Time for Third Vatican Council

I love it when anti-Catholics (like Crossan?) use infallibility as a whipping boy. All the uncatechized get in a froth because their minds begin creating all sorts of bizarre scenarios where the Pope is saying and doing things with contrived accuracy and without consequence - like a magical miter was placed on his head when he was elected. Crossan who should know better doesn't bother telling us when the last time a pope actually spoke ex cathedra or presented some new teaching. This is the type spiritual help that I would want to follow - one that manipulates me into agreeing with the author. How pathetic.

I have a request for Prof. Crosson.

Why don't you quit the Catholic Church, like you quit the priesthood, and be honest and become a Protestant.
The so called Protestant "churches" would welcome you with open arms....especially the Episcopalians..who share the same warped views.

The Catholic church will be reformed...make no mistake.

It is the mother of all false churches of the world.

The adversary saw to that several thousand years ago.

Ther Roman Catholic church cannot be compared to the church that Jesus Christ represented and still represents.

good luck on that..

down here in naples, fl, the new bishop is rolling the churches back to erase all traces of VaticanII.

altars turned around, kneelers returning, use of the laity in the mass being cut down,

this at the parish sending in the most donations in the diocese....

the result, weekly donations down and going lower.

Excellent work Crossan! Coincidently, right at the same time as I'm studying Catholic ecclesiology at university and am forming my own understandings of what the Church must do in the world. Infallibility sounds very similar to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. The first heresy of the Church came through thinking that they [i]somehow[/i] had a special mystical knowledge that came from God.

I also found it slightly ironic how they needed infallibility in order to establish infallibility. Couldn't one argue that they never actually had it to begin with and not be theologically sillenced like Hans Kung and Leonardo Boff, and probably many others?

Allan.

CCNL:

Let me put it another way. Scholars of the Tanakh have posited various authors, e.g., the J, P, D authors, based on various kinds of disciplinary evidence. Of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls have complicated everything, and now there are sub-categories of J. (Although there is considerable resistance to Harold Bloom's Book of J, I remain open to some of his arguments.)

At all events, if I recall correctly, and I may well not, there was a Q author posited for some part(s) of the NT.

No concrete identity such as "Jewish scribes" was ever attributed to anyone I have read. Most recently, I've been interested in the Paul/Saul question, but that is another matter.

If you just pull of the shelves and dust off Vatican II you would have a good start. The "aggiornamento" of John XXIII went into the dustbin courtesy of Josef Ratzinger except for Nostra Aetae.

The intellectual caliber of Vatican II and the life experiences of those prelates who composed it is not to be repeated with the cherry picked ultraconservatives that form the governing body today.

The banishment - purge? - of the Church left without anything to replace it but blind obedience left a fertile ground for Pentecostalists and other Protestant denominations to make enormous inroads in Central and South America. Poor people like to be taken into account and spoken to not ordered to obey unflinchingly.

All the alienation beginning with the tridentine mass are back and all the reforms that connected with the parishioners gone.

Just bring back Vatican II, that's a good start.

Very sorry for triplication.

All human beings have the gift of reason, which many of us say is given to us by God. Reason, unless sullied by ill will or obstinate refusal to consider information (a form of ill will), must lead those who use it from truth to truth. So all of us are to some degree infallible, though that term deserves careful analysis. On the other hand, only God, if there is a God, can be omniscient - be right about everything always. (Omniscience is a very difficult idea too.) So all of us of all traditions and opinions are able to learn and to some extend need to learn from all others who use reason responsibly. This is the point that I - for what my opinion may be worth - would like to see Councils and synods and other assemblies accept.

Carney wrote: Papal infallibility was not suddenly invented out of the blue in the First Vatican Council. Like all Church docrtines that have been solemnly defined, it existed and was presumed true for many centuries beforehand...

Sure, very, very important at the Council of Nicea, where the Pope in Rome was absent except for observers, and the presiding officer was Constantine, who was not even baptized until his deathbed many years later.

Big shock that a priest who abandoned his duties and vows during the disastrous world-wide civilizational collapse of the 1960s, wants the Church to abandon its vocation as well.

Papal infallibility was not suddenly invented out of the blue in the First Vatican Council. Like all Church docrtines that have been solemnly defined, it existed and was presumed true for many centuries beforehand, and had been subjected to very serious scholarship and consideration. It is a result of what Cardinal Neuman called the "organic development of doctrine".

It also just makes sense. Presuming the truth of the claims that Jesus was diving and founded the Catholic Church to guide us until He returns, it would stand to reason that he would give it protection from falling into error on teaching faith and morals when doing so in union with its traditions and the bishops of the world.

Jack,

I can find no source of said definitive information. If you find it, Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen, Johnson and all the other contemporary NT exegetes would be much appreciative. Ditto for Bishop Wright.

The authors of the NT were educated by someone. If they were Jewish, these educators were the Jewish scribes. If they were Roman or Greek Jews, then it is possible that educated slaves were their teachers. Such might have been the case with St. Paul as suggested by Professor Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul.

Again the best source of information about what is known ("it ain't much) about the education and biographies of M, M, L and J can be found in Father Raymond Brown's exhaustive review of the NT. More is known about St. Paul due to the Acts of the Apostles but even here his educators were not revealed.

