Comments (68)

One of the hardest things to be is an American, Catholic woman trying hard to be faithful to a Church that at every turn tells me I am not as called to serve the Lord, and not an equal to the men I worship with. You can tell me about Mary, you can tell me that we are each called to serve differently and I will not argue with that. However, from the ordination of women, to the belief that "tying" oneself to a woman hinders a man's ability to serve God and the flock, the Church continues to send the message that women are somehow less in God's eyes. Priests have a demanding life, so part-time and priest is an oxymoron. THere are many duties, difficult parishioners, the need to consult with and serve at the diocesan level. At the same time, families are demanding, too.

So the hard liners say the Church has spoken and moreover the option of having both is not viable period. Yet even they can't with integrity point to anyone, including Jesus, who said that celibacy was required. The Church itself calls it a discipline not dogma. And if you think that is a distinction without a difference compare that to John Paul II's statements on the ordination of women and to the first centuries of the Church.

I still say having married priests with families can also bring many, many benefits to ministry. Celibate priests can and do fall short, too. In a time when the institution of marriage (yes, I know it is a sacrament) is under stress, large numbers of Catholics feel estranged, and many must go without a parish priest, it's time to think about the message that allowing priests to marry would send to women and to those who value marriage as a heavenly blessed union in which each is dedicated to the commitments of their spouse, particularly to serving the Lord. I also find it interesting that those who speak so forcefully about the wisdom of the leaders of the Church also suggest that they would have none of a Church that did loosen the discpline. I think one priest even wrote he'd be the first to leave the priesthood if that happened. So wasn't he saying I will only adhere to a Church I agree with -- the very thing those of us who favor reform are damned for?

I know the response this almost certainly will garner frombut those who appear to have taken over this blog, what about other voices? Is anyone else out there?

To the point:

Scientology- a small cult based on the generalities of 1950-1960 sci-fi.

Christianity- a huge cult based on the first century CE embellishments of a simple preacher man.

Reality easily trumps both.

The Jesus Seminarians: Contemporary NT exegetes specializing in historic Jesus studies. Requirements to join, typically a PhD in Religious History or Religion with a proven record of scholarship through reviews of first to third century CE scripture and related documents.

Added information and suggested readings:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias

joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:

wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:

faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:

mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:

etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf

18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:

mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:

members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:

faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:

pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:

harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

Soja,

I would like to add to your good list.

John Paul II, "Love and Responsibility"

John Paul II, "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body"

Christopher West, "Theology of the Body for Beginners"

Ronald Rolheiser, "The Restless Heart: Finding Our Spiritual Home in Times of Loneliness"

C. S. Lewis, "The Four Loves"

Henri Nouwen, "Intimacy"

John Bradshaw, "Healing the Shame that Binds You"

I've enjoyed them all. God bless.

Concerned about CCNL,

Lol! The one thing CCNL is NOT is a Biblical Scholar. He parrots Crossan et al., which is amusing because the Jesus Seminar members mostly just parrot each other. Reading their bibliographies is revealing because of the number of cross-citations included: A cites B, B cites C, C cites A, and thus the house of cards is built.

---

Catholic,

You wrote, "A pious, happily married lay Catholic who is trained in spiritual counseling and psychotherapy could offer the best service to college students without having to be a priest. A priest is needed only for the Sacraments since college students are taken care of in other ways by the educational institutions that parishioners are not."

A priest's role isn't primarily to provide psychotherapy. While spiritual counseling is part of his work, and it is second to the sacraments, and you are right about that, I feel you are missing something important. That college students are well taken care of by educational institutions, or better taken care of than parishioners, is open to debate and gets at the heart of the question. A parish isn't meant to be a social service center, although the love of Christ has always impelled local Christian communities to provide those services to society that are needed and possible. A priest isn't meant to be some sort of celibate social worker, although he very often provides and organizes a number of social services for the same reason.

