cuts through the often impenetrable scholarly
debates over the role of End-Time prophecies in the early Middle Ages. Palmer’s
learned yet highly readable book introduces a new understanding of the function of
eschatology and End-Time prophecy that will change the way we think about this
central aspect of the medieval past. The book is divided into seven chapters that work
chronologically from the waning of the Roman Empire through the early-eleventh
century, focusing on essential periods during which the destiny of the world, the
Christian Roman Empire metonymically speaking, was imagined in eschatological
terms: the fall of Rome, the Arab invasions, the empire of Charlemagne, the decline
of Carolingian power, and the turn of the first millennium during the reign of Otto
III. Although structured largely around these key periods, the book is in no way limited to the problem of imperial eschatology. Instead, the book considers a wide variety of articulations of concern over the coming of the end of time, which is how
Palmer is able to make his argument work so successfully. Summoning evidence from
around Europe, he shows that anxiety was rarely consistent, since factors such as varying intellectual traditions; differences in political, religious, and social practice; and
uneven approaches to the Augustinian prescription against prediction produced a
wide variety of individual and communal visions of the End.

BOOK REVIEWS

829

Palmer begins with an in-depth historiographical section in which he lucidly
presents the debates over such thorny matters as the silence (for some deafening)
surrounding the coincidence of the coronation of Charlemagne with the prophesied AM Y6K (the biblical Annus Mundi 6000 according to Eusebian calculations),
and the significance of AD Y1K or the alleged terrors of the year 1000. A generous
narrator throughout, Palmer deftly transcends these seemingly insoluble disagreements by offering a third way in the form of a systematic view of how apocalyptic
thinking was woven into the fabric of society at all levels as a force for reform and
improvement. As a motivational tool for change in the face of inevitable Judgment,
apocalyptic discourse functioned differently in different contexts, yet it yielded similar results. The inevitability of Judgment (whether seemingly imminent or not)
inspired a desire to improve, not just when times were bad.
Palmer’s argument for a broader view of apocalyptic thinking does not minimize the importance of imperial eschatology, however. Instead, he presents contemplation of the End as less urgent, more optimistic, and more diffuse than has
previously been thought. To make his case, the author considers a wide variety of
works, but he is particularly illuminating in his presentation of the writings and
subsequent influence of St. Gregory the Great, St. Gregory of Tours, the Venerable
Bede, Pseudo-Methodius, and Adso of Montier-en-Der. The book also sheds
important light on the relationship between expressions of apocalyptic anxiety at
the community level and the treatment of perceived outsiders, especially Jews, who
figure in biblical prophecies and play a central role in the End-Time scenario of the
reign of Antichrist. With its unprecedented new take on an age-old question, this
book will be essential reading for many, if not all, students of the medieval world,
which makes its accessible price all the more appreciated.
University of South Florida

ANNE LATOWSKY

Hincmar of Rheims: Life and Work. Edited by Rachel Stone and Charles West.
(Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Distrib. Oxford University
Press. 2015. Pp. xv, 309. $110.00. ISBN 978-0-7190-9140-7.)
This volume gathers fourteen articles that were presented as papers at the
Leeds International Medieval Congress of 2012 in sessions about the illustrious
archbishop Hincmar of Rheims (†882). It presents many different Hincmars such
as the adviser to kings, the expert in canon law, the “manager” of an important
archdiocese, the intellectual and prolific author of a varied œuvre, and the ecclesiastical and political authority constantly entangled in disputes and debates. The
compact articles present single cases, and it is only when the reader starts to add
them up that Hincmar’s “life and work” (perhaps better described as “troubles and
stress”) starts to unfold.
As Rachel Stone explains in her introductory chapter, the volume is first and
foremost intended as a ‘roadmarker’ (p. 2) that shows how recent research has
changed our understanding of Hincmar and the world in which he operated. A first

830

BOOK REVIEWS

glimpse of that world is described by Jinty Nelson (chapter 2), who uses his historical writings to gather the little he tells us about his own life. Much more prolific
were his writings about his disputes with his nephew, Bishop Hincmar of Laon,
which, according to Christine Kleinjung (chapter 3), were rooted in different interpretations of the episcopal office. Nor was Hincmar’s relation to Emperor Lothar
I easy, as Elina Screen (chapter 4) explains, since “his” king, Charles the Bald, and
the latter’s imperial brother both demanded loyalty in ways that were mutually
exclusive. More trouble with royal brothers is discussed by Clémentine BernardValette (chapter 5), who focusses on the difficult year of 875, when Louis the
German invaded the kingdom of his brother, Charles the Bald, exactly when the
latter was on his way to Rome to be crowned emperor. When Louis the Stammerer
succeeded to the throne of Charles the Bald in 877, Hincmar saw new chances to
be influential at the royal court, as Mary McCarthy shows (chapter 6), but these
ambitions where thwarted by younger men. Hincmar’s Roman legal sources are
Simon Corcoran’s subject (chapter 7), who shows that he used such material in specific cases only, and generally preferred Church Fathers and the Bible. Likewise,
Philippe Depreux (chapter 8) demonstrates how Hincmar used capitularies in just
a handful of specific situations. Hincmar also used hagiography, here the Vita
Remigii, to state his opinions. Marie-Céline Isaïa (chapter 9) shows how this text
was not only a saint’s life but also a vehicle for ideas about his own episcopal ministry. The bishops’ role as guardians of the social order and helpers of kings, a subject dear to Hincmar’s heart, comes to the fore in his writings about the abduction
of women, discussed by Sylvie Joye (chapter 10). Hincmar also did micro-management, as is shown in Josiane Barbier’s discussion (chapter 11) of the case of the
mancipia of Rheims’ estate at Cortisol, who did their best to claim free status but
found the archbishop as their opponent. Charles West (chapter 12) writes about
Hincmar’s relations with the priests and parishes of his diocese as part of his pastoral engagements. One of Hincmar’s greatest nightmares, the “heretic” and rebellious Gottschalk of Orbais, is discussed by Matthew Gillis (chapter 13), after which
Mayke de Jong (chapter 14) reflects on Hincmar’s relations to the Pseudo-Isidorian
forgeries and papal authority with a somewhat smaller nightmare, the criminal
priest Trising, as her starting point.
This rich, attractive collection has certainly succeeded in being a “roadmarker”
in the continuing research about Hincmar and his world. At the same time, the
kaleidoscopic nature of the book offers a wonderful introduction into a set of
important questions about, and sources of, the Carolingian period. Throughout,
readers are invited to listen to Hincmar’s thoughts and opinions about more or less
everything—the archbishop would surely have approved.
University of Utrecht

CARINE VAN RHIJN

BOOK REVIEWS

831

Meister Eckhart: Philosopher of Christianity. By Kurt Flasch. Translated from the
German by Anne Schindel and Aaron Vanides. (New Haven: Yale University
Press. 2015. Pp. xv, 321. $38.00. ISBN 978-0-300-20486-5.)
This important intellectual biography of Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–1328?)
represents the culmination of Kurt Flasch’s sixty-year involvement with Eckhart’s
thought. Comprehensive, richly learned, and trenchantly argued, it is also highly
polemical. Flasch, an eminent historian of medieval thought, settles accounts with
various nineteenth- and twentieth-century Eckhart scholars. Special targets are
those who think the Meister a mystic, or—worse—see in his work some “unrestrained Faustian-Nordic drive for depth” (p. 164).
All wrong, Flasch argues. The basis for reading Eckhart correctly has been
available since the publication of his more difficult Latin works, rediscovered well
after the more famous/notorious vernacular writings. These, as Flasch makes clear,
provide the necessary intellectual framework for understanding the German texts.
With considerable textual support Flasch argues that Eckhart’s project is the
attempt to provide a “philosophy of Christianity” (p. 14). The Meister wrote in the
preface of his commentary on John, “[My] intention is the same as in all [my]
works—to explain what the holy Christian faith and the two Testaments maintain
through the help of the natural arguments of the philosophers” (Lateinische Werke
3, p. 4). The resulting teachings were so strikingly different from what the Roman
Church had become accustomed to that the papal condemnation of twenty-eight
of Eckhart’s propositions in 1329 was, according to Flasch, inevitable (chapter 20).
Flasch sees “the source of Eckhart’s thinking” (p. 38) in a metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical thesis involving intentionality, the epistemic image. Following Aristotle, as well as Christian, neo-Platonic, Arabic, and Jewish sources, Eckhart
asserts the identity of knower and known. Further, as Flasch notes, for Eckhart “the
soul becomes that in which it places its life-goal” (p. 210). Thus the soul of the just
person “becomes Justice. The soul exists more in Justice than in the human body”
(ibid.). And in becoming just, one becomes deiform, a homo divinus.
Eckhart’s rationale for identifying Justice with God lies in his unusual doctrine
of the transcendental and spiritual perfections: Being, Oneness, Truth, Goodness,
Justice, Wisdom, none of which are creatable. To create Being, for example, is
already to exist; to create Justice is already to be just. This in turn, as Flasch shows,
is connected with Eckhart’s understanding of analogy: these perfections are shared
with the created, but at the same time remain entirely and substantially only in the
Source. “Creatures,” as Eckhart says, “are a pure nothing” (Deutsche Werke 1, p. 69).
The human being differs, however, from the rest of nature in being made (in
the intellect) in God’s image. As image, for Eckhart, “there is no distinction
between him and his exemplar,” that of which he is an image (Flasch, p. 39) He is
“offspring of Justice” (Lateinische Werke 3, p. 14). Although humans are creatures
and thus per se nothing, we are thanks to the (highest part of the) soul more than

832

BOOK REVIEWS

creatures, with the capacity to “become by grace what God is by nature”—that is,
God’s Son (Deutsche Werke 5, p. 401).
Yale University Press and the translators should be commended for making
this 2010 German classic available in English. The translation is generally accurate,
although unfortunately, as in the original, three works by Flasch referred to in the
text only by date are not listed in the bibliography. Nonetheless, this learned and
beautifully written volume joins Bernard McGinn’s The Mystical Thought of Meister
Eckhart (New York, 2001) as the best general introduction in English to a revolutionary thinker.
Smith College

JOHN M. CONNOLLY

From She-Wolf to Martyr: The Reign and Disputed Reputation of Johanna I of Naples.
By Elizabeth Casteen. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2015. Pp. xvi,
296. $49.95. ISBN 978-0-8014-5386-1.)
Johanna I of Naples (r. 1343–82) is one of medieval Europe’s infrequent
queens regnant, women who inherited a throne in their own right. Her reign presents a paradox: at nearly forty years, it represents an obvious case of successful
female rule. Yet it was also the subject of scurrilous gossip among contemporaries
who accused her of avarice, insatiable lust, and even the murder of her first husband
(Andrew of Hungary). That depiction of Johanna has continued to dominate
scholarly discourse about her, and Casteen’s book offers an important corrective.
As Casteen explains at the outset, “This is not a biography of a woman but of
a reputation” (p. 26). Although she marshals an impressive array of primary and
secondary sources to elucidate the details of Johanna’s life, her real concern is with
fama and the performance of public identity. Casteen shows how Johanna herself,
her allies, and her opponents all sought to use public opinion about her in their own
interests, playing on stereotypes and changing their tactics to adapt to rapidly shifting circumstances.
Perhaps the book’s most valuable contribution is in its sensitive handling of
medieval preconceptions about femininity. Johanna’s opponents made abundant
use of negative tropes about women—their irrationality, their lust, their physical
and moral weakness—to discredit her claim to authority. But Casteen also explores
how Johanna and her partisans manipulated more positive constructions of femininity—such as piety, humility, and obedience—as a means to promote her power
while seeming, rhetorically, to limit it. For example, Johanna assiduously portrayed
herself as a loving and dutiful daughter of the pope. In doing so, she subsumed her
own authority beneath his and paradoxically gained greater freedom of action insofar as she claimed to act on the pope’s behalf rather than her own.
This stratagem, although successful, could not survive Johanna’s entanglement
in the Western Schism, when she shifted her allegiance from the Roman pope,
Urban VI, to the Avignon pope, Clement VII. The decision turned many former

BOOK REVIEWS

833

friends and allies, including St. Catherine of Siena, against her and sparked new
rounds of invective. Casteen analyzes the Clementist and Urbanist portrayals of
Johanna, focusing on the use of rhetoric and reputation as weapons. The queen’s
allies and adversaries both “[sought] explanations for her behavior in the glories or
flaws of her sex” (p. 248). Their depictions of Johanna thus serve as a sort of referendum on the “woman question” in general, and on women in power more specifically. However, Casteen’s attention remains on rhetorical approaches to queenship
rather than queenship in practice. So, for example, although she makes valuable
observations about Johanna’s relationship to each of her four husbands, there is no
place here for an in-depth study of the king consort’s role. Casteen expresses her
own hope that other studies will take up such questions in the future.
The book concludes by contrasting Johanna’s posthumous reputation in
Naples as a “she-wolf” (to use Boccaccio’s term) with her legacy in Provence,
another part of her domains, where she was remembered as a pious, almost saintly,
maternal figure. It is a testament to Casteen’s thorough and evenhanded scholarship that the reader is left not only convinced of the equal legitimacy of these two
depictions but also unsurprised by their coexistence.
University of Maryland– College Park

JANNA BIANCHINI

Le schisme et la pourpre: Le cardinal Pierre d’Ailly, homme de science et de foi. By Hélène
Millet and Monique Maillard-Luypaert. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 2015.
Pp. 350. €30,00 paperback. ISBN 978-2-204-10475-3.)
Theologian, royal chaplain, university leader, bishop, and cardinal, Pierre
d’Ailly (1350-1420) led a life that intersected with the major crises of his day: the
Hundred Years’ War; the conflict between Burgundians and Armagnacs; and,
above all, the Great Schism. And yet, his rich biography has received far less attention than various aspects of his thought. The last thorough treatment of d’Ailly’s
life formed part of Bernard Guenée’s Entre l’Église et l’État (Paris, 1987; Chicago,
1991); for freestanding biographies, one must go back to the works of Paul
Tschackert (1877) and Louis Salembier (1886, 1932). Millet and Maillard-Luypaert’s engaging biography, written with a popular audience in mind, is thus a welcome offering, bringing to bear upon its subject a number of important studies that
have appeared since the 1980s. As the book’s epilogue makes clear, d’Ailly has
gotten something of a bad rap in the past: whether from contemporaries who
became his enemies, or early-modern Protestants who associated him with the
burning of John Hus, or arch-Catholics who deplored his ties to conciliarism and
the Avignon papacy. Even Guenée’s more balanced treatment presents d’Ailly
largely as a shrewd political operator. Millet and Maillard-Luypaert go a long way
toward making their subject a more sympathetic figure while not whitewashing
some troubling moments in his career.
The book is divided into three large sections: the first offering a biographical
sketch proper, the second detailing d’Ailly’s work while bishop of Cambrai from

834

BOOK REVIEWS

1397 to 1411, and the third examining his scholarly output. With Millet’s muchadmired expertise about the Church during the Great Schism and Maillard-Luypaert’s unparalleled knowledge of the archives in Cambrai, the authors’ discussions
of the cardinal’s ecclesiology and of his time in Cambrai are especially rich. D’Ailly’s
sincere dedication to church unity—and to the dignity of the papal office—comes
to the fore as the authors detail his actions vis-à-vis the Schism; even his long adherence to the Avignon pope Benedict XIII is presented as showing an admirable consistency, while that pontiff, whose intransigence is often blamed for the Schism’s
prolongation, comes up for praise as a man of intelligence, piety, and dignity (pp.
55, 286). As for d’Ailly’s time in Cambrai, readers encounter a bishop devoted to
reform and to unifying his diocese, a prelate who could weigh in with measured
judgment when confronted with heresy and miraculous bleeding hosts but who
could also be vindictive and relentless, as when challenged by a female moneychanger named Marie du Cavech, whose protracted battle against “chu crapaut
d’evesque” (“that toad of a bishop,” p. 198) marked one of d’Ailly’s rare political
defeats. D’Ailly’s close reliance on friends and family networks—particularly his
tight partnership with his nephew, Raoul Le Prêtre—also are apparent throughout.
As a book designed for a wider public, Le Schisme et la pourpre lacks a full
scholarly apparatus. A brief bibliography points to the major works used by the
authors, but, as Millet makes clear, medievalists seeking more clarification “will
need to consult our articles” (p. 8). Still, as the first major synthesis to appear in
nearly thirty years, the volume will be a must-read for anyone interested in d’Ailly
or, for that matter, in the Church of the Schism years. With its accessible explanations, handy glossary, chronological tables, map, and helpful translation of d’Ailly’s
Propositiones utiles (defending the conciliar solution to the Schism), the book would
also make a wonderful introduction to the later Middle Ages for undergraduates or
general readers. As the 600th anniversary of the end of the Council of Constance
approaches, it would be fitting if this new biography of one of the council’s leading
lights was translated into English.
LAURA A. SMOLLER

University of Rochester

EARLY MODERN EUROPEAN
Dissimulation and Deceit in Early Modern Europe. Edited by Miriam Eliav-Feldon
and Tamar Herzig. (New York: Palgrave, an imprint of Macmillan. 2015. Pp.
xii, 250. $100.00. ISBN 978-1-137-44748-7.)
Lucas Cranach the Elder’s “The Mouth of Truth,” adorning the cover of the
book under review, depicts an adulterous wife at court who escapes perjury by
devising a clever plan. Having asked her lover to dress as a Fool, she puts her hand
in the mouth of a lion’s statue—the early-modern “lie detector”—and simultaneously touches her disguised lover, claiming that she has never touched anyone
except her husband and that Fool. In July 2015, the earlier version of this painting
was sold at Sotheby’s for the record sum of $14.3 million. Yet the monetary value

BOOK REVIEWS

835

of this artistic exploration of ambiguity surrounding seemingly truthful utterances
is only secondary to the ever-growing academic and public interest in the phenomena of dissimulation and lies, reticence and evasion, to the interplay between concealment and transparency, as well as their impact on our social, political, and religious life.
The impeccably chosen visual imagery for the cover predisposes the reader to
engage in conversation about a fascinating subject of simulation (pretense, feigning,
deceit) and dissimulation (concealment) in the early-modern era—the age, as Jorge
Flores puts it, of “fake science and alchemical fraud, of forgers and swindlers, of tricks
and lies, of blurred lines between the real and imagined, true and false” (p. 184).
Edited by prominent Israeli historians Miriam Eliav-Feldon and Tamar
Herzig, this volume assembles twelve essays, originating in a 2012 international
conference held in Tel Aviv. The essays are incredibly well put together and can be
read as a cohesive whole. An extensive bibliography at the end is a valuable addition.
This book explores techniques and strategies of dissimulation within all social
strata: professional beggars (Moshe Sluhovsky), common folk, artisans (Monica
Martinat), diplomats (Giorgio Rota), academics (Vincenzo Lavenia), and philosophers (Giorgio Caravale). It also covers an impressive time period: from the examination of the discourse on religious falsity in the fifteenth century (Michael D.
Bailey) to the narratives of feigned sanctity in the eighteenth century (Adelisa
Malena). Special emphasis is put on the problem of questioning and establishing
authenticity—of holiness manifested in stigmata (Tamar Herzig) or of demonic
possession (Guido Dall’Olio). The question of identity—“mixed,” “hybrid,” “multifaceted”—is placed in the forefront.
Acknowledging an undeniable rapport between the proclivity to engage in
certain shady and ambiguous activities—“personal propensity towards secrecy” (p.
166)—and deceit, the authors do not fall into the trap of reducing this whole gamut
of motivations to deceive to a psychological portrait of an individual. Indeed, one
of the book’s great achievements is an inclusive interpretation of possible motives
for dissimulation. Although some (usually, lower classes) had to practice dissimulation to survive or adjust “to satisfy the ideological requirements of authorities” (p.
76), contributors to the volume also present an alternative, nonexpedient interpretation of dissimulation. In this perspective, dissimulation is a specific “way of
thinking” (p. 36), often accompanied by a “complete rethinking of . . . religious
choices” (p. 53). In other words, the very character of theological ideas of earlymodern literati, as well as fluidity in their literary self-fashioning and self-representation, brought about their concealment practices.
Dissimulation and Deceit dismantles the rigid framework of the binary
approach to dissimulation, based on the oppositions “truth versus lie” or “moral
versus immoral.” Readers will be pushed “to discover how much more aggressive
than all impostors put together were those attempting to impose a single truth and
a pure unmixed identity on every person among their contemporaries” (p. 7).

836

BOOK REVIEWS

This volume is a true milestone in tracing, mapping, and conceptualizing the
culture of lying and dissimulation in the premodern era. It ranks in importance
with works by Delio Cantimori, Carlo Ginzburg, Perez Zagorin, Jean-Pierre
Cavaillé, and Jon Snyder and goes further by introducing new names of dissemblers
and opening new research perspectives. This seminal book will be of enormous
value and interest not only to early modernists but also to intellectual and religious
historians in general.
University of Virginia

MARIA IVANOVA

The Sacralization of Space and Behavior in the Early Modern World: Studies and
Sources. Edited by Jennifer Mara DeSilva. [St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History.] (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. 2015. Pp. cx, 326.
$129.95. ISBN 978-1-472-41827-2.)
This volume is a collection of excellent essays on a variety of things consecrated and holy, the use made of them, and attempts to compromise them. Topics
include patronage and the arts, popular devotion and a sixteenth-century reinterpretation of iconoclasm, protest and control, property rights, and imperial rule.
Most studies focus on Western Europe, but a few extend to the Spanish colonies
in the New World. Many of the essays make rigorous use of archival sources, and
the artifacts also are sources of information for some.
When discussing their subjects, most authors preferred to focus on the content, intention, and reception that can be proven or reasonably inferred from the
documents (whether texts or artifacts). Thus the reader can rely upon an informed
understanding of the contemporary conception of space (that is, infinite, unchanging, and homogenous, according to Erwin Panofsky’s Perspective as Symbolic Form
[New York, 1991]), and of the religious debates about the spiritual significance of
consecrated church buildings (perhaps most thoroughly investigated in Richard
Schofield’s magisterial essay in Architettura e Controriforma. I dibattiti per la facciata
del duomo di Milano [Milan, 2004]). But space and sacred are multivalent terms, and
historians have the opportunity to employ modern interpretive lenses. In a few isolated instances, considering historical texts and more traditional scholarship would
have led to richer, more reasoned discussions. Jennifer Mara De Silva’s introduction contains a thoroughly engaging chronicle of the genesis of the publication, and
she sometimes employs the understanding of social/political/economic contexts
that Henri Lefebvre originally codified in The Production of Space (Oxford, 1974).
She suggests that a Catholic priest using a liturgical furnishing whose design coordinated with that of the church “engaged . . . in . . . an organic vision of sacred space
that depended on sacred behaviors” (p. 3). Perhaps, but does that correspond to the
contemporary Catholic theology? Consecration (a divinely sanctioned act) had
altered the quality of the object and the building in God’s eyes; humans could desecrate them or priests could deconsecrate them, but barring that, their sacredness
was independent of use or understanding. Thus, the theology qualifies the “organic
vision.” Mino da Fiesole’s marble frame (certainly a niche-type Eucharistic taber-

BOOK REVIEWS

837

nacle, originally) depicts space with a clear perspectival construction; what did that
signify? Theorists and artists believed that perspective could bring the divine into
the realm of human perception and understanding. In turn, it facilitated many of
the results that De Silva outlines so eloquently but with one adjustment: “the space
created by this object” would not be “small and accessible to only a chosen few” (p.
5); it extended far beyond the confines of the material and was available to anyone
with the ability and opportunity to see it. A similar shortcoming is found later in
the volume, where David Stiles repeatedly calls the Jesuit Reductions in South
America “sacred space.” Although he does bring nuance to his discussion (pp. 260–
61), he does not appear to be employing either Catholic theology or Mircea
Eliade’s classic definition of the term. It is unclear how a vast administrative area
qualifies for that designation, and one wonders what terms Stiles would use to
characterize an eighteenth-century Jesuit’s understanding of a consecrated church.
These truly minor issues, however, do not detract from the overall contribution of these essays. Perhaps most noteworthy are Stiles’s debunking of the “conspiracy theory” about what the Jesuits were doing in South America and Abel
Alves’s essay on Marian shrines in Catalonia, in which he delves into comparative
religion to enliven an historical text. Collectively, they provide greater depth and
nuance to our understanding of early-modern art, architecture, politics, society, and
religion.
University of Texas at San Antonio

JOHN ALEXANDER

The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito. Vol. 3: 1 5 3 2 – 1 5 3 6 . Translated by Erika
Rummel, annotated by Milton Kooistra. (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press. 2015. Pp. xxx, 516. $175.00. ISBN 978-1-4426-3721-4.)
Of all the first-generation reformers, Wolfgang Capito’s journey toward
adherence to the evangelical cause was one of the most difficult and painful. As
professor of theology at Basel, he was a friend of both Desiderius Erasmus and the
printer Johann Froben. It was Capito who suggested to Froben the collected edition of Martin Luther’s early works that did so much to spread Luther’s teaching
beyond Germany. In 1520 he became an adviser to Cardinal Albrecht von Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz; even when, after much agonizing, he resigned his
positions in the old church, these bonds remained strong. Here, in the third volume
of this excellent edition of Capito’s correspondence, a storm erupts when Capito
decided to publish a German translation of Erasmus’s De Concordia. This was
already a risky venture, despite a preface that distanced the translator from the contents, and Capito only compounded the offense by adding a fulsome dedication to
his old patron the archbishop. The judgment of fellow reformers was severe. An
Augsburg friend reported that when the work was read aloud in the office of a local
pharmacist (a charming and significant detail), “Some people were almost moved
to fury because of the inconstancy shown by the preachers. Such things make many
people exclaim, ‘By God and by the faith of men! The theologians barter with our
souls, and play an atrocious tragedy!’” (Letter 522).