CCNL:

Yes, yes, thank you, I know. And the connection to the New (sic) Testament scribes to these diverse and continually reconstructed Tanakh writers?

I.e., who are the NT scribes, alphabetically, speaking, and, in this case, CCNL, I would be grateful for sources.

Jack

Option 6: a simple preacher man.

Option 7: a mamzer.

Option 8: a healer.

Option 9: a "voodooer of the hoodoo" aka a miracle worker

Richard:

--"What is the point otherwise? Jesus is either the Son of God, or he was a madman. There is no third option."

Option 3: Liar

Option 4: Mis-quoted

Option 5: Never Existed

Jack,

P, M, M, L and J all had teachers and if you accept the traditional authorship of the NT, these teachers were Jewish scribes who learned their trade of course from other Jewish scribes. And these scribes were the ones who apparently wrote and recopied the fictional, semi-fictional and embellished OT throughout the 4000 years of OT time i.e. spinning a tale was their specialty.

This scenario gets much more complicated if you accept the probable M, M, L and J as identified by Father Raymond Brown in his 850 page book, An Introduction to the Old Testament. Said book is one of the best reference books available and has both the imprimatur and nil obstat.

Funny thing about "God'a people." Since they adhere to the religion of love and what not, how come they're always discriminating against and spreading lies about other people?

Let's take a look at CCNL's "delawing" misssion. Now, I've often heard that "the Jews killed Christ." Quit a bit in my childood. Later, "Didn't the Jews kill Christ?"

Now of course we are dealing with a religion that is mindless, I know. But you never hear, didn't the Catholics kill Rashi?

Although I'm noticing more and more Jews talking in this way, a good development, but SLOW.

I answer, "Didn't the Catholics kill Jews? Millions and millions of them? And I'm not talking just about the Shoah and the Catholic Adolf Hitler.

And what about today? Christianity goes to Korea and Koreans who have never seen a Jew become racists.

Or Poland, my favorite example for many reasons, that continues its racism without any Jews. That's "God's people for you. Spreading love and child rape wherever they are."

You name the country. Wherever there is a significant number of Christians, Catholics, etc., there is racism.

You have no testament. You have a book and it needs to be tossed. Not deflawed.

Someone mentioned Voltaire's description of Catholic clerical pedophilia. Literary descriptions predate Voltaire. The pedophilia of the monks, friars, whatever, figures in medieval texts.

And the Catholics are so grabby. We've had two weeks of this popism. Ditch it already. Time to move on.

And separation of church and state. If the Catholics have millions of dollars to buy the silence of the Catholic children they rape, pay for your own Pope stuff, and for heaven's sake keep it off TV.

Who wants it? Who needs it? Toss it or quiet the hell down.

CCNL: Which Jewish scribal tradition are you talking about, and which Jewish scribes, in particular? I'm interested in particulars, not reading lists.

Thomas, The God Talker, Moses of the NT, and Hallucinator Baum,

I see you continue your bible thumping.

And even Benedict has not talked directly to God so how did you get to be so privileged?????? And just how did you see the invisible/spirit person(s)?

I'm glad this clown is "emeritus", although, sad to say, others are putting out the same garbage at Catholic colleges these days.

TO JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN:

You wrote, " “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God” (13:3) proceeded to wash the feet of the disciples as a servant would before a meal. And, predictably, Peter wants to have none of that servant-model of leadership. “Peter said to him, ‘You will never wash my feet.’ Jesus answered, ‘Unless I wash you, you have no share with me’” (13:8)."

Peter did say something else here, did he not?

You also wrote, "Jesus also told him that, “’You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand’” (13:7)."

After the promised Holy Spirit came upon the apostles at Pentecost, Peter was a very much changed man, was he not?

Then you wrote, "In other words, our question must be rephrased at a deeper level. The Pope’s problem is not just that he has a growing rift with the clergy and laity of America but that he has a growing rift with the God and Christ of the New Testament."

I have never read any of your books but one of your disciples on these postings, and there may be more, refers to you and your "modified" bible quite often.

Is it that Pope Benedict XVI believes in the One, True, Triune, Triumphant God and you don't?

Is it that Pope Benedict XVI believes that Jesus is God-Incarnate and you don't?

Is it that Pope Benedict XVI believes that Jesus is a Messenger and "The Message" as in True God and True Man and you don't?

I am not speaking for Pope Benedict's beliefs here what I am asking here is, who is it that has a "growing rift with the God and Christ of the New Testament."?

By the way, the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament are One and the Same.

I have met God and He is a Trinity and He is a Being of Love and even tho I say He, God is not a He, a She or an It even tho God-Incarnate was a Man, a Jewish Man.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Much in Prof. Crossan's presentation rings true. It would seem that the development of various church doctrines over the centuries evolved as they did to lend substance and consistency to earlier doctrines - in a progressive and developmental fashion.

The entire body of doctrinal laws and dogma had to hang together as a self-confirming set of 'divine' revelations. As the final and most modern 'revelation' we have the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as regards church matters (Ex Cathedra) - so whatever the Pope says must then be correct as divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Hard to argue with that, isn't it?? That certainly puts him not only at the top of the Church hierarchy, but as the solitary channel of divine revelation on Church matters, quite beyond the reach of more reasonable and sensible worldly logic - as the singular authority so described by Papal Infallibility.