Priests are certainly not meant to be sacrament vending machines, or anonymous eternal-life dispensers. A priest of Jesus Christ is meant to be, in a particular and special way, another Christ. Saying that his role is primarily that of a therapist or social worker, a civil servant who smiles more nicely, is akin to reducing Jesus Christ primarily to a miracle worker, doing various good deeds for the people who come His way. That is not what Jesus Christ came to do. He came to announce the Good News of God's immense love for us, and at the end of His proclamation to prove and complete that love by voluntarily dying for those who murdered Him: us. That is what a priest is called to do: daily to lay down His life to prove and complete God's love for us in our daily lives. He does this first and foremost by preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ: that a man born in Nazareth sometime about 2000 years ago was also God, and that the God-man showed God's love for us, died for us, and then resurrected, opening for us the possibility of corporally transcending death ourselves and thus dwelling in eternal beatitude. He preaches the Gospel with his life of service and his words, especially from the pulpit. In doing so, he converts the hearts and minds of the community to which he is sent, and prepares them to receive the Eucharist by baptizing them into the Life of Christ, instructing them in how to live like Christ, and hearing their confessions and restoring them to Christ. Ultimately, as he shares with them the Eucharist, he literally transmits to them in corporal form the life of God Himself, thereby drawing them, week by week and day by day, closer and closer to the eternity of joy prepared for those who love God.

It's a bit cooler than being a celibate psychotherapist/social-service provider.

And no, most college students are not better provided for than the typical parishioner. Most college students go in having only drank a bit, and as likely to be virgins as not; they come out accustomed to the most outrageous debaucheries, with seered consciences, hardened hearts, unable to sustain fulfilling interpersonal relationships, and perhaps a vague sense that "people" (somewhere) are supposed to "give back".

CCNL:

Verify the meaning of cult.

The Bible is available to the general public. Christians have always preached openly.

What are the teachings of L Ron Hubbard and where is the teaching available.

Suggested reading on sexuality, posted over a year ago elsewhere on this forum:

1. Jonathan Livingston Seagull
by Richard Bach

2. Siddharta by Hermann Hesse

3. The Book of Proverbs (The Old Testament); relevant verses from NT

4. Sexuality (essay) by C S Lewis

5. A Propos of Lady Chatterley's Lover,
(essay) by D H Lawrence

6. The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm

7. The Road Less Traveled by Scott M Peck

8. The Ramayana (Hindu Epic)

9. Books by Patrick Carnes: Don't Call it
Love, Out of the Shadows, Betrayal Bond...

10. Women who love too much by Robin Norwood

11. The Casanova Complex by Peter Trachtenberg

12. Mount Misery by Samuel Shem (a hilarious
take on Freudian psychoanalysis; it is often forgotten that C G Jung, Freud's own student, disagreed with his views and went on to found a separate school)

Scientology- a small cult based on the generalities of 1950-1960 sci-fi.

Christianity- a huge cult based on the first century CE embellishments of a simple preacher man.

Reality easily trumps both.

CCNL:

Analyze the comments on Scientology on the two blogs - Under God - by Claire Hoffman - 7 and 12 May and get back to the Catholics here. Thx.

CCNL share your analysis of Scientology. You know the Bible well enough to make comparisons between the teachings of L Ron Hubbard and Jesus Christ.

Professor Crossan, the Jesus Seminarian is still a Christian. CCNL is a "New Atheist" who crusades against religions. He is some kind of a Bible scholar who uses his knowledge to fight Christianity .

L Ron Hubbard does not figure in his list of "illiterate" founders of world religious.

Paul C.,

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy. The NT exegetes who specialize in historic Jesus studies are listed at earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html . Four of these experts are also On Faith panelists. A list of books written by these experts is also listed on the referenced website.

Also, there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors. See Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

A pious, happily married lay Catholic who is trained in spiritual counseling and psychotherapy could offer the best service to college students without having to be a priest. A priest is needed only for the Sacraments since college students are taken care of in other ways by the educational institutions that parishioners are not.