838

BOOK REVIEWS

This incident illustrates the undoubted truth that academics do not always have
the necessary skillset to negotiate a complex political environment—in Capito’s case,
the intricacies of church building and interconfessional rivalries. By 1532, when this
volume opens, Capito is a diminished figure, worn down by illness and playing
second fiddle to Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. Many of the letters in this volume are
institutional rather than personal, addressed collectively by the Strasbourg ministers
or drafted by Bucer for their joint signature. This is the everyday life of a senior
member of the ministerial team in one of Germany’s leading Protestant cities: offering advice to other churches, attempting to find suitable ministers for insufficiently
staffed churches, and giving formal written guidance to the city council. Capito
shows himself to be a good team player, but his personal feelings do not often shine
through. He seldom unburdens himself to friends; indeed, much of the more personal correspondence in this volume consists of incoming letters from friends elsewhere. These letters demonstrate that Capito was a man who still commanded
respect and affection but was not the figure of towering influence that might have
been expected when he first adhered to the Reformation. The seasoned team of Erika
Rummel and Milton Kooistra have done their usual excellent job of presenting
smooth and lucid translations; the footnotes are concise and learned. Where letters
are published elsewhere (in the correspondence of Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin,
Martin Bucer, Joachim Vadian, or Bonifacius Amerbach), they are summarized here.
There is one further volume to be published to complete this excellent project.
University of St. Andrews

ANDREW PETTEGREE

Diego Laínez (1512–1565) and his Generalate: Jesuit with Jewish Roots, Close Confidant of Ignatius of Loyola, Preeminent Theologian of the Council of Trent. Edited
by Paul Oberholzer, S.J. [Bibliotheca Instituti Historici Societatis Jesu, vol.
76.] (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Jesu. 2015. Pp. xx, 1074.
€60,00. ISBN 978-88-7041-376-2.)
This fine volume is the last of three that have been published since 2004 by
the Jesuit Historical Institute in Rome that deal in reverse chronological order with
the three Superiors General of the Society of Jesus following the death in 1556 of
the founder and first Superior General, St. Ignatius Loyola. The Mercurian Project:
Forming Jesuit Culture, 1573–1580, edited by Thomas McCoog, S.J., and co-published with the Institute of Jesuit Sources in St. Louis in 2004 treated the generalate of Everard Mercurian (reviewed ante, 93 [2007], 405–06). Francisco de Borja
y su Tiempo: Política, Religión y Cultura en la Moderna, edited by Maria del Pilar
Ryan and Enrique Garcia Hernán and co-published by the Consejo Superior de
Investigationes Cientificas in Valencia in 2011, looked at the life and times of St.
Francis Borgia, who was Superior General from 1565 to 1572 (reviewed ante, 99
[2013]: 559–62). Diego Laínez served as vicar general from 1556 to 1558 and was
elected Superior General at the first general congregation of the Society in 1558.
The current volume is divided into seven parts: Introductory Reflections; Personality and Ministry; Political and Social Milieu; Works and Networks; Catholic
Reform; Culture and Education; and the New World, and it includes thirty-four

BOOK REVIEWS

839

contributions by twenty-seven authors in five languages along with an extensive
bibliography. All three of these volumes contribute substantially to our understanding of the foundational period of the Society of Jesus.
Paul Oberholzer maintains that Laínez had “a particular and personal relationship” (p. 23) with Ignatius; he was the only one of the six who took vows at
Montmartre in Paris in 1534 or the ten who arrived in Rome in 1537/38 to remain
a close confidant of Ignatius up until the founder’s death. According to Pedro Ribadeneira, Ignatius’s first biographer, he was the choice of the founder to succeed
him as Superior General. Ignatius himself testified that Laínez had provided the
most accurate description of his own vision at La Storta outside Rome in 1537, in
which God the Father placed Ignatius with his Son, a vision that has had great significance for Jesuit identity. Laínez stood out as a theologian as well as a preacher
and diplomat who dealt with secular and ecclesiastical officials. But Ignatius did
not consider him as one of the most adept at giving the Spiritual Exercises. Oberholzer suggests that Laínez has remained at the second level in Jesuit historiography because of his converso background and because of the large number of autograph letters that remain unedited in the Roman archives of the Jesuits, partly due
to the extreme difficulty in deciphering his handwriting, despite the eight volumes
of the Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu devoted to his correspondence.
Laínez served as a papal theologian during the first two periods of the Council
of Trent and as Superior General of a religious order in the final period. Interestingly, according to Oberholzer’s account of the first two periods, neither he nor
Ignatius expected much from Trent in the way of Catholic Reform, and Ignatius
early on wanted to recall him for the more important ministry of preaching in Italy.
Both Ignatius and Laínez saw Trent more as an opportunity to impress the bishops
there and so open doors for the Society’s ministry. Yet Nicholas Steiner, S.J., in his
appraisal of Laínez’s role at Trent that includes the third period, considers it as
important as that of Karl Rahner or Joseph Ratzinger at the Second Vatican Council. He supported the curial position on the crucial issue of episcopal residence, and
he opposed the concession of the chalice. Lydia Salivucci Insolera, in her discussion
of Laínez and art, points out his vigorous defense of images at Trent and again at
the Colloquy of Poissy in France in 1561, where he tangled with the Calvinist
Theodore Beza.
Laínez had a major impact on later Jesuit ministries. Paul Grendler, in his discussion of Laínez and the schools, notes that in a letter of August 10, 1560, to all
the Society’s superiors the Superior General affirmed that the ministry of the
schools or colleges, some of which offered university-level courses, was as important as all the other ministries combined, and he wanted every Jesuit to teach in
them at some point. During his generalate the number of schools more than doubled: from roughly thirty-three to nearly ninety. But his formula for accepting
schools was unrealistic, and he did not solve the problem of a chronic shortage of
teachers. It should be noted that most of these colleges were also pastoral and cultural centers with a church and a staff of priests as operarii active in the locality.

840

BOOK REVIEWS

Oberholzer himself has a fascinating discussion of the internal communication of the Society which was nearly completely vertical from the top down and
from the bottom up with little horizontal communication. The communication was
used for administrative purposes and modeled to a degree, the author suggests, after
the practice of the Spanish monarchy. But the letters sent regularly from the houses
and provinces to Rome and then disseminated were intended also as a source of
encouragement, inspiration, and unity across the Society. A major detailed instruction of early 1560 on communication within the Society is here published for the
first time by Oberholzer. In this wide-ranging volume many other topics come up
for discussion by eminent scholars, including McCoog, Robert Maryks, Flavio
Rurale, and Volker Reinhardt. But it is impossible to note them all here.
Oberholzer and the Jesuit Historical Institute in Rome are to be congratulated
for the publication of this volume.
Loyola University Chicago

ROBERT BIRELEY, S.J.

Accounting for Affection: Mothering and Politics in Early Modern Rome. By Caroline
Castiglione. [Early Modern History: Society and Culture.] (New York: Palgrave. 2015. Pp. xvi, 315. $90.00. ISBN 978-0-230-20331-0.)
Caroline Castiglione’s project in Accounting for Affection is to understand “why
motherhood came to have a political valence in the seventeenth century” (p. xiii).
She looks for the answer to that question by tracing the activities of a succession of
five noble Roman women who were related to one another. The chief sources for
this study are collections of letters from these women, pleading their cases to
authorities and to kin, natal and marital.
After an illuminating introduction that presents the figure of the mother
embroiled in litigation over her view of the family and its needs (mater litigans as
Castiglione dubs her, p. 11), the book begins with a chapter on Anna Colonna Barberini and her struggles to help hold her husband’s family together as its fortunes
dipped following the death of the Barberini pope, Urban VIII. Anna’s daughterin-law, Olimpia Giustiniani Barberini, is the center of the second chapter. Following her husband’s death, she had to watch her son and the family heir, Urbano, singlemindedly pile up debts to the ruin of the family. She appealed to her other son,
Cardinal Francesco Barberini, to assert control on the heir in the name of family as
a whole. For his part, the cardinal was aghast at the negative publicity generated for
the Barberini by his mother’s very open gestures to contest her spendthrift son.
Urbano’s third wife was Maria Teresa Boncompagni Ludovisi, whose mother
was Ippolita Ludovisi; Ippolita’s older sister-in-law was Eleanora Boncompagni
Borghese. These three women are the subjects of the other three chapters. Eleanora
was the source of unending advice on child-rearing and other matters to her
beloved sister-in-law. In the pivotal third chapter the reader enters the heart of
motherhood in all its fascinating detail—not the mater litigans but the loving mater
nutriens (nurturing mother). For her part, after having so carefully raised a veritable

BOOK REVIEWS

841

“convent” of girls with Eleanora’s advice, Ippolita spent much of her life struggling
to allow each of them to marry, at great expense, and contrary to the reigning pattern in most noble families, by which all but one or two girls would end up in a convent. A growing disaffection with forced monacation gave her arguments some heft
in early-eighteenth-century Rome but did not sway the leader of the Boncompagni:
her brother-in-law, Cardinal Giacomo Boncompagni. Finally, Maria Teresa, the
oldest of Ippolita’s four girls and thus the one who did not have to worry about
marriage, carried on a crusade against Cardinal Francesco Barberini and Holy
Roman Emperor Charles VI simply to have her young daughter, Cornelia, live
with her and to be involved in the choice of her spouse.
Castiglione’s title for the chapter on Maria Teresa is “The Triumph of Maternal Love,” and that might have been the title or subtitle to the book as a whole. As
Castiglione sums up: “seventeenth-century mothers successfully challenged the
vaunted superiority of paternal love” (p. 215). They argued, even in various courts,
to soften the hard edges of patriarchy and to erect a balance between the demands
of family (skillfully asserted by Olimpia Giustiniani, for one) and the prerogatives
of individuals. They understood and agreed with the prerogatives of patrilineages,
but they also insisted on a maternal affection at the heart of it that made for greater
familial flexibility and revealed the limitations of the law that was the basis of
familial and political order. This volume marshals its evidence with great skill and
fairly sparkles with insights, as well as a dense apparatus of notes and references.
Castiglione inserts her materials into the context of ongoing investigations of
family, marriage, and gender, and those involved in such research (centered in Italy
or not) will have much reason to pore over her pages.
Clemson University

THOMAS KUEHN

Fealty and Fidelity: The Lazarists of Bourbon France, 1660–1736. By Seán Alexander
Smith. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. 2015. Pp. xii, 227. $124.95.
ISBN 978-1-472-44478-3.)
Seán Alexander Smith was a postdoctoral fellow at DePaul University in
2014 and is currently a fellow at University College Dublin. His fine book considers the legacy of St. Vincent de Paul in the sixty-six years after his death during
which the Congregation of the Mission, or the Lazarists, navigated a changing
political and religious world. Although many books have been published about
Vincent’s life and his community’s significance as a dynamic force in CatholicReformation France, the history of the Congregation after his death is not often
explored, and Smith’s book is a welcome addition. Vincent defined the Lazarists
as expressing fidelity to “Christ’s original mission” through service to the poor,
and Smith’s purpose is to ascertain the Lazarists’ fidelity to this mission (p. 9). In
the years before the canonization of Vincent, French society defined fealty primarily as allegiance to the king. The Lazarists earned favor from the Crown in this
era when secular interference in religious matters was increasing. Smith examines
three critical moments in the evolution of the Lazarists that had the potential to

BOOK REVIEWS

842

undermine their commitment to the ethos of service to the poor as they tried to
balance it with service to the monarch.
Smith explains that six years after a French company secured trading rights in
Madagascar in 1642, the Lazarists went to the island to convert the native population to Christianity. The mission failed, and the missionaries left in 1674. The
Lazarists’ core missions of converting poor non-Christians and reducing their suffering were undermined by their status as employees of the Compagnie des Indes,
whose agents in Madagascar were frequently accused of failing to support either the
missionaries’ survival or their ministry” (p. 67). Smith concludes that, although the
Lazarists did not accomplish their goals, the experience in Madagascar did not
undermine the Company’s fundamental mission of serving the poor; however, its
service to the crown threatened to do so.
The Lazarists were more modest and less worldly than the religious orders
serving the royal court, and Smith explains that the increasingly pious Louis XIV
and Mde Maintenon asked the community to “uplift the court in morals” (p. 94).
The Lazarists did not just serve elites at Fontainbleau, Versailles, and Saint-Cyr
but were parish priests who dedicated themselves to the needs of the poor. These
royal appointments permanently changed the Lazarists and put them in the center
of power in France where they had close relations with Louis XIV, XV, and XVI
(p. 203).
Smith argues, however, that the most threatening aspect of the Lazarists’ evolution after Vincent’s death was not its new proximity to political power but its continuation of his original mission to serve galley slaves. In 1683 Louis XIV named
the Lazarists the king’s servants to the royal galleys. The Lazarists were sent to
Marseilles with the intention that they would also convert the local Huguenot population. However, the priests failed to win back Protestants, and they were reported
to be cruel on the galleymen, in a direct affront to Vincent’s work of bringing compassionate care to prisoners and slaves. Smith explains that, after Vincent’s death,
the mission to the galleys was not directed by the priests:
The king regularly engaged the Lazarists’ services, but he was driven by his
own motives, above all related to domestic and foreign policy. He therefore
sought results vastly divergent from those of missionaries he recruited in his
service and remained in a unique position to override their objection. (p. 3)

Smith ultimately concludes that the Lazarists’ fealty to the king came at the
expense of the allegiance to the ideals of Vincent, and it became increasingly difficult for the priests to serve both masters.
Pace University

SUSAN E. DINAN

BOOK REVIEWS

843

The Jesuit Reading of Confucius: The First Complete Translation of the Lunyu (1687)
Published in the West. By Thierry Meynard, S.J. [Jesuit Studies, vol. 3.]
(Leiden: Brill. 2015. Pp. x, 675. $210.00. ISBN 978-9-004-28977-2.)
In the year 1687 the book Confucius Sinarum philosophus sive… appeared in
Paris, published by Philippe Couplet during his stay in Europe. This book contains
translations (or better paraphrases) of three (Daxue, Zhong Yong, and Lunyu) of the
Sishu, the so-called “Four Books” that constituted the basics for the annual examinations of the Confucian scholars in China. The Latin translations were the fruit
of the efforts of several Jesuits in China starting from the pioneers Michele Ruggieri and Matteo Ricci at the end of the sixteenth century up to Inácio da Costa
and Prospero Intorcetta until Couplet himself. The purpose of these translations
was twofold: the earlier versions served as lectures for newly arrived Jesuits in China
to provide them with the necessary vocabulary and ideas for dialogues with Chinese
scholars. Later the further purpose was added to create images of the Chinese culture and the Jesuit China mission in Europe.
Whereas Thierry Meynard’s book Confucius Sinarum Philosophus (1687): The
First Translation of the Confucian Classics (Rome, 2011) presented English translations of the Latin introduction and of the first of the Four Books, the Daxue (Great
Learning), the present book continues with the translation of the Lunyu, the socalled “Analects of Confucius.” The Lunyu contains discussions and anecdotes with
and about Confucius, including the “Golden Rule,” which the Jesuits found in
Confucius’s teachings and which, in their opinion, could be used to prove to the
proud Chinese people that East and West shared the same values. The Jesuits
believed that such an approach could pave the way to Christianity. Meynard presents a trilingual edition: the original Chinese text, the old Latin translation made
by the Jesuits, and a modern English translation. The Chinese transcription is the
modern one. Also included is the translation of the biography of the Chinese
philosopher Confucius (Kongfuzi).
After the beautiful xylograph book edition of the Sapientia Sinica (Kiencham,
1662) with Chinese characters in the text, which contained besides the bilingual
edition of the Daxue the first part of the Lunyu and the image of Confucius, the
Confucius Sinarum Philosophus finally brought Chinese philosophy to Europe. The
three translated books, together with the biography of Confucius, created a certain
positive image about China, which was further strengthened by the books written
by the Jesuits Louis Le Comte (Nouveaux Memoires sur la Chine, Paris, 1696),
Joachim Bouvet (Portrait historique de l’empereur de la Chine, Paris, 1697), and
Charles le Gobien (Histoire de l’edit de l’empereur de la Chine, Paris, 1698). China
was shown as a rational culture with high values and an ethic comparable to the
(Christian) one of Europe. Confucius was described not as a pagan but as a sage
philosopher, a prince of wisdom without the labels of atheist or idolater. This
image was taken then up by the representatives of early European Enlightenment
as Pierre Bayle and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who described China and its
emperor even as a model for Europe in the preface to his Novissima Sinica

844

BOOK REVIEWS

(Hanover, 1697). We may ask why Meynard presents a new English translation of
the Lunyu besides the already existing ones. The reason is that the Confucius
Sinarum philosophus was not only a translation of the Chinese books but also contained contemporary commentaries such as those by Zhang Jucheng, with a certain
interpretation of the Sishu. In the Jesuits’ eyes, these commentaries paved a way to
a Christian interpretation of the Four Books and created the impression that the
Chinese people could easily be led to Christianity by using their own books. This
was exactly in line with their strategy of accommodation. Thus, this edition
describes very well an encounter of cultures of the seventeenth century.
University of Würzburg

CLAUDIA VON COLLANI

Unnatural Frenchmen: The Politics of Priestly Celibacy and Marriage, 1720–1815. By
E. Claire Cage. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. 2015. Pp x, 238.
$39.50. ISBN 978-0-813-93712-0.)
During the radical phase of the French Revolution, all ties to Christianity
became suspect. “Citizen-Priests” who had previously established their support of
the Revolution were forced to prove that support through a variety of means,
including abdicating their vows—or, if they preferred, getting married. These clerical marriages are the focus of Unnatural Frenchman, a brief but well-researched
and often moving book about the thousands of Gallican priests who married during
the Revolutionary era.
E. Claire Cage takes a long-term view of this phenomenon. Starting with a
(mostly superfluous) discussion of the history of Catholic clerical celibacy, Cage
then turns to the debate over clerical celibacy in the French Enlightenment, before
devoting the three remaining chapters to a discussion of the Revolutionary and
Napoleonic eras. Clerical celibacy had been a target of a number of Enlightenment
authors, a discussion often tied in with the accounts of priests’ sexual misadventures. The arrival of the Revolution increased the volume of this discussion.
Although the relationship between the Revolution and the Catholic Church was a
problem from the start of the Revolution in 1789, it was during the Radical Revolution of 1793–94 that clerical marriage became a major political issue.
The book’s strength lies in the rich detail provided by Cage, particularly from
the Terror and from the Napoleonic era. Cage helps make sense of the choices
faced by clerics and the decisions they made—from the clerics who stood up for
priestly celibacy during the Terror and those who married to protect themselves but
tried to stay as true as possible to their vows to those who embraced their new status
as husbands and fathers. When faced with the possibility of reconciliation with the
Church under Napoleon, their choices were just as diverse (and far better documented). Meanwhile, both eras included any number of priests whose sexual practices were frowned on by opponents and supporters of clerical celibacy alike.
Cage gives more importance to some of her material than it warrants. The
debates over clerical celibacy that she painstakingly reconstructed were a nonfactor

BOOK REVIEWS

845

during the Revolution’s early years, contrary to Cage’s depiction. Nor is she convincing in her claim that the long-term tensions between “understandings of what
it meant to be a celibate clergyman and what it meant to be a good citizen” undermine the historiographically dominant view of the “essentially contingent” (p. 63)
nature of the split between the Revolution and the Church. These shortcomings
are more than made up for by the ways in which Cage re-creates the dilemmas
faced by clerics—including, in some cases, the dilemmas that had originally led
some women and men into vocations for which they were not particularly suited.
Although Cage is sympathetic to the choices priests faced, the book provides a welcome counter-balance to the overly sympathetic accounts of the counter-revolutionary clergy common in histories of the revolutionary clergy.
Cage mentions the shadow cast over the book by current attempts to end clerical predations on minors in the Catholic Church and is well aware of the larger
cultural attempts to move beyond heteronormativity and to validate women’s experiences. She includes brief discussions of Old Regime sodomy, the decisions made
by women to enter the convent, and their experiences once they were forced to
leave it. The focus of the book, however, is on the parish priests who lived through
the Revolution. Theirs was a rich and varied history indeed and well worth the
attention that it receives in Cage’s fine book.
Chinese University of Hong Kong

NOAH SHUSTERMAN

The Coming of the Terror in the French Revolution. By Timothy Tackett. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2015. Pp. xxi, 463.
$35.00. ISBN 978-0-674-73655-9.)
The Terror is the terrible stain on the record of the French Revolution, the
uncomfortable presence that defies scholarly explanation even as it invites it. Timothy Tackett is the latest historian to make the attempt. Much might be hoped for
from the author of the authoritative assessment of the response to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (September 1790)—Religion, Revolution, and Regional Culture in Eighteenth-Century France (Princeton, 1986)—and an expert on the work of
the National Assembly, 1789–91, Becoming a Revolutionary (Princeton, 1996).
Tackett does not disappoint; insisting that violence emerged out of the Revolutionary process itself, he makes a major contribution to historians’ understanding of the
Terror and his judgment will be an essential marker for those that will surely follow
him. His judgment and his scholarship are sound, for this text is based on an
exhaustive survey of those writing about events as they happened, especially the
correspondence (much of it unpublished) of deputies and Parisians that he has read
and collected from across France.
Tackett’s work is chronologically driven, not confining the Terror to the
period between the fall of the Girondins in June 1793 and the overthrow of Robespierre in July 1794, but regarding those thirteen months as the culmination of a
phenomenon that was already in train. He attempts to be even-handed, admitting

846

BOOK REVIEWS

the “darker side” (p. 69) of 1789 and noting the periodic explosions of popular violence across the country that year. Public expectations of the reforming work to be
undertaken by the Estates-General were so fervent that any obstacles to its
progress—the Crown, the aristocracy, and the clergy—soon became emblems of
obstructionist self-interest that invited retribution. These identifications only
intensified over time once the War of the First Coalition began, a republic was
declared, and the Revolution turned into a cult of itself. Part of the problem was
the speedy collapse of royal authority in Paris and the provinces in 1789–90, which
allowed for all sorts of experiments in civic freedoms at a juncture when, Tackett
argues, the limits of liberty were “fundamentally untested” (p. 77). Outbreaks of
violence did not occur in isolation. In rural areas, inhabitants freed from tithe payments and manorial dues saw tax payments as a logical next step, and trying to
rebuild among them a spirit of subordination to property owners and the government only invited resistance.
Perceptions of treachery and conspiracy became universal from 1791, and
events like the king and queen’s botched Flight to Varennes intensified pressures
to the point of generating an “everyday terror” (p. 135). Tackett does not mince his
words. There arose a “metastasis of fear and suspicion” (p. 154) among all political
classes, and it would not be dispelled as long as the Revolution lasted. Readily persuaded by a public rhetoric freighted with exhortations to seek out traitors (often
those deemed to be using “patriotism” as a mask), young men who were used to
casual violence became more prevalent. The September Massacres of 1792 were, as
Tackett shows, generally presented as a necessary evil; so was the execution of
Louis XVI in January 1793, a major precipitant of Terror intensification. Rationalization of Revolutionary action was easily to hand, for had not Marat himself
said: “To shed a few drops of impure blood so as to avoid spilling buckets of pure
blood is to be humane and just”? With exterminate growing in popularity in patriotic vocabulary in 1793–94, Tackett’s account moves forward to take in the Federalist and Vendée Revolts; the vicious in-fighting among Jacobins that saw both
Enragés and Dantonistes sent to the guillotine; and the coming of the Great Terror
following the Law of Prairial, when whole categories of men and women were executed on the basis of their public status before 1789. It was a time when, as the
bookseller Nicolas Ruault said, “death hovers over everyone’s head” (p. 334).
Tackett, in his extraordinary command of the secondary sources, draws
throughout on recent writing on emotions and sentiments (especially fear) to try
and make sense of what was going on. He cannot deny the penchant for hatred and
violence among the sans-culottes and depicts with some sympathy how politicians
who had created a career for themselves in running the Revolution constantly
struggled and invariably failed to control its outworkings. His regard for the view
from the provinces is one of the strengths of this book; one of its few weaknesses
is his excessive determination to stress the female attachment to the Revolution.
Tackett is always humane. At the start of his fine volume, he admits to a “personal
reticence” (p. 12) in condemning the perpetrators of violence in the Revolution
despite the formidable dossier he has here accumulated against them. Some readers

