91 both McCloskey and the guests make a genuine effort to give background material and contextualize the topic. A few flaws are evident in the program. All the guests are male, and all but two are priests. Some perspective from a few of the many female Newman scholars would have enhanced the series. As previously mentioned, a few speakers rambled off-topic, but this is not a major problem in the series overall. Another aspect this reviewer found to be problematic occurs in the last segment on Newman entitled “The University.” The first half of that discussion concerns itself with Newman’s thoughts and writings in concurrence with his founding of a Catholic university in Ireland. However, the last half amounts to a rather pointedly biased conversation critiquing many of today’s United States Catholic universities and promoting St. Thomas Aquinas College of which the guest,Dr.Thomas Dillon,is president. After the previous twelve segments had been consistent in relating the particular topic directly to Newman, this last portion seems out of place. Aside from these flaws, it is a marvelous gift to have an illustrious group of Newman scholars cover thirteen topics in 6.5 hours. Perhaps the greatest strength of the series is that both the host and every one of the guest speakers conveys a real love of Newman. Each one speaks with enthusiasm about Newman as a person, his ideas, and his positive influence on Christianity. Even if a viewer were to grasp only one quarter or one third of the content of each segment, that same viewer would surely be intrigued by the devotion and admiration expressed.This, I believe, would motivate the viewer to learn more about Newman. If this were to be the case, the series Cardinal Newman at 2000 will have accomplished its mission Catharine M. Ryan National Institute for Newman Studies, Pittsburgh, PA BOOK REVIEWS The Consensus of the Church and Papal Infallibility: A Study in the Background of Vatican I. By Richard F.Costigan,S.J.Washington,DC:The Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Pages: xi + 218. Cloth, $54.95, ISBN 13: 978–0–8132–1413–9. Richard Costigan, professor of theology at Loyola University in Chicago, has written an excellent book on the meaning of the consensus of the Church and papal infallibility. He concentrates on the period between 1682, the year the Gallican Articles appeared, and 1870, when Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I defined papal primacy and infallibility. The Four Gallican articles were eventually approved by King Louis XIV, but they were not simply imposed by him. They expressed the long-held views of the French clergy and hierarchy. Costigan concentrates on Article 4, which stated that the Pope has the principal role in communicating the faith to the entire Church but that his judgment is not irreformable“unless the consensus of the Church is present with it” (nisi Ecclesiae consensus accesserit). Vatican I, however, taught VIDEO AND BOOK REVIEW NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 92 that the definitions of the Pope are irreformable “of themselves and not from the consensus of the Church” (ex sese, non autem ex consensus Ecclesiae). Costigan notes that many historians and theologians have studied Gallicanism, but he finds it “disconcerting” that many of those who have written on Gallicanism do not deal with actual Gallican sources. For example,he points to the works ofThils, Fries, Nau, and Aubert who discuss Gallicanism “without citing a single Gallican treatise or any study about Gallicanism” (4). To remedy that situation, the author studies the writings of nine authors in chronological order.The five Gallican authors are Bossuet,Tournely, Bailly, Bergier, and La Luzerne.All were French priests except Tournely who was a layman. The four Ultramontanists or papalists were all Italian priests: Orsi, Ballerini, Muzzarelli, and Perrone. The nine authors wrote prolifically, often producing multi-volume works. Costigan analyzes their writings and presents their arguments with great care and evenhandedness. In a calm and irenic style, he shows that the Gallicans and the papalists actually shared much in common. Both were staunch defenders of the Catholic faith against Enlightenment scholars, Protestant opponents, and secular polemicists. Both Gallicans and papalists argued that the Church is monarchical...