No one can accuse the Holy Spirit of falling for these goofy modern ideas of birth control in third world countries or the marriage of priests, for example. Is anyone feelings mild twinges of cynicism yet??

This seems to be the perfect Catch 22 - there is no arguing with the Pope because he has to be right based on his status as God's direct messenger......so is it any wonder much of what he says in the modern West is largely ignored??

Fortunately Papal authority in Italy is now limited by law to sectarian & Vatican matters, rather than carrying beyond the walls of the Vatican into the the society at large. Italy clearly recognized the value of the separation of Church and State somewhat later than our own Founders.

And somewhat earlier but in relatively recent times, we have the 'revelation' of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven - as a perfect, incorruptable being without original sin, and as the virginal vessel that gives supernatural birth to God on earth. The church doctrines that define Catholicism were at this point pretty much replete with internal consistency - and remain in place today. The foundations of Catholicism are in every sense of the word supernatural, and are mirrored in the beliefs of Protestantism.

The Church is losing members without doubt - but if the Catholic naysayers here think Protestantism is far behind, they're very much mistaken. Religion inspired by evangelical fundamentalism is so contrary to modern thinking and to the ever-growing and emerging information base being acquired by science that the shrinkage we see in Catholicism is bound to follow suite in the wider world of contemporary Christianity.

That said, it is doubtful that science will ever supplant the great intuitive revelations that were originally the foundation of the world's religions. The possibility of experiencing these truths is still available through various esoteric practices - and commonly referred to as mysticism.

The mysterious and deeper truths of religion will probably be found compatible with the deeper truths of science as quantum physics approaches the 'virtual and probablistic' foundations of our 'material' reality. Today we have the theories of the Implicate Order, the Quantum Vacuum, the Zero Point field, the Akasha, and various other descriptions for the infinite and essential energy based and information-laden ocean of potential reality (Metaverse) from whence all things come - and coexistent with Cosmic Consciousness, the source of all intelligence.

This is not inconsistent with the spiritual foundations and truths of religion in it's uncorrupted and essential form. Humans just find a way of mucking up a good thing with hierarchies and the like. Many are finding their way back to real religion and spirituality on their own.

Benedict like many of us suffers from the Three B Syndrome i.e. he was Bred, Born and Brainwashed in his religion. For this reason, he is unable to think past the shackles put upon him by the likes of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

The wishful thinking done by these five scribes approximately 2000 years ago continued the embellishment and fiction tradition of the Jewish scribes. The locals paid for a good story of myth and imminent second coming. There was no money in the truth but now we know the truth and it boils down to two simple statements, Do No Harm and Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

Time to pink slip the pope, bishops and priests!!!!

Yawn. I'll trust the faith of Christ's Catholic Church before I trust the flash-in-the-pan ideas of some soon-forgotten ageing "Catholic" liberal.

Sean,

Some references for your perusal:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of most 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

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. Professor Crossan's books, Who is Jesus?, The Historical Jesus, Excavating Jesus, The Birth of Christianity and The Search for Paul (see amazon.com for a complete list of the Professor's 26 books on various NT topics).

Sean,

Finishing the comments about the resurrection:

Course notes from a graduate theology class at a large Catholic university:

Heaven is a Spirit state (as per Aquinas and JPII) or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Sean,

There was more commentary about the physical resurrection of Jesus but WaPo must be adding some restrictions we are not aware of.

Sean,

Professor Crossan and many other contemporary NT exegetes after studing the history of first century Palestine to include all the relevant scripture and non-scripture references and the dates of publication of these works, concluded that since there are insufficient attestations and archeological evidence for a physical resurrection and due the varied and sometimes late story entries about said resurrection that the physical resurrection of Jesus did not take place.

This agrees with what is currently being taught in many Catholic university graduate theology classes.

I'm all for people calling for reform in the Catholic Church. There have been reforms, changes, aggorniamentos, many times over the course of the centuries. Yet, I would take requests for reform more seriously from someone who accepts the Resurrection, the most primary (and ancient) belief of the Christian faith.

When Crossan stops trying to take away peoples' faith by saying that the body of Jesus was eaten by dogs, I will be all ears to his suggested reforms. Otherwise, it's kind of like listening to Richard Dawkins preach on Church structure.

Dr. Crossan,

thank you.

"...The hierarchy has first separated itself from and then equated itself with not only the tradition in its ongoing development but even the community in its living reality. That is why one often hears that “the Church teaches” something when it only means that “the hierarchy teaches” it..."

How brilliant and true. This logical train of thought has been sleeping at the bottom of my brain and struggling to make itself heard for about - oh, several years now - and it took your essay to realize it. Thank you again. I could not agree more.

People often wonder why the laity are so alienated, but less attention is paid to the "lower clergy" and to the fact that many of them are equally alienated, and not necessarily by choice. But, the root of these problems stems from those higher in the hierarchy, who very unwisely wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. Your formulation explains both the reasons for and one unfortunate effect of their choices.

Dr. Crossen,

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain and you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."

Given your stated beliefs on the Resurrection of Jesus, why call for a third of any council? The accuracy you call for means the evaporation of Christianity. If, on the other hand, Christ is risen as we contend, then why tear down what Christ built and guides through the Holy Spirit?