BOOK REVIEWS

847

(particularly those who are themselves victims of violence) may consider that position uncomfortably limp, but at least Tackett remains true to the historians’s first
calling: to understand rather than to judge.
NIGEL ASTON

University of Leicester

LATE MODERN EUROPEAN
Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Irish Global Networks 1750–1950.
Edited by Colin Barr and Hillary M. Carey. [McGill-Queen’s Studies in the
History of Religion, Series 2, vol. 73.] (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press. 2015. Pp. xiv, 456. $39.95 paperback. ISBN 978-0-7735-4570-0.)
This is a fascinating study of Irish religious experience as this found expression
in America and the British Empire in a 200-year period. The idea of “Greater Ireland” is not simply a synonym for the Irish diaspora. The Irish in “Greater Ireland”
continued to be linked by emotional, cultural, and symbolic ties to the old country.
Unlike other studies of the global Irish, the sixteen essays in this work emphasize
the centrality of religion in Irish Catholic and Protestant culture, at home and
abroad. The editors freely admit that this is not a comprehensive study of the topic;
some geographical areas are neglected such as the West Indies, Argentina, Western
Australia, and Britain, where the complexities are such as to merit individual volumes. Nor is there a chapter on Irish Jews, but John Stenhouse does indicate cooperation between Irish Catholics and Protestants with some leading Jews over social
issues in New Zealand in the late-nineteenth century.
There is a sense in which many of the characteristics of the Irish in the diaspora are a mirror image of the Irish at home. Sectarian differences were a plague
with the expansion of the Orange Order in Canada and Australia that served to
keep religious rivalries alive. Diane Hall, however, illustrates the centrality of
Orange Lodges in identity formation in Australia. She also warns against the dangers of subsuming Irish Protestant experience under the predominantly English
character of mainstream Australian Protestantism. Similarly, Michael Gladwin
shows the importance of Irish ministers for the development of Anglicanism in
Australia despite what is often regarded as the “quintessentially English” nature of
the church there.
Irish religious experience could never quite escape the tension produced by
Irish political realities. Thus Myrtle Hill, in her chapter on Irish women in Protestant female missions between 1870 and 1914, points out that the Female Association for Promoting Christianity was founded in Belfast at a time when the issue of
Home Rule was beginning to come to the fore. Such political tensions also raised
questions of imperial loyalty, which, in turn, served to sharpen sectarian animosities.
Were the Catholics loyal to the Empire? Whatever the experience at home,
the irony is that, by and large, Catholics served imperial interests. In Canada,

848

BOOK REVIEWS

according to Mark McGowan, they were consistently imperialistic, but this was
facilitated by the fact that the Constitution Act of 1791 gave them religious and
political freedoms not available in Ireland. Carolyn Lambert demonstrates that, so
far as Newfoundland was concerned, Irish Catholics were marked by both patriotism for Ireland and loyalty to the British Empire. Upon his death in 1914, Archbishop Michael Francis Howley of St. John’s was described as a “true son of
Empire” (p. 129). This is despite the fact that he was distinctly muted in his
approval of the British side in the Boer War of 1899–1902, quite unlike his wholly
Irish Episcopal colleagues at the Cape, who supported Britain against the Boers
(Colin Barr, p. 267).
Barry Crosbie reminds us that the peoples of the United Kingdom viewed the
Empire differently and had varying interactions with indigenous peoples. This gave
rise to trouble for Irish priests and bishops over issues of caste in India. But this
may have been part of the process of negotiations with local realities that Mia
Cowan identifies in her study of Catholic participation in the public school system
in Chicago in the mid- to late-nineteenth century.
But there were other problems for the Irish in “Greater Ireland.” Squabbles at
home over “New Light” and “Old Light” theology within Presbyterianism were
exported to colonial America in the eighteenth century. Irish Catholics competed
with French Catholics in British North America for dominance of the Church, and
ultimately the Irish won.
There are a few minor errors. The Irish Ecclesiastical Record was not a “Jesuit
journal” (p. 83), Queen Victoria’s Silver Jubilee was not in 1897 (p. 130), and
Theobold Matthew was a friar and not a monk (p. 165). This volume is to be
highly recommended for the light it shines on seminal aspects of global Irish social
and religious history.
Boston College

OLIVER P. RAFFERTY, S.J.

Receptions of Newman. Edited by Frederick D. Aquino and Benjamin J. King. (New
York: Oxford University Press. 2015. Pp. xii, 264. $110.00. ISBN 978-0-19968758-9.)
The coeditors stress that this book “is not an exhaustive account of the reception of [Newman’s] work” (p. 2): there is nothing on Newman as writer, and nothing on the Apologia pro Vita sua (London, 1864; Aquino and King, p. 2). There is
a chapter on Newman and the French modernists but not one on his more
informed reception in Germany.
Benjamin J. King shows how the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1845) aroused critical, albeit very different, reactions from Evangelicals, liberals, and High Churchmen in the Church of England. Kenneth L. Parker
and C. Michael Shea point out that it is not true that the Essay was rejected by the
Roman Catholic Church right up until the Second Vatican Council, for ironically

BOOK REVIEWS

849

it was used by leading ultramontanes to justify the definitions of the Immaculate
Conception and papal infallibility, nor that it had no influence on Catholic theologians, although at first greeted uneasily by leading Roman theologians, a suspicion
that was revived during the Thomistic revival under Pope Leo XIII and that
entered into the standard seminary manuals.
For Frederick D. Aquino, the “crucial question” regarding the reception of the
Grammar of Assent is whether in appealing to our actual mental processes
Newman’s aim is to offer a “phenomenology of religious belief” or an “epistemology
of religious belief” or a combination of both (p. 59); whereas Mark McInroy
observes that even neo-Scholastic theologians insisted that the condemned modernists had misinterpreted the Grammar, thereby obscuring its originality.
John Sullivan refers to “the mistaken view” that Newman excluded professional education and research from the university (p. 96) but without giving any
explanation or sources for these misunderstandings and their refutation. He also
fails to explain that Newman’s “philosophy” or the “architectonic role” (p. 99) does
not refer to academic philosophy. Colin Barr argues, without explaining how or
why, that Newman “never understood why [Dublin Archbishop Paul] Cullen
behaved the way that he did” (p. 126). Actually, Newman knew perfectly well that
he had not been singled out for special treatment since Cullen confided in and
trusted no one. Barr claims that the failure by scholars to consider “any account of
events other than Newman’s own” has distorted the historical record (p. 133) but
fails to show how Newman’s account was distorted. Barr claims that Cullen “never
sought to intervene in the discipline of the university, nor in its appointments,”
except on “a handful of occasions” and then only for “political” reasons (p. 125). He
ignores Cullen’s failure to respond to Newman’s request that he be made vicar general to the whole hierarchy in order to have more independence and power, which
the autocratic Cullen was not prepared to give him. Nor does he mention Cullen’s
absolute refusal, again not for any “political” reasons but out of clericalism, to allow
a lay finance committee or indeed any nonacademic lay involvement, which
Newman regarded as crucial for the university’s success. When Cullen very reluctantly let, or was forced to let, Newman have his way, it was not for want of trying
very hard to prevent him, and therefore Newman’s complaint about “constant
interference” (p. 130) was perfectly justified.
Peter Nockles shows how a Tractarian idea of an “Anglican Newman” or
“Newman for Anglicans” (p. 138) developed in response to his conversion to Rome,
with some Tractarians blaming the university and ecclesiastical authorities, and
hoping his conversion might help reunion with Rome, and other Tractarians
denouncing his act of “schism,” which they attributed to an alleged restlessness and
oversensitivity. In the best chapter in the book, Keith Beaumont explains the French
modernists’ attempt to misrepresent Newman as a proto-modernist. Daniel J. Lattier
misunderstands Newman’s comment that it was absurd for an Anglican to become
an Orthodox as referring only to its impracticality. William J. Abraham points out
the danger after the Second Vatican Council of Newman’s theology of Revelation

850

BOOK REVIEWS

being misunderstood as antidogmatic. Cyril O’Regan, in the worst chapter in the
book, dismisses “well over a century of hagiographical treatment of Newman’s life,”
adding, “The biographies of Ward, Trevor, and Ian Ker are of this kind” (p. 220).
The absurdity of comparing Wilfrid Ward’s intellectual biography with Meriol
Trevor’s popular, “romantic,” and indeed overtly hagiographical biography is of a
piece with O’Regan’s ignorant dismissal of the Apologia as “a consistently highminded construction of Newman’s behaviour towards others” (pp. 220–21). If O’Regan were to read only the first chapter, he would find there Newman criticizing himself for provocation and hostility in controversy, for flippant contempt for antiquity,
and for an “intellectual excellence to moral” preference (Apologia, p. 72).
University of Oxford

IAN KER

The Correspondence of Alexander Goss, Bishop of Liverpool 1856–1872. Edited by
Peter Doyle. [Catholic Record Society Publications, Records Series, vol. 85.]
(Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer. 2014. Pp. lii, 388. $80.00. ISBN 978-0902-83228-2.)
Peter Doyle, who has written extensively on the nineteenth-century Catholic
Church in Liverpool, is well positioned to edit this volume of 449 letters on Bishop
Alexander Goss of Liverpool,. The book follows the standard format of the
Catholic Record Society’s Records Series, which includes transcripts of archive
documents with an historical introduction. The introduction in particular is excellent and sets Goss’s episcopal reign in context in a clear and accessible way—no
easy task when one considers the complex range of issues encountered by Goss.
Goss was born in Omskirk, Lancashire, in 1814. Educated at Ushaw College,
he was ordained at the English College in Rome in July 1841, becoming vice-president of St. Edward’s College near Liverpool two years later. He was appointed
coadjutor to Bishop George Brown of Liverpool in 1853, and much of the early
correspondence in this volume describes in some detail their often stormy relationship. Goss succeeded Brown as bishop of Liverpool in January 1856, his episcopal
reign lasting until his death sixteen years later.
This “rough and ready speaker,” who felt most comfortable speaking to “plain,
homely Lancashire folks” (p. xxiii), oversaw an unprecedented expansion of the
Catholic Church in his diocese, evident in the huge increase in the numbers of
priests, churches, and schools. Catholics at this stage were predominantly poor
Irish immigrants who had fled their homeland following the Great Famine of
1845–52, and Goss encouraged his Irish flock to try to integrate themselves fully
into English society. After attending a dinner at the Liverpool Irish Club, for
example, he found it especially “gratifying” to note a changing attitude amongst the
Liverpool Irish, who were “becoming, every year, more alive to the importance of
their position,” both politically and economically (p. 56).
Goss was nevertheless a prelate who believed passionately in the “Englishness”
of the English Catholic Church, becoming an unfailing champion of the rights of

BOOK REVIEWS

851

English bishops, both in their dealings with Archbishop Nicholas Wiseman of Westminster and in opposing the interference of the Holy See. A letter to Bishop James
Brown of Shrewsbury in July 1862 perhaps is typical of this attitude. Following an
instruction by Cardinal Alessandro Barnabò, prefect of the Congregation of the
Propagation of the Faith, to support the Rambler, a Catholic periodical, Goss was
furious, suggesting that the English bishops should “make a stand & exercise our
rights . . . by refusing obedience to any but official acts & commandments” (p. 282).
Nevertheless, Goss was prepared to invoke the power of Rome when it suited
his needs, most notably in allegations that the Roman Catholic seminary of Ushaw
College had misappropriated the bequests of William Heatley and Thomas Youens
for the purposes of buttressing the grand architectural vision of its president, Monsignor Charles Newsham. As early as 1855, Goss was critical of Newsham’s plan to
build a new junior seminary at Ushaw, seeing an urgent need to “arrest the mania of
bricks & mortar, which will ultimately prove the ruin of the College, in whose welfare we have so large a stake” (p. 19). Indeed, much of his correspondence as bishop
concerns a long and protracted court case that resulted in the Holy See ruling against
the seminary. Greater control over the management of funds and the college generally were ceded to the diocesan bishops who, with the establishment of an Ushaw
Commission, played a greater role in college affairs from the 1860s onward.
This volume of letters will be of great benefit to researchers of nineteenthcentury Catholic history, as well as political, social, and economic historians of the
mid-Victorian period generally. It is therefore a commendable and worthy addition
to the Catholic Record Society’s Records Series.
Durham University

JONATHAN BUSH

The Gospel According to Renan: Reading, Writing, and Religion in Nineteenth-Century
France. By Robert D. Priest. (New York: Oxford University Press. 2015. Pp.
xii, 265. $110.00. ISBN 978-0-19-872875-7.)
Robert D. Priest presents here Ernest Renan as Catholic seminarian, philologist, Semitics scholar, professor, and traveling érudit, and his book La Vie de Jésus
(Paris, 1863) as a contribution to the nineteenth-century historical study of Jesus;
the book portrayed a unique and wonderful religious leader, divinized to his detriment by the churches. The author deals with the debates, acrimonious and otherwise, that followed publication, involving Renan directly as well as his defenders
and adversaries. Priest also discusses Renan’s audience that encompassed intellectuals, church people, and admirers whose religious and cultural lives were transformed by Renan and his Jesus, as well as Renan’s legacy and the changes in nineteenth- and twentieth-century French and European religious sentiment that
occurred due to Renan’s life and work.
Renan, born into the very Catholic Breton culture of the nineteenth century
and a sincere seminarian early on, produced an ingenious desacralization of the bib-

852

BOOK REVIEWS

lical text: “There was an irrepressibly Catholic character to various editions of the
Vie de Jésus, which sought in different ways to intercede between ordinary believers
and the biblical text” (p. 14). Renan wrote of Jesus, “I have felt him, I have touched
him, he is my friend” (cited on p. 27). This personal and intellectual stance was
undergirded by his travels in Palestine, where, he said, “The Gospel as a real book
had its perfect commentary” (cited on p. 54, emphasis in original). His ensuing
work brought him appointment to the Collège de France, and responses to his
appointment and his opening lecture marked the beginning of the passionate controversies that surrounded the man and his work ever after.
For Renan, Jesus brought about a cultural and moral revolution that could only
be explained by a uniquely inspiring and imposing personality. Renan rejected both
miracles and divinity, but here he worked with historical explanations to counter any
philosophical dismissals of the man. Only extended study of Christianity—its Jewish
roots and its oriental qualities—could explain Jesus. Priest deals delicately with
Renan’s emphasis on the gentle, sexually contained, virtually androgynous appeal to
both men and women: “Jesus offered a model of male heroism that was grounded in
celibacy and feminine sensitivity” (p. 100); he created a morality of idealism and transcendence that churches ever afterward were unable to institutionalize.
With a review of pamphlets, reviews, and newspaper articles, Priest provides a
history of subsequent debates. While churchmen and conservative Catholics (such
as ultramontanists, those fundamentalists of papal authority) were rabidly antiRenan—after all, he denied the divinity of Jesus—secular academics and other commentators were divided on the virtues and faults of the book. Priest labels the
Catholic invective a virtual “pamphlet war” (p. 112), which included influential contributions from Alphonse Gratry, professor of theology at the Sorbonne, and Louis
Veuillot, a hard-bitten Catholic lay journalist. Liberals were those who “shared a
common commitment to the principle of free inquiry,” as Priest aptly and concisely
puts it (p. 134). An antireligious bloc they were not, and some among them regretted that Renan could not ultimately provide a full reconciliation of faith and reason.
In his chapter, “The Audience,” Priest examines the body of letters addressed to
Renan, especially diverse after the release of a popular edition of the book with its
new preface addressed to “the true disciples of Jesus . . . humble servants of God”
(quoted on p. 156). Many letter writers were grateful that Renan had made a relationship possible with a Jesus that had been obscured by rigid church doctrine. Priest
offers a rich and expansive interpretation of these letters that in itself justifies the subtitle of the book, “Reading, Writing, and Religion in Nineteenth-Century France.”
The author concludes with a stimulating section on “the Legacy” of Renan in
the last decades of the century, after the fall of Napoleon III and the first decade of
the twentieth century. Renan, in fact, distanced himself from the self-consciously
and vociferously Catholic and anticlerical teams, eschewing both the apparition/
miracle mentalities of the ultramontanists and promoters of atheism on the Republican side. Attempts to do a life of Christ—to “get it right”—came from both the

BOOK REVIEWS

853

orthodox Catholic (such as the Jerusalem Dominicans and Alfred Loisy) and fundamentalist Republican sides, and new societies were formed to promote these
efforts.
The last major effort to immortalize Renan, a statue in his hometown of
Tréguier in Brittany (1903), resulted in violent conservative Catholic opposition
and the erection of a Calvary, a Crucifixion sculpture, in the same town. Once
again, as had happened with some regularity across the nineteenth century, there
was no final compromise between the traditional Catholic and the Republican anticlerical elements of French society. Priest insists with great regularity that the
notion of “two Frances” (p. 11) is given the lie by the reality of Renan, but the “two
Frances” were never anything more than broad—and extremely useful—categories.
The more subtle and conciliatory thinkers on both sides were not content with
party lines or battle lines, but they never did manage to secure a truce or establish
a middle ground. There never was a tertium quid, never “three Frances.”
Oklahoma State University (Emeritus)

JOSEPH F. BYRNES

La Politique Russe du Saint-Siège (1 9 0 5 – 1 9 3 9 ). By Laura Pettinaroli. [Bibliothèque
des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 367.] (Rome: École
Française de Rome. 2015. Pp. 937. €50,00 paperback. ISBN 978-2-72831103-3.)
Laura Pettinaroli, history associate at the Catholic Institute of Paris, has
written a monumental history of the Holy See’s Russian policy from 1905 to 1939.
It is valuable because of its thoroughness, balance, and use of archives in Russia,
France, and especially Vatican City. The author’s work is unparalleled in presenting
new material and in explaining the Holy See’s bureaucracy, decision-making
process, and the singular importance of the popes and the Pro Russia Commission,
which was set up by Pius XI in 1925, in crafting Vatican policy toward Russia.
The author divided the history of the period between the Revolution of 1905
and the eve of World War II into three parts: 1905 to 1917, 1917 to 1928, and
1928 to February 1939, when Pius XI died. Part 1 describes the Holy See’s policy
of attempting to adjust to the dramatic changes in Russia in the years before World
War I—the 1905 Revolution, the October Manifesto, the Duma, and the policy of
religious toleration. As the war approached, Nicholas II backed away from
toleration and then made the supreme error of going to war in 1914 in spite of the
lesson of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 that had produced revolution in
1905 and nearly toppled his government.
The second part of the book covers the Holy See’s policy toward the
provisional government that took power in February 1917. The regime’s policy of
religious liberty and separation of church and state delighted the Church, but its
error of continued involvement in World War I allowed the Bolshevik
(Communist) Party of Lenin to replace it in October 1917. For the Catholic

854

BOOK REVIEWS

Church, the communists were anathema. They aimed to wipe out not only religion
but also private property. Here Pettinaroli carefully chronicles the persecution of
the Church, the removal of the hierarchy and priests, and the Vatican’s efforts to
engage the Kremlin and to defuse or circumvent its persecution of the Church. The
author describes the Vatican’s famine relief effort in Soviet Russia; creation of the
Pro Russia Commission; and the extraordinary partnership between Pius XI and
Bishop Michel d’Herbigny, the French Jesuit who tried surreptitiously to rebuild
the Catholic hierarchy in Soviet Russia in the mid-1920s. Pettinaroli’s work is the
fullest treatment of d’Herbigny to date.
The final section covers the persecution of the 1930s, the frustrated efforts of
the Vatican to stop the communist onslaught, and the history leading to World
War II. The book is a detailed description of the evolution of Vatican policy in
Russia, going from a missionary attempt to broaden contacts and conversions in
Russia before World War I to attempts at working with the governments of Russia,
including the Bolsheviks, to utter anguish and shock with the realization that the
regime of Lenin and Stalin was not simply a localized attack on the small Russian
Catholic Church but rather a global revolution that aimed to replace religiouslybased orders with a communist order led by Moscow.
Texas State University, San Marcos

DENNIS J. DUNN

The Church of England and the Home Front, 1914–1918: Civilians, Soldiers and Religion in Wartime Colchester. By Robert Beaken. (Rochester, NY: Boydell Press.
2015. Pp. xvi, 272. $49.95. ISBN 978-1-78327-051-4.)
A local study can have significant benefits when studying the religious experience of wartime because it is not only the devil that can be found in the detail.
Local vicar Robert Beaken clearly understands the context of Colchester, a garrison
town in Essex, and he also benefits from an abundance of documentation. In addition, he shows a generally excellent and up-to-date sense of the wider historiography of the British home front during World War I.
In an episcopal church the character of the bishop in authority always matters.
Colchester had in early 1914 been incorporated into the new Anglican diocese of
Chelmsford. Colchester thus found itself going to war under the oversight of John
Watts-Ditchfield, an outspoken low-church figure who had been raised a
Methodist. Beaken comments that if he had a sense of humor, “it doesn’t leap out
from the pages of his diary” (p. 15). During the war he appears to have suffered
from depression, although he continued to work hard and had a “very warm and
caring pastoral heart” (p. 16). His deep-ingrained suspicion of “ritualism” had liturgical consequences.
The exigencies of wartime had strengthened the case for two practices that
had been very controversial in prewar Anglicanism. The reservation of the host was
seen by Anglo-Catholic believers in the real presence as increasingly important in

BOOK REVIEWS

855

order to be able to administer Holy Communion at short notice. Watts-Ditchfield,
with support from Anglican bishop Charles Gore of Oxford, held a diocesan meeting on the subject condemning the practice—although it is unclear whether any of
the Anglo-Catholic churches in Colchester had actually done it. Prayers for the
dead proved more complex, because, at the very start of the war, Archbishop Randall Thomas Davidson of Canterbury had authorized the practice, with careful
wording designed to deny that this implied any acceptance of the erroneous doctrine of purgatory. Watts-Ditchfield wrote to the archbishop to protest the practice
and, despite the reassurances, continued to oppose prayers for the dead in his diocese. Nevertheless, in this case, many parishes pushed ahead.
Beaken is particularly good on the National Mission of Repentance and Hope
of 1916. This was on the whole a more unifying experience for Anglicans, and, like
this reviewer, Beaken believes that it should probably be judged a modest success
unfairly condemned due to inflated expectations. In retrospect, one important element was the engagement of women as “bishops’ messengers.” This proved controversial in Colchester and elsewhere. In the end, Watts-Ditchfield sided with the
predominantly Anglo-Catholic critics and ruled that women would be allowed to
preach and lead prayers only in halls and vicarages, not in churches. Ironically,
Davidson wrote to his counterpart in York that he had heard from Catholic Bishop
Peter Emmanuel Amigo of Southwark that women leading prayers in churches had
become commonplace in wartime France.
The war does not seem to have had a huge quantitative impact on Colchester
churchgoing amongst Anglicans. Easter communicant numbers rose slightly
between 1914 and 1916, and then fell away slightly by 1918 but remained higher
than the prewar figure. Shifts in the numbers of male and female confirmations
might suggest a degree of feminization of the congregations. (Anglican confirmation was quite often an adult act.) There was a big increase in confirmations for
both sexes at the end of the war. The war years were regularly marked by days of
intercession and national days of prayer. These seem to have been consistently well
attended. The link between the local Essex regiment and General Sir Edmund
Allenby, the former Colchester garrison commander, with the Palestine campaign
of 1917 meant that the capture of Jerusalem seems to have created real local enthusiasm with the bishop authorizing a Te Deum. The war’s end saw massive attendance at services of thanksgiving.
Beaken suggests in his conclusion that the idea that the Church of England
had a “bad” World War I is something of a myth. There are a lot of observable continuities, and Beaken points out that the laity and clergy alike on November 11,
1918, would probably have viewed the Church as having fulfilled its duty to nation
and people. This is probably right, as a national church the Anglicans could not
really stand aside from the national cause, but caricatures of jingoistic clergy blessing the conflict are to a large extent unsubtle anticlerical propaganda. Within the
frame of a widespread Augustinian view of the debts owed by church to state
(something not at all limited to Anglicans), the clergy sought to serve their parish-

