I'll leave the sloppy reasoning to others (poll taking as a vehicle for knowing God's will?). But I'd at least like to point out the lies:
1. "Under Pope Paul VI, the Vatican released a document saying women could not be priests because they do not look like Jesus."
This is a lie. That was not Paul VI's argument, nor was it the Church's. See ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS for more background, including Paul VI's statements on the matter.
2. On a slightly more serious level, we are told that Christ did not ordain any women. True. Neither did he ordain any men.
This is certainly a lie if you call yourself a Catholic. Contending as Wills does denies apostolic succession, which defies the earliest creeds of the Church. If Wills believes this, he is no longer a Catholic.
3. The male priesthood developed at a time when women were held to be inferior to men and unclean for purposes of sacred ritual.
Either a lie, or ignorance. Priestesses were common in Jesus' day. Some temples were served exclusively by priestesses and men were disallowed from serving.
4.Canon law prescribed keeping the altar pure from female pollution.
There is no such thing as "female pollution" in Canon Law.
5. It is a sign of Vatican expertise in "natural law" that it held, in the past, that it would be unnatural for a woman to be in the church sanctuary or choir, but that a "natural" way to provide treble voices for the Sistine chapel's music, in the absence of women, would be castrate boys before their voices changed.
The practice of castrating male singers was always condemned by the Church, even if ignored by some sinful clerics.
The fundamental fallacy of this argument is the assumption that one's sex is of no more ontological importance than the color of one's hair. I would like to hear Professor Wills explain why he thinks sex is a unimportant aspect of ontological identity, rather than merrily brushing the issue aside.
The Church's position is that sex is an important part of ontological identity, and as such sees equality as a matter of value and dignity without needing to see this expressed identically between men and women. Mr. Wills rejects this notion, and therefore for him equality of value and dignity can only come when there is an accompanying sameness in the way they live.
Compare this statement by professor Wills:
The Catholic Church, that claims to learn from the ages through which it has perdured, will learn in time that policies formed when women were considered inferior cannot survive in our day.
With this one from John Paul II:
Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.
This fallacy feminism brought the secular world - that women and men are not only equal, but are so nearly identical as to be interchangable - is what Prof. Wills wants to see enacted in the Church.
Wills and his ilk would do better trying to understand true the idea that holiness, not hierarchical position is the proper goal of every Catholic. Where the doctrine of sexual sameness has spread throughout the modern world, holiness has plummeted.
Now I know why I put down "Papal Sins" in disgust. Wills is just another CINO. Sorry I spent the $20 bucks on his book. I won't make that mistake again.
Agreed. ‘Equality’ and ‘Identity’ are two words which often get confused. Men and women are equal, but not identical. Viva la Diferencia! See “EUCHARIST AND GENDER” by Mary Rousseau posted by NYer several days ago at my request. (I’m new here and can barely post replies correctly, much less articles). Prof. Rousseau deals very effectively with your point concerning ontological identity. I remember hearing one time a practicing Catholic adult woman (poorly catechisized as is the norm these past 30 or so years) when caught in a discussion on whether or not women should/could become priests, meekly state "I can't see it - it wouldn't look right". She felt embarrassed by this "weak" answer. But, keeping in mind that she held no political or sociological agendas concerning this topic, I felt it was a very natural and correct answer, laying a foundation for supernatural answers I might add. She wasn't consciously aware that her deeper ingrained knowledge of the subject pointed to ontological distinctions between men and women, though she could never word it that way. Give credit to God, the Divne Artisan, who chooses to create, redeem, and sanctify ontological reality, aka Creation, as per His dictums - and not the "polls" that you earlier mentioned.
Consider, too:
Theologically, the priesthood must remain male. Consider the words of consecration: 'This is my body'. Now, the priest speaks sacramentally 'in the person of Christ' (in persona Christi). It is Jesus who consecrates the host through the priest who is an instrument only. Thus, since it is Jesus who says, 'This is my body', the priest through whom Christ speaks must also be male otherwise the very meaning of the mass is distorted and perverted. Moreover, the bible talks about human beings made in the 'image and likeness of God' (Cf. Genesis 1:26), and Jesus is said to be the perfect image of the Father (Cf. John 14:9). If the first person of the Trinity is truly a Father, then He must possess the masculine persona as well. So if Jesus is the perfect image of the Father, it follows that He too must be male, and those He chooses to 'channel' His words of consecration must likewise be male.
american colleen I just can't avoid this topic. ;-)
This one is inacurate on many levels. No respectable woman was allowed to perform in public, whether in Church (Protestant or Catholic) or in Opera. It just wasn't done until late in the Baroque period. I know Handel used women in his opera's and Oratorios, but J.S. Bach was not allowed to use women in Church. That was the way it was all over Europe, certainly before 1750. If I remember correctly, the Catholic Church condemned the practice but it was only France whose secular government considered castrating little boys a crime.
(Sigh) Would it be that it came out of my mouth first (or keyboard as the case may be). Now I'm envious and jealous...
Could someboby ping Andrew Greeley?
1. "Under Pope Paul VI, the Vatican released a document saying women could not be priests because they do not look like Jesus."
This is a lie. That was not Paul VI's argument, nor was it the Church's. See ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS for more background, including Paul VI's statements on the matter.
I add the following for documentation purposes for this thread:
Not neglecting the fact that Garry Wills refuses to document his accusation, one can only guess, reasonably so, that he was referring to Pope Paul's declaration "Inter Insigniores". Following is an excerpt that I "stole" from Gerard Bugge's website Catholic Page for Lovers. Since I had such a hard time finding it on the web, I will paste it in it's entirety with bolding from me. I also performed one correction, the word 'an' in bold was spelled as 'and' in the original from the above website (it is gorgeous - go there sometime and get "lost" in it!) - I chose 'an' over 'any'
"Christ is of course the firstborn of all humanity, of women as well as men: the unity which he re-established after sin is such that there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28).
Nevertheless, the incarnation of the Word took place according to the male sex: this is indeed a question of fact, and this fact, while not implying an alleged natural superiority of man over woman, cannot be disassociated from the economy of salvation: it is indeed in harmony with the entirety of God's plan as God himself has revealed it, and of which the mystery of the Covenant is the nucleus.
For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union with him to which they are called - in short, the Covenant- took on, from the Old Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form of a nuptial mystery: for God the Chosen People is seen as his ardently loved spouse. Both Jewish and Christian tradition has discovered the depth of this intimacy of love by reading and rereading the Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will remain faithful even when the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is unfaithful to God (Hos.1-3; Jer.2).
When the 'fullness of time' (Gal.4: 4) comes, the Word, the Son of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and seal the new and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for many so that sins may be forgiven. His death will gather together again the scattered children of God; from his pierced side will be born the Church, as Eve was born from Adam's side.
When the 'fullness of time' (Gal.4: 4) comes, the Word, the Son of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and seal the new and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for many so that sins may be forgiven. His death will gather together again the scattered children of God; from his pierced side will be born the Church, as Eve was born from Adam's side.
At that time there is fully and eternally accomplished the nuptial mystery proclaimed and hymned in the Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church his Bride, whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood and made her glorious, holy and without blemish, and henceforth he is inseparable from her. This nuptial theme, which is developed from the Letters of St.Paul onwards (2 Cor.11: 2; Eph.5: 22-23) to the writings of St.John (especially in Jn.3: 29; Rev.19: 7, 9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom's friends must not fast as long as he is with them (Mk.2:19); the Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who gave a feast for his son's wedding (Mt.22:1-14).
It is through this Scriptural language, all interwoven with symbols, and which expresses and affects man and woman in their profound identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which of itself is unfathomable."