This was mostly a good book. It's helpful as both introduction and recapitulation. It is, however, fairly centred on the white and the Western world- I was surprised to find no considerable engagement with the Eastern Rite, among other things. It also comments on the non-Western world rather tokenistically and very cluelessly- at one point, it tries to understand Hindutva violence against postcolonial trauma. Some off-hand comments about Islam that don't sit right with me. Even the focus on the chapter about missionary activities focuses on the Western missionary, and barely on the converts. The book is good in its discussion of doctrine. I can't emphasise enough how much better it is to read a book rather than go online, if you're interested in learning about any faith tradition!
I much more enjoyed the second half of the book on the Catholic church in contemporary times, more like a conclusion in a traditional essay. But also chapters on the reformation(s) within the church and the legacy of Vatican 2. Who can benefit from this book? I would have to say sympathetic Catholics more than other Christians or religious traditions. For those readers I would have to suggest An Introduction to Christianity by Linda Woodhead which looks critically at the Catholic church and Reformation churches. However, those who this author refers to as schematics (especially after Vatican 1 and 2) from the Roman church have a real interest in how their practice of Catholicism differs from Roman practice. Many Old Catholics and those in the independent sacramental movement, or Liberal Catholic movement see themselves as fulfilling Vatican 2 or conserving "old" Catholicism after the Tridentine church separated from them. Which brings us down to the central book claim that "Catholicism" is synonymous with in communion with the Pope and not just any Pope, but the one in Rome. For example, Catholicism at this this sees its self-identity tied up intimately with the historical Roman church and it's successor Bishop. Only the Roman Pontiff (successor to Peter, first Bishop of Rome) can lead the worldwide church and has been given the charism of infallibility. I can't see this claim as "essential" to Christianity which the author acknowledges is an abstract category; but it is essential to ecclesiology. Since ecclesiology, including the concern for unity (both political and against heresy) was a central concern of the Roman church during Constantine, it is understandable how this became central to the self-identity of Roman Catholics. However, once again ecclesiology is only one branch of Christian theology and therefore cannot be essential as is baptism is. Vatican 2 went in the right direction understanding that Christianity is made up of competing claims of the meaning of Jesus just like in the beginning when the Roman church with the power of the State tried to eliminate all contenders.
This is a well organized and well thought through, well, introduction to Catholicism. Cunningham does a good job of keeping everything fairly well grounded, although he's also clearly engaged in apologetics. The most striking thing about it, aside from the excellent 'Further Reading' suggestions is, however, the absolutely abysmal prose and editing. I particularly like the way Cunningham/his editors treat definite articles as optional, leading the text to sound like a work in Russian being translated into English by a native Russian speaker. Among the other horrors, see the extra negation:
"current writers on spirituality have been keen to deny that an interest in Christian spirituality is not to be construed as involving only and exclusively personal growth in holiness."
the grammatically incomprehensible (there's no subject in this sentence):
"By giving women alternatives to cloistered seclusion or the traditional path of marriage and motherhood, women were able to use their intelligence... in a wide range of activities earlier closed off to them."
and the presumably unintentionally comedic:
"It is on the basis of the above belief that Catholic morality insists that people must take seriously duties as members of the human community and, in addition, must give due recognition to human rights of all people while, at the same time, resisting the notion that certain classes, races or other human cultural characteristics that differentiate by the fact of that difference have the right to discriminate or lessen fundamental human rights due to every person."
I, too, hate stuff that differentiates because of differences and makes you think you can discriminate. But boy, a bit of discrimination on the part of the author with regards to sentence structure wouldn't go astray.
No doubt this seems petty, but consider that at the end of the day he wants you, dear reader, to take his religion seriously. And how seriously can you take the religion of a man who can write such barbarisms as "It is always a challenge to rise up to the challenges of the legitimate need for reform while attempting to balance that need against the task of fidelity to the past"?
I had to read this for an intro to Catholicism class and it's probably one of the best textbooks I've had to read for a university class. The chapters were short, making the weekly readings easy to get done. The information was interesting and wasn't presented in a complicated or overly academic way. My only issue with this book was that it could have been edited better. I noticed a bunch of spelling mistakes and even my professor pointed out things that needed to be fixed. Considering this book is coming out of Cambridge University Press more time could have been spent on editing.