856

BOOK REVIEWS

ioners in a time of fear, stress, and sorrow and on the whole did so with honor and
some success. The new religious history of the war is beginning to uncover an
important story in this respect.
Pembroke College, University of Oxford

ADRIAN GREGORY

Riti di Guerra: Religione e politica nell’Europa della Grande Guerra. By Sante Lesti.
(Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. 2015. Pp. 260. €24,00 paperback. ISBN
978-88-15-25804-5.)
Sante Lesti’s Riti di guerra. Religione e politica nell’Europa della Grande Guerra
deals with efforts mainly in France and Italy during World War I to rally Catholics
to the cause of war and perhaps to show that they were just as patriotic as everybody
else. This involved a number of projects in both countries, and Lesti focuses on
attempts to dedicate to the Sacred Heart either the “nation” (as in the French case)
or the army (as in Italy). Later some undertook the task of dedicating the “Allies.”
That who or what should be consecrated depended on each nation’s historical situation, a conundrum that adds to the value of Lesti’s provocative and wellresearched book. Both prewar Italy and France had famously disastrous histories of
Church-state relations. In France, the Revolution, starting in 1789, and the Third
Republic, particularly the Dreyfus affair and its fallout, pushed the Church over the
political cliff. Italy’s Risorgimento and subsequent anticlerical governments shocked
religious authority there and even dispossessed the pope. In both countries World
War I presented opportunities for some reconciliation. In France, Cardinal Léon
Adolphe Amette, archbishop of Paris, led the way in pledging the nation to the
Sacred Heart. In Italy, the Franciscan Agostino Gemelli and the Piedmontese
bishop Angelo Bartolomasi joined Armida Barelli, the leader of Catholic Action’s
Women’s Union. Their aim differed from the French by focusing on the army
before they broadened their spectrum to include all of the Allied nations.
Some raised questions as to why all this was necessary. France had precedents
of such endeavors; indeed, not too many years before, Pope Leo XIII had consecrated all humanity to the Sacred Heart. The French republican government,
moreover, had reservations. By sanctioning the Church’s plans, it welcomed the
chance to bring Catholics on board, although up to a point. Part of the ceremony
included prayers for forgiveness and, considering the anticlerical measures over the
past century or so, there was much to forgive. But the state would not see it that
way. Apprehension dogged the republicans that the consecration would end up as
a religious slap in the face and play into the hands of the monarchists. After all, in
the 1790s the Vendée rebels had embraced the Sacred Heart as their emblem
against the revolution. Consequently, Lesti recounts Paris’ pressure to purge or
censor parts of the ceremony and the episcopal reactions to those pressures, often
but not always resistant. He adds here some insights into the distinction between
the Christian and the national religions. In Italy, resistance to the consecration of
the Army came from Pope Benedict XV, anxious not to appear too partisan in the
war. The Italians’ task was made easier, however, in that neither the state nor the

BOOK REVIEWS

857

nation participated but the soldiers themselves. “We Catholics,” Gemelli wrote in
May 1915, shortly after Italy’s declaration, “until yesterday worked to prevent the
war. Today we must give our life, our activity, all of our heart, our genius to those
who hold in their hands the fatherland’s destiny.” Along the way, Lesti introduces
us to Benito Mussolini in the trenches, who had little use for the acts, and Angelo
Roncalli, the young Lombard priest and future Pope John XXIII who did and took
a quite active role in it all. On January 5, 1917, the Italian Army was consecrated
to the Sacred Heart.
University of Scranton

ROY DOMENICO

The Pope’s Dilemma: Pius XII Faces Atrocities and Genocide in the Second World War.
By Jacques Kornberg. [German and European Studies.] (Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press. 2015. Pp. x, 405. $37.95 paperback. ISBN 978-14426-2828-1.)
Pope Pius XII’s dilemma when faced by World War II and its attendant
genocide lay, according to Jacques Kornberg, in having to choose between his theological responsibility as pope in sustaining and preserving the institution of the
Roman Catholic Church and his moral responsibility as pope in speaking out
against the wartime atrocities and the programs of genocide that deprived so many
people of their lives and civil rights. Making the pope’s decision even more difficult was that, in many cases, these atrocities were being enthusiastically carried out
by Roman Catholics.
Kornberg concludes that Pius XII saw his first responsibility to be the preservation of his Church as a vehicle for the salvation of souls. The institutional structure of the Church assisted its members toward God’s grace through the sacraments,
the only guarantee of eternal life with God. In spite of the fact that important segments of the Church were active participants on opposing sides in the war, Pius felt
constrained from criticizing their behavior or of reminding them of their moral
duties, lest his criticism drive many Catholics from the Church. The pope realized
his weakness and his inability to challenge the attraction of wartime nationalism; he
was not in a position to lead his flock from above during the war but could only
respond to wartime positions taken by national Catholic communities. He could not
lead a Church if its members were not willing to follow him and better, therefore,
that he work to preserve the institutional Church for the postwar future.
In Germany in 1933, the Catholic Centre Party and the German Catholic
bishops sought to accommodate themselves to Hitler’s new dictatorial government,
which was popular and supported by many Catholics. The German Concordat of
1933 was an attempt by Catholics with the support of Vatican Secretary of State
Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) to secure some protection for what might
follow under Hitler’s leadership.
When Germany invaded and occupied Poland in 1939, Pius XII lamented the
impact of war on Poland but never assigned blame, since German Catholics were

858

BOOK REVIEWS

supporting the German forces, and Polish Catholics were mounting a resistance
against them.
In Slovakia during the war, a Catholic party under the presidency of Monsignor Josef Tiso was responsible for antisemitic legislation. Although the Slovak
bishops had reservations about some of this legislation, their opposition was muted
and ambiguously stated. The Vatican saw no reason to interfere.
Wartime Croatia, under the government of Ante Pavelic, was another state
based on its Roman Catholic community, where the pope chose not to intervene in
the forced conversions of Serb Orthodox and other atrocities lest he drive members
from the Catholic Church. Blessed Aloysius Stepinac, archbishop of Zagreb and
leader of the Croat church, offered some resistance to the conversions and the
death squads, but he never chose to break with the Croat government and certainly
did not seek Vatican intervention.
In Vichy France, Philippe Pétain’s National Revolution was designed to
restore the Church to its position of influence and was well supported by French
Catholics in spite of its deportation of French Jews. In many of these wartime situations, Pius was prepared to follow the lead given by local bishops, clergy, and
laity, and made no attempt to impose his will on national communities.
Kornberg, in fact, claims that Pius XII behaved no differently in this respect
than had earlier popes when faced with similar situations. He cites Leo XIII’s
inability to get French Catholics to rally to the French Republic in the late-nineteenth century when the French were not prepared to follow the papal lead. Benedict XV at the beginning of World War I made no mention of atrocities committed
during the German occupation of Belgium, and his 1917 peace notes were not supported by many Catholic belligerents. In 1935 Pius XI said nothing about Benito
Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia, because it was enthusiastically supported by Italian clergy and laity. Earlier popes had sensed limits to their own powers of persuasion and had stepped back in the interest of the preservation of the Church. Where
the Jews were concerned, traditional Catholic religious antisemitism gave atrocities
against the Jews a lower priority when weighed against the future functioning of
the Roman Catholic Church.
The reason that Pius XII has been singled out for historical reprimand is due,
according to Kornberg, to the cultural and religious context of the 1960s. Pacelli’s
reputation was high at the time of his death in 1958, but, in 1963, it was challenged
by Rolf Hochhuth’s play, The Deputy, which claimed that Pius had failed in his
duty by not speaking out against the slaughter of the Jews. Although Kornberg dismisses Hochhuth’s treatment of Pius XII as a caricature, the argument of the playwright did find a receptive audience in 1963 for two reasons. One was the growing
liberalism of the postwar period and the questioning, particularly in Germany, of
the institutional factors that had led to the war and the Holocaust. The other was
the election of Pope John XXIII and his calling of the Second Vatican Council to

BOOK REVIEWS

859

review the situation of the Church at mid-century. Change was in the air, and the
Council identified changes that should be made in the Church, with a new interest
in civil rights, introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy, and a reinterpretation
of the role of the Jews in the death of Christ. John XXIII was identified as the
leader who was guiding change for the future, in contrast to Pius XII, who was seen
to represent the church that needed to be changed.
Kornberg concludes that historians, engaged in the so-called “Pius Wars” of
the late-twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries, sought to explain Pius’s behavior in terms of personal factors of strength and weakness or in terms of political and
diplomatic objectives of acting as a mediator to restore peace or to block the spread
of communism. Yet in so doing, Kornberg claims, these historians have overlooked
the religious and theological motives that were most important to the pope. At the
same time, Kornberg faults Pius XII because his messages were often mixed, when
he also claimed for himself the moral leadership of the Church and raised people’s
expectations that he would somehow deal with the manifest evil in the world. Yet,
Pius XII hesitated to denounce immorality during the war because he realized that,
by doing so, he ran the risk of driving perpetrators from his Church. Therein lay
his dilemma.
In this study, Kornberg offers a refreshingly different perspective on the motivation of Pius XII, which has not often been explained satisfactorily by other historians. Kornberg’s argument is convincing and is appropriately documented with
the papal encyclicals of Pius XII and other theological documents as well as with
recently opened documentation from the Vatican Archives.
PETER C. KENT

University of New Brunswick

AMERICAN
American Jesuits and the World: How an Embattled Religious Order Made Modern
Catholicism Global. By John T. McGreevy. (Princeton: Princeton University
Press. 2016. Pp. x, 315. $35.00. ISBN 978-0-691-17162-3.)
John McGreevy has produced an ambitious book about Jesuits’ impact on
Catholicism, particularly American Catholicism, in the century after the order’s
restoration in 1814. Expelled from European countries for longer or shorter intervals, Jesuit émigrés carried abroad European ideas about the Catholicism and its
culture. Jesuit ideas about papal leadership and central authority aroused suspicion
and opposition in an era of growing nationalism. Derided as enemies of modern
thought and suspected of being more loyal to a foreign power than to national leaders, Jesuits defended papal infallibility “as a necessary counterweight to the dangers
posed by modern nationalism and a check on liberal Catholics eager for more
autonomy from Rome” (p. 98). Yet, Jesuits in America gradually abandoned Old
World concepts about the union of church and state in favor of democracy as a
favorable atmosphere for the Church’s growth.

BOOK REVIEWS

860

McGreevy begins with an explanation of anti-Jesuit thought in the nineteenth
century, fueled both by nativist American polemic and critical European texts.
These hostile currents, and the republican preferences of American Jesuits, engendered a defensive response from transplanted members of the Society of Jesus.
When the first permanent seminary was established in Woodstock, Maryland,
Europeans constituted the entire faculty in an “oppositional stance” (p. 25) to the
outside world. But experience alters perception. In time, McGreevy suggests, the
Jesuits understood their goal as “more complicated than barricading themselves,
their students, and their parishioners against a destructive modernity” (p. 25).
There follow five chapters about Jesuits whose experience reflected the struggle for a more transnational expression of Catholicism. Swiss-born John Bapst contended with school authorities in Ellsworth, Maine, over mandatory use of the
King James Bible. Tarred and feathered by a nativist mob in 1854, Bapst eventually
left Maine to become the founder of Boston College. In Westphalia, Missouri,
Belgian-born Jesuit Ferdinand Helias built a splendid church to connect German
immigrants with the culture they had left behind. Encountering opposition on several fronts, he narrowed the concept of Catholicism “to an undeniable, if incomplete narrative of faith triumphing over adversity” (p. 102). When Mary Wilson, a
novice in the Society of the Sacred Heart at Grand Couteau, Louisiana, attributed
a medical cure to John Berchmans, she drew support from Jesuit émigrés from
Lyons, France, who conducted a school nearby and used the event as an opportunity to foster a Catholic revival. Burchard Villiger, another Swiss émigré, founded
St. Joseph’s University (1851) and brought European aesthetics to Philadelphia
with the construction of the Gesú church (1888), modeled in style and size on the
flagship Jesuit church in Rome. After the Spanish-American War, efforts in the
Philippines to incorporate Americans into works already sustained by Spanish
Jesuits at first produced tensions; but by the 1930s harmony prevailed at the Ateneo
de Manila and elsewhere.
Touching on John Courtney Murray, Karl Rahner, and Pope Francis, the
conclusion briefly and somewhat haphazardly projects the achievements of earlier
generations through the next century:
Their hesitations about democracy and religious liberty did not equip them
for the challenges of the twentieth century. But their success as institution
builders, along with their linguistic facility and a willingness to travel to all
corners of the globe, seem oddly contemporary. (p. 217)

They laid the groundwork for the concept of enculturation, for the emergence of
Catholicism as global and less European.
Written in an engaging style, McGreevy’s book is the product of meticulous
scholarship (sixty-six pages of endnotes), and includes helpful illustrations and
maps indicating the migration of Jesuits to and from the United States.
College of the Holy Cross

ANTHONY J. KUZNIEWSKI, S.J.

BOOK REVIEWS

861

Anti-Catholicism in American History: A Reinterpretation: Human Identity Needs
Theory and the Bible Riots of 1844. By Kyle Haden, O.F.M. (St. Bonaventure,
NY: St. Bonaventure University Press, Franciscan Institute Publications.
2016. Pp. viii, 282. $49.95 paperback. ISBN 978-1-57659-384-4.)
The Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1844 marked a low point in the rise of nineteenth-century nativism in the United States and have been well scrutinized over
the decades by scholars from Ray Allan Billington and Michael Feldberg to many
others. Kyle Haden, O.F.M., promises a “reinterpretation” of the riots and their
milieu in Anti-Catholicism in American History: A Reinterpretation, which is revised
from his dissertation. For the most part, he succeeds, by applying theories of
human identity needs via an anthropological approach.
With the backdrop of economic turbulence, Protestant Americans’ growing
fears and paranoia over the great influx of Irish Catholic immigrants, and centuries-old conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, the Bible Riots erupted in
the city of brotherly love twice, in spring and summer 1844, ostensibly over
whether Catholic students could use the Catholic version of the Bible rather than
the Protestant King James version in compulsory Bible study in the public schools.
A number of nativists and Irish immigrants were killed, and nativists burned down
two Catholic churches. After the riots, local nativist political parties quickly
formed, leading eventually to the Know-Nothing national party in the 1850s.
The book contains many strengths. In this interdisciplinary study, Haden
offers a far more probing analysis of economic and sectarian factors behind the
events in Philadelphia than that usually encountered by readers. He focuses attention on the impact of the nationwide depression lasting from 1837 to the early
1840s and gleans some thoughtful nuggets by a foraging into antebellum Protestant
exegeses on depictions of God that may have further fueled anti-Catholic sentiments. When he finally gets past his two chapters dealing with his methodological
approach and delves into the plethora of primary materials from the period, the discussion gallops along, as he provides a vivid portrait of the attitudes and thinking
of Protestant authorities when faced with the rising tide of Irish Catholic immigrants in the Philadelphia area.
On the downside, in spite of Haden’s spotlighting of economic factors and the
theology of evangelical Protestantism in the period, a little more backdrop is
needed as to the root causes of the nativist movement—namely, to include more
than passing references to the influence of Maria Monk, Lyman Beecher, and
Samuel F. B. Morse, among others in the 1830s, in instigating the formation of
nativist factions and eventually political parties, culminating in the Know-Nothing
party of the 1850s.
Haden also disrupts the narrative flow of his explanations of the Bible Riots
by his incoherent placement of his methodological chapters. For instance, chapter
2, on human identity needs theory, should have begun the book, not followed the
author’s dramatic retelling of the actual events of the riots. Also, his “excursive”

862

BOOK REVIEWS

chapter on theories of mimesis (chapter 5) has a strong whiff of dissertation-ese
and is not really implemented elsewhere in the book. Finally, more careful proofreading is necessary (possessives are an especially recurring nuisance), and the lack
of an index is a detriment.
All in all, however, Haden provides a fresh and valuable re-examination of a
key moment in the U.S. nativist past, one that might also shed some light on more
recent manifestations of nativism.
Central Connecticut State University

ROBERT DUNNE

Excommunicated from the Union: How the Civil War Created a Separate Catholic
America. By William B. Kurtz. [The North’s Civil War.] (New York: Fordham University Press. 2016. Pp. x, 236. $35.00 paperback. ISBN 978-0-82326886-3.)
Excommunicated from the Union is at once a narrative of American Catholics’
experiences in the Civil War and a history of those effects the war wrought on
American Catholicism. William B. Kurtz contends in this volume that “the American Civil War played a pivotal role in accelerating the antebellum trend in American Catholicism toward isolation and separatism” (p. 8). Loyal Catholics in 1861
viewed the Civil War as a stage upon which to perform their roles as patriotic citizens and, in so doing, gain respectability in American culture. Ultimately, however, Catholics grew disenchanted with the war, and their disenchantment yielded
devastating consequences for coreligionists seeking assimilation into the American
mainstream. In the end, for most Catholics who endured it, “the war proved an
alienating experience” (p. 128).
The author develops a compelling narrative throughout. Nativism during
America’s war with Mexico and anti-Catholicism in American culture made
Catholics eager to prove their Americanness at the outbreak of war. Kurtz details
the wartime experiences of Catholic Civil War soldiers and immigrant families,
blending these narratives with considerations of Irish and German ethnicity. He
skillfully demonstrates how the war especially displaced German Catholics from
American culture. The heroism of priests on the battlefront and of nuns in field
hospitals helped to temper stereotypes of Catholic religious orders and momentarily improved the perception of Catholic patriotism among Protestants. As the war
protracted, however, it exposed fissures in Catholic opinion concerning slavery,
Republican politics, and emancipation. Catholic war enthusiasm divided and
waned, and its critics loudened. Although Catholics worked tirelessly in the latenineteenth century to perpetuate authentic memorials of their Civil War sacrifice,
they “were still seen as an anti-modern, anti-democratic, and alien threat to the
nation’s Protestant identity, its democratic government, and its society” (p. 144).
Significantly, the author amplifies a range of Catholic voices. Public intellectuals, clergy, newspaper editors, women, and soldiers join together to deliver a rich

BOOK REVIEWS

863

sound and range of historical perspectives. These perspectives complement the
work’s lengthened chronology. Many fine studies of religion and the Civil War
treat their subjects as an isolated historical moment; Kurtz, however, extends his
examination of Catholicism in the United States: he looks to 1822—the date of
publication for the first Catholic periodical in America—to the Mexican-American
War (at which time there appeared some forty-eight Catholic publications) and
finally to the postwar years.
The book is informative, although perhaps less helpful, in other ways. The
reader is reminded that Catholics gravitated naturally in 1860 toward the conservative Democratic Party. Many Catholic northerners resented Republicans for
uniting Know-Nothingism with abolitionist radicals who threatened to destroy the
republic. In the eyes of Catholics, these same abolitionist Republicans also threatened the foundation of religious liberty and the rule of law. In a manner reminiscent of Mark Noll’s examination of the war and its effects on Protestant churches
in The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (Chapel Hill, NC, 2006), Kurtz reveals how
the war diminished Catholic unity. Intellectuals and clergy determined not to go
the route of American mainline evangelicalism ultimately experienced fragmentation: Catholics split culturally, even if they maintained theological unity, over slavery and emancipation. For its excellent coverage of the war’s effects on various elements of Catholic society, Excommunicated is somewhat muted on the combat
experiences of Catholic soldiers themselves, amplifying instead the ideologies that
motivated Catholic troops in the Union Army and how it was that soldiers understood their national service in broader terms as a sacrifice for “religious toleration”
(p. 65). To be sure, there are bright moments—such as the absolution William
Corby, C.S.C., pronounced over the Irish Brigade at the Battle of Gettysburg on
July 2, 1863—but one wishes that, in a book about the northern Catholic Civil
War experience, there was more of the war to be had.
All told, however, Kurtz has written a fine work that makes a true intervention
in the historical literatures of American Christianity and the Civil War. It would
be a dull reader indeed who finishes Excommunicated and does not admire more
deeply the Catholic contribution to that fiery trial which tested whether government of, by, and for the people would endure.
Texas Christian University

MITCHELL G. KLINGENBERG

We Gather Together: The Religious Right and the Problem of Interfaith Politics. By Neil
J. Young. (New York: Oxford University Press. 2016. Pp. xvi, 412. $34.95.
ISBN 978-0-19-973898-4.)
As Donald Trump gained momentum in the 2016 Republican primary race,
many wondered how religious conservatives could vote for a man whose personal
life and political views seemed so distant from their own. Neil J. Young’s We Gather
Together: The Religious Right and the Problem of Interfaith Politics answers this question by making two interrelated arguments. First, he compellingly demonstrates

864

BOOK REVIEWS

that the Religious (Christian) Right was a shaky political, rather than sturdy theological, alliance. Second, he highlights that the fractious and precarious confederation of evangelical, Catholic, and Mormon interests meant that its constituents are
neither uniform nor consistently in line with their institutional leadership. “Their
union,” he reflects, “more closely resembled a loose braid than the indestructible
cord: separate threads brought together in tension, they overlapped in some places
and rested closely but independently aside each other in others” (p. 8). Conviction
and pragmatism strained to find a middle ground on which conservative Christians
could mobilize to fight late-twentieth-century culture wars and social change; the
political force of this uneasy alliance was weaker than typically assumed.
We Gather Together begins in mid-century with conservative religious resistance to interfaith unity. There was some interest in subgroup cooperation, but the
underlying threat of loosening doctrinal certainty pushed evangelicals, Catholics,
and Mormons toward separation and isolation rather than cooperation and partnership. The problem, Young shows, was theological: competing exclusive truth
claims left little room for collaboration. While suspicion of early-twentieth-century
liberal Protestant ecumenism and mid-century tri-faith pluralism lingered, the
value of political networks grew as American cultural politics shifted in the 1960s,
1970s, and 1980s. In fact, when this religious trio “perceived themselves as outsiders fighting the cultural and political consensus” (p. 3), they could collaborate.
The Second Vatican Council played a crucial role in creating the possibility of
conservative interfaith activity. The “Decree on Ecumenism” not only relaxed the
long-standing Catholic view of other Christians as heretics but also insisted on
inviting “separated brethren” to worship and work together to fulfill Christ’s mission. Evangelicals and Mormons each saw a little potential and a lot of problems in
this new direction. But constitutional challenges to school prayer, “God is Dead”
theology, abortion, and the Equal Rights Amendment fertilized the soil of ecumenical conservatism and pollinated the buds of the Moral Majority. These fights
also highlight Young’s point: even as conservative Christians united to pursue
political action in line with their values, distinctive theological commitments challenged, cracked, and eroded coalitions. Phyllis Schlafly’s successful campaign to
unite against the ERA, which brought together Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals,
and fundamentalists, looked more diverse “from a national vantage point [and]
obscure[ed] the divisions that remained at the grassroots” (p. 156). And if the
Reagan years represented a harsh right turn for liberals, they were a disappointingly
slow veer rightward for this league of religious conservatives. The 1990s Christian
Coalition picked up the pieces and tried again to puzzle out conservative interfaith
unity; the Clinton years brought evangelicals and Catholics closer together, while
Mormons remained on the edge. Gay marriage offered a tantalizing opportunity to
ally, while Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign again exposed the limits of cooperation.
A teetering affinity has proved more constant than a stable alliance.
Writing about a triangle of religious groups that engaged in dialogues but
rarely interacted simultaneously is a massive task, made even more so by the theo-

