Pages

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Garry Wills: "Why Priests? A Failed Tradition" (The Diane Rehm Show)


Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church's top priest, took the world by surprise with his decision to resign. Pulitzer Prize-winning author -- and lifelong Catholic -- Gary Wills asks why we need priests and suggests Christianity would have been better off without the priesthood.

Guests

Garry Wills  

professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and author of numerous books, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Lincoln at Gettysburg," "Saint Augustine" and "Why I Am a Catholic."

Monsignor Charles Pope  

pastor, Holy Comforter-St. Cyprian in Washington, D.C.

Related Items

Image of Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition
Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition

Read An Excerpt

Reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., from "Why Priests?" Copyright © Garry Wills, 2013.Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Bo Jones wrote:
Not just "Why priests?" -- but why a lot of other Catholic traditions:
- against birth control such as condoms and at the same time against abortions which are lessened by effective birth control - and the kind of birth control which prevents the sperm and egg from ever uniting, so it's NOT killing a human even at it's very earliest stage.
- Why do they teach that popes are "infallible"? History shows they have even sometimes been corrupt about matters of faith and morals!
Being a former Catholic, I could make a long list of Catholic traditions which make no sense. I found a non Catholic church which promotes just the essence of Christianity with out the man made nonsense.
February 13, 2013 - 9:51 am

Todd E. Lewis wrote:
Why priests?
Didn't we have this discussion about 500 years ago?
February 13, 2013 - 9:52 am

Arab Lady wrote:
I have always wondered why Priests were necessary. These men never marry, yet they give advice to people about their marriages, and when a couple is married in the Catholic church, they must also receive counseling from these same men.
Go figure.
February 13, 2013 - 9:55 am

jamille6 wrote:
As a practicing Mormon, I am used to quite a different definition of priesthood. Within our faith, every worth male member receives the priesthood and then spends a lifetime serving in a variety of church callings, both big and small, throughout his life. The priesthood also refers to the leadership of the church and the authority by which decisions are made and doctrines and policies established and maintained. As an observer of the Catholic Church, I see the need for the structure, organization, and authority of the priesthood. I do not see the need for the priesthood to be confined to such a small subset of the church membership. We do not have full-time paid clergy in my faith, and I see the benefits, daily, of clergy coming from the congregation and for this service to be temporary (3-5 years at a time) position. I think the separation (celibate vs. married, outside job vs. paid clergy, etc...) of priesthood and normal lay members will continue to cause trials of faith for practicing Catholics.
February 13, 2013 - 11:18 am

Gary Thomas wrote:
I hope that Diane, as an Episcopalian, will correct Garry Wills as to the Apostolic Succession, which the Anglican Communion does, in fact, have.
February 13, 2013 - 11:24 am

volution wrote:
Why doesn't he just become a Protestant?
There is a kind of arrogance/ignorance in positing old arguments like they are new revelations.
for his example his views on
-priests
-transubstantiation
-church history
Most of us Roman Catholics choose to follow these traditions. Sometimes at our own peril/or discrimination.
Like my Grandmother who grew up during the troubles in Ireland.
I am not saying that the Roman Catholic Church didn't do the same to Protestants.
But we live in the U.S. and have the right to worship as we choose.
February 13, 2013 - 11:30 am

Pat2013 wrote:
I don't find that possible...to find a church which DOES NOT promote any man made nonsense. Afterall, church exists for man and daily life of mankind.
February 13, 2013 - 11:31 am

nanreadingone wrote:
Diane...why would you have such a guest as Garrty Wills to describe and defend the Catholic church when he is so non-catholic. It would be one thing if you had an true catholic to balance the conversation but just Mr. Wills is WRONG!
February 13, 2013 - 11:32 am

marc821 wrote:
Perhaps I didn't earlier in the show, a Rabbi (Jewish) and a Priest (Christian) why the name change. In addition, why are the Priest unable to marry?
PS Diane, love the show listen daily.
February 13, 2013 - 11:36 am

jay 'bama wrote:
This is one of the most offensive shows I have heard on the Diane Rehm show. I am a long time listener and cannot believe that Ms. Rehm would allow someone who, by today's standards of behavior, is talking hate speach. Count me now as a former listener.
February 13, 2013 - 11:36 am

