While staying with family in Toronto, I was told about Professor Garry Wills having appeared on a CBC radio show called Tapestry, on Easter Sunday. Garry Wills is a professor of history emeritus at Northwestern University. The title of the podcast is:" Spring Cleaning in God's House".. The link is here.  Professor Wills has written a book called: "Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition"

Professor Garry Wills maintains that there were no priests identified in the New Testament, and he believes, therefore, that we, as the Church, today, do not need priests, and he's not advocating that they disappear. He says, he wants to "reassure Catholics", that we need not think, we'll be disconnected from our faith and sacraments, if there were no priests. This is particularly, important, in light, of the decreasing number of priests. Professor Wills says on page 256:

"I just want to assure my fellow Catholics that, as priests shrink in numbers--in some cases dashing from parish to parish , to put in brief appearances for the supposedly "necessary" things no one else can do (administering the sacraments, saying mass, hearing confessions, presiding at baptisms or weddings or funerals)--congregations do not have to feel they have lost all connection with the sacred just because the role of priests in their lives is contracting. If Peter and Paul had no need of priests to love and serve God, neither do we. If we need fellowship in belief--and we do--we have each other. If we need instruction in the Scriptures, or counsel, or support, we can get those in the same places that Protestants do."

In contrast to Garry Wills, I would suggest that the Catholic Faithful form Small Christian Communities for the Scriptures, counsel, and support. While I cannot provide physical evidence to refute his claim, that Peter and Paul had no priests, I intuitively, believe, that the "actions" of what a priest might do, was probably done by someone. However, it would appear that we just don't know. It is probably correct to say, that there was no defined Christian cultic priesthood at the time of Peter and Paul. What I wholeheartedly endorse from the above comment by Professor Wills, is that, we, as Catholics, do not have to think, we will " lose connection" to the sacred with the dwindling number of priests.

In the event, that the Church is not going to experience, once again, the pre-Vatican II abundance of Catholic priests, then, we need to seriously consider gathering our presiders and ministers from among ourselves. Garry Wills, I'm sure, does not have all the correct answers, but he's courageously willing to open the discussion to: why priests? Such a discussion is going to bring about brisk conversation about priests, about Eucharist, about sacraments, about new ministry, about authority, and on goes the list..

I have heard it said: "If we do not have priests, we will not have the Eucharist." I suspect that Garry Wills has heard this, and that may be one of his motivations for writing this book. This would be why he examines something of the roots of the priesthood, in the Letter to the Hebrews, and why Professor Wills devotes the first section of his book exclusively to speaking about the power of the priest and the Eucharist.

There's no doubt in my mind and I said this, even before 1999, that we need to re-examine the idea that only the priest can preside at our Eucharist, and only the priest is able to say the words of institution over the bread and wine, so that, the bread and wine becomes the "real presence" of Christ. I imagine, for some people, it seems "heretical" to even think about questioning what we have theologically accepted for centuries, but we must not fear, "doing theology" and learning to apply our understanding, should we find ourselves, needing something new.

As Pope Francis has said, "he would rather have a Church that was incurring accidents, than being content to be "stale and sick". I realize, I'm using his words in a different context, but it is also, Pope Francis, who, when he was known as Cardinal Bergoglio, relates how when the priests/missionaries were absent, from the Philippines for more than 200 years, the people carried on the work of the Church, which included, all the sacramental work. In this extraordinary circumstance, Cardinal Bergoglio said: "Baptism is Sufficient".

Professor Garry Wills might well have the theological support from Pope Francis when he says that we can do things ourselves. (paraphrased) We also know that Pope Francis by his words and actions, does not endorse a hyper-clerical ecclesial system. He has said, as Cardinal Bergoglio, that the Church is clericalized, which includes, the clerics and the people. The Cardinal went on to say, that the people, expect the priests/bishops/cardinals/, and the Pope to do for them, what they could be doing for themselves. (paraphrased)

It is within the above theological framework, that I appreciate Garry Wills writing this book. The most powerful words for me were on pages 20 and 21. A critical comment by Garry Wills appears on page 20. He says,.

"The only person on earth who can do this (words of consecration) is a priest, and he can do it all by himself, with no congregation present......A congregation of believers, no matter how large or how pious, cannot do this if no priest is present."....."The power to effect transubstantiation is lodged in a priest by the sacrament of ordination, and it cannot be taken from him except by death. He is ordained as "a priest forever, in the line of Melchizedek, whose priesthood had no beginning and no end. Even if a priest is defrocked, discredited, convicted of crimes, and imprisoned, he still has the "character" (imprint) of the sacrament. "Through, that sacrament (ordination) priests, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are signed with a special character".