BOOK REVIEWS

865

logical gulfs that informed and strained the developing relationships. Overall,
Young handles this task deftly, although at times the extensive detail overwhelms
the narrative. Nevertheless, this is a significant reinterpretation of the rise and
frailty of the Religious Right that deserves the attention of religious, political, and
cultural historians. It also helps explain the present moment, implicitly reminding
us that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” motto streamlines Pat Robertson’s
clunky 1988 slogan, “Restore the Greatness of America Through Moral Strength.”
University of Pennsylvania

RONIT Y. STAHL

Nixon’s First Cover-up: The Religious Life of a Quaker President. By H. Larry Ingle.
(Columbia: University of Missouri Press. 2015. Pp. xii, 272. $50.00. ISBN
978-0-8262-2042-4.)
Just as many Americans are turning away from religion, many American historians are rediscovering it. One such scholar is H. Larry Ingle, with his meticulously researched and richly detailed study, Nixon’s First Cover-up: The Religious
Life of a Quaker President. Ingle effectively argues that few have written about
Richard Nixon’s faith in large part because the nation’s thirty-seventh president
wanted it that way.
Ingle, the author of two books on the Religious Society of Friends, is at his
best when he explains the historical divergence between the eastern “silent Friends”
(such as William Penn’s followers) and the western “evangelical Friends” (such as
Richard Nixon’s parents). Ingle condemns Nixon for pretending to be one of the
former while severing his attachment to the latter. “As a Quaker myself, I believe
religion has a role to play in the public arena, one that can be defined and defended
intellectually and practically,” Ingle reveals in his introduction, “In his decision to
avoid all religious discussions in his campaigns, Nixon was being, I think, untrue to
the very heritage he claimed” (p. 13).
Nixon’s heritage featured what the author calls an “intensive” Quaker
upbringing (p. 45), a conversion experience at age thirteen, matriculation at Whittier College, and Sunday school teaching at the East Whittier Friends Church following his graduation from Duke University Law School. Yet his renunciation of
that heritage included his naval service in World War II; his spurning of the local
Friends congregations while in Congress, the vice presidency, and the presidency;
and his disparagement of those Quakers who protested his prosecution of the Vietnam War. To Ingle, the Watergate scandal was the logical culmination of a public
life that had long since forsaken moral clarity for political ambition.
Nevertheless, Ingle at times permits his disdain for Nixon’s politics to color
his discomfort with Nixon’s religion. In the book’s introduction, Ingle candidly
admits that he voted against Nixon all three times that he could, and in some ways,
despite the author’s profession of fairness toward his subject, this book marks the
fourth time. Although Ingle notes that 60 percent of American Quaker men of

866

BOOK REVIEWS

military age served during World War II (p. 50), he accuses Nixon of abandoning
the pacifist tenets of his faith to advance a political career that had not yet begun.
In 1960, when presidential candidate Nixon defends the separation of church and
state, Ingle attacks him for suppressing his religion. When Nixon’s Catholic Democratic opponent John F. Kennedy makes a similar statement, Ingle calls it “masterful” (p. 109).
As for Nixon’s presidency, Ingle dubiously claims that “historians agree” that
Nixon was “a—even the—central figure” of all those American public officials connected to the Vietnam War, including Democratic President Lyndon Johnson,
“whose name seems rather unfairly attached to the Vietnam conflict” (pp. 160–61,
emphasis in original). There is scant attention to Nixon’s rapprochement with
China and the Soviet Union, which seemed consistent with a Quaker’s passion for
peace. There is no mention of Nixon’s education policies, with his assault on Jim
Crow racial segregation and his enactment of Title IX’s ban on gender discrimination, which appeared to reflect a Quaker’s devotion to equality.
The portrait of Richard Nixon that ultimately emerges from this volume is
that of a politician who publicly and privately embraced religion (whether others’
or his own) more frequently than many presidents, from the prayer service at his
first inaugural and the regular worship services at the White House to his firm
friendship with the famous Baptist evangelist Billy Graham. Yet Ingle largely dismisses these gestures as disingenuous and self-serving.
Although he does not say it, the author seems to long for a president who
combines evangelical religion with Democratic politics (perhaps it is no coincidence that Randall Balmer, who recently wrote a flattering religious biography of
Jimmy Carter, contributes a blurb on the back cover of Ingle’s book). Although
Nixon’s form of Quakerism may have constituted a cover-up, however, his brand
of Republicanism was not a crime.
LAWRENCE J. MCANDREWS

St. Norbert College

LATIN AMERICAN
Forbidden Passages: Muslims and Moriscos in Colonial Spanish America. By Karoline
P. Cook. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2016. Pp. x, 261.
$45.00. ISBN 978-0-8122-4824-1.)
The history of Muslims and Moriscos in colonial Spanish America is an
important topic. Considerably more scholarly attention has been paid to the history
of conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity, voluntary or otherwise, and their
descendants) than to moriscos (Muslim converts to Christianity, voluntary or otherwise, and their descendants). This book goes some way to rectifying that imbalance. Moreover, Spanish and criollo attitudes to Moriscos during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries betray a disconcerting likeness to the twenty-first-century
fears and prejudices of many established citizens of Western Europe and North

BOOK REVIEWS

867

America toward Muslim immigrants and their descendants. Karoline Cook’s book
is timely: not only does it illuminate past history, but it also sheds indirect light on
current tensions.
Cook is both blessed and handicapped by her sources. She has combed
archives from Mexico City and Lima to Seville, Granada, and Madrid, and has
shaped a wealth of previously unpublished material into an invaluable resource for
scholars of colonial Spanish America. Her archival sources, however, are predominantly legal. This has certain disadvantages. Sworn commitment to truth-telling
notwithstanding, legal testimony is not a record of private opinion but of what
plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses are willing to say to gain a desired result in
court. Cook, perhaps, is not always sufficiently skeptical of the possible distance
between what made it into the legal record and what actually happened. Moreover,
legal records do not have the excitement of a John Grisham novel. This is not
Cook’s fault, but it does mean that her readers too often get little sense of the personal dramas behind the records or even, in several cases where the records are
incomplete, of the final outcome. Cook does her best to enliven her study with
individual stories such as those of Diego Herrador, “a shoemaker residing in
Mexico City,” who in 1577 was charged with concealing his Morisco heritage on
his mother’s side to obtain a “false licence” (p. 53) to enter the New World, contrary to official bans on Morisco immigration (pp. 53, 63–66), or of Nicolás de
Zamudio Oviedo, who in Lima in 1636 accused a local priest of publicly calling
him a “Morisco, drunken dog,” but whose case collapsed “because of the lack of
willing witnesses to testify against a priest” (pp. 139–40). Such is the nature of the
legal record, however, that each individual story lasts only a few pages before it has
to be abandoned.
The cumulative effect of a certain legal dryness is not helped by Cook’s thematic arrangement of her material. She marshals evidence to illustrate particular
themes, rather than to build an overall chronological narrative or to develop much
sense of place beyond broad distinctions among Spain, North Africa, and the
Americas. Cook’s thematic approach may have been the best way of assembling so
many fragments of evidence, but it limits the narrative appeal of her work. Nevertheless, her book remains a treasure trove of information for scholars willing to dig
and wanting to know more about the ways in which cultural Moriscos (whose personal faith may have been Christian, Muslim, or somewhere in between) negotiated officially forbidden passage to the New World, protected their public identity
as loyal subjects of the Spanish Crown and “old Christians” (heirs on both sides of
multiple generations of Christians), and managed to build careers and families
amidst the fears and prejudices of the dominant Spanish Catholic culture to which,
of necessity, they themselves claimed to belong. Although Cook does not draw
attention to the fact, hers is a book, mutatis mutandis, about the trials of immigrants
of Muslim heritage both then and now.
University of Wisconsin– Madison

MAX HARRIS

868

BOOK REVIEWS

Father Benito Viñes: The 19th-Century Life and Contributions of a Cuban Hurricane
Observer and Scientist. By Luis E. Ramos Guadalupe. Translated by Oswaldo
García. (Boston: American Meteorological Society. Distrib. University of
Chicago Press. 2014. Pp. xx, 171. $20.00 paperback. ISBN 978-1-93570462-1.)
The specter of the hurricane–el ciclón–looms large over the Cuban imagination. The hurricane entered the cosmology of Cuba as a fixed circumstance of
life, a prospect that people between May and November every year are obliged to
contemplate as a potential catastrophe, contemplated with a mixture of dread and
resignation. The reality of the hurricane has insinuated itself deeply into Cuban
sensibilities.
Memories of hurricanes are passed from one generation to the next, as something lived and later as something learned. The stories develop over time into
received knowledge that passes as conventional wisdom, shared as a common experience. But it is also true—for these very reasons—that no people are better prepared to confront an impending hurricane and cope with its consequences than the
people of Cuba.
It is thus possible to speak of a society formed through familiarity with the
hurricane, based on recurring experiences from which knowledge has accumulated.
That is, a people very exceptionally well informed as to the nature of the phenomenon they confront.
This is not happenstance. On the contrary, it is a culture, possessed of a history with origins in the nineteenth century. Any discussion of the science of meteorology and the study of hurricanes in Cuba begins with accomplishments of the
priest Benito Viñes, and it to this subject that Luis Ramos Guadalupe’s biography
of Viñes is dedicated. This is a celebratory biography, prepared with affection and
admiration, and filled with well-documented information and thoughtful insight.
Viñes dedicated his adult life to the study of the science of meteorology, to
patterns of weather and changes in climate–and most especially to hurricanes. He
arrived in Cuba in 1870 and soon thereafter assumed direction of the Belén Meteorological Observatory. The emphasis of his work was research in tropical meteorology, specifically the collection and analysis of climatological data from weather
observations. A rigid scientific regimen was set in place, based on ten daily observations of weather, including barometric pressure, evaporation, rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, wind direction and speed, and cloud formation.
All in all, a massive scientific project and a vast accumulation of knowledge dedicated to understanding the patterns of weather, with a particular emphasis on forecast, for to forecast the weather and to predict accurately the imminence of a hurricane was a matter of urgency. To predict the approach of a hurricane was to enable
Cubans to prepare for a hurricane. Certainly Viñes was a first-rate scientist, but he
was also witness to the havoc and mayhem produced by hurricanes, and the loss of

BOOK REVIEWS

869

life, livelihood, and property. Indeed, it was this sensibility, a deeply held humanitarian instinct, that provided much of the moral incentive to Viñes’s scientific work.
The biography of Viñes offers a poignant insight into the fusion of science and
humanism, a testimony to the degree to which a labor of love had real-life implications. Viñes succeeded not only in developing a usable forecast paradigm of an
approaching hurricane but also predicted with reasonable accuracy the trajectory of
the hurricane.
The Ramos Guadalupe biography is a welcome addition to the expanding
scholarship on environmental history. English-language readers owe a debt of gratitude to Oswaldo García for a very capable translation of the Spanish-language
original.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

LOUIS A. PÉREZ JR.

Our Lady of the Rock: Vision and Pilgrimage in the Mojave Desert. By Lisa M. Bitel.
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2015. Pp. xvi, 183. $75.00 clothbound,
ISBN 978-0-8014-4854-6; $24.95 paperback, ISBN 978-0-8014-5662-6.)
On December 9, 1531, Mexico’s most famous visionary first saw the Virgin
Mary in her avatar as Our Lady of Guadalupe, on the hill called Tepeyac, outside
of Mexico City. Catholic neophyte Juan Diego was looking like a Christian, continuing a centuries-old tradition of visual grammar, a language of witness and verification, of envisioning the Virgin.
In Lisa Bitel’s remarkable new book, Our Lady of the Rock: Vision and Pilgrimage in the Mojave Desert, with photographs by Matt Gainer, she tells the story of
one of Mexico’s more recent visionaries, Maria Paula Acuna, who now lives in California City, on this side of the border, and sees the Virgin on the thirteenth of
every month, deep in the dusty heart of the Mojave Desert. Hundreds of witnesses
flock to the desert to see the Virgin and to photograph observable celestial phenomena they attribute to the Virgin’s presence. A culture has developed around
interpreting the images to one another, witnessing and being seen.
Although Maria Paula is not in an official order, she dresses in a habit, as do
the women who accompany her. She calls them monjas, or nuns, and they perform
Catholicity. Maria Paula sermonizes each month. She claims to see the Virgin, who
gives her messages to relate to the witnesses. Perhaps unremarkably, the messages
admonish listeners to uphold Catholic doctrine: against abortion, against divorce,
against immodesty, and the like. Maria Paula heals, in the ancient postcolonial tradition of curanderismo or spiritual healing that combines Catholic ritual and faith
with Mesoamerican techniques of physical and spiritual balance and exchange with
the divine.
Based on nearly a decade of ethnographic fieldwork, participant observation,
interviews, and photography, Bitel and Gainer document this fascinating move-

BOOK REVIEWS

870

ment. Maria Paula’s visionary performance begs the question of authenticity or sincerity: does Maria Paula really believe that she sees the Virgin? But Bitel refuses to
see the issue that way, as she states early on:
I tried to look through Maria Paula’s eyes, but of course that is impossible—
only Maria Paula knows what she sees. I considered causes for her behavior
and wondered about her background and motives. I pondered her relation to
the witnesses who accompany her . . . while I might be able to rule out some
causes for her sightings, I lack evidence. (p. ix)

Bitel rightly settles for the “invisibility” or “untranslatability” (p. x) of Maria Paula’s
mystical experiences.
Still, the question remains vexing, plaguing me throughout the reading. If her
performance derives from cynical motives, she manages to persuade otherwise. On
some occasions, the Virgin does not arrive at all. Maria Paula supports herself and
the monjas through this work; concession stands are set up each month where
tamales and cold beverages are sold along with various Marian merchandise. They
once sold photographs of purported Virgin-related phenomena, but that stopped
when witnesses began to claim that they, too, could see the Virgin—a claim that
makes Maria Paula bristle. Donations can be made to Maria Paula’s organization,
the Marian Movement of Southern California. Yet, Maria Paula and the movement lack a Web presence, which today is essential for fund-raising.
But the book is about much more than Maria Paula alone. The visionary is
situated within a “longue durée” of Marian visual culture, set against the backdrop of
a genealogy of seeing the Virgin, communicating the vision, experiencing miracles,
and in some cases verifying a visionary event’s authenticity. Bitel locates this
Marian phenomenon within the discourse of Latino religion and theology. In this
book with sixty photographs, many of them in color, Bitel and Gainer have seen,
captured, and represented a beguiling particle of Christian history and reality.
LUIS D. LEÓN

University of Denver

AFRICAN
Nigerian-Vatican Diplomatic Relations: Evangelisation and Catholic Missionary
Enterprise, 1884–1950. By Blaise Okachibe Okpanachi (African Theological
Studies, Neuere Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1.) Edited by Gerhard Droesser and
Chibueze Udeani. (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. 2013. Pp. 301. $67.95. ISBN
978-3-631-62804-1.)
This book provides the reader with a serviceable account of the structural
development of the Catholic Church in Nigeria—north, south, east, and west. It
tracks that history from failed attempts in previous centuries, and the successful setting down of roots in the 1860s, to the thriving institution that had emerged by
1950, when the Nigerian hierarchy was erected and supervision of the Church

BOOK REVIEWS

871

passed from the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith to the Congregation
for Bishops. The presentation of a comprehensive picture is of particular value
because, up to this time, histories of the Church in Nigeria tended to be either
sketchy or, when well-researched and scholarly, confined to a particular region or
topic. For this reason, students will benefit from this book, which gives an overall
picture of the remarkable nineteenth- and twentieth-century development of the
Church in Nigeria.
The problem with this book, however, is its title. Nigerian-Vatican Diplomatic
Relations purports to be a study of diplomatic relations between Nigeria and the
Vatican for the period 1884–1950. This does not reflect well on the general editorship of the series, for in the 300 pages of this book only twenty-nine pages have any
sort of relevance to this title (pp. 191–212, 221–29). Moreover, in these few pages,
there are serious problems. In the first place, since Nigeria was a British colony for
the period under review, one would expect an examination of British diplomatic
records as well as Roman. But there is no evidence that the author has done so. By
the same token, the only papers examined in the Vatican were those of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs (AES), which, until 1967, was
effectively a branch of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State dealing with matters specifically directed to it by the pontiff. One would expect to find most diplomatic papers
relating to colonial Nigeria in the Secretariat of State papers. In addition, the material gleaned from the AES archive has very little to do with Nigeria, focusing on
diplomatic traffic between the Vatican and France in relation to Somalia and Senegal, and to Britain in relation to Rhodesia and the Sudan.
Whereas the book’s title is problematic, its subtitle “Evangelisation and
Catholic Missionary Enterprise” is a much more accurate reflection of its contents.
The author provides excellent surveys of the growth of the Church in the different
regions, with chapters on the foundational Prefectures Apostolic of Western, Eastern, and Northern Nigeria—each more a part of a continent than a country, given
their widely differing ethnic, religious, and economic contexts. The author makes
good use of graphs and tables to illustrate the progress of evangelization. However,
these must be read with caution, because the size of the annual grants given by the
Association of the Propagation of the Faith (the main funding agency for missions)
depended upon the annual statistics supplied by the various jurisdictions, and so
these (understandably) are not always reliable.
The inclusion of lengthy footnotes giving biographies of the main players will
be valuable to students and those readers unfamiliar with that period of Church,
Nigerian, and colonial history. However, the choice of those requiring such notice
is not always judicious. For example, the lengthy referencing of St. Thomas
Aquinas and a whole host of popes seems unnecessary. Nor can all judgments made
by the author go unchallenged. His statement that “[m]issionary work was initially
uncoordinated, but later won the interest of the Holy See” (p. 33) is a case in point.
Since the foundation of the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith in 1622
(by which Rome sought to wrest control of missions back from the Royal Patronado

872

BOOK REVIEWS

of Spain and Portugal) Propaganda Fide exercised a tight control over all aspects of
mission. With regard to Africa in the nineteenth century, Propaganda Fide drew
the boundaries of the territories, assigned them to the different missionary bodies,
and appointed the mission leaders. It was the Holy See that gave leadership to the
movement, harnessing the great enthusiasm for missions that gripped the European churches and giving it clear direction. Nonetheless, putting aside such defects,
this book is a worthy contribution to the history of Catholic evangelization in
Nigeria.
Society of African Missions Provincial Archive
Cork, Ireland

EDMUND MICHAEL HOGAN

The Nature of Christianity in Northern Tanzania: Environmental and Social Change,
1890–1916. By Robert B. Munson. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, an
imprint of Rowman & Littlefield. 2013. Pp. xviii, 379. $110.00. ISBN 9780-7391-7780-8.)
In The Nature of Christianity in Northern Tanzania, Robert B. Munson
explores the ideas and practices associated with the introduction and development
of Christianity in northern Tanzania during the German colonial period. This
period started in 1890 and ended during World War I. Munson’s specific interest
is to examine the role that the Lutheran and Roman Catholic Christian missions
played in introducing Christianity, reordering space, and introducing new species
of plants that Africans appropriated, adapted, and used to address their own social,
economic, and political needs. Drawing on a rich array of German archival sources,
Munson argues that Christian Missions’ emphasis on new plant species and ordering the natural world supported their goal of spreading Christianity and vice versa,
a process he refers to as “botanical proselytization” (p. 252). By this concept,
Munson means that the spread of Christianity in northern Tanzania assisted and
was itself supported by the new order upon the landscape and the introduction of
new plants (pp. 2, 228).
The book is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 sets the background by
documenting places, plants, and people before colonial conquest and institutionalization of Christianity. Chapter 2 explores colonial conquest and the penetration of
missionary societies from 1890 to 1906. This period witnessed initial efforts by the
Germans to strengthen the colonial presence in northern Tanzania by building
military posts, district offices, mission schools, and churches; experimenting with
new plants; and reorganizing space. Chapter 3 examines the period from 1907 to
1916 when Africans became aware of the benefits of German religious, spatial, and
botanical changes and began adopting and appropriating them. Chapter 4
addresses the Germans’ efforts to reorder space through land surveying, boundary
creation, and map making. Munson notes that this spatial ordering was necessary
for establishing places for uses such as establishing plantations, constructing roads
and railways, urban planning, and creating forest and game reserves. Chapter 5
explores new plant species that the Germans introduced such as European pota-

BOOK REVIEWS

873

toes, grevillae, ceara rubber, Arabica coffee, and sisal, and how Africans adapted to
them. Chapter 6 looks at changes in people as they evolved into Christians and
Africanized environmental and social changes brought by Germans to expand their
livelihood opportunities.
Munson’s book makes an important contribution to Tanzania’s history, since
the interplay between spatial transformation and the development of Christianity
has not received adequate attention from historians of Tanzania. By documenting
German colonial initiatives and African responses in shaping and reshaping landscape, Munson uncovers the complex nature of colonial encounter between
Africans and European. As opposed to nationalist- and Marxist-oriented literature
that emphasized the passive nature of Africans in their encounter with the colonizers, Munson’s work joins new African histories that underscore the fact that
Africans were not passive recipients of missionary teachings. He reveals the agency
of Africans in adopting and appropriating missionary teachings into their own cultural meaning and in using those teachings to address their contemporary socioeconomic and political challenges. Africans accepted Christianity not because it was
superior to their indigenous religions but because it opened up new opportunities
for survival in the form of Western medicine, employment, trade, and education.
The book also makes important contributions to cultural heritage studies by uncovering the extent to which many of the physical structures seen today in the landscape such as organization of places, varieties of plants, and religious influences
have deeper roots in the German colonial past. The book, therefore, provides fresh
insights into the historic ties between Tanzania and Germany that started in the
late-nineteenth century. Furthermore, the value of the book lies in its interdisciplinary dimension. It brings together history, human ecology, religion, geography,
and cultural heritage in the examination of environmental and social changes in
northern Tanzania.
There are three main limitations regarding Munson’s book. First, it lacks serious theoretical and historiographical engagements that would help contextualize
the book in relation to existing studies. This silence means that it is difficult to see
how the book builds on, and departs from, previous works on the history of environmental and social changes. The side effect of this silence is the failure of
Munson to engage with comparative analysis with case studies from other parts of
Africa and beyond. Second, although the book tells a rich story of how the ideas,
practices, and life of Africans changed as they interacted with the Germans, the
extent to which German missionaries and colonial officials changed as they interacted with Africans has not been adequately articulated. German missionaries were
not hegemonic in their interaction with Africans. They adapted and incorporated
African cultural resources to make Christianity appealing and relevant to Africans.
Insights into missionary adaptation and change would strengthen the book in
important ways. Third, the book could have benefited from sustained gender and
generational analyses to understand how different African social communities such
as men, women, children, and elders understood and responded to spatial, botanical, and religious changes that missionaries brought to northern Tanzania.