The point is that none of us by our own lights can develop doctrine on our own will. The Pope does not, I don't, and least of all one that does not even believe in its core historical belief.

Steven P. Cornett

Liora,

There is nothing to discuss because all contemporary religions are empty shells after you have removed all the flaws and errors.

CCNL:

Forget 2008. I regretted having mentioned the date as soon as I posted, since I knew it would send you back to "deflawing," in general.

You responded to none of my points.
You seem to have excellent reading comprehension, so, clearly, skills deficits are not the problem.

Going on as you do post after post does no good for anyone, least of all you. To reprise, you see every religion through biased lenses. To repeat, having read the authors you cite does not alter the Catholic bias informing your reading and postin, as the recent Gideon business shows. Why not go back to Rabbi Kula's essay and have a look at the posts following your reply?

I understand that you have an agenda, and you believe you cannot depart from it by an inch or an ounce.

You can.

Liora,

Doing a "2008 deflawing" of the major religions results in very little substance being left as noted previously.

Organized Religion of any sort, in my opinion is the greatest marketing ploy ever done. One pays for salvation and won't know until they die whether they got their moneys worth or not. Too late to get your money back then. One does not have to raise their own capital as the flock will do that. The advertising is fairly inexpensive as a lot of religious shows are put on the electronic media gratis.
Yes a great idea which is why organized religion has reached unheard of levels in the US.

How is this man a professor of anything?

CCNL:

Not my point, as you well know. I am speaking of 2008.

Loire,

It is all about the foundations of religion. They crumble from the weight of myths, embellishments and superstitions.

e.g. The reliance of "pretty, wingie thingies" to bring the word of the singularity to the masses.

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

In other words, if the Pope, the Church, and heck, everyone, would do things the way John Dominic Crossan says to, it would be a happier world.

CCNL:

I know. See my post on Rabbi Kula's site. I wasn't referring to Judaism here, but to your tone.

The Tree of Life, as I said in one of my replies following Gideon's post (Rabbi Kula's essay)retains all the traditional commentary in the Chumash. It appends forty essays by antrhopologists, archaeologists, linguists, et al. I would have included some they did not, but no matter.

At all events, the question I had and have is how or if the rabbis will include this material in services, since it doesn't seem possible.

As I mentioned to you in my reply to to what you said to Gideon in his FIRST post(he replied to both of us confirming my suspicions, as Ken notes), a rabbi teaching a university class might discuss the fictionality of Moses in one breath, and in the next, refer to Moses Rabino (Moses, our teacher). He would not be contradicting himself, and there would be no paradox.

I am well aware of Galloway, Cohen, Hendel, Horn, Lemaitre, Levine, McCarter, Meyers, Miller, Purvis, Sarna, Satlow, Shanks, et al. I've read them and many more.

The point remains that you know nothing about Judaism, not much about Protestantism, evidently, since I was able to spot Gideon and you were not.

You refuse to learn anything about the religions of which you speak. Ruether, Langmuir and Haynes, the latter two Protestants, have written extensively on the need to rid the New (sic) Testament of its antisemitic racist content. All over the world, antisemitism exists, and is spread by those who bring Catholicism or some version of Protestantism to other countries, or by the natives.

You have read of it on this blog. It's not a question of "deflawing." It's a question of reforming religions that rely on hate-filled texts such as the New (sic) Testament, whose fictionality regarding the Pharisees and Christ(some were the men of the Great Assembly!!!) has been well documented.

It's a question of ridding Catholocism of it's hate-filled Catechism, which most Jews have not read, but certainly should. Then we have the writings of the saints. You cannot put out a fire with a cup of water, even if as Catholics you are "God's people."

Demythologizing begins at home. Reform begins at home. Ending contemporary Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox violence against innocent people begins at home.

Richard sez Jesus was either the Son of God, or he was a madman - either/or. Actually Richard, there is a third choice, provided Jesus was an actual person, although admittedly with far less evidence on his behalf than that of Gautama the Buddha.

But how about this? Jesus was a mystic that experienced the Absolute of reality in much the same way that Gautama experienced the fullness of this ineffable Truth. To believe that Jesus was the singular God/Man Avatar you make him out to be is stretching plausibility beyond reason. Even Catholics have a problem with this essential Catholic doctrine - and by extension, that of the Trinity.

The deep truth of the essential Oneness of the Original Substance that is proferred by Buddhism seems more in line with the cutting edge of scientific thinking these days.

Just a thought ..........

There is much truth in what Dom says; but there is a problem: What truth there is proceeds from an implied, but unwarranted and unproven, premise that one needs to be part of a "community" in order to be one with God. Dom turns on its head the Church's current view of community as a conclusion of and a not the beginning of a process of Church hierarchy--A laudable argument, but one which lacks the power and support it should have had if Dom had thought to point out Christ's take (Matt. 6,5-15) on communicating with God when Christ taught us how to pray: "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that others may see them. . .But when you pray go to your inner room, close the door and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." And then Christ follows that admonition by telling us the words to use in communicating with God (Lord's Prayer) and that prayer told us to forgive everyone for everything and God would forgive us.

I don't think there is anything in Christ's thoughts on the subject of communicating with God and God's response which suggests, much less necessitates, membership in a "community" as a sine qua non for salvation, much less membership in a community which has elevated the trappings of the pagan priests of the Imperial Court of the Roman Empire as its baseline for teaching participation in salvation.