Professor Wills tells us that the Church believes "the power to effect transubstantiation is lodged in a priest by the sacrament of ordination." It would seem to be an open and shut case, but is it? "When push comes to shove", does "Baptism Suffice?" We also receive a special character at baptism.

Professor Wills has drawn criticism for his book. A Roman Catholic priest named Father Barron has on you tube, a critique of Will's book, in which he completely dismisses Professor Will's work and claims. That link is here.  Father Barron's critique includes a number of things of which I support, but, he says that Wills has an "irrational hatred of the priesthood". I will tell you that Professor Wills does not have an "irrational hatred for the priesthood. It is extremely inaccurate and unfair to suggest such a thing, As he says, he has many friends who are priests, and he himself, studied at one time for the Jesuits. The other "thing" I disagree with Father Barron about is that he claims that the "hyper-clerical" time , of the Church, that Garry Wills grew up in, is over. Interestingly, this book was published just prior to the election of Pope Francis. We know by Pope Francis's words and actions that he fundamentally rejects all forms of clericalism that places the priests/bishops/cardinals and himself in the "league" of the "rich and famous". It is perhaps, more noticeable at the Vatican, that the "hyper-clerical" church is not over, but, with the election of Pope Francis, chapter two, of Garry Wills book, "Holy Men", which describes the "pomp" and "pageantry" of the clerics, may be rendered somewhat "mute".

Have I any other criticisms of the book? I do, and when commenting on some, I will include input from Father Barron. Chapter three is entitled, "The Eucharistic Miracle". I have no way of knowing, if, Garry Wills is being "facetious" when he describes what happens at the consecration of the bread and wine. We believe that with the words, said, in the power of the Holy Spirit, that the bread and wine, become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You might well call this a miracle, in that, Christ gives himself to us, in the form of bread and wine. I, personally, given my life experience with Christ, know this to be a "mystical event" and I have no doubt about its reality. My question revolves around who else can perform the miracle?

I know that when Garry Wills was interviewed on the Colbert Show, he apparently said, that the Eucharist was a fake. I sincerely hope that was simply a very, poor choice of words. Garry Wills gives example after example of cases of where the "Host" was a source of the miraculous, i.e. a bleeding host, a host that caused someone to levitate and many others. Assuming that at least some of these miraculous stories actually occurred, the 11th century theologians asked a very, very, valid question They asked: "If Christ were really not present in the Host, how could it work such miracles?" If, indeed, Garry Wills does not believe in the real presence or anyone else for that matter, then, I too, would ask, "How could the host work such miracles?"

Professor Wills writes a chapter entitled: "Killer Priests". He is not speaking about the Roman Catholic priests. Wills says that it was the religious priests of Jesus' time that killed him, and not the people. Father Barron dismisses this, and I would agree, as the scriptures are clear, when it is said that Jesus was brought out to the people, on the day of his trial, and the people shouted, "crucify Him, crucify Him". Even, if you can cite a "mob mentality" that took over, I believe, it still makes the people of Jesus' time culpable. Ultimately, any guilt has to be determined by God, as He says, "He's the only One, who knows, what is really in men's hearts."

Garry Wills continues section two of his book by dedicating three chapters to the discussion of Melchizedek, the "priest forever". The author of Hebrews, who is unknown, "borrows" and embellishes the role of "Melchizedek" as high priest and also compares Jesus and Melchizedek. I say borrows, because there is no elaborate story about Melchizedek in the Old Testament and he was supposedly a King and High Priest from the Land of Canaan. Wills calls the use of Melchizedek in the Letter to the Hebrews as fallacious. (paraphrased) He says as well, that Jesus was not a priest in Palestine. Father Barron provides a detailed criticism of Will's dismissal of the Letter, but from my perspective, Professor Wills is dangerously close to "pinning" Jesus to historical fact. Jesus was not a member of the priestly class, but he did "priestly" things. I also think, we ought to leave room in the New Testament for some imagination and creativity, if it promotes a richer understanding of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Garry Wills doesn't believe that the New Testament emphasizes any "high priest" attributes of Jesus, so he doesn't like the Letter to the Hebrews, as he must believe that it contributed to the creation of the cultic priesthood, which he deems as probably "unnecessary". Father Barron says, that the theme of Jesus as "high priest" is threaded throughout the New Testament. I will not add to this debate ,but, suffice it to say, that, I would have appreciated Professor Wills articulating the development of the priesthood through the centuries, as there had to have been legitimate reasons for having the priests. Jesus would say, "What is written, is written", in regards, to the story of Melchizedek and the Letter to the Hebrews, and in regards to the history of the Church and the development of the priesthood, Jesus might well say, "What has happened, has happened".