874

BOOK REVIEWS

These limitations are not meant to downplay the significant contribution of
this book to Tanzania’s history. Its critical engagement with German archival
sources, clear writing style, and discussion of the agency of German missionaries
and Africans in shaping space, botanical imperialism, and Christianity make this
book an invaluable contribution to the histories of Christianity, cultural heritage,
environment, cartography, and culture.
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

OSWALD MASEBO

FAR EASTERN
The Acta Pekinensia or Historical Records of the Maillard de Tournon Legation. Vol.
1: December 1705–August 1705. By Kilian Stumpf, S.J. Edited by Paul Rule
and Claudia von Collani. [Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, Nova
Series, vol. 9.] CD-Rom with scanned original documents. (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu. 2015. Pp. clxx, 736. €70,00. ISBN 978-887041-209-3.)
The Chinese Rites Controversy is widely regarded as one of the most destructive events in the history of Christianity in China. The dispute over which ancestral
and Confucian rites were permissible for Christians featured the Jesuits generally
in favor of an accommodating interpretation, whereas most non-Jesuits favored a
stricter interpretation and prohibitions. The controversy culminated in the journey
of the papal legate Charles Thomas Maillard de Tournon to China in the years
1705–10. The Acta Pekinensia consists of a daily record of Tournon’s stay written
by Jesuits. Tournon was highly antagonistic to the Jesuits, whom he blamed for
sabotaging his legation.
The Acta Pekinensia represents volume I, covering the first 400 folios (pages)
of a 1467-page manuscript. It contains a 161-page introduction, numerous annotations, and an index, making it a useful tool for scholars but also suitable for
advanced students writing research papers. The core text consists of a daily account
of the stay of Tournon from his arrival in Beijing on December 4, 1705, until his
departure on August 28, 1706. It includes Tournon’s two imperial audiences
(December 31, 1705, and June 1706) and his reception in the imperial gardens on
June 30, 1706. After departing under a cloud of imperial disapproval from Beijing,
Tournon spent three months in Nanjing where he issued his retaliatory condemnation of the Chinese rites, before continuing south to Macau where he arrived on
June 30, 1707. The Portuguese authorities in Macau placed him under house arrest
until his death on August 8, 1710.
The primary complier of the Acta was Kilian Stumpf (Ji Li’an 記理安), a
German Jesuit trained in mathematics and chemistry who was born in Würzburg
in 1655. In 1695 he arrived in Beijing, where he became the head of the Bureau of
Astronomy, and died in 1720. Stumpf was appointed “procurator” to handle negotiations with the papal legate. He also had been appointed papal notary, which gave

BOOK REVIEWS

875

documents with his signature an official status in dealing with the Roman Curia.
Stumpf’s approach was to describe only the events that he personally witnessed and
to rely on the accounts of other eyewitnesses to describe other events (p. xx). He
cited numerous letters and edicts (some of which are no longer extant) and included
Latin translations of many Chinese documents. All Jesuits in Beijing who had witnessed the events signed the compilation that was sent to Rome, where it has been
preserved in the Jesuit Archives (ARSI: JS 138).
The Acta is an invaluable source that reveals in detail the interaction between
the Imperial Household Department (neiwu fu 內務府) and the foreign legate.
Particularly noteworthy are the descriptions of meetings between Tournon and
members of the imperial household acting on the Kangxi emperor’s behalf. The
most active of these intermediaries was Hascken or Henkama 赫世亨, the only one
of these intermediaries to be baptized as a Christian. Although the emperor met
with Tournon only twice, these intermediaries had almost daily contact with the
legate.
Tournon is portrayed in the Acta as an imperious and Eurocentric negotiator
who was prone to tearful scenes. The reader may wonder if illness caused his emotional instability. The Vincentian priest Luigi Antonio Appiani claimed that
Tournon was “a man in poor health” and that his illness could be attributed to his
being “very sensitive to the wind and cold” (p. 713). Since Tournon was only fortyone years old when he died in 1710 in Macau, the question arises: what caused his
early death? Unfortunately, the editors do not address this question, but one hopes
they will in the remaining volumes of this monumental contribution to the study
of the history of Christianity in China.
Baylor University

D. E. MUNGELLO

Notes and Comments
ASSOCIATION NEWS
The 2016 balloting has resulted in the election of Rev. Richard Gribble,
C.S.C. (Stonehill College), as 2017 vice-president, and Rev. David Endres (the
Athenaeum of Ohio, Cincinnati) and Martin Menke (Rivier University) as 2016–
19 members of the Executive Council. At the upcoming annual meeting in Denver
the following awards for 2017 will be conferred: the Distinguished Scholar,
William Issel (San Francisco State University); the Distinguished Teacher, Jeffery
M. Burns (Franciscan School of Theology); and the Distinguished Service Award,
U.S. National Park Service. The Marraro Prize winner for 2016 is Andrew D.
Berns (University of South Carolina) for his book The Bible and Natural Philosophy
in Renaissance Italy (New York, 2015). The John Gilmary Shea prize goes to Katrina B. Olds (University of San Francisco) for her Forging the Past: Invented Histories in Counter-Reformation Spain (New Haven, 2015). The 2016 Harry C. Koenig
Prize for a published monograph of Catholic biography is awarded to the independent scholar Franz Posset for his Johann Reuchlin, 1455–1522: A Theological
Biography (Boston, 2015). The Executive Committee of the ACHA has voted to
expand the Koenig prize; the prize now will include a cash award of $500 presented
every odd-numbered year for a scholarly article published in English, preferably in
an academic journal, that focuses on a Catholic personage from any period of
Catholic history. For application information, visit the awards page on the Association’s Web site.

PALEOGRAPHY SEMINAR
The Medici Archive Project will offer two separate, two-week intensive seminars on Italian paleography and archival research: one on January 9–14, 2017, and the
other on January 16–21, 2017, focusing on the mercantesca and cancelleresca scripts.
Classes will be held at the Medici Archive Project in the Palazzo Alberti at Via de’
Benci 10, Florence, and in various Florentine archives. The deadline for application
is January 1, 2017. For more information, contact education@medici.org.

EXHIBITIONS
From September 12 to December 10, 2016, a portion of the exhibition
“Beyond Words: Illuminated Manuscripts in Boston Collections” will be hosted at
Houghton Library, Harvard University. The exhibition will focus on the centrality
of manuscripts to both male and female monastic life. For more information, contact Monique Duhaime, email: Duhaime@fas.harvard.edu or tel. (617) 495-2441.
876

NOTES AND COMMENTS

877

From May 20 to September 2017 a series of exhibitions in Germany will commemorate the 500th anniversary of the posting of the ninety-five theses by Martin
Luther. That in Wittenberg will feature Luther’s own Bible and last testament,
artifacts from his home, and a rare portrait. It will also feature ninety-five of the
prominent people he influenced over the centuries. For more information, visit
www.visit-luther.com.
From June 5 to November 1, 2017, the special exhibition “Dialog der Konfessionen: Bischof Julius Pflug und die Reformation” will be held in the city of Zeitz
in Saxony. It will feature the bishop’s efforts to mediate between the Catholics and
Lutherans in his see of Naumburg that had not only him as bishop but also the
Lutheran Nikolaus von Amsdorf. Pflug was the last Catholic bishop of the diocese,
dying in 1564. Various churches in Zeitz and Pflug’s private library with its rich
collection of letters, manuscripts, and books will be featured.

CONFERENCES
From March 22–25, 2017, the Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus
Catholicorum e.V., together with the Katholische Akademie der Erzdiözese
Freiburg im Breisgau, will host the conference “Glaube(n) im Disput. Altgläubige
Kontroversisten des Reformationszeitalters in neuerer Forschung.” The
Gesellschaft will also sponsor, together with the Würzburger Diözesangeschichtsverein, the conference “Bischöfe und Bischofsamt im Heiligen
Römischen Reich 1570–1620: Ideal und Praxis” in Würzburg on June 22–24,
2017. For more information, contact Corpus.Catholicorum@theol.uni-freiburg.de.
On July 3–6, 2017, at the Leeds International Medieval Congress, the Iuris
canonici medii aevi consociatio (ICMAC) will co-sponsor three sessions under the
theme “Otherness” with the Church, Law, and Society in the Middle Ages Network (CLASMA). Proposals for papers (including the title, short abstract of less
than 200 words, and contact information) should be sent to Danica Summerlin at
d.j.summerlin@gmail.com.

PUBLICATIONS
A collection of essays on the theme “Esperienza e rappresentazione dell’Islam
nell’Europa mediterranea (secoli XVI–XVIII),” edited by Andrea Celli and Davide
Scotto, has been published in the third number for 2015 (vol. LI) of the Rivista di
Storia e Letteratura Religiosa. After an introduction by the editors misnamed “Breve
storia di un titolo, a modo d’introduzione” (pp. 395–409), the articles are divided
into three sections: “I. Esperienza e missioni tra i musulmani”: Katarzyna K. Starczewska, “Anti-Muslim Preaching in 16th-Century Spain and Egidio da Viterbo’s
Research on Islam” (pp. 413–29); Davide Scotto, “«Como en un resplandeciente y
terso espejo». Hernando de Talavera tra i musulmani nelle vite della prima età
moderna” (pp. 431–64); Emanuele Colombo, “«La setta malvaggia dell’Alcorano».
Emmanuele Sanz, S.J. (1646–1719) e il Breve trattato per convertire i turchi” (pp.

878

NOTES AND COMMENTS

465–89); and Clara Ilham Álvarez Dopico, “Algunos aspectos del islam en el
Túnez otomano a los ojos del trinitario Francisco Ximénez” (pp. 491–511); “II.
Tradizione arabo-islamica e traduzioni europee”: Óscar de la Cruz Palma and
Marta Plana, “Sobre el Corán latino de Guillaume Postel” (pp. 515–39); Stefan
Schreiner, “Anti-Islamic Polemics in Eastern European Context. Translation and
Reception of ‘Western Writings’ on Islam in Polish Literature (16th–18th Centuries)” (pp. 541–83); Charles Burnett, “A Mid-Seventeenth-Century View of the
History of Arabic Scholarship in England: Gerard Langbaine’s Notes under the
Ascending Node” (pp. 585–605); and Juan Carlos Villaverde Amieva, “Un relato
aljamiado entre los descendientes de moriscos exiliados en Túnez” (pp. 607–41);
“III. Controriforma e rappresentazione dell’Islam”: Andrea Celli, “Emblemi
islamo-cristiani. L’Agar secundo exul di Baudouin Cabilliau (1642)” (pp. 645–68);
Reinhold F. Glei, “Scripture and Tradition. Traces of Counter-Reformatory Discourse in Marracci’s Work on Islam” (pp. 671–89); and Roberto Tottoli, “«Ex historia orientali Joh. Henrici Hottingeri…». Ludovico Marracci and Reformed
Sources According to his Manuscripts” (pp. 691–704).
The Beuron Archabbey has commemorated “Der Mönch Martin Luther” in
the first issue for 2016 (vol. 92) of its periodical Erbe und Auftrag. Five brief articles
examine the theme: “Martin Luther und die Stundenliturgie: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des täglichen Offiziums” by Andreas Odenthal (pp. 7–19); “Johann von
Staupitz OSA/OSB (1460–1524): Gelehrter—Diplomat—Seelsorger: Zur
geistlichen Reform am Vorabend der Reformation” by Markus Wriedt (pp. 20–
35); “’Ich habe einst auch so gelebt’: Mit Luther im Gespräch” by Augustinus
Sander, O.S.B. (pp. 35–42); “Reformationsgedenken: Entwurf einer Gebetsordnung” by Augustinus Sander, O.S.B. (pp. 42–47); and “Was bedeutet mir der
Mönch Martin Luther?” by Volker Leppin, Wolfgang Thönissen, and Gerhard
Feige (pp. 48–51).
The annual study days of the Pontifical University Comillas in Madrid held
on September 29–30, 2015, were devoted to the mystical and reforming St. Teresa
of Ávila on the quincentenary of her birth with the theme, “Conversaciones con
Santa Teresa.” Five papers presented on those days have been published in the issue
for April–June 2016 (vol. 91, no. 357) of Estudios Eclesiásticos: Irene Guerrero
Pérez, “Teresa nos habla de Dios: el arte de contar una experiencia” (pp. 235–53);
Elisa Estévez López, “Santa Teresa nos cuenta cómo lee la Biblia” (pp. 255–91);
María José Pérez González, “Teresa de Jesús, evangelizadora en la web” (pp. 293–
305); Secundino Castro Sánchez, O.C.D., “Mística y teología en Teresa de Jesús”
(pp. 307–27); and Ricardo Blánquez Pérez, “Discernimiento del Carisma Teresiano” (pp. 329–40).
“Katholische Theologie unter Hitlers Regime” is the theme of the six articles
published in the third number for 2016 (vol. 106) of Theologie und Glaube: Dominik
Burkard, “Katholisch-Theologische Fakultäten in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus” (pp. 161–85); Klaus Unterburger, “Katholische Theologie in der NS-Zeit:
Personen, Themen, Deutungsmuster” (pp. 186–201); Nicole Priesching, “Die

NOTES AND COMMENTS

879

‘Erzbischöfliche philosophisch-theologische Akademie’” (pp. 202–23); Benjamin
Dahlke, “Paderborner, Priesteramtskandidaten und ihre Ausbildungsverantwortlichen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus” (pp. 224–40); and Karl-Joseph
Hummer, “Joseph Mayer (1886–1967). Facetten eines Porträts im Spiegel seiner
Rom-Korrespondenz 1932–1948” (pp. 241–58).

OBITUARY
Marvin R. O’Connell
(1930–2016)
Rev. Marvin R. O’Connell, professor emeritus of history at the University of
Notre Dame, died on August 19 in Holy Cross Village, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Father O’Connell was the only son of Richard and Anna Mae (Kelly) O’Connell.
Born in St. Paul on July 9, 1930, he grew up in small towns of southern Minnesota
and northern Iowa during the depression. He early discerned a vocation to the
priesthood and studied first in the minor seminary, Nazareth Hall, and then at St.
Paul Seminary, the major seminary of the Archdiocese of St. Paul. His notable talents as a historian were already in evidence during his seminary studies. He published a well-researched book, The Dowling Decade in St. Paul (St. Paul, 1955), a
variation of his master’s thesis that examined the Church in the Twin Cities in the
1920s. It would not be the last time that O’Connell explored Catholicism in Minnesota. O’Connell was ordained to the priesthood in 1956.
Soon after his ordination O’Connell journeyed to Notre Dame to study for his
doctorate under the direction of Msgr. Philip Hughes, the renowned church historian. With Hughes’s encouragement, he turned his attention to the history of the
Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. He wrote his dissertation on Thomas
Stapleton, a prolific figure of the English Counter Reformation, and received his
PhD in 1959. Yale University Press published a revision of the dissertation in 1964.
By this point, O’Connell had returned to St. Paul and begun his distinguished tenure
as priest, teacher, and scholar at the (then) College of St. Thomas. His reputation as
a brilliant lecturer and demanding teacher were clearly established during his years at
St. Thomas. He also wrote his wonderful account of Blessed John Henry Newman
and the Oxford Movement––The Oxford Conspirators (New York, 1969)—which culminated with Newman’s reception into the Catholic Church in October, 1845.
In 1972, to Notre Dame’s great good fortune, O’Connell received the permission of Archbishop Leo Binz of St. Paul to assume the academic position previously held by his now-deceased mentor, Hughes. So began well over two decades
of exemplary service. His teaching at both the graduate and undergraduate levels
was especially noteworthy and challenging. His rather intimidating physical presence guaranteed that undergraduate students maintained high standards of decorum and commitment in his classroom. From 1974 to 1980 O’Connell chaired the
History Department and proved a capable administrator who recruited talented
faculty members. He was admired for his stubborn sense of integrity.

880

N OTES AND COMMENTS

MARVIN R. O’CONNELL

During his first year as chair of the History Department O’Connell published
The Counter Reformation, 1559-1610 (New York, 1974), a volume in the prestigious Rise of Modern Europe series edited by William L. Langer. This book was
well received and named as a History Book Club selection. O’Connell took special
pride in Langer’s description of the book as so balanced and fair-minded that one
could not tell whether it was written by a Catholic or a Protestant.
While carrying his administrative responsibilities and leading the History
Department in a characteristically firm way, O’Connell sought a new vehicle for his
always lucid prose. He chose to write a novel. He published McElroy (New York,
1980), his fictional account of the trials and tribulations of a postwar Minnesota
politician whom some readers thought bore a resemblance to Senator Eugene
McCarthy (D–MN), whom O’Connell had known during his years at St. Thomas.
Writing history, however, remained his true passion, as the remarkable books he
published over the following three decades clearly illustrated.
First came his masterful biography of the great American churchman and first
Archbishop of St. Paul, John Ireland. John Ireland and the American Catholic Church
(St. Paul, 1988) was not a narrow study but a true “life and times” portrait that cast
essential light on the Americanist movement and the place of Catholics in American political life in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. At the time
he retired from full-time teaching, he published Critics on Trial: An Introduction to
the Catholic Modernist Crisis (Washington, DC, 1994). This beautifully written,
multiple biography offered sympathetic portraits of an array of Catholic modernists

NOTES AND COMMENTS

881

and assessed their significance as a “movement.” Soon thereafter came Blaise Pascal:
Reasons of the Heart (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997) which tracked not only Pascal’s
spiritual journey but also the religious turmoil of seventeenth-century France.
On completing that book O’Connell observed correctly that his various works
had allowed him to engage “many of the great issues that have confronted the
Church during modern times: the English Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Oxford Movement, Modernism, Americanism, and finally, French
Jansenism.” His was a truly impressive body of scholarly work that revealed his
broad interests and notable breadth covering compelling topics from the sixteenth
century forward and on both sides of the Atlantic. More was to come.
O’Connell’s magisterial account of the life and times of Edward Sorin,
C.S.C., the founder of the University of Notre Dame, appeared in 2001 from University of Notre Dame Press. Sorin, coming in at a mere 737 pages, made no genuflection in the direction of hagiography. O’Connell was too gifted a historian to
succumb to that temptation. The book recounts in riveting detail the deep clash
between Sorin and Basile Moreau, his religious superior and the beatified founder
of the Holy Cross order. In revealing the contest between these two complex personalities, O’Connell addressed the larger issue (as the historian Gerald McKevitt
noted) of “the struggle of European institutions—in this case, a religious congregation—to adapt to the American environment.”1 He made clear that Sorin was
primarily a priest and missionary rather than an educator.
O’Connell might have been expected to rest on his laurels after the completion
of this major work, but his passion to write history remained undimmed. He fulfilled a promise first made to Archbishop John Roach to write a history of his home
archdiocese, and so his Pilgrims to the Northland: The Archdiocese of St. Paul, 1840–
1962 (Notre Dame, 2009) was published. It allowed him to tell the story of the
Church that had received his immigrant ancestors from Ireland and that had
helped shape him.
O’Connell utilized his striking talents as a historian as an integral part of his
fundamental priestly vocation. He once described the historian as a veritable “midwife to our faith,” who must capture as best the evidence will allow the truth of the
past. His work recognized both that God revealed himself “in an historical person
who, at a particular time and place, went from town to town, doing good, who was
like us in all things but sin,” and that “the life of Christ is extended into the life of
his people, the Church.” He made the latter his distinctive subject and understood
“the special role in the life of the Christian people” of history and the historian. He
notably filled this role and contributed much to our understanding of the Church’s
journey over the past five centuries.
1. Gerald McKevitt, rev. of Edward Sorin by Marvin R. O’Connell, Journal of American
History, 89 (2003), 1550.

882

NOTES AND COMMENTS

O’Connell possessed the poetic and literary sensitivity that most genuinely
great historians hold in good measure. He was a superbly gifted writer and a master
of the narrative art who could peer into the human past with insight and empathy
such that his readers could understand from his account as if they vicariously experienced the original events.
He was a frequent manuscript and book reviewer for The Catholic Historical
Review and served as a member of the American Catholic Historical Association’s
John Gilmary Shea Prize Committee in 1981–83. He was pleased and grateful to be
honored by ACHA with its Distinguished Achievement Award for Scholarship in
2013. A prize in his honor was established in the Notre Dame History Department
soon after his retirement. It appropriately recognizes good research and writing.
He is survived by a number of first and second cousins. Archbishop Bernard
Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis honored O’Connell by presiding at the Mass of
Christian Burial at Sacred Heart Basilica on August 24. O’Connell was buried in
the Holy Cross community cemetery at Notre Dame.
University of Notre Dame

WILSON D. MISCAMBLE, C.S.C.

Periodical Literature
Diccionarios bio-bibliográficos: de la antigüedad al mundo cristiano y al islámico.
José Ramírez del Río. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 127–43.
Gladius materialis ecclesiae. Andreas Kosuch. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 428–67.
El proceso judicial ante el obispo en el primer milenio del cristianismo. María del
Mar Martín García. Vergentis, 1 (2015), 107–30.
Das Inquisitionsverfahren beim Heiligen Offizium. Juristische Aspekte und Analyseperspektiven. Maria Pia Lorenz Filograno. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung
für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101 (2015), 317–72.
Worship:Ninety Years of Early Liturgical History. John Baldovin, SJ. Worship, 90
(Sept., 2016), 417–32.
Ars Gratia Artis: The Freedom of the Arts in the Twentieth-Century Liturgical
Reform and Today. James Thomas Hadley. Studia Liturgica, 45 (2, 2015),
176–98.
John Courtney Murray and “The Contemporary Clash between Classicism and
Historical Consciousness.” Gerard Whelan, SJ. Gregorianum, 97 (3, 2016),
471–93.
Jesuit Historiography in Lithuania since 1990: Proximity and Distance along
World Routes. Liudas Jovaiša. Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu, LXXXV (I,
2016), 221–32.
Ad utilitatem et conservationem ipsius status et decorem. De statuten van het Gentse
Sint-Veerlekapittel (1225–1788). Annelies Somers. Bulletin de la Commission
royale d’Histoire, 181 (2015), 33–146.
Echte Urkunden, unechte Reliquien? Der Inhalt des Breisacher Reliquienschreins.
Christoph Schmider. Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv, 135 (2015), 101–14.
I manoscritti agiografici della Biblioteca Capitolare di Vercelli. Con un’appendice
sui frammenti. Gionata Brusa. Analecta Bollandiana, 134 (June, 2016), 100–48.
Contexts of Trends in the Catholic Church’s Male Workforce: Chile, Ireland, and
Poland Compared. Brian Conway. Social Science History, 40 (Fall, 2016) 405–32.

ANCIENT
‘We Have the Prophets’: Inspiration and the Prophets in Athenagoras of Athens.
D. Jeffrey Bingham. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, 20 (Aug., 2016), 211–
42.
883

P ERIODICAL L ITERATURE

884

Sayings of the desert fathers, Sayings of the rabbinic fathers: Avot deRabbi Natan
and the Apophthegmata Patrum. Michal Bar-Asher Siegal. Zeitschrift für
Antikes Christentum, 20 (Aug., 2016), 243–59.
and Scripture according to the Letter of Peter to James. Matthew R. Crawford. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, 20 (Aug., 2016), 260–75.

Κανών

Embodied Eschatology: The Council of Nicaea’s Regulation of Kneeling and Its
Reception across Liturgical Traditions (Part 2). Gabriel Radle. Worship, 90
(Sept., 2016), 433–61.
Avctoritas Apostolica. St. Martin in Trier AD 385/386. Hans Hattenhauer.
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische
Abteilung, Band 101 (2015), 399–416.
Paganismo e identidad cristiana en el corpus de Cromacio de Aquileya. Esteban
Noce. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Âge, 126 (1, 2014), 319–340.
Lieux saints, lieux odorants? Le témoignage d’Égérie et du Pèlerin de Plaisance
(IVe et VIe siècle).Martin Roch. Le Moyen Âge, CXXI (3–4, 2015), 609–28.
Frauen als Akteurinnen von Kirchengeschichte: Eine Case-Study zu Sturz und
Rehabilitation des Johannes Chrysostomus. Eva Maria Synek. Ostkirchliche
Studien, 64 (1, 2015), 148–69.
Diagnosing Heresy: Ps. Martyrius’s Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom. Jennifer
Barry. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 24 (Fall, 2016), 395–418.
Découverte d’un martyr perse dans un légendier latin médiévale. Christelle Jullien.
Analecta Bollandiana, 134 (June, 2016), 5–19.
Hesychius of Jerusalem, Ecclesiastical History (CPG 6582). Lieve Van Hoof, Panagiotis Manafis, and Peter Van Nuffelen. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies,
56 (3, 2016), 504–27.
Die “Schule der Perser” in Edessa und die konfessionelle Identität der persischen
Kirche. Nestor Kavvadas. Ostkirchlichen Studien, 64 (1, 2015), 130–47.
Autorité, sainteté et charité: un étude sur les moines-évêques de Lérins au Ve siècle.
Rossana Alves Baptista Pinhe. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen
Âge, 126 (1, 2014), 307–18.
In the Great City of the Ephesians: Contestations over Apostolic Memory and
Ecclesiastical Power in the Acts of Timothy. Cavan W. Concannon. Journal of
Early Christian Studies, 24 (Fall, 2016), 419–46.
Les images acheïropoiètes du Sauveur—le mandylion et le kéramion—en Géorgie:
la tradition de leur translation dans l’ancienne littérature géorgienne. Zaza
Aleksidzé. Journal des Savants, (Jan.–June, 2016), 3–16.
The influence of the Greek novel on the Life and Miracles of Saint Thecla. Ángel
Narro. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 109 (July, 2016), 73–96.

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

885

Romans, barbarians, and Franks in the writings of Venantius Fortunatus. Erica
Buchberger. Early Medieval Europe, 24 (Aug., 2016), 293–307.
Anfänge der julianistischen Hierarchien. David Wierzejski. Zeitschrift für Antikes
Christentum, 20 (Aug., 2016), 276–305.
Late Neoplatonic discourses on suicide and the question of Christian philosophy
professors at Alexandria. Michael Papazian. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 135
(2015), 95–109.
“O, Foolish Galatians”: Imagining Pauline Community in Late Antiquity. Todd S.
Berzon. Church History, 85 (Sept., 2016), 435–67.
Gli ordinamenti territoriali ecclesiastici nell’antica Diocesi suburbicaria e la loro
evoluzione in età medievale. Cosimo Damiano Fonseca. Studi Medievali,
LVII (June, 2016), 1–32.