Of course my opinion is just my opinion and I hasten to say that I am among those who have not temporized the Gospel of Matthew to avoid its clarity of purpose, and so I see those words as Christ's own words which Matthew heard with his own ears and personally wrote down for us. Or to put it in a simple statement: I think all a person need do to attain salvation is follow the teachings of Christ set forth in Matthew.

I really don't need the Church to teach what Christ said in Matthew; Christ's teachings are pretty clear. E.g., the "eye of a needle" isn't a narrow gate in Petra as one well-meaning priest tried to tell me when I asked him why he was driving a new Mercedes. It means what it says: the eye of a needle--the kind with which you sew cloth. His comeback was that the Church approved his understanding. How nice. But that is at the heart of Dom's problem with the placement of Community at the end of the Church command and control structure: the temporization of the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospels in general. Dom needs to acknowledge the Church's subtle but significant shift away from the teachings of Christ before tilting at the windmill of Church government.

Richard,

Au Contraire!!! There are many possible descriptions of Jesus. See below:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man possibly suffering from hallucinations 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".

Here, here!

There have been an overwhelming number of extraordinarily hostile pieces toward the Pope and the Catholic Church highlighted in the Pope these past few days. Why is the Post contributing to the perpetuating public acceptance of slamming the Catholic Church? I am a woman, under 30, unmarried and I have no issues with the papacy. Why are non-Catholics so outraged? Outrage over women not being priests? That ridiculous, where does it come from? Would it be mitigated by some knowledge of the enormous and essential contribution by nuns?

Some of the comments on "On Faith" are offensive, bigoted and unprovokingly hostile. One theme frequently criticized - abortion. It's ridiculous to criticize the Catholic Church for an anti-abortion stance - its a religion, not a popularity contest. Moreover, abortion is one piece of a larger pro-life platform of teaching which also includes standing against unjust wars, euthanasia, the death penalty, and poverty, among others. I went to Catholic school and was taught scholarship, ethics, equality, justice. In my adultlife, I concluded that the state does not have the authority to give or take life, and finally understood where the anti-abortion message stems from and fully accept it.

I guess I just can't figure out why all the attention from self-described athiests or secularist or non-believers. Why give column space for vitriol from lightening rods like the bitter-tongued Christopher Hitchens, when this week might be an opportunity to uncover some of the misconceptions of the Catholic fatih? The ugliness and permitted ignorant hatred of any religion should be ignored, not put on a pedestal. It doesn't bother me what the Lutheren Church does or says, so why so much attention on what our religion sets forward? It doesn't have an effect you. Focus on something else that does.

"When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his
mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)---that's a myth. We have
the truth; you have a lie."

I can.

With charity, to be sure. But I have no difficulty saying such a thing.

What is the point otherwise? Jesus is either the Son of God, or he was a madman. There is no third option.

Mr. Crossan writes:

Whenever he separates himself from them and operates
on his own, disaster occurs:

I wonder. Would the disasters include the event narrated in the Acts of the Apostles when Peter traveled to Joppa and baptized Cornelius and his household, even though they were uncircumcised Gentiles? Granted, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the company of God's people (i.e., Israel) was only the most important controversy of the New Testament period, and the backdrop for almost all theology, including Paul's writings about justification.

The call for a third Vatican Council so that the ideas of people like Mr. Crossan can be enshrined as dogma just proves that when people protest against the Church's infallibility it's so they can establish their own claim to being infallible.

As a non-Catholic, but friendly observer -

I think Dom Crossan has said before that he regards himself as still a Catholic, but that he has trouble with the hierarchy. This comes through in the piece here, also.

It is probably not an exaggeration to say that the Catholic hierarchy views itself as God's gift to man. Crossan apparently wants to help them get to a place of greater humility, to be willing to learn from the community. Bravo!

On the other hand, if the RC Church manages to reform itself, we Protestants stand to lose our major ex-Catholic source of new membership.

Professor Crossan et al's "take" on the historic foundation of the papacy:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

Conclusion: The papacy has no historical or scriptural foundations.

Some added references:

1. faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf,
2. faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf,
3. faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf,
4. faithfutures.org/index.php/Crossan_Inventory,
5. Professor Crossan's books, The Historic Jesus, Excavating Jesus, In Search of Paul, Who is Jesus, and The Birth of Christianity,
6. Schillebeeckx's Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

With respect to Catholicism being the only true religion i.e God's people:

From Professor Crossan's book, Who is Jesus:

"When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, "Our story about Jesus' virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his
mother's womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)---that's a myth. We have
the truth; you have a lie."

I don't think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is a fact and that others' faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity".

Liora,

You noted, "I (i.e CTCNL) have spoken" regarding my commentary. Au Contraire!!!

The Conservative Jews have spoken, along with Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen (three members of the On Faith Panel), Professor Bruce Chilton, Karen Armstrong, H.S. Reimarus, R. Bultmann, E. Kasemann, Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Alvar Ellegård, G. A. Wells, Gregory Riley Robert Eisenman, Robert Funk, Burton Mack, Stephen J. Patterson, Stevan Davies, Geza Vermes Richard Horsley, Hyam Maccoby, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Lüdemann, John P. Meier, E. P. Sanders, Robert H. Stein, Edward Schillebeeckx, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Wikipedia.