CCNL please inform the readers on this blog what you know and think about Scientology. Explain how L Ron Hubbard compares with Jesus Christ. Thx.

CCNL uses his knowledge of Christianity to crusade against it.

CCNL is a "New Atheist" like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who responds with the same copy-paste comments.

CCNL:
I am impressed that you know the bible well enough to know that the story of Lazarus is only in John. And you are right, it's curious that this isn't mentioned in the other gospels. However, I wouldn't jump immediately to the fact that it was fabricated. I would also rethink their motivation. If you remember, the apostles really didn't get rich for their efforts. In fact, they were all persecuted and eventually executed (except John, who miraculously survived being boiled in oil and was eventually exiled to Patmos). Despite this, the faith grew and grew. Only the very cynical think its about money.

I think it is also inaccurate to describe Jesus Christ as a simple preacher man. There have been literally millions of simple preacher men through the ages. How many of them have a worldwide following of 2Billion people, 2000 years after their death? You've previously described him as illiterate as well, but this is not supported by scripture. he is portrayed as reading from the book of Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth, declaring that the prophesy was being fulfilled in their hearing.

Thank you for answering the questions A Seminarian.

There is a Catholic school influence. Not a negative factor but a relevant one.

Celibacy is not your first option.

Just as your parents were good Catholics while enjoying the benefits of married life so can a married priest be a good priest.

Your father went to work to support the family. He was not part-time father because he worked to support himself and the family.

Marriage and priesthood is not mutually exclusive.

College campus ministers are beneficial. With shortage of priests to maintain parishes, the priority now should be to have sufficient parish priests and good ones who create healthy and deeply spiritual communities...Lay people sometimes are confronted with parish priests who are mechanical administrators who go through the motions of Mass...When a parish priest is not a prayerful person lay people sense it...

Paul C.,

Please note that the "raising" of Lazarus appears only in John's Gospel (80-110 CE), the latest published and the least historic of the four. Such an important event would have been noted in all the gospels and other related documents from the time period. Conclusion: more embellishment of the life of a simple preacher man in order to compete for the minds and money of the Jews and Gentiles.

Thank you Father Reily for your posts.

My original reaction to the article was similar to some of the other posts in thinking the concept as ridiculous. But, after a moment of reflection, I percieve it more as being sad.

It appears that the article is another attempt by a secularized perspective conceptualizing ways to "fix" the Church.

I trust that the author was sincere in his effort, but, rather than expend the energy and time towards developing the idea into an article, if this issue is truly of concern of his then why not commit that time and energy towards praying for vocations to the priesthood.

And, instead of writing articles that focus on different ways of improving upon the design of the Church in regards to vocations to the priesthood, why not write articles detailing the efforts of priests that could inspire men to consider the vocation.

Response to "Catholic Questions:"

I am from the US (Midwest), and I am in seminary in this region of our country as well.

I began in Catholic Schools once I was in the 6th grade. Prior to that I was in the public school system.

I do not have any religious or priests in my family.

My second choice would be a college campus minister (I think there needs to be a much greater Catholic presence and effort on campus' that are dedicated to helping form young adult minds and habits of living in the faith).

Your question regarding marriage as an option is a tougher one. To be honest it's difficult to say, since it never has been an option. Nevertheless, I will say this, because celibacy is the practice, it has really forced me to understand the nature of this gift/practice. Because I have a good grasp of what it truly is, I am able to make a free choice in either living a celibate life as a priest or not. And because I feel called to priesthood, It gives me greater confidence in my choice to adopt this practice. This is all just a round about way of me saying that had marriage been an option, I am not sure if I really would have taken the time to deepen my understanding of this ancient tradition and gift, but that in no way means I would have chosen to get married.

I grew up in a middle class family with one younger brother. My parents were very generous people, so in the sense that they had the means of giving as they have and continue to do, my socio-economic status has impacted my vocation. Their witness in giving certainly laid many seeds of generosity and selflessness in my life (and believe me, many of these seeds are still in need of much growing).

