A Humble Request to Turretinfan Pursuant to 1 Peter 3:15 Concerning His Endorsement of Garry Wills’ Book, “Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition”

 

 

Mr. Fan, a Presbyterian gentleman whose writings I have interacted with before posted this article on his blog on February 25, 2013:

            Garry Wills - Why Priests? - Introduction

Dr. Garry Wills is a lay Roman Catholic. His PhD in classics is from Yale (1961) and he taught history for 18 years at Johns Hopkins University. The Los Angeles Times describes him as "American Catholicism's most formidable law scholar," and the New York Times describes him as "One of the country's most distinguished intellectuals." Wills' "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America," won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993. In 2008, John L. Allen, Jr. described Wills as "perhaps the most distinguished Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years" in the National Catholic Register. His writings generally focus on historical topics, many of them on the intersection of history and religion. I wonder if calling him a "Roman Catholic Darryl Hart" would be taken as the mutual compliment it would be intended to be?

Some think that the dwindling number of priests can be remedied by the addition of women priests, or married priests, or openly gay priests. In fact, the real solution is: no priests. It should not be difficult to imagine a Christianity without priests. Read carefully through the entire New Testament and you will not find an individual human priest mentioned in the Christian communities (only Jewish priests in service to the Temple). Only one book of the New Testament, the Letter to Hebrews, mentions an individual priest, and he is unique -- Jesus. He has no followers in that office, according to the Letter.

It is not surprising, then, that some Protestant communities are able to be good Christians without having any priests. Some priests of my youth mocked them for that reason. They said a Protestant ceremony was just a town meeting, without the sacramental consecration and consumption of the body and blood of Jesus. When I was told one of my pastors that I had admired the sermon of a visiting priest, he said I should not be looking to have my ears ticked, like some Protestant, but should concentrate on the mystery of the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, he was implying, we would have no religion at all.

                        (Why Priests, Introduction, p. 2)

Gary Wills' proposal is going to be shocking to traditionalist Roman Catholics, partly because it would require a radical change in Roman Catholicism, and partly because that radical change would like the Reformation, at least as to a substantial part of its ecclesiology (his position was compared to that of Luther in the New York Times).

We hold to the priesthood of believers, and maintain that Christians have direct access to God through the sole mediation of Christ. Thus, we reject the idea of merely human priests, affirming instead the apostolic model of a church without priests.

Wills' proposal is one that is surprisingly ecumenical. While there would still be certain issues regarding worship that would need to be addressed, removal of the priesthood would be a major stepping stone toward Roman Catholicism being in ecumenical union with "Protestants."

Will Will's proposal be adopted? It seems unlikely. Those in power in Rome have every vested interest in maintaining the structures of power that require a priesthood.

            -TurretinFan

I would note that I commented on Mr. Fan’s article.  You will not see the comment on his blog as he without the courtesy of an explanation deleted it.  Unfortunately, I did not save it either.  I forgot that Turretinfan often deletes comments where the facts do not fit his narrative.  His actions demonstrate the difference between a mere polemicist and a true apologist.  If one is going to defend one’s faith, one first needs to defend what one says while doing so.  I would humbly suggest that the arbitrary use of a “delete” key does not fulfill Saint Peter’s admonition, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks.” (1 Peter 3:15).

Since I do not remember my original comment verbatim, I am going to make my request for explanation a bit more formal here.  I took the liberty of re-posting Mr. Fan’s article in its entirety so one can not say that I was being unfair or uncharitable towards him in asking him to give an explanation.

            Dear Mr. Fan:

            Pursuant to 1 Peter 3:15, I am asking you give an explanation for the assertions you made in your article of February 25, 2013 entitled, “Garry Wills - Why Priests? - Introduction”.  Accordingly, I have posited some questions hopefully you will take the time to answer:

1.         Had you read Mr. Wills’ book before writing your article? 

2.         While you made sure to go through Mr. Wills’ credentials at the beginning of the article, I note that you left out the fact that he did not either obtain an imprimatur or nihil obstat which indicates that the book contains nothing that is contrary to the faith.  Did you intentionally leave off that fact?

3.         By endorsing Mr. Wills’ conclusion that the Church should abandon the institution of the priesthood, do you now also endorse his exegesis of the Letters to the Hebrews claiming that it is non-inspired writing that was added to Scripture by a faction of Christians who wanted to justify having a priesthood?

4.         By endorsing Mr. Wills’ book do you now also agree with Mr. Wills’ conclusion that Jesus’ death on the cross was neither sacrificial nor redemptive?

5.            While we can see that you agree with Mr. Wills’ opinion that the early church did not have the office of priesthood, do you also agree with his opinion denying the priesthood of Jesus Himself?

            I hope that after considering my questions, Turretinfan chooses to take down his article since it endorses a book that contrary to important matters of faith shared by both Protestants and Catholics. 

God bless!

Update:  Mr. Fan has posted a comment and a PS to his post.

First, the comment:

       It's hard to understand how someone could conclude that agreeing with Wills' conclusions
       means I agree with every argument he's made, but apparently someone did. To answer that
       question, no - not every argument. Some of Wills points are valid, some are not. Why anyone
       would expect me to agree with everything a Roman Catholic author rights (sic) is mystifying.

     -TurretinFan

Now if Mr Fan had not deleted my comment, his readers would have known that Mr. Fan's comment is a misrepresentation of what I had said.  I never said there that Mr. Fan agreed with every point that Wills had written.  I only asked Mr Fan if he agreed with certain statements that Wills had made in arriving at his conclusion.  I formed no conclusions myself.  Why anyone who claims that he is writing for the glory of God and portrays himself to his readership as a sincere defender contending for the faith would want to misrepresent what another wrote is equally mystifying.  How exactly does a lie about what someone else says advance  the glory of God in any way whatsoever?    


Mr Fan also posted this PS:

       -TurretinFan

P.S. I seriously doubt that any of Garry Wills' books (from his prize winning books, to his least well recognized books, and including this book) has been submitted for nihil obstat or imprimatur. Naturally, a book (like Why Priests?) that argues as one of its main points that there shouldn't be priests, is not a good candidate for either certification.
 

At least we know that Turretinfan reads this blog and has read this article specifically even if he will not admit it.  That said, based on his comments, one must naturally come to the conclusion that Turretinfan does not have a clue how one would go about obtaining an imprimatur or a nihil obstat or why it is even important.  One can obtain either without the Church agreeing with the positions advanced or contentions made.  An imprimatur and a nihil obstat do not mean that the Church agrees with the contents of the book; only that there is nothing in the book that is contrary to the teachings of the Church.