I always wonder about this "God's people" business in Catholocism, a delusion from which Mr. Crossan doesn't appear to be immune. What about the rest of us?

I guess the Catholics think they're God's chosen people. Hear it constantly from priests, ex-priests, you name it.

Yup. That's the problem with Catholicism. The Catholics think they're God's chosen people.

Another problem is the Vatican. It's not merely a problem of hierarchy, its interference in secular matters, in governments worldwide, it's the concept of centralization itself. It prevents growth and alienates not only Catholics but many others. It inbreeds, devours it's own, and remains the great bastion of conservatism. It's terror of anything socialist has led to the deaths of its own clergy.

No way to run a religion

It needs to go.

CCNL:

Gideon wrote a second time, confirming Liora's suspicions. Did you reply to his second post? All I see up is Liora's.

I agree braodly about what MacInOhio has to say

However, I would that the catholic church not only had a meeting of religionists but also of secularists (including atheists etal) too. It would really broaden the church's outlook and make them go after qulaity rather than numbers

Liora writes:

"Demythologizing, I think, begins at home."

I strongly agree. However, I don't think you'll get anywhere with CCNL. Some have posted that he's OCD, even bigoted.

I don't know. He's certainly rigid, close-minded, and does not seem to love his neighbor or learning very much.

He is on a mission, you see. He's a Christian missionary bringing us all the word, having found his "deflawed" version of Christianity.

CCNL:

Should you not have concluded with something like:

"I have spoken."

I am a secularist. The "Do no harm" quotation is attributed to a famous rabbi, a sage,and I have no problem with it. He, too, said it was all one needed to know; however, he was not to be taken literally. Doing no harm will not end hunger and injustice. The statement is also part of the Hypocratic Oath. Would that it were taken quite literally by evey doctor in the world.

As for "love thy neighbor as thyself," I do not love child molesters, rapists, serial killers, mass murderers. However, surely you are being reductive, and you know it.

I suppose if you want to go on posting endless lists with criticisms of religions of which you know little, in the case of Judaism, nothing, no one can stop you. It is a pity thougn, since you are well educated, and could easily benefit from doing a little research. Indeed, you could benefit greatly.

Demythologizing, I think, begins at home.

I will read your reply to Gideon on Rabbi Kula's post.

Liora,

I responded to Gideon's comments.

You noted: "Your path is not the one true way, either CCNL. No religion is; frankly, they are all in the service of ideology and/or profit. "

There is better path than the truth? Organized religions all need to be deflawed. And doing so all would be reduced to two statements, Do no harm and love thy neighbor as thyself!!!

I would like to say on the Issue od the Pope and Islam that the recently converted anti-Muslim catholic Magdi Christiano Allam has a child outside wedlock .He just married with his wife and along with his child. I wonder what are his positions on current issues of child-sex abuse in Catholic system.

Friends please give me your opinion on Magdi Allam having a child outside wedlock.Do you consider this is the reason he converted as Islam never permits sex outside marriage?

CCNL,

What? No reply? Why ever not, I wonder.

Liora

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Once again, an observation and some questions:

It is very strange that whereas you know and comment on and on about the Christian religions and their flaws, the USA and its flaws and the general non-Muslim world and its flaws, you rarely mention the flaws of Islam.

For example, the Sunni and Shiite blood feud for the last 800 years is a flaw terrorizing not only Islam but the world in general. It is obvious that Sunnis (e.g. you) consider Shiites to be a lower class race of hominids who should not be allowed to exist.

From CNN:
"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Very strong words but you remain silent about such rhetoric??

This Sunni-Shiite blood feud/hatred/ genocide/terror continue to spread globally as noted before and below:

Iraq's civil war- Sunni minority, Shiite majority, 24/7 blood letting, 4000 American soldiers dead, 90,000 Iraqi civilians, dead.

Iran, Shiite theocracy, 24/7 support of global terror.

OBL, Sunni/"Wannabee"/Saudi madman and madmen, 24/7 support of global terror.

Fill in the answers below:

Hamas, Sunni or Shiite??

Fatah, Sunni or Shiite??

Pakistan, Sunni or Shiite?

Which group assassinated Bhutto??

Malaysia, nearing a Sunni theocracy?

Bahrain, Sunni or Shiite???

Phillipines, Sunni or Shiite???

Taliban, Sunni or Shiite???

Somalia, Sunni or Shiite???

We await your condemnation of said blood feud and its hate by your commentaries on this blog, in your mosque, in your city and country, with your imams/clerics and on every Islamic blog on the internet. Or do you still fear the dictates of the long-dead mad Arab named Mohammed?????

CCNL:

I figured I'd find you here. Did you read Gideon's reply on Rabbi Kula's post? If not, I suggest you do.

Here, I have pasted what I posted after reading Gideon.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Do you get it, now? Do you see my point? You suffer from the projection typical of many Christians: "the (sic) Jews think they're the chosen people," just like this apparent Protestant (?) (possibly psychopathic) bigot. I have never in my life heard anything of the sort, except from Christians and some Muslims (who got this from Christians, although I've read it in the Bible. The point is the great themes of Judaism, the great ideas for Judaism are the Covenant, justice, perfecting or healing the world, etc.