I hope these answer your questions.

when you get to be pope you can say how the catholic church operates, until then you opinion does not count.

"Time to Move Beyond the Third Century Model" wrote:

"The Catholic church is not a democracy not does it care about public opinion -- that's how it should be."

True that.

"We are not the same people we were in the 3rd century -- or in Jesus's time. Our capacity to love and serve God clearly has evolved -- hopefully mostly for the better, although we are a long way from being where we need to be."

You're kidding, right? You think that human nature has changed in 2000 years? What do you mean that our ability to love and serve God has evolved? Do you mean that we fight fewer and less catastrophic wars? That we have fewer petty dictators? That there is less wife-battering or child-abusing? I think I must just not understand you correctly.

"That doesn't mean revision every 4, 10, 50 years -- but it does suggest change at least every 1000 years!"

Well said. The reason that the Catholic Church has outlasted every empire is because she isn't trying to win, but just to apply faithfully the teaching of Jesus Christ in every age - and there is no rush, because we aren't going anywhere. We have the promise to Peter (Mt 16:18-19), "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

""...Not that any of this matters because none of these ideas are being considered by the insular group of middle aged or older men who exclusively make these decisions and who lack the humility to even consider that other voices might be worth at least considering... Where is the humility even Church leaders are called to have in the refusal to even consider this."

Uh, sir or madam, where is YOUR humility? Has it occured to you that old men might know more than young men? Has it occured to you that they might know something that you don't, and aren't obliged to share it? Has it occured to you that they might be considering some of the options discussed, or others not mentioned here? Has it occured to you that with their collective tens of thousands of hours spent hearing confessions, dealing with priestly "personnel problems", and consulting with bishops, priests, and lay experts around the world, not to mention the collective hundreds of thousands of hours of experience that their mentors have passed on - that given all that, that those "old men" might have some wisdom that you or I lack?

Genuine humility breeds, among other things, meekness, patience, sympathy, attentiveness, and a desire to grow and learn. It does not give rise to lecturing one's elders or superiors.

God grant us all a bit more as we wrangle with these issues.

CCNL:
Why is what you wrote in the least bit credible?

It is clear by the wording of Crossan himself in the following that you quoted that this is all about his "best guesses" and his "presumptions": Just because Crossan doesn't feel that Jesus was worthy to be dicussed by he leadership doesn't mean its true. In fact, doesn't he contradicts himself in consecutive sentences by saying that the leaders had a meeting prior to the festival about distrurbances and then in the next sentence stating that they wouldn't have been bothered with someone creating such a disturbance. Remember the context. First Jesus raises, Lazarus from the dead, then he is triumphantly introduced into Jerusalem, then he confronts the temple merchants in a very public manner, overturning their tables and driving them out of the temple. I am sure that these events would be sufficient to get the leadership's attention, just as described in the bible. Because they don't fit, Prof. Crosnan' thesis, he dismisses them as prophesy turned history. He certainly doesn't back this up with any facts because they don't exist outside the writings at hand (which he conveniently dismisses). Personally, I find the Gospel accounts far more credible than Crosnan's, as would most people. After all, they've been with us for 2000 years and have weathered tremendous word for word scrutiny from believers and non-believers alike. Keep searching but be descriminating in what you accept. You will find the truth..

For reference, Your quote:
"My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Regarding Fr. Reilly's comments, AMEN! Both of his posts show a true understanding of the priesthood & the liturgy. Not to mention he seems to be personally experiencing the Cross in his life. Perhaps we ought to pay closer attention to priests like him and less to sincere, but misguided, columnists! Fr. I will offer a holy hour for you and your brother priests.

Paul C.

Recommended additions to your library noted in the following commentary:

The first evangelical was St. Paul. See Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul, for an excellent contemporary review of said saint and "pseudo" saints. Ditto for Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul, especially Chilton's commentary about Paul's "prudish" ways.