MEDIEVAL
Der lange Widerstand gegen eine offizielle Heiligenverschrehrung des Maximos
Homologetes (†662) im byzantinischen Reich. Heinz Ohme. Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, 109 (July, 2016), 109–50.
Maximos Homologetes († 662): Martyrium, Märtyrerbewusstsein, ‘Martyriumssucht’? Heinz Ohme. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, 20 (Aug., 2016),
306–46.
Isidore’s Etymologiae at the school of Canterbury. David W. Porter. Anglo-Saxon
England, 43 (2014), 7–44.
Rewriting the ecclesiastical landscape of early medieval Northumbria in the Lives
of Cuthbert. A. Joseph McMullen. Anglo-Saxon England, 43 (2014), 57–98.
The sevenfold-fivefold-threefold litany of the saints in the Leofric Missal and
beyond. Robin Norris. Anglo-Saxon England, 43 (2014), 183–208.
The audience for Old English Texts: Ælfric, rhetoric and ‘the edification of the
simple.’ Helen Gittos. Anglo-Saxon England, 43 (2014), 231–66.
Diplomatic Mischief, Institutionalized Deception: Two Undated Merovingian
Wills on Papyrus (Erminethrude’s Will and the Will of Idda’s Son) and a
Group of Eleventh-Century Forgeries from the Abbey of Saint-Denis. Éloïse
Lemay. Viator, 47 (2, 2016), 57–66.
Normative Schriftlichkeit im früheren Mittelalter: das benediktinische Mönchtum.
Christoph Dartmann. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131,
Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 1–61.
S. Benedetto tra Montecassino e Fleury (VII–XII secolo). Amalia Galdi. Mélanges
de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Âge, 126 (2, 2014), 557–74.
Boniface, Incest, and the Earliest Extant Version of Pope Gregory I’s Libellus
responsionum (JE 1843). Michael D. Elliot. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung
für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 62–111.

886

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

Die Hibernensis-Redaktion der Kölner Domhandschrift 210. Klaus Zechiel-Eckes
(†). Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische
Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 553–62.
Ein karolingisches Fragment der Concordia Regularum des Benedikt von Aniane
in Reims. Pius Engelbert. Revue Bénédictine, 126 (June, 2016), 138–49.
‘Those same cursed Saracens”: Charlemagne’s campaign in the Iberian Peninsula as
religious warfare. Samuel Ottewill-Soulsby. Journal of Medieval History, 42 (4,
2016), 405–28.
The “Anonymous Passio S. Dionysii” (BHL 2178). Michael Lapidge. Analecta Bollandiana, 134 (June, 2016), 20–65.
The Sacred Art: Medicine in the Carolingian Renaissance. Meg Leja. Viator, 47 (2,
2016), 1–34.
“Hispana Gallica” oder “Hispana Rhenana”? Bernhar von Worms als erster
Besitzer des Wiener Codex ÖNB 411. Rudolf Pokorny. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101
(2015), 1–53.
Cenni a ‘disordine’ della Natura e “domus regia” in Teodulfo d’Orléans. Roberta
Ciocca. Studi Medievali, LVII (June, 2016), 33–84.
Teaching Sodomy in a Carolingian Monastery: A Study of Walahfrid Strabo’s and
Heito’s Visio Wettini. Albrecht Diem. German History, 34 (Sept., 2016), 385–
401.
An Ancient Anthology of Quotations from Augustine’s Homiletic Works. Gert
Partoens. Revue Bénédictine, 126 (June, 2016), 59–111.
Zwei Briefformeln von 887 aus der Kanzlei Erzbischof Fulcos von Reims. Rudolf
Pokorny. Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 71 (2, 2015), 599–
609.
Mittelalterliche Theologenprozesse (9. bis 15. Jahrhundert). Jürgen Miethke.
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische
Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 262–311.
Chiese, vassalli, concubine. Su un inedito placito lucchese dell’anno 900. Paolo
Tomei. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Âge, 126 (2, 2014), 537–
56.
Der Glagolitische Usus der Römischen Ritus. Predrad Bukovec. Ostkirchliche Studien, 64 (Heft 1, 2015), 96–129.
The Forum Hoard and Beyond: Money, Gift, and Religion in the Early Middle
Ages. Rory Naismith. Viator, 47 (2, 2016), 35–56.
The Lance of St Maurice as a component of the early Ottonian campaign against
paganism. Ben Raffield. Early Medieval Europe, 24 (Aug., 2016), 338–61.

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

887

Theoderich von Fleury/Amorbach/Trier. Hartmut Hoffmann (†). Deutsches Archiv
für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 71 (2, 2015), 475–526.
Saints, rulers and communities in Southern Italy: the Vitae of the Italo-Greek
saints (tenth to eleventh centuries) and their audiences. Eleni Tounta. Journal
of Medieval History, 42 (4, 2016), 429–55.
The Role of the Audience in the Pre-Metaphrastic Passions. Christodoulos
Papavarnavas. Analecta Bollandiana, 134 (June, 2016), 66–82.
Al servicio del claustro. Análisis de los espacios de trabajo en los monasterios hispánicos (siglos XI–XIX). Alejandro García Álvarez-Busto. Hispania Sacra, 68
(2016), 145–78.
Dai canonici al capitolo: il collegio cattedrale di Torino tra vescovo e città (1000–
1226). Francesco Cissello. Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino, CXIV (1,
2016), 5–67.
Die Briefsammlung des Bischofs Fulbert von Chartres (1006–1028) als Quelle für
Alltagsgeschehnisse in seinem Lebensumkreis. Wolfgang Giese. Archiv für
Kulturgeschichte, 98 (1, 2016), 5–64.
La prova del fuoco. Vita religiosa e identità cittadina nella tradizione del monachesimo fiorentino (seconda metà del secolo XI). Francesco Salvestrini. Studi
Medievali, LVII (June, 2016), 87–126.
Zynische Empfehlungen für einen Besuch der Päpstlichen Kurie: Der Dialog De
quattro saccis romanam curiam deportandis und die Briefe des Petrus Damiani.
Thomas Haye. Classica et Mediaevalia, 65 (2016).
Alto Medioevo: i falsi sul primato arcivescovile di Canterbury. Enzo Marigliano.
Città di Vita, 71 (May–June, 2016), 235–44.
La notice d’inféodation du comté de Hainaut à l’Église de Liège (1071). Jean-Louis
Kupper. Bulletin de la Commission royale d’Histoire, 181 (2015), 5–30.
The cult of St. Lucy. Venetian context and influence along Eastern Adriatic. Igor
Šipić. Studi Veneziani, LXVII (2013), 201–29.
The festival of Saint Demetrios, the Timarion, and the Aithiopika. Byron MacDougall. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 40 (Apr., 2016), 136–50.
Trois récits occidentaux de la descente du feu sacré au Saint-Sépulcre (Pâques
1101): polyphonie chrétienne et stratégies discursives. Camille Rouxpetel.
Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Âge, 126 (1, 2014), 361–78.
The Deeds of Bohemund: Reform, Propaganda, and the History of the First Crusade. Jay Rubenstein. Viator, 47 (2, 2016), 113–36.
Dating the Exceptiones Petri. Uta-Renate Blumenthal. Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101 (2015),
54–85.

888

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

La paix durant la guerre: la conjoncture politico-religieuse et les espaces sacrés dans
le royaume de León et Castille, ca. 1110–1127. José Luis Senra. Viator, 47 (2,
2016), 137–82.
Paschalis II. in Bedrängnis. Zwei Spuria unter den Briefen Hildeberts von
Lavardin? Peter Orth. Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 71 (2,
2015), 527–67.
Sankt Bernhard als Rechtspolitiker—Die causa Robert von Chatillon. Hans Hattenhauer. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 312–38.
Rethinking Causae 23–26 as the Causae hereticorum. Melodie H. Eichbauer.
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische
Abteilung, Band 101 (2015), 86–149.
John IX Patriarch of Jerusalem in exile. Foteini Spingou. Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
109 (July, 2016), 179–206.
Hildegard von Bingen als Lehrerin des Liturgierechts. Zum Spannungsverhältnis
von Visionsverschriftlichungen und normativen Aussagen im hohen Mittelalter. Hanns Peter Neuheuser. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101 (2015), 150–76.
Un mémorial aristocratique: le monastère de Grandmont au comté de la Marche
(1177–1307). Claud Andrault-Schmitt. Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, 59
(Apr.–June, 2016), 113–41.
The reception and authority of conciliar canons in the later-twelfth century:
Alexander III’s 1179 Lateran canons and their manuscript context. Danica
Summerlin. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 112–31.
Die Dekretsumme “Tractaturus magister” und die Kanonistik in Reims in der zweiten
Hälfte des 12. Jahrhunderts. Peter Landau. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 132–52.
Wolf’s Hair, Exposed Digits, and Muslim Holy Men: the Libellus de expugnatione
Terrae Sanctae per Saladinum and the Conte of Ernoul. James H. Kane. Viator,
47 (2, 2016), 95–112.
John of Phoberos, A 12th-Century Monastic Founder, and His Saints: Luke of
Mesembria and Symeon of the Wondrous Mountain. Dirk Krausmüller.
Analecta Bollandiana, 134 (June, 2016), 83–94.
Dormiens comparatur furioso: Les origines canoniques de l’irresponsabilité pénale
du dormeur. Nicolas Laurent-Bonne. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014),153–77.
The two laws and the three sexes: ambiguous bodies in canon law and Roman law
(12th to 16th centuries). Christof Rolker. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 178–222.

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

889

‘Only the Husband Can Accuse the Wife of Adultery and She Him’: Prosecuting
and Proving Adultery in Medieval Sweden. Mia Korpiola. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131 Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100
(2014), 223–61.
Die Prämonstratenserinnen im deutschen Sprachraum und ihr Verhältnis zu den
geistlichen und weltlichen Herren. Ingrid Ehlers-Kisseler. Analecta Praemonstratensia, XCI (1–4, 2015), 5–88.
Claiming Byzantium: Biondo Flavio, diplomacy, and the Fourth Crusade. Brian J.
Maxson. Studi Veneziani, LXVIII (2013), 31–59.
Franz von Assisi—Kirchenbauer und Kirchenstütze? Zwei populäre Bilder des
Heiligen in der Quellenkritik. Niklaus Kuster OFMCap. Wissenschaft und
Weisheit, 78 (2015), 25–68.
Fragen zur neu entdeckten Franziskus-Quelle. Paul Bösch. Wissenschaft und
Weisheit, 78 (2015), 69–93.
San Damiano und die anderen Damianitinnenklöster. Eine Reaktion auf Niklaus
Kuster. Gerard Pieter Freeman. Wissenschaft und Weisheit, 78 (2015), 94–120.
La santa follia. Saloi, jurodivye Christa radi, e san Francesco d’Assisi. Serena Capri.
Miscellanea Francescana, 116 (I–II, 2016), 76–109.
Zum Patronatsrecht in Hessen. Patronatskirchen der Schencken zu Schweinsberg.
Wilhelm A. Eckhardt. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte,
132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101 (2015), 177–216.
The Thirteenth-Century Visitation Records of the Diocese of Hereford. Ian Forrest and Christopher Whittick. English Historical Review, CXXXI (Aug.,
2016), 737–62.
Les sépultures dans la propagande des ordres mendiants: quatre sépultures de cardinaux à Lyon au XIIIe siècle. Haude Morvan. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de
Rome, Moyen Âge, 126 (1, 2014), 341–60.
Die ältesten Kirchen in Stuttgart—Ein Wettstreit um ihre zeitliche Abfolge.
Anette Pelizaeus. Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte, 114 (2014),
311–38.
Entre Orient et Occident, les manuscrits enluminés de Terre sainte. L’exemple des
manuscrits de l’Histoire Ancienne jusqu’à César, Saint Jean d’Acre, 1260–
1291. Émilie Maraszak. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Âge, 126
(2, 2014), 635–58.
Muerte, religiosidad e ideología: el significado del ajaur en los sepulcros de Alfonso
X y Sancho IV de Castilla. Leonor Parra Aguilar. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016),
201–16.
Les confraternités des ordres mendiants au Moyen Âge: une histoire à écrire.
Marie-Madeleine de Cevins. Le Moyen Âge, CXXI (3–4, 2015), 677–701.

890

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

Hat Humbert von Romans wirklich seine Ansichten zu Kreuzzug und Mission
geändert? Valentin L. Portnykh. Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 71 (2, 2015), 611–19.
Familia inquisitionis: a study on the inquisitors’ entourage (XIII–XIV centuries).
Caterina Bruschi. Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Âge, 125 (2,
2013), 537–72.
Dante e il giubileo (I): L’anno delle “pietre” misericordiose. Alberto Forni. Collectanea Franciscana, 86 (1–2, 2016), 65–115.
L’attitude ambivalente des évêques de Liège à l’égard des prêteurs lombards aux
XIIIe et XIVe siècle: autour d’un acte notarié de 1303. Antoine Bonnivert.
Bulletin de la Commission royale d’Histoire, 181 (2015), 149–207.
Spätmittelalterliches Kirchenrecht. Vier Anmerkungen zur Forschungslage.
Martin Bertram. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131,
Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 563–79.
Sobre la segunda legación en España del cardenal Guido de Boulogne (1372–
1373). Pablo Martín Prieto. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 231–46.
Washed in the Blood of the Lamb: Apocalyptic Visions in the Baptistery of Padua.
Anne Derbes. Speculum, 91 (Oct., 2016), 945–97.
Pluralität und Fluidität. Zur Überlieferung der Konstanzer Konzilschronik des
Ulrich Richental. Thomas Martin Buck. Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv, 135
(2015), 79–100.
Die Besitztümer der Kirche in der hussitischen Schrift Curandum summopere. Jiři
Petrášek. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101 (2015), 417–31.
Die italienischen Mächte und der Basler Konzilsversuch des Andreas Jamometić.
Tobias Daniels. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131,
Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 339–67.
Un problema de historiografía y cronología: la fecha de nacimiento del Cardenal
Jiménez de Cisneros. Francisco Vázquez Martínez. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016),
281–98.
Visualizing the Immaculate Conception: Donatello, Francesco della Rovere, and
the High Altar and Choir Screen at the Church of the Santo in Padua. Sarah
Blake McHam. Renaissance Quarterly, 69 (Fall, 2016), 831–64.
The Holy Blood of Wilsnack: Politics, Theology, and the Reform of Popular Religion in Late Medieval Germany. Donald Sullivan. Viator, 47 (2, 2016), 249–
76.
Reconsidering Religious Vitality in Catholic England: Household Aspirations and
Educating the Laity in Richard Whitford’s A Werke for Householders. Merridee
L. Bailey. Viator, 47 (2, 2016), 331–50.

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

891

Observanz und Literatur: Das Beispiel der Niederlande (1450–1550). Volker
Honemann. Wissenschaft und Weisheit, 78 (2015), 246–55.
Así en la tierra como en el cielo. Consideraciones sobre la demonología cristiana
tardomedieval a partir del Liber quintus del Fortalitíum fidei. Constanza Cavaliero. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 217–30.
Du bon usage du marché dans une congrégation religieuse du XVe siècle à Venise:
les “spese di bocha” de S. Giorgio in Alga. Fabien Faugeron. Studi Veneziani,
LXVII (2013), 387–431.
Law, Custom, and Medieval Judges. Marital separations in the official’s court of
Freising in the late fifteenth century. Duane R. Henderson. Zeitschrift der
Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 132, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 101
(2015), 217–57.
Making Manuscripts as Political Engagement by Women in the Fifteenth-Century Observant Reform Movement. Anne Winston-Allen. Journal of Medieval
Religious Cultures, 42 (2, 2016), 224–47.
Community regulation and its effects: the aggressive actions of parishioners against
priests and women in Paris, 1483–1505. Tiffany D. Vann Sprecher. Journal of
Medieval History, 42 (4, 2016), 494–510.

SIXTEENTH CENTURY
Il Cristo portacroce della Scuola di S. Rocco a Venezia. Raffaele Paier. Studi
Veneziani, LXVIII (2013), 375–94.
Brenz und Melanchthon—eine Jugendfreundschaft. Heinz Scheible. Blätter für
württembergische Kirchengeschichte, 114 (2014), 357–80.
Scandale et interprétation dans la lettre d’Erasme à Martin Dorp (1515). Blandina
Perona. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXVIII (2, 2016), 297–
309.
Martin Lutero e la Bibbia. Romano Penna. Lateranum, LXXXII (1, 2016), 13–33.
Santo Tomás de Villanueva y Lutero. Javier Campos y Fernández de Sevilla,
O.S.A. La Ciudad de Dios, CCXXIX (May–Aug., 2016), 467–501.
Die Begegnung des Franziskaners Augustin von Alveldt mit theologischen Thesen
der frühen deutschen Reformation. Johannes Karl Schlageter, OFM. Wissenschaft und Weisheit, 78 (2015), 121–204.
Thomas More’s Humor in his Religious Polemics. Elliott M. Simon. Moreana, 53
(June, 2016), 7–49.
An Emperor’s Heraldry, a Pope’s Portrait, and the Cortés Map of Tenochtitlan: The
Praeclara Ferdinadi Cortesii as an Evangelical Announcement. Diantha Steinhilper. Sixteenth Century Journal, XLVII (Summer, 2016), 371–99.

892

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

La carrière ecclésiastique de Jean du Bellay (1498–1560). Rémy Scheurer. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXVIII (2, 2016), 265–95.
Les oraisons funèbres de Martin Luther pour les Électeurs de Saxe (1525, 1532) et
son Sermon von der Bereitung zum Sterben (1519). Matthieu Arnold. Revue
d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 96 (Apr.–June, 2016), 127–42.
The Reformation and the Resurrection of the Dead. Erin Lambert. Sixteenth Century Journal, XLVII (Summer, 2016), 351–70.
Fürst Georg III. von Anhalt in seiner reformatorischen Entwicklung und in seiner
Sicht des damaligen franziskanischen Ordenslebens. Johannes Karl Schlageter,
OFM. Wissenschaft und Weisheit, 78 (2015), 205–45.
A Theology of the Cross in the 1534 Bremen Church Order. Hans Wiersma.
Lutheran Quarterly, 30 (Summer, 2016), 181–92.
Pietro Aretino scrittore devoto. Roberto Zapperi. Studi Veneziani, LXVIII (2013),
135–49.
El pensamiento político de la Contrarreforma y la razón de estado. Vittor Ivo
Comparato. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 13–30.
The Hazards of Conversion: Nuns, Jews, and Demons in Late Renaissance Italy.
Tamar Herzig. Church History, 85 (Sept., 2016), 468–501.
The Origins of Recusancy in Elizabethan England Reconsidered. Frederick E.
Smith. Historical Journal, First View, 59 (Sept., 2016), 1–32.
Andreas Picus (1543–1609). Pfarrer und Imker. Hermann Ehmer. Blätter für
württembergische Kirchengeschichte, 114 (2014), 165–210.
Les textes liturgiques des saints martyrs dans le bréviaire et le missel de saint Pie V:
Les fêtes de décembre et une synthèse. Philippe Beitia. Ephemerides Liturgicae,
CXX (Apr.–June, 2016), 129–56.
The Drawings of Raffaellino Motta da Reggio. Marco Simone Bolzoni. Master
Drawings, 54 (Summer, 2016), 147–204.
La dualidad de Teresa de Jesús y el proyecto de “Jesuitas descalzos”. Luis E.
Rodríguez-San Pedro Bezares. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 299–315.
Teresa von Ávila und Martin Luther. Einige Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede.
Mariano Delgado. Catholica, 70 (1, 2016), 1–22.
Santa Teresa de Jesús y el P. Domingo Báñez, O.P. Aristónico Montero Galán.
Studium, LV (3, 2015), 355–408.
Frammenti ritrovati di Giovanni Battista Castrodardo (ca. 1517–ca.1588), storico
dei vescovi di Belluno. Pier Mattia Tommasino. Studi Veneziani, LXV (2012),
691–736.

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

893

SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
Implicit Faith and Reformation of Habit. Joanna Picciotto. Journal of Medieval and
Early Modern Studies, 46 (Sept., 2016), 513–43.
Geteilte Mäntel, ein Hauch von Fasching und ein neuer Martinskult. Die
Verehrung des Martin in der Frühen Neuzeit. Martin Scheutz. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 98 (1, 2016), 95–133.
Antonio da Pordenone’s Manuscript and its impact on the capuchin architecture of
the Central European area. Tanja Martelanc. Collectanea Franciscana, 86 (1–
2, 2016), 117–58.
El voto de obediencia de Paolo Sarpi: pensamiento político en la Venecia de la contrarreforma. Jaska Kainulainen. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 45–56.
Una guaritrice processata dal Tribunale del Sant’Uffizio di Venezia nel Seicento per
eresia ed esorcismi. Carla Boccato. Studi Veneziani, LXVII (2013), 453–78.
Religious conversions within the Venetian military milieu (17th and 18th centuries). Daphne Lappa. Studi Veneziani, LXVII (2013), 183–200.
La robe entre deux chaires: la famille Arnauld, du calvinisme au jansénisme.
Bernard Barbiche. Journal des Savants, (Jan.–June, 2016), 71–83.
Locke on toleration, (in)civility, and the quest for concord. T. M. Bejan. History of
Political Thought, 37 (3, 2016), 556–87.
Geeraardt Brandt, Dutch Tolerance, and the Reformation of the Reformation. Russ
Leo. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 46 (Sept., 2016), 485–511.
Malebranche anti-stoïcien? Bilan historiographique et nouvelles pistes de
recherche. Elena Muceni. XVIIe Siècle, 68 (Apr.–June, 2016), 285–302.
From Lviv to Paris: The Jabłonowski Brothers at the Jesuit Collège Louis-leGrand, 1684–1686. Anna Markiewicz. Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu,
LXXXV (I, 2016), 187–218.
Dynastic Politics, International Protestantism and Royal Rebellion: Prince George
of Denmark and the Glorious Revolution. Julie Farguson. English Historical
Review, CXXXI (June, 2016), 540–69.
Les “petits carnets” de Madame de Maintenon. Grandeur et direction spirituelle
(1688–1709). Lars Norgaard and Hugues Pasquier. Revue de l’histoire des religions, 233 (Sept., 2016), 348–87.
Gender, Ungodly Parents and a Witch Family in Seventeenth-Century Germany.
Alison Rowlands. Past & Present, No. 232 (Aug., 2016), 45–86.
Investigating the Inquisition: Controlling Sexuality and Social Control in Eighteenth-Century Italy. Matteo Al Kalak. Church History, 85 (Sept., 2016), 529–
51.

894

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

Nepotismo y patronazgo eclesiástico en la Galicia moderna: el cabildo catedralicio
de Santiago de Compostela. Arturo Iglesias Ortega. Hispania Sacra, 68
(2016), 259–80.
Religión o superstición. Un debate ilustrado en la España del siglo XVIII. Fernando Martínez Gil. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 327–42.
Experience and the Soul in Eighteenth-Century Medicine. Philippa Koch. Church
History, 85 (Sept., 2016), 552–86.
Saint Geneviève’s miracles: art and religion in eighteenth-century Paris. Hannah
Williams. French History, 30 (Sept., 2016), 322–53.
Light and sight: Vasilij Grigorovich Barskij, Mount Athos and the geographics of
eighteenth-century Russian Orthodox Enlightenment. Veronica della Dora.
Journal of History Geography, 53 (July, 2016), 86–103.
Actors, Christian Burial, and Space in Early Modern Paris. Joy Palacios. Past &
Present, No. 232 (Aug., 2016), 127–63.
Pietro Chiari “gesuita” (1731–1744): note e documenti. Mario Zanardi. Archivum
Historicum Societatis Iesu, LXXXV (I, 2016), 3–42.
Women Deacons in the Maronite Church. Phyllis Zagano. Theological Studies, 77
(Sept., 2016), 593–602.
Il cantiere della cappella del Santissimo Crocifisso nell’ex-monastero benedettino
di S. Maria degli Angeli: Tra la predicazione di san Leonardo da Porto Maurizio e la devozione della Via Crucis negli orti dei monasteri femminili pistoiesi. Maria Camilla Pagnini, Matteo Caffiero, and Stefano Mei. Collectanea
Franciscana, 86 (1–2, 2016), 159–206.
Carlo Horatii da Castorano O.F.M. e le tabelle dei defunti: la condanna dei riti
cinesi. Michela Catto. Antonianum, XCI (Apr.–June, 2016), 375–431.
“Auctor hic dicere volebat aut debebat”: la traduzione della stele di Xi’an di Carlo
da Castorano (1741). Matteo Nicolini-Zani. Antonianum, XCI (Apr.–June,
2016), 433–63.
Reduci dalle Indie Orientali: Carlo Horatii da Castorano e Norbert Bar-le-Duc a
confronto. Paolo Aranha. Antonianum, XCI (Apr.–June, 2016), 465–77.
Carlo Orazi da Castorano and the Jesuits in the Chinese Rites Controversy. Claudia von Collani. Antonianum, XCI (Apr.–June, 2016), 479–510.
Abt George Lienhardt von Roggenburg (1717–1783). Studien zu seinem literarischen Werk. Teil II: Schriften zur Ordensspiritualität. Ulrich G. Leinsle.
Analecta Praemonstratensia, XCI (1–4, 2015), 140–92.
Wahl und Resignation des Speinsharter Abtes Eberhard Razer (1771–1778). Eine
Abtwahl im Schatten bayerischer Klosterpolitik.Ulrich G. Leinsle. Analecta
Praemonstratensia, XCI (1–4, 2015), 193–237.