Only someone who knew nothing whatsoever about Judaism, and I mean nothing, could entertain the notion for a single second that Gideon "who sounded pretty Jewish" could possibly be. And, no, not a Jew for Jesus. Simply not a Jew.

He doubtless expects to see us all ready to convert on the last day. That is why we must "fulfill the promise." Yuk!

Well, if you believe that, do you also believe "we'll all be dead soon anyway"? (Gideon).

Rosemary Ruether. You continue to see us from a Christian perspective, will not recognize that we have our own subjectivity, regardless of our denominations. If you want to debunk the myths, know the myths, so you can distinguish them from those that Christianity has developed about us.

Faith and Fratricide is the best place to start, since it will speak to you in language you know.

When you are self-debunked, you'll surely be better able to disabuse others of any chimeric notions they may have.

Best,
Liora

P.S. If you go to Benedict and Islam, you will see Ken's post, which, quite frankly, is closest to my own. Your path is not the one true way, either CCNL. No religion is; frankly, they are all in the service of ideology and/or profit.

I'm normally a great fan of Crossan, and I agree with him that Papal infallibility is a bad idea. But this is an unbalanced essay, I much prefer that of Thomas Reese in this case.

By emphasizing the bad here, Crossan makes the good messages less likely to be heard.

PS - Idlewood,

In regards, to the "state of being children" - if you open your eye, it is the capitalist/materialist/secular society that seeks to keep it's members as children.

You make a better consumer....

Mr. Crossan, the inaccurate, fallible bore is you. Do yourself and all of us a favor and fade off. You are the pope of NBC and the liberal media. You have your thirty silver coins. Why bother trying to reach what was always beyond the grasp of your limited intelligence. Go, please, go! Open a restaurant with Hans Kung and Leonardo Boff... do some work. It will do you a lot of good, I assure you!

>Idlewood, you idiot, there is more abuse in public schools than in the Church.

Let me guess. You're not a Harvard graduate. Your lack of critical thinking skill puts you in the lower rung of any kind of education insitution. Of course, your rage-aholism is pretty typical of the fanatical Catholic approach.

>Take your simple stereotyping and anti-catholic bigotry to a Nativist or KKK message board. You would be a hit!

I rest my case on your behavior. You give the lie to Church's preaching on love.

>As for thinking in the Catholic Church, just because they are consistently in favor of human life and dignity (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq war) does not mean that you cannot "think for yourself."

Right. I know several anti-abortion Catholic activists who will not accept an out-of-wedlock child in their family. Guess that's very Catholic of them, isn't it? If you love humans so much, your calling those who disagree with your idiots, again gives the lie to your faith.

>The greatest philosophers of our time - Charles Taylor and Alister Mcintyre - happen to be Catholic. Not to mention Benedict 16, or Thomas Aquinas, or St Augustine etc. etc.

Greatest? On what basis? Again, your narrow education kicking in.

>Want psycho-babble and feel-good relativism? Stick with Crossan and Eckhart Tolle etc.

Who gives a damn about Eckhart Tolle? Never read him, never will. But Crossan makes a good argument which your immature intellect and rage-aholic approach to religion cannot comprehend.

Pharisee!
Want solid philosophy and unshakable faith - stick is Catholicism.

Thank you Professor Crossan for a clear, concise analysis of simple truths revealed through Christ's interactions with the apostles and recorded in scripture. It was sad that such "educated" leaders in a self-serving religious hierarchy crucified Christ then and even more sad that they still crucify him now by promulgating divisive rules which destroy loving relationships among those in the larger Christian community. What did Jesus say about the most important commandment(s)?

I recommend to the author Philip V. Riggio's "Carta a los Obispos Argentinos," directed to AICA. Unfortunately, it's not available in Erse, though only Bono flunked that in Ireland, right?

The Crises in the contemporary Catholic Church:

1. The inappropriate conduct of many priests, the emotional stress on the victims and the resultant billion dollars in lawsuits,

2. The lack of talent in the priesthood.

3. The lack of Vatican response to the historic Jesus movement.

4. The Church's continuing cling to original sin and the resulting subsets of crazy ideas like limbo.

5. The denial of priesthood to women.

6. The restriction of priesthood to single men (unless you are former Episcopalian priests),

7. And the continued chain of Vatican "leadership" by old European white men.

Mr. J.D. Crossan,

You : "The Pope’s problem is not just that he has a growing rift with the clergy and laity of America but that he has a growing rift with the God and Christ of the New Testament."

That is quite a harsh conclusion given that all bureacracies, secular and religious, are slow to respond their constituencies/adherents, and the Catholic Church is the oldest one in the world, be it secualar or religious.

The Pope may have a "growing rift" with the God and Christ of the New Testament as you alleged, but one has no doubt that many lay Catholics don't and admirably so. It seems that there is a more apparent "rift" between the Pope and many Catholic lay believers on the Church's stance and actions on issues of concern to them.

As you stated, the Catholic Church is neither a democracy nor a tyranny, hence, that would make it exceptionally slow to be responsive to Catholic lay believers around the world - a sort of bureaucratic inertia, or "guided democracy" on issues affecting its adherents directly at the personal level, and seemingly more interested to protect members of its bureaucracy/hierachy/clergy on some issues. Just like some governments' bureaucracies and some states on public policies and priorities.