With respect to the existence of Jesus:

As per Professor Crossan in his book, Who is Jesus:

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

See Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

Scripture references to the crucifixion of Jesus from Professor Crossan's, The Historical Jesus:

From the First Stratum,(30-60 AD) with multiple attestations

Crucifixion of Jesus 1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-; (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.

Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online by Googles Books.

See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

From ask.com,

"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style."

Articles like this explain why The Church has fewer priests. Instead of encouraging young people to become priests, we water down the importance and value of the priesthood. "You are a priest forever!" Would you want to do something if your family or friends told you it wasn't worth the sacrafice? And to address the issue of deacons, though men are ordained deacons before becoming priests, the theology of their ministry, according to Acts of the Apostles, is a ministry of charity to care for widows, orphans, and the poor. The Church has heirarchy for a good reason.

CCNL:
How can you take the studies by Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, seriously. How were they able to discern that 70% of the Gospels weren't real? If you look under the covers, aren't they just using circular logic? They assume Jesus would have acted in certain ways and said certain things, therefore they discount everything that doesn't fit their model. I hope it's not studies like that that made you lose faith...

On the other hand, you spend a tremendous amount of your time responding to these posts so there must be something inside of you that keeps looking for answers. That is God calling you back. Be open to that call. If you really had no faith, you would ignore the topic entirely and go completely about your secular business.

Dave,

Because the bible and koran have been habitually, reduntantly, routinely, and predictably been posted with the same tripe ad naseum for the last many millennium!!! Time to deal with reality !!!!

Again, Catholic priests are celibate??? Maybe some physically but none mentally. The concept is outdated and has too many "religiously disturbing" escape routes (homosexuality, pedophilia, and/or masturbation).

And eliminating the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Catholicism and Christianity, will relegate the priesthood to extinction as it should be.

The idea of part time priests misses the point of being a priest -- whether married, celibate, or even a woman. It should be a full time service to God and our Lord. But that doesn't mean a wife and family wouldn't serve that. I am shocked at how marriage and family are only seen as a hindrance, bringing no possible benefit to the priests seeking to serve God fully. What does that say about our perception of marriage and family? Not that any of this matters because none of these ideas are being considered by the insular group of middle aged or older men who exclusively make these decisions and who lack the humility to even consider that other voices might be worth at least considering.

The Catholic church is not a democracy not does it care about public opinion -- that's how it should be. But that does not mean the church leaders should not consider the Church's needs in 2008. If you believe the Church was founded by Jesus to bring man closer to God, than one must also consider that the Holy Spirit is capable of guiding the Church through change so that it can continue to meet that mission as our understanding of God and what he calls us to be evolves. We are not the same people we were in the 3rd century -- or in Jesus's time. Our capacity to love and serve God clearly has evolved -- hopefully mostly for the better, although we are a long way from being where we need to be. To think that the model developed then is the only true one is to deny our God given ability as a species to grow in our understanding and relationship to God. Once that model hinders rather than helps that relationship it should be modified so as to continue to meet that mission. That doesn't mean revision every 4, 10, 50 years -- but it does suggest change at least every 1000 years! The Church is the vehicle for closer worship and love of God -- it is the means, not the ends. Where is the humility even Church leaders are called to have in the refusal to even consider this.

Questions to A Seminarian

Your country of origin - Europe East or West, USA-Canada, South America, Asia, Africa

The country in which you are attending seminary

Did you attend a Catholic school

Do you have nuns and priests in your family

What is your second choice for a profession

If marriage was an option with priesthood would you have preferred it

Does your socio-economic situation contribute in a positive or negative way to the vocation

For "Concerned Christian now liberated"

Why do you continue to habitually, reduntantly, routinely, predictably post the same tripe ad naseum??? It is beyond old.

Impressed with yourself?

If you are truly "liberated," why are you even here?

Catholic priests are celibate??? Maybe some physically but none mentally. The concept is outdated and has too many "religiously disturbing" escape routes (homosexuality, pedophilia, and/or masturbation).

