Subtle Bias?
I should note, however, that John L. Allen is not free from bias. He makes it clear in his introduction that he is trying that present as fair and objective of an explanation of the inner workings of the Vatican as possible, and perhaps he has succeeded. He is human, however, and I think that bias shows through based upon his choices of what to present and how to present it.
For example, he argues against the common prejudice that many Vatican decisions are heavily influenced by whatever course of action will preserve Vatican power. This isn't a very flattering image and Allen makes a case for why it isn't true; but at the same time, he also goes to some length to explain why one of the core values of the Vatican is "authority" and maintaining the traditional authority of the Holy See:
- "[S]ubmitting to the decision of authority, even when its logic is not clear, is an affirmation of faith in that tradition. ... Power within the Church comes from the risen Christ and is entrusted to the apostles and to their successors in the apostolic college, first and foremost to the successor of Peter, the Pope. ...Obviously, the culture of the Holy See puts a premium on the authority of the Holy Father. Beyond that, there is a strong emphasis on accepting the authority of one's superiors, especially the prefects and secretaries of the various dicasteries, who draw on both the Pope' authority and their own as bishops. ...[W]ithin the ecclesiastical system...power enobles, because it flows from Holy Orders and draws on the grace of the sacrament. The bias is always in favor of authority."
Allen also argues, more than once, that there is value in having a powerful papacy with centralized power in the Vatican because, historically, a weak Church and heresy have always been most prominent when the papacy has been weakest. A strong pope is able to prevent error, strengthen the Church, and make it easier for Catholics around the world to resist the pressures of governments and secular culture.
There is a conflict here, subtle because of the shift in language but nonetheless real. Authority is a complex concept, but in the end authority is dependent upon power: in order to have authority, one must have either real power or a justified claim to real power. Thus, if clerics in the Vatican make decisions based upon whatever will best preserve and/or enhance the authority of the Holy See, then it necessarily follows that they are making decisions based upon whatever will best preserve and/or enhance the power of the Holy See as well.
Now, talking about authority rather than power sounds nicer. Power is something that is dirty and corrupts, whereas authority is a moral voice crying out in the wilderness or a firm hand guiding people on the path of righteousness. The two are not, however, separable - defense of authority is necessarily a defense of the power that allows authority to exist. This is the most obvious, but certainly not the only, example of where Allen could make a stronger critique of the Vatican, but where instead a bias in defense of the Vatican influences his writing.
Bottom Line
None of this, though, diminishes my strong recommendation of this book. The bias is subtle and may be difficult to notice, but so long as readers are aware of it they should have no problem taking it into account when considering what Allen has to say. By and large, what Allen does say is insightful and valuable. Anyone who wants to know more about how the Vatican works and why it does the things it does should definitely purchase this book.