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

895

Retrato de la Provincia jesuítica de Aragón en año después de su extinción. Carlos
A. Martínez Tornero. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 343–53.
The German Protestant Scholar Christoph Gottlieb von Murr (1733–1811) and
his Defence of the Suppressed Society of Jesus. Claudia von Collani. Archivum
Historicum Societatis Iesu, LXXXV (I, 2016), 43–95.

NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES
Eine religiöse Neuvermessung in Österreich. Historische, juristische und politische
Aspekte des Religionsrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Freikirchen. Karl W. Schwarz. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 468–94.
Ordre et désordre pendant les enterrements de la Miséricorde de Braga à l’Époque
Moderne. Maria Marta Lobo de Araújo. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 247–58.
¿Fanáticas, maternales o feministas? Monjas y congregacionistas en la España decimonónica. Raúl Mínguez Blasco. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 391–402.
Il Trionfo? The Untold Story of Its Development and Pope Gregory XVI’s Struggle
to Attain Orthodoxy. Christopher Korten. Harvard Theological Review, 109
(Apr., 2016), 278–301.
Gemeindeleitung in der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in Bayern, Verfassungsgeschichtliche Entwicklung und aktuelle Fragestellungen. Hans-Peter
Hübner. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 495–533.
Von adeliger Gründerin, erfundenen Meisterinnen und bürglicher Liquidierung
1808: das Chorfrauenstift Nieder-Ilbenstadt. Jürgen Rainer Wolf. Analecta
Praemonstratensia, XCI (1–4, 2015), 89–139.
Das Eigentum an den rheinischen Kathedralen in Köln, Aachen, Mainz, Trier und
Speyer. Hans-Jürgen Becker. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 368–406.
Religionsfreiheit im Deutschen Bund. Heinrich de Wall. Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014),
534–52.
Ferdinand Walter (1794–1879), Repräsentant des politischen Katholizismus und
der romantischen Staatsphilosophie an der Juristischen Fakultät der preußischen Rhein-Universität Bonn in den Jahren 1819 bis 1875. Marek Steffen
Schadrowski. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, anonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014), 608–27.
“Im Irdischen geht es mir gut”—Lichtensterner Absolventen im zaristischen Russland. Helmut Arnold. Blätter für württembergische Kirchengeschichte, 114
(2014), 105–46.

896

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

Revolución, contrarrevolución… Evolucíon: Catolicismo y nuevas formas de legitimidad política en la España del siglo XIX. Los casos de Jaime Balmes y Juan
Donoso Cortés. Andrea Acle-Kreysing. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 91–103.
Catholic Missionaries in Colonial Algeria: Faith, Foreigners, and France’s Other
Civilizing Mission, 1848–1883. Kyle Francis. French Historical Studies, 39
(Oct., 2016), 685–715.
I rapporti della Santa Sede con il Comitato Internazionale della Croce Rossa
(1863–1930). Maria Eugenia Ossandón. Annales Theologici, 29 (II, 2015),
275–306.
Can public policies lower religiosity? Evidence from school choice in France, 1878–
1902. Raphael Franck and Noel D. Johnson. Economic History Review, 68
(August, 2016), 915–44.
Oxford House Heads and the Performance of Religious Faith in East London,
1884–1900. Lucinda Matthews-Jones. Historical Journal, First View, 59
(Sept., 2016), 1–24.
Islanders, Protestant Missionaries, and Traditions Regarding the Past in Nineteenth-Century Polynesia. Tom Smith. Historical Journal, First View, 59
(Sept., 2016), 1–24.
Der Historiker Constantin von Höfler im Spiegel seiner Briefe an Ignaz von
Döllinger und Ludwig von Pastor. Angela Berlis. Internationale Kirchliche
Zeitschrift, 106 (Jan.–June, 2016), 76–105.
Missionaries and Imperial Cult: Politics of the Shinto Shrine Rites Controversy in
Colonial Korea. Dae Young Ryu. Diplomatic History, 40 (Sept., 2016), 606–
34.
Catholic Education in Zambia: mission integrity and politics. Brendan Carmody.
History of Education, 45 (5, 2016), 621–37.
Public Mass Modern Education, Religion, and Human Capital in Twentieth Century Egypt. Mohammed Saleh. Journal of Economic History, 76 (Sept., 2016),
697–735.
Transformations of the Sacred in East Timor. Judith Bovensiepin and Frederico
Delgado Rosa. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 58 (July, 2016),
664–693.
Liberalism and Rationalism at the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 1902–1903.
Eric Brandom. French Historical Studies, 39 (Oct., 2016), 717–48.
On the Fringes of a Christian Kingdom: The White Fathers, Colonial Rule, and
the Báhêmbá in Sola, Northern Katanga, 1909–1960. Reuben Loffman. Journal of Religion in Africa, 45 (3–4, 2015), 279–306.
Chinese Christian communism in the early twentieth century. Roland Boer and
Kenpa Chin. Religion, State and Society, 44 (2, 2016), 96–110.

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

897

‘They have neither Laymen nor Money’: Overview of the Correspondence (1907–
1911) between Archbishop Tikhon Ballavin and Archpriest Evgenii Smirnov.
Andrei Psarev. Sobornost, 37 (2, 2015), 16–25.
‘Did You Convert Him Personally?” Amerikanisch-protestantische Fitness und
Männlichkeit, das Moral Empire des YMCA und die Integration ostasiatischer Sportexpertern (1910er und 1920er Jahre). Stefan Hübner. Geschichte
und Gesellschaft, 42 (Sept., 2016), 467–96.
Presencia del arzobispo Gandásegui en instituciones eclesiásticas nacionales (1920–
1937). Jesús María Palomares Ibáñez. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 403–13.
La serie Affari del fondo archivistico P. Pietro Tacchi Venturi SJ (1861–1956)
nell’Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (ARSI): lavori archivistici e primi
rilievi. Sergio Palagiano. Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu, LXXXV (I,
2016), 97–185.
R. H. Tawney and Christian Social Teaching: Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
Reconsidered. James Kirby. English Historical Review, CXXXI (Aug., 2016),
793–822.
“…trete beiseite und laß sie vorbeiziehen, die Oberaffen und ihr Gefolge…” Aus
dem Briefwechsel des Kichenhistorikers Karl August Fink mit dem Wehrer
Stadtpfarrer Stephan Wildemann. Dominik Burkard. Freiburger DiözesanArchiv, 135 (2015), 115–206.
Konrad Josef Heilig (1907–1945)—Mediävist und politischer Publizist. Helmut
Maurer. Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv, 135 (2015), 207–46.
Sinti und Roma im Erzbistum Freiburg. Eine noch zu schreibende Geschichte.
Barbara Henze. Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv, 135 (2015), 247–66.
Bayerisches Konkordat und Reichskonkordat—Die Verweigerung des Nihil obstat
durch Kardinal Faulhaber bei der Berufung des Kanonisten Hans Barion nach
München im Jahr 1938. Hans-Joachim Hecker. Zeitschrift der SavignyStiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 131, Kanonistische Abteilung, Band 100 (2014),
407–27.
La politica ecclesiastica italiana dal diritto alla storiografia: Stefano Jacini e Arturo
Carlo Jemolo. Federico Mazzei. Archivio Storico Italiano, CLXXIV (2, 2016),
281–316.
Giorgio Rumi, Brescia e Giovanni Battista Montini. Giacomo Scanzi. Istituto
Paolo VI, notiziario n. 71 (June, 2016), 45–61.
Witness to the Faith: Charles-Jean Badre, O.S.B., 1916–75. Denis Huerre, O.S.B.
American Benedictine Review, 67 (Sept., 2016), 336–46.
The decapitation of Slovenia’s Catholic Church: social factors and consequences.
Marjan Smrke. Religion, State and Society, 44 (2, 2016), 152–71.

898

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

Pioneers at the crossroads. The preconciliar itineraries of W. A. Visser ’t Hooft and
J. G. M. Willebrands (1951–1961). Karim Schelkens. Catholica, 70 (1, 2016),
23–39.
Une crise entre le centre et la périphérie de l’Église dans l’histoire d’une visite du
cardinal L.-J. Suenens au Vatican, en mars 1969. Artur A. Kasprzak.
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 92 (June, 2016), 251–83.
The Vietnam War and the Cross: A Narrative for Peace. Hoa Trung Dinh. Australasian Catholic Record, 93 (Apr., 2016), 131–44.
Mourned Choices and Grievable Lives: The Anti-Abortion Movement’s Influence
in Defining the Abortion Experience in Australia since the 1960s. Erica
Millar. Gender & History, 28 (Aug., 2016), 501–19.
Ökonomie und Ökumene. Westdeutsche und südafricanische Kirchen und das
Apartheid-System in den 1970er- und 1980er-Jahren. Sebastian Justke and
Sebastian Tripp. Zeithistorische Forschungen, 13 (2, 2016), 280–301.
Creating an Evangelical self: an analysis of narratives of conversion to Evangelicalism in post-Soviet St Petersburg. Maija Penttilä. Religion, State and Society, 44
(2, 2016), 111–31.

AMERICAN AND CANADIAN
Histoires naturelles, récits de voyage et géopolitique religieuse dans l’Atlantique
français XVIe et XVIIe siècle. Susanne Lachenicht. Revue d’histoire de
l’Amérique française, 69 (Spring, 2016), 27–45.
Une mission périlleuse ou le péril colonial jésuite dans la France de Louis XIV:
Sainte-Marie des Iroquois (1649–1665). Yann Lignereux. Revue d’histoire de
l’Amérique française, 69 (Spring, 2016), 5–26.
Discipline and Divinity: Colonial Quakerism, Christianity, and “Heathenism” in
the Seventeenth Century. Geoffrey Plank. Church History, 85 (Sept., 2016),
502–28.
Conciliarism and the American Founding. Michael D. Breidenbach. William and
Mary Quarterly, 73 (July, 2016), 467–500.
Vitalism in America: Elihu Palmer’s Radical Religion in the Early Republic.
Kirsten Fischer. William and Mary Quarterly, 73 (July, 2016), 501–30.
The Mission Complex: Economic Development, “Civilization”, and Empire in the
Early Republic. Lon J. Daggar. Journal of the Early Republic, 36 (Fall, 2016),
467–91.
“A Plague of the State and the Church”: A Local Response to the Moravian Enterprise. Christina Petterson. Journal of Moravian History, 16 (1, 2016), 45–60.
‘Political Romanism’: Re-evaluating American Anti-Catholicism in the Age of the
Italian Revolution. Steven Conn. Journal of the Early Republic, 36 (Fall, 2016),
521–48.

PERIODICAL L ITERATURE

899

Status or Loci? How the Question of Stability Altered the Course of American
Benedictine Monasticism. Paul G. Monson. America Benedictine Review, 67
(Sept., 2016), 309–35.
“A Seed-Sowing Time”. M. M. Pinson’s Pentecostal Paths in Alabama. Scott E.
Hill. Alabama Review, 69 (Apr., 2016), 132–63.
The Gospel of Efficiency: Billy Sunday’s Revival Bureaucracy and Evangelicalism in
the Progressive Era. Jennifer Wiard. Church History, 85 (Sept., 2016), 587–616.
Promoting a Different Type of North-South Interactions: Québécois Cultural and
Religious Paradiplomacy with Latin America. Maurice Demers. American
Review of Canadian Studies, 46 (June, 2016), 196–216.
“Les évêques mangent dans ma main”: les relations entre l’Église et l’État sous
Maurice Duplessis (1944–1959). Alexandre Dumas. Revue d’histoire de
l’Amérique française, 69 (Spring, 2016), 47–69.

LATIN AMERICAN
The “Contagious Stench” of Idolatry: The Rhetoric of Disease and Sacrilegious
Acts in Colonial New Spain. Amara Solari. Hispanic American Historical
Review, 96 (Aug., 2016), 481–515.
Between the “Old Law” and the New: Christian Translation, Indian Jurisdiction, and
Criminal Justice in Colonial Oaxaca. Yanna Yannakakis and Martina SchraderKniffki. Hispanic American Historical Review, 96 (Aug., 2016), 517–48.
Francisco del Castillo S.J. (Lima, 1615–1673): Autobiografía espiritual: formas,
contenidos y significados. René Millar Carvacho. Historia (Santiago), 49
(June, 2016), 185–207.
Política contrarreformista e imagen anti-luterana en Nueva España. Alicia Mayer.
Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 31–43.
Las querellas de la paz: patronato real, público y liturgia en la Nueva España, 1750–
1800. David Carbajal López. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 77–89.
Devoción, utilidad y distinción. La reforma de las cofradías novohispanas y el culto
del Santísimo Sacramento, 1750–1820. David Carbajal López. Hispania
Sacra, 68 (2016), 377–89.
Rasgos del magistral González de Candamo en la Metropolitana de México (1799–
1804). Antonio Astorgano Abajo. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 355–76.
¿Secularización o reforma? Los orígenes religiosos del matrimonio civil en México.
Pablo Mijangos y González. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 105–17.
Monseñor Orrego y los conflictos entre católicos y laicistas en La Serena. María
Macarena Cordero Fernández. Hispania Sacra, 68 (2016), 415–35.

Other Books Received
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Works. Gen. ed. Victoria J. Barnett and Barbara Wojhoski.
Vol. 14: Theological Education at Finkenwalde: 1 9 3 5 – 1 9 3 7 , trans. from the
German edition; ed. Otto Dudzus and Jürgen Henkys; English edition ed. H.
Gaylon Barker and Mark S. Brocker; trans. Douglas W. Stott (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press. 2013. Pp.xxviii, 1230. $75.00 clothbound.); Vol. 17: Indexes and
Supplementary Materials, ed. Victoria J. Barnett and Barbara Wojhoski, with
Mark S. Brocker; with a retrospective on the English edition by Clifford J.
Green. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2014. Pp. xiii, 622. $75.00 clothbound.)
Brown, Roberta Stringham, and Patricia O’Connell Killen (Eds.). Selected Letters
of A. M. A. Blanchet, Bishop of Walla Walla & Nesqualy 1846–1879. Trans.
Roberta Stringham Brown. (Seattle: University of Washington Press. 2013.
Pp. xviii, 272. $40.00 clothbound.) Among the recipients of the forty-five letters presented here are James Buchanan, U.S. secretary of state; Pope Pius IX;
Ignace Bourget, bishop of Montreal; Jefferson Davis, then U.S. secretary of
war; Caleb Blood Smith, secretary of the interior; Peter De Smet, S.J.; James
Roosevelt Bayley, archbishop of Baltimore; Charles Seghers, bishop of Vancouver Island; other government officials; and several missionaries.
Congar, Yves. Diary of the 1914–1918 War. Annot. Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau and
Dominique Congar. Trans. Mary John Ronayne, O.P., and Helen T. Frank.
(Hindmarsh, Australia: ATF Press. 2015. Pp. 282. $59.95 paperback.) Notes
written by Yves Congar as a schoolboy.
Conley, Rory T. Witnesses to Jesus Christ: A History of the Catholic Church in the First
Millennium. (Privately published. 2014. Pp. 195.) An attractively designed
and copiously illustrated large-format introduction to church history in
“chronological form” and with numerous bibliographical references.
Degiovanni, Cecilia, and Roberto Martorelli (Eds.). Venturi, Tura, Sacilotto. 170
anni di lavorazione del marmo tra Bologna, Pietrasanta e Caracas. (Bologna.
2011. Pp. 101. €15,00 paperback.)
Flood, David, O.F.M. Francis of Assisi’s Rule and Life. (Phoenix: Tau Publishing.
2013. Pp. iv, 237. $14.95 paperback.)
Graham, Barry Frederic Hunter. Bohemian and Moravian Graduals 1420–1620.
(Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. 2006. Pp. 641. €150,00 clothbound.)
Green, Clifford J., and Guy C. Carter (Eds.). Interpreting Bonhoeffer: Historical Perspectives, Emerging Issues. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2013. Pp. xvi, 259.
$29.00 paperback.)
Green, Clifford J., and Michael P. DeJonge (Eds.). The Bonhoeffer Reader. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2013. Pp. xiv, 860. $39.00 paperback.)
900

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED

901

Ivereigh, Austen. The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.
(New York: Holt. 2014. Pp. xviii, 445. $30.00 clothbound.) A popular biography of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Pope Francis by a British journalist and expert
on the Church and politics in Argentina.
Lamb, Matthew L. (Ed.). Theology Needs Philosophy: Acting Against Reason Is Contrary to the Nature of God. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of
America Press. 2016. Pp. xxii, 325. $69.95 clothbound.)
Lapomarda, Vincent A. 100 Heroic Jesuits of the Second World War. (n.p.: n.p. 2015.
Pp. x, 160. Paperback.) All but four of the Jesuits (Ernest J. Burrus, Walter J.
Ciszek, John LaFarge Jr., and Vincent A. McCormick) were Europeans.
Lau, Dieter. Origenes’ tropologische Hermeneutik und die Wahrheit des biblischen
Wortes. Ein Beitrag zu den Grundlagen der altchristlichen Bibelexegese. [Lateres:
Texte und Studien zu Antike, Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, Band 10.]
(Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. 2016. Pp. 266. €56,00 clothbound.)
Lisska, Anthony J. Aquinas’s Theory of Perception: An Analytic Reconstruction. (New
York: Oxford University Press. 2016. Pp. xviii, 353. $99.00 clothbound.)
McCarthy, Margaret Cain, and Mary Ann Zollmann (Eds.). Power of Sisterhood:
Women Religious Tell the Story of the Apostolic Visitation. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 2014. Pp. xii, 216. $34.99 paperback.) Nine essays
on the Apostolic Visitation begun in 2009.
Methuen, Charlotte, Andrew Spicer, and John Wolffe (Eds.). Christianity and Religious Plurality. [Studies in Church History, vol. 51.] (Rochester, NY: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by Boydell Press. 2015. Pp. xxiv,
454. $80.00 clothbound.) Contents: Guy G. Stroumsa, “From Qumran to the
Qur’ān: The Religious Worlds of Ancient Christianity” (pp. 1–13); A. D. R.
Hayes, “Justin’s Christian Philosophy: New Possibilities for Relations between
Jews, Graeco-Romans and Christians” (pp. 14–32); James T. Palmer, “The
Otherness of Non-Christians in the early Middle Ages” (pp. 33–52); Ariana
Patey, “Asserting Difference in Plurality: The Case of the Martyrs of Córdoba”
(pp. 53–66); Christine Walsh, “Baptized b ut not Converted: The Vikings in
Tenth-Century Francia” (pp. 67–79); Bernard Hamilton, “Western Christian
Contacts with Buddhism, c. 1050–1350” (pp. 80–91); Jonathan Phillips, “The
Third Crusade in Context: Contradiction, Curiosity and Survival” (pp. 92–
114); Amanda Power, “Encounters in the Ruins: Latin Captives, Franciscan
Friars and the Dangers of Religious Plurality in the early Mongol Empire” (pp.
115–36); Konstantinos Papastathis, “Christian-Muslim Encounters: George of
Trebizond and the ‘Inversion’ of Eastern Discourse regarding Islam in the Fifteenth Century” (pp. 137–49); Angeliki Ziaka, “Rearticulating a ChristianMuslim Understanding: Gennadius Scholarios and George Amiroutzes on
Islam” (pp. 150–65); Charlotte Methuen, “‘And our Muhammed goes with the
Archangel Gabriel to Choir’: Sixteenth-Century German Accounts of Life
under the Turks” (pp. 166–80); Nabil Matar, “England and Religious Plurality:
Henry Stubbe, John Locke and Islam” (pp. 181–203); Frans Ciappara, “Christians and Muslims on Malta in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries” (pp.

902

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED
204–15); Gareth Atkins, “William Jowett’s Christian Researches: British Protestants and Religious Plurality in the Mediterranean, Syria and the Holy Land,
1815–1830” (pp. 216–31); John Wolffe, “Plurality in the Capital: The Christian Response to London’s Religious Minorities since 1800 (Presidential
Address)” (pp. 232–58); W. M. Jacob, “Anglican Clergy Responses to Jewish
Migration in late Nineteenth-Century London” (pp. 259–73); Stuart Mews,
“Rama or ahimsa? Terror or Passive Resistance? Revolutionary Methods of
Hindu Students from London University and the Christian Response, 1909–
17” (pp. 274–84); Angela Berlis, “Sympathy for Mussulmans, Love for Jews:
Emilie Loyson-Meriman (1833–1909), Hyacinthe Loyson (1827–1912) and
the Efforts towards Interreligious Encounter” (pp. 285–301); Marion
Bowman, “Christianity, Plurality and Vernacular Religion in early TwentiethCentruy Glastonbury: A Sign of Things to Come?” (pp. 302–21); Martin
Wellings, “‘An extremely dangerous book’? James Hope Moulton’s Religions
and Religion (1913)” (pp. 322–33); Clyde Binfield, “Jerusalem’s Empire State?
The Context and Symbolism of a Twentieth-Century Building” (pp. 334–49);
Todd M. Thompson, “Charles Malik and the Origins of a Christian Critique
of Orientalism in Lebanon and Britain” (pp. 350–65); Kristian Girling, “‘To
live within Islam’: The Chaldean Catholic Church in modern Iraq, 1958–
2003” (pp. 366–84); Peter Webster, “Race, Religion and National Identity in
Sixties Britain: Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his
Encounter with other Faiths” (pp. 385–98); John Maiden, “‘What could be
more Christian than to allow the Sikhs to use it?’ Church Redundancy and
Minority Religion in Bedford, 1977–8” (pp. 399–411); Brian Stanley, “Christians, Muslims and the State in Twentieth-Century Egypt and Indonesia” (pp.
412–34); Mona Siddiqui, “Diatribe, Discourse and Dialogue: Reflections on
Jesus in the History of Christian-Muslim Encounters” (pp. 435–54).

Petri, Thomas, O.P. Aquinas and the Theology of the Body: The Thomistic Foundations of John Paul II’s Anthropology. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 2016. Pp. xvi, 338. $65.00 clothbound.)
Pinckaers, Servais, O.P. The Spirituality of Martyrdom . . . to the Limits of Love.
Trans. Patrick M. Clark and Annie Hounsokou. (Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press. 2016. Pp. xxiv, 150. $29.95 paperback.)
Schultenover, David G., S.J. (Ed.). 5 0 Years On: Probing the Riches of Vatican II.
Introd. Stephen Schloesser, S.J. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 2015.
Pp. l, 442. $39.95 paperback.)
Selin, Gary. Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations. Foreword by Cardinal J.
Francis Stafford. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press. 2016. Pp. xxii, 210. $29.95 paperback.)
Sem-Sandberg, Steve. The Chosen Ones. Trans. Anna Paterson. (New York: Farrer,
Straus and Giroux. 2016. Pp. xii, 559. $28.00 clothbound).
Thavis, John. The Vatican Diaries: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Power, Personalities and Politics at the Heart of the Catholic Church. (New York: Viking. 2014.
Pp. 321. $27.95 clothbound.)

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED

903

Thiessen, Mark Nation, Anthony G. Siegrist, and Daniel P. Umbel. Bonhoeffer the
Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Press. 2013. Pp. xvi, 250. $29.99 paperback.)
Young, Robin Darling, and Monica J. Blanchard (Eds.). To Train His Soul in Books:
Syriac Asceticism in Early Christianity. [CUA Studies in Early Christianity.]
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 2011. Pp. xx,
217. $39.95 clothbound.)