And eliminating the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Catholicism and Christianity, would relegate the priesthood to extinction:

The "fems":

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous, "propheteering/profiteering" preachers and atonement theology.

I admire your article and there may be different ways to bring younger people into the priesthood. How about letting them live in the environment for a while to see if they have a genuine calling? Also, I am not speaking out of prejudice or bigotry but I object to the constant use of the term Latin/Latino and how it came to be applied exclusively to Spanish speaking peoples whether from Spain or the New World. As an Italian-American of Roman ancestry it was from my ancestors that the Latin language, culture and tribes originated and devoloped from ancient Rome plus the tradition of the Catholic church for almost 2000 years.

To Ed,

You said, "A priesthood based on recruiting older men is not what we need to lead the church in the years ahead. We need energetic, sexually mature, normal, devoted men who seek to fulfill a special calling."

This was a comment in reference to celibacy. I am 24 years old, and (God willing) I will be ordained to the priesthood in three years. Believe me when I tell you sir that there are very many young, "energetic, sexually mature, normal, devoted men who seek to fulfill a special calling." And while celibacy might not have been our first choice in life, if it is the Lord's Will, we gratefully and very willingly embrace this practice. Okay, with that being stated, being a part-time priest does not inspire, much the same way a part-time mom or dad does not inspire. In fact, if I had a part-time dad, he would no doubt be considered a bad father, would he not? Amongst other things, the practice of celibacy is meant to inspire people to give of themselves completely. If the priest does not give himself wholly to his parish, his parishioners could follow that example and withhold gifts and talents. This is precisely what a part-time priesthood would enable, and that's not inspiring. Priesthood gets reduced to a mere phase in someone's life. And if you do not believe that this would be the case, talk with some protestant ministers. Many protestant denominations are really hurting for men and women to get "ordained." Most pastors leave their ministry once they grow tired of it, and, as far as I know, Catholic Priests are the only ones who practice celibacy. The Protestant way of "ordained" ministry sounds to me like this part-time priesthood stuff described in the article above, and it's not working. But let me say, when the priest lives and serves faithfully, it works. And when it works, people respond in service and faith, and in particular, young men are drawn to it. I beg you Ed, have hope and faith in our Christ-like model of priesthood.

When Jesus said,"follow Me" to the apostles, He did not say,for as long as you like. He was directing them to a permanent commitment. Each one left someone behind, to do what they were requested to do. This is what the priesthood is and will always be. Watering it down is not honoring Jesus. but rather is disrespecting Him. We are at a time in history when commitment is not heard of very much anymore, even very little in marriages. That is why there are so many divorces. How sad for our world.

I just wanted to comment on Fr. Reilly's post:"well said!" Thank you for speaking the truth. Please know that, on behalf of Mary, Mother of Priests, I and many other women pray for priests like you. Please hang on, and even if our support is not visible, know that we are out there spiritually. I pray you will all run the good race and attain your crown in heaven. I have come to a deep appreciation of the priesthood over the past few years. We have perpetual adoration in our parish and I credit that with the wonderful, orthodox priests we have. I will pray for you especially this week in adoration, at 3:00 A.M. Monday.
Keep the Faith!

This article reflects mere human thinking applied to the faith problem. Part-time doesn't fit the character of the Sacrament of Orders, and a vocation. Orders places an indelible mark on the soul of the (previously baptized) ordained man. Once a priest, always a priest. Hebrews 7:17 "For it is testified; You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." And a vocation is not merely a job, nor even a career. It is a lifelong commitment to which the ordained man responds with his very life to God's call. John 15:16 "It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you." A vocation is driven by God, not by a simple choice like choosing a job. The real solution would get at the root of the problem - which is loss of Faith. Any Diocese or Religious Order which practices the faith has vocations, and those modernists who reject Catholic teaching - and they are many - with the "itching ears" do not have vocations and therefore have shortages. The laity can off-load the administrative tasks so that the priest can focus on what he is supposed to do: be a spiritual Father. And don't forget to pray for vocations. You lack what you don't ask for.