Bo Jones wrote:
Garry Wills:
I disagree that one should stay in a deeply flawed institution like the Catholic Church.
The only way to reform it is to (without waiting for centuries to reform it) "vote with one's feet" and leave it for a Christian church that has the essence of Jesus' message, but not the multitude of issues which are actually an impediment to living the fullest Christian life.
Save your energy, and join a protestant church which comes closest to the ideal church you seek.
February 13, 2013 - 11:39 am

peter656 wrote:
Anyone or anything that "officially" intermediates my relationship with God is not what Jesus intended, ever.
February 13, 2013 - 11:42 am

edwards wrote:
What do Catholics have against birth control & family planning? When women become priests this will likely change.
February 13, 2013 - 11:42 am

Cincisew wrote:
As a 50 year old woman, raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I came to the realization at a very early age that the Priests were a barrier to my connection with God and the Church. I did not accept that the the rules for my connection to God should be so different from my brothers. To this day I absent myself from the Catholic Church
February 13, 2013 - 11:42 am

jasonwilliford wrote:
Why religion, is my question?
How long will it take for people to realize that there are dozens of religions; of which, the big three are splintered down many lines. Why? Think about it. They are all man made mythologies. They hold no more importance or need for debate than the mythologies of the Greeks, Vikings, or Mesopotamians.
Please move on. No man has the power to do anything supernatural. Magic is not real. No religion is legitimate. Let's focus on being good to each other and saving this rock we all share as a home.
February 13, 2013 - 11:49 am

mmb wrote:
The foundation of Christianity in a nutshell:
The Christian god has himself born (by parthenogenesis no less) as Jesus. He then sacrifices himself to himself to save us from himself. And, just to top of this marathon of absurdity then rises from the dead zombie style to hang out with his homies then ascends to heaven (sans aid of technology) to return to himself.
To a thinking person the priesthood would appear to be the least of the Church's or indeed Christianity's problems.
February 13, 2013 - 11:50 am

jay 'bama wrote:
Unbelievable! This fellow is so in left field it's unbelievable. He not only doesn't know scripture, he's convinced of his own correctness to the point of not being open to discussion. He is NOT a Catholic, he's practically a non-Christian. Diane, step up to the plate on this one!
February 13, 2013 - 11:51 am

jay 'bama wrote:
That's not what priests are or do!
February 13, 2013 - 11:52 am

DrMikey wrote:
Agree! Wish this show was aired before our local fund drive.
February 13, 2013 - 11:53 am

Sue Jonsberg wrote:
Thanks so much for this very interesting dialog.
February 13, 2013 - 11:55 am

conjtart wrote:
What Gary Wills suggests sounds like total chaos to me, as in "leading by committee"...NO Thanks
February 13, 2013 - 11:57 am

Mike Sergeant wrote:
jasonwilliford wrote:
Why religion, is my question?
How long will it take for people to realize that there are dozens of religions; of which, the big three are splintered down many lines. Why? Think about it. They are all man made mythologies. They hold no more importance or need for debate than the mythologies of the Greeks, Vikings, or Mesopotamians.
Please move on. No man has the power to do anything supernatural. Magic is not real. No religion is legitimate. Let's focus on being good to each other and saving this rock we all share as a home.
jasonwilliford, I would reply that man has had a mythology since the beginning of man and we still have one despite what your "religion" is. Man has a need to have a unifying story no matter if it is a god living in the sky, gods living in the rocks streams and trees or a group of testable theories can explain the whole of the universe and the human experience. They are all a mythology, it's just the flavor that you choose to explain your world and your experiences.
February 13, 2013 - 11:58 am