The gifts of, "transparency, honesty, and integrity" you stated sounds exactly like demands people made and expect of their secular governments. One hopes the Vatican cease, among others, to refer to things such as the "Vatican's Secret Archives".

Thank you and best regards

"J"

For only the eyes of Benedict and the "newbies" on this blog:

Time for a synopsis of the errors and flaws of the major contemporary religions with Professor Crossan being one of the leaders in specifying said flaws and errors in Christianity. B16 needs to address those of Catholicism before the ship completely sinks:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man suffered from hallucinations and 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 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".

3. 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).

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/ hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" aka "pretty wingie thingies" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

I do agree that it is time for Vatican III that it might "return the gift of infallibility."

Ah, me. Having heard the name John Dominic Crossan for a long time, not always complimentary, but open to what he might have to say, I am disappointed that he does not even write good English, and only very shallow biblical commentary.

More senseless drivel from a former Catholic -- this one a former priest! Come on Fr. Crossan -- your hostility fools no one. And Washington Post -- where is the balance in your 'on faith' section? The Pope is coming to America -- and all you can find are hostile ex-Catholics who want to critisize him? I should be surprised but I'm not. This is the Post afterall.

Idlewood,

Take your simple stereotyping and anti-catholic bigotry to a Nativist or KKK message board. You would be a hit!

As for thinking in the Catholic Church, just because they are consistently in favor of human life and dignity (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq war) does not mean that you cannot "think for yourself."

The greatest philosophers of our time - Charles Taylor and Alister Mcintyre - happen to be Catholic. Not to mention Benedict 16, or Thomas Aquinas, or St Augustine etc. etc.

Want psycho-babble and feel-good relativism? Stick with Crossan and Eckhart Tolle etc.

Want solid philosophy and unshakable faith - stick is Catholicism.

Crossan makes the remarkable claim that Pope Benedict is growing further away from God. I understand that this is an editorial portion of the site, but since when does the WaPo allow conclusory allegations that someone (here, the Pope) is acting in bad faith?

There is certainly bad faith here, but not on the part of the Pope.

>As a Catholic, I used to let my church set my values for me. I did whatever the hierarchy told me to do.

I agree with you that the hierarchy is defective in acting as arbiter of what is good, right, and true. Instead of beating people of the head with the "sin stick", the adult way would have been to lead and guide people in acting morally and ethically. I have more faith in someone acting as a moral agent who determines that it is best to act morally and responsibly "as an adult". This approach is not one favored by the hierarchy, which aims to keep the laity in a state of being children. It is easier to browbeat and abuse children.

>that might have mentioned the Catholic teaching that priestly ordination makes one a priest forever, not until one quits to do something else.

Or sexually abuses to the tune of 2.5 billion and counting in lawsuits. But that's okay. The offenders still got to be priests, and to continue their lawbreaking under the ever vigilant eyes of the enabling bishops.

As a Catholic, I used to let my church set my values for me. I did whatever the hierarchy told me to do. In my early 20's, I spent six years entirely devoted to doing what they told me to do, 24/7. I took graduate level courses in Sacred Scripture, Moral Theology and Dogmatic Theology. In my various careers as an electronics technician, aviator, systems engineer, logistics manager, teacher, and computer tech, I tried to infuse ethical values into my professional and personal life. Married 34 years, I'm faithfully monogamous (that infers no judgment about others; it's just how my wife and I like our relationship), and I'm told I've been a successful (kind, loving, generous) husband and dad (to three adult children).

But I've discovered that my church hides hate and an obsession with power under its cloak of "love, hope, peace." My church routinely batters its members, even as it demands their loyalty. I've discovered that my 60 plus years as a faithful servant only enabled the hierarchy to grow increasingly judgmental, exclusive, mean, and divisive. My church demeans women, abuses those that its clergy has abused sexually, refuses to take responsibility for the behavior of its clergy, and tortures GLBT people by trying to convince them that God is a sadist who created in them a same sex attraction but does not approve of them following that attraction.

My values include compassion (first and foremost), inclusiveness, and an egalitarian social view. Obviously, my church is not a good place to go for help in establishing any of those values.

So I’m searching.

MacInOhio

>Please proofread your work before you post this drivvel.

Speak for yourself as you err in spelling and critical thinking. BTW, Crossan makes good points, but that may be beyond the few of you in the Catholic ghetto in which you are mired.

Wow. Please proofread your work before you post this drivvel. Not only were there a couple of verb mis-matches, but I'm pretty sure the Pope is the heir of Peter, not Pater.

Secondly, where was this article going? Please save this complaining. If you don't like the way the Church or the Pope operates, then become a Lutheran (isn't that how they got started in the first place?)

It's your faith, it's your choice.

"the Pope is the heir of Pater" - really?!

This is a break through!

Please write a new book, Crossan, with your deep insight and keen mind...

Pretty impressive, belonging to a 13th century order in the nineteen-fifties.

Even more impressive to be ordained after apparently cutting all the classes that might have mentioned the Catholic teaching that priestly ordination makes one a priest forever, not until one quits to do something else.

Please, spare us the mercifully dwindling remnant of the aging hippies who did their best--which was a lot more impressive than their scholarship or intellectual honesty--to destroy the Church in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Counsil.