The idea of having part-time priests became a practice in France in the early part of the 20th century. They were referred to as "worker priests" because they had secular jobs, wanted to identify more with the laity, and then serve as priests primarily for weekend Masses. It was a novel idea. However, many of the worker priests eventually left the active ministry and kept their secular jobs. This experiment seemed to support the idea that one cannot be a "parttime priest." Jesuits and other ordained men religious that teach are not parttime priests. Teaching is part of their full-time ministry.
Protestant denominations have had married clergy since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and they also have a clergy shortage. Most Protestant denominations allow the ordination of women as clergy, and they still have a clergy shortage. I agree with Pope Benedict XVI that the Catholic Church is better served by a few good and holy priests, than by many priests that are not committed to holiness of life.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Absolutely ridiculous article. Holy orders leave an indelible mark on the soul - once a priest, always a priest. You want to solve the priestly shortage? Get Catholics off birth control, start having babies, raise them in the faith (it is the parents' responsibility to educate children in the faith, not the parish), and I'm sure some very fine young men will be lining up outside the seminary to be priests. If that doesn't happen, I'm sure the Catholic Church would be better off as a smaller church that is more orthodox as the heretics, schismatics, and hippies flee en masse.

No, No, No,

No part-time priests needed and very few full time priests needed. The pope says one mass for thousands to millions how these days?? HDTV- so we should follow suit by going to mass whenever via HDTV and DVRs at home with the eucharist delivered by mail, UPS or FedEx. We get a year supply at Easter. No churches needed, no priests needed save one to consecrate the hosts and say the mass. And we get the best and brightest homilist for this. And the best choirs!!! Think of the money we would save on priest and parish maintenance!!!!!

Baptisms? Deacons already do this.

Confirmation? HDTV with the pope doing the confirming on a global basis once a month.

Funerals? HDTV at the funeral home. Pick your service from a HD DVD to include Latin, the language of the dead, versions.

Confession? A weekly "forgiving ceremony" via HDTV by the same priest/pope. Just a few rules needed for this to be so. There is no NT foundation for face to face confession. Pick your penance via set formulas available on the Vatican webpage e.g. a little white lie- three Hail Marys.

Marriage preparation/ Pre-Cana conferences- trained parishioners already conduct these.

And if you still want to go to church to anoint yourself with unsanitary holy water and shake the hands of cold and flu sufferers, then convert the sanctuaries to a big screen HDTV and enjoy the first class homilist and choir with "Fedexed" communion distributed by eucharistic ministers.

What about the common cup? Common cups and the potential spread of disease are synonymous i.e. the FDA should ban common cups.

Martin Sheridan,

"If God doesn't want married men to be priests and doesn't want women to be priests then why is He calling so many of them?"

He's not, at least, He's not calling women to be priests in the Catholic Church. If for no other reason than that the Church does not permit it, God would be calling the person to achieve something they couldn't. That would be extremely unfair of God, wouldn't it.

But there are other reasons, which others as well as myself have ennumerated on recent blogs by Mr. Stevens-Arroyo. I won't repeat them here.

Instead, I will make mention of something else. A vocation from God is not a subjective matter, but an objective matter (like all objective matters) experienced subjectively. Because people become confused, one might experience what they take to be a vocation but in fact is not. It might be a strong desire, an inferiority complex (as perhaps it was in my own case), or even a bad breakfast (I am being serious here, if exaggerating a bit). None of those things is an authentic vocation.

Because a vocation has an objective reality, it is to some degree externally measurable. By implication a person can know that they haven't a vocation, or that they have, with some certainty. For instance, a man who has made wedding vows can know with certainty that he is called to marriage, because he is in one. Whether he was steering safely to arrive in that harbor, he is there nonetheless and his vocation is to live out that choice. Someone can also know that he doesn't have a vocation. Some dioceses that feel themselves afflicted by a "vocations crisis" are like desperate women, taking any man who will give them the time of day. Not so everywhere, though. And even in those places, ultimately, if the Church will not have the man in Holy Orders, then he can be certain that he hasn't a vocation to them.