Section four of Professor Will's book is entitled: "Jesus as Sacrifice" and section five is entitled: "Jesus as Rescuer." This is where Wills speaks about "the sacrificial interpretation of the Mass, and "the ransom theory of redemption." I know Garry is not the first person I've read or heard, who is inclined to dilute and dismiss the "sacrifice of Jesus". Here, too, Father Barron comments very well about this. He says, Jesus, is recorded to have said, at the last supper, "This is my body given up for you". That says, sacrifice to me . There are more examples, but I cannot fathom, why anyone doubts that this death of Christ was sacrifice. There is no true discipleship without martyrdom. Jesus took up his cross and gave the whole of his life, back to the Father. Jesus says, "there are many humiliations on the way to entering the Kingdom of God". So, whether you call them sufferings, humiliations, sacrifices, offerings, crosses, Calvary, you are talking about sacrifice. Why was Jesus the high priest of sacrifice? He answers that when he says, "Can Satan cast out Satan?" The only one who can take on the power of evil and destroy it, is God. Yes, it was and is horrible, that "God" as Jesus was murdered to accomplish the destruction of the victory of darkness. Jesus says, "I have come so that those who are destined for the Father, are not devoured by darkness".

Where is Garry Wills going with this discussion of Jesus as the High Priest, Human Sacrifice, Who Killed Jesus?, Jesus as Rescuer, The Saving Trinity, and Christ as Comrade? He wants to debunk the image of Christ as High Priest and the Son of God who was sacrificed, so that we do not require any priest to stand in for Christ and re-enact any of the Calvary experience at our Eucharistic Celebrations. If we cease to espouse this spirituality, then, I believe, in Will's mind, we do not need the priests. Personally, I believe, we would be, remembering Jesus this way, whether we had priests presiding or not.

I have to say, that in this regard, he appears to be in a time warp. Since Vatican II, the liturgy, not the "sacrifice of the mass", has been more about proclaiming the Word of God, and celebrating the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, as we too, are called to share in the same life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

I will not go into detail about my next point, but it would appear, that Garry Wills denies that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. Certainly, this is not a new debate, but if Wills believes this, then. I think, it's a stretch for him, to consider himself, anywhere near agreement with the majority of Catholics.

My final criticism echoes Father Barron. On page 259, Professor Wills says that Jesus is a prophet of God. Maybe this is appropriate to say in some contexts, but, if he believes in the Tinity, as he says he does, then, in the following statement, he ought not to have referred to Jesus as a prophet, but as the Son of God. Wills says:

"There is one God, and Jesus is one of his prophets, and I am one of his millions of followers."

I find this statement particularly irritating. If there is one peeve I have with the world, with the Christian Churches, and other religions, is the relegation of Jesus Christ to being a prophet, and not the Son of God, who decides the destiny of every single mortal. We believe in and follow as Catholics, the Son of God first, and then, we follow, Jesus Christ, the prophet.

Professor Wills, seems to doubt, the real presence. His understanding of the Eucharist, is the Body of Christ, as believers. As Father Barron points out, the Eucharist is both the people of God and the transformed bread and wine. Father points out that this was the position of Father/Cardinal Henri de Lubac, who was an advisor at Vatican II and whom Garry Wills dedicates his book to.

In fairness to Professor Wills, he provides a list of what he does and doesn't believe in, in terms of current Catholic belief, but I will leave that for another day.

In closing, I will return to the second part of the title of his book: "A Failed Tradition". We cannot say that the tradition of the priesthood has failed, any more than we can say, the tradition of Christian marriage has failed . Though there appears to be no evidence from the New Testament, that priests were a part of the first Christian Communities, we know, that over the centuries, a cultic priesthood was created. Assuming that God, was guiding the Church, through all these centuries, I am inclined to believe, that ultimately, God was the "builder" of His Church, and the Holy Spirit allowed for the cultic priesthood to serve the Universal Church. When that purpose is finished, we may have something very new. In keeping with this, I would also say, as it is told to us in scripture, that God reserves the right to build up and to tear down.

Yes, we have seen and experienced as of late, the many, atrocities associated with our priests, that being, the sexual abuses. Our Pope Francis, says, himself, clericalism is a problem. I will refer to scripture again, Jesus said, "The weeds will come, but I cannot root out the weeds, without taking the wheat as well." Irregardless, of whether the priesthood is a failed tradition or not, Vatican II ushered in a new impetus for the empowering of what some people call, the "frozen chosen", the "sleeping giant", that being ,the laity.

I suspect, only the Lord, himself, has any "right" to call any aspect of his Church "failed" simply because we do not know the whole picture and as scripture says, "Our ways are not His ways, and our thoughts are not His thoughts." Yes, he does, give us the wisdom to recognize what needs to change, and God has in the history of the Church, given direction for people to renew and repair the Church, but, to suggest an entire tradition has failed, no, that would not be consistent with God and the love story he has had with his "own" for more than two thousand years.

-----

Comments welcome here