HomeOfficeGirl wrote:
Agreed. I have my own personal direct relationship with Jesus. Preists, pastors, etc. are one of my biggest hangups about any religion. They are all just humans - failable, sinners - like anyone else. They have all kinds of their own biases and interpretations. But it you believe they have some connection to God that you don't, they can also have huge power over people that I don't think Jesus ever intended. There is not a man or woman on earth that we should "follow".
February 13, 2013 - 11:59 am

jasonwilliford wrote:
Bravo. Why does no one see this?
February 13, 2013 - 12:04 pm

Mike Sergeant wrote:
mmb wrote:
"To a thinking person..."
So somebody who has arrived at a different conclusion than you is a non thinking person? Not a lot of room for tolerance in this statement is there? This statement is in the same family as " You must kill all non-believers". Even scientists have long discussions about how to interpret data, what statistical analysis to use to get the "correct" conclusion, and when the "correct" conclusion is agreed upon, it is still subject to challenge. The same goes with religion, why else would there be so many sects of all the religions?
February 13, 2013 - 12:08 pm

Ginny DH wrote:
nanreadingone: Gary Wills is not on the show to "describe and defend the Catholic church". He is on the show to describe and defend his beliefs about the weaknesses of the Catholic priestly heirarchy.
As a person who was raised Protestant and has come to believe that all orginized religions are suspect, this show was fascinating and refreshing in its rational approach of a fraught issue. I believe Wills is spot on in his analysis of the corrupting power of the higher echelons of the Catholic church.
February 13, 2013 - 12:18 pm

Bo Jones wrote:
One argument put forward by the priest for remaining in the Catholic church despite it's massive flaws is that it has been in existence for 2000 years, thus supposedly bestowing legitimacy and honor.
1. one of the reasons people remained Catholic in the past, especially until modern times, is that the c. church controlled through fear and by brainwashing its members from babyhood. (Hello!! - the Inquisition) But also remember that the masses didn't even know how to read, by and large, throughout its history. And when you could read, it was forbidden to read anything "contrary to faith and morals" - that was deemed a mortal sin!!
2. Judaism is even older, so by that argument, it'd be more legit than Catholicism. (and the practice of prostitution has been around forever - never mind, that's a bad joke!)
February 13, 2013 - 12:23 pm

friendofNPR wrote:
Forgive me, but I have lost a lot of respect for Mr. Wills. Specifically the portion of the interview when he was explicit regarding the abuse scandals when that was totally unnecessary. His comments on transubstantiation shows that irrespective of his being a Catholic, that he doesn't understand Sacramental theology much, and subsequent theological reflection on what the words 'this is my body means.' Form and Substance was used by Aquinas and the Scholastics to attempt an explanation of what was/is meant. So, if he disagrees with it, okay. But at least understand it, if that is the particular part of the Christian Church you call home. I wonder if he has read Schillebeeckx on sacraments?
His reading of the Canon through the eyes of certain portions of the Pauline epistles leaves something to be desired. If one wants to talk about ecclesiastical structures, and models of the Church, that can be had I think, without going in the direction that he chose.
February 13, 2013 - 12:36 pm

lm394les wrote:
Why is NPR so virulently hostile to the Catholic Church and so supportive of all Jewish topics? I am tired of all the direct and indirect attacks against Catholicism and all the programs that promote a positive view of Judaism. I have been a listener for more than fifteen years and I am more and more aware of the clear agenda of NPR to disparage Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, and focus positive attention on Israel, the Holocaust and all things sacred to the Jewish people. I find NPR's comments and attitude towards Catholics hostile and offensive.
February 13, 2013 - 12:42 pm

Minedga Archill... wrote:
Thank you again Diane for your marvelous program! In my humble opinion, I think Mr. Garry Wills is brave and visionary. Yes, it was "abominable" how the Church as delt with scandal. But it has always been the politics. If you have not read the book "La Santa Alianza"/The Sacred Alliance" -( Five centuries of Vatican Espionage) by Eric Frattini. I highly recommend it. I hope Diane can interview him sometime. He is fascinating to hear!
February 13, 2013 - 12:48 pm
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)