"Early in our church's history married men were priests,"

There still are plenty of them. Duly noted.

"and their is plenty of evidence that women acted as priests also. In one of the catacombs there is a mural of a woman sharing the Eurcharist with other women."

There is not one shred of evidence to that point. Which catacomb has the abovementioned mural?

"Paul's letters also indicate the role of women in the priesthood although it's fair to add that that term (priest) didn't exist then."

Where does St. Paul indicate that women were involved in ordained ministry?

I haven't heard of the catacomb you mentioned, and must have missed the passage in St. Paul's letters, so I am happy to be enlightened on the points, if you will.

Belloc,

We have to be careful to distinguish between the Novus Ordo Mass as such, and the manner in which it is celebrated.

When celebrated as the documents and fathers of the Second Vatican Council and the Vatican have requested, the Novus Ordo is stirring and profound. When it is celebrated in a trivializing way, it is tragic.

The Tridentine Mass was also celebrated in many instances in a way that trivialized its reality. Priests skipped or only visually read whole chunks. Even now when it is celebrated, it is very common for the priest distributing communion to recite the whole prayer once for several communicants - clearly not what the rubrics call for. Slovenly conduct was to be found among celebrant and lay faithful alike then as now. Our parents' parents were stricter people, but the Mass then did not of its nature have anything that is now lacking. For that matter, celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin and ad orientam has always been an option. Ten bucks says 90% of living Catholics would think that was the "Latin Mass."

Fr. Reilly,

Thank you for your life of service.

Fr. Reilly:

You sound like you are being oppressed.

God never intended the priesthood to be like that.

mark

I would like to initially state my total support for Fr. Reilly's comments above. It is clearly apparent that he is a true priest in line with Jesus'direction and God's Will.

What I find when I read such ridiculous articles as the one Mr. Steven-Arroyo wrote above,these writers only see a secular, worldly view of the Catholic Church and the role of a priest. It is obvious that writers such as him just don't understand -- have no comprehension -- of the Truth of the way God does things -- especially in His Catholic Church and His priesthood.

A priest does not have a job or a profession. This is a vocation -- a call from God to live a specially ordained way of life, a way of holiness. He is to be a spiritual father (or shepherd) to the people God has entrusted to him. A priest preaches God's Truth to those God calls to holiness and life with God. He brings God to God's children in His Word and in His Body/Blood Presence. Sacraments are not just activities...they are meetings with Jesus Christ!

If priests didn't have to fight such ridiculous opinions, maybe they wouldn't have to suffer so much. They need to be prayed for and appreciated. They are very special gifts God has given us.

And, as was stated above, if we get on our knees in prayer and adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, the shortage of good and holy priests WILL end!

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo:
Why have all you rrecent articles been about alternative priesthood ideas: women priests, married priests, part time priest? Why not write an article about strengthening the priesthood as it exists today. That would certainly lead to a healthy debate that might even generate ideas that could be put into practice. Father Reilly said in his post that the problem lies with the watering down of the faith for people who are unwilling to do what the True Faith demands. It leads directly to the question of what is preferable: more, weaker Catholics or a less numerous but more staunchly devout congregation. In the end, the truth is the truth and only those that follow it will ultimately be saved, despite their protests that it is too hard. Are you really a catholic if you follow none of the precepts of the church? (i.e., Go to mass, lead a sacremental life, support the church and spread the faith)

If God doesn't want married men to be priests and doesn't want women to be priests then why is He calling so many of them?

Early in our church's history married men were priests, and their is plenty of evidence that women acted as priests also. In one of the catacombs there is a mural of a woman sharing the Eurcharist with other women. Paul's letters also indicate the role of women in the priesthood although it's fair to add that that term (priest) didn't exist then. It is not an article of faith than one must believe that only men can priests.