James Carroll's call to 'Abolish the Priesthood' is misguided and tiresome

James Carroll's call to 'Abolish the Priesthood' is misguided and tiresome
The Gospels were written before and after the belief in the imminent return. Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, not the end of the world. Taking up one's cross had a double meaning - both to die and to build the Church (sometimes by dying - although this meaning may have been added by the witness of Christian martyrs - indeed, everyone expected to be martyred, so everyone was a saint).

Augustine say everything from a Roman lens, from the glorification of asexuality as holy instead of different (statistically abnormal rather than disordered). He entirely misread the Genesis myth as a true story, rather than an allegory on human blame. Jesus was not abnormal and as a rabbi, he was likely married. The asexual ideal was added by Jerome, who came up with the ascriptural idea that Jesus had cousins whom were called brothers.

The Church was assimilated by the same Hellenists that defiled the Temple with their pagan statues and their stoic idealism (including about sex). Sadly, this has continued. Jesus Maccabees to Jesus Christ to Peter and the victims of Nero (666) to those of Diocletian died resisting such non-sense. It has polluted the practical ethics of Judaism upon which Christianity was established for the past 1700 years.

Jesus warned against being like the Gentiles in seeking honors. That message was lost, turning the washing of the feet into an empty ritual. John of Patmos may have had a point about Pauline Christianity when writing of a return of a holy Jerusalem from its recent ashes. It may have been the anti-Hellenism that almost kept it out of the Canon, not its violent language.

Arguing from a point of view that is not academic is not out of bounds for a personal story. The POV is merely to be noted, not scorned. Carroll was writing about this experiences as a priest like a recovered alcoholic writes about liquor. Not every book about the Church is in the realm of theology. Indeed, what we know about the Resurrection is shared personal witness, not the product of theological argument.

As for his proposals, I cannot judge based on the review. I have only the point of view of the reviewer to go on. He is not the first to say to abolish the priesthood, which I would not do, nor even the bishops - although Overseer sounds like Pastor to me.

Bishop is an imported word for what was originally the same thing a pastor. A Metropolitan was a pastor the pastors. It implies oversight of a city, not a state or region, with a patriarch overseeing a country. Maybe we need the title of Arch-Patriarch below the level of Oecumenical Patriarch. Metropolitan Gregory (his official title) should probably be referred to as Patriarch, possibly Arch-Patriarch of the Anglophones and my the OP, considering the seat of global empire.

Could we divest the clergy of economic and political power? That would be scriptural and traditional. The origin of the Medieval bishop as part of the nobility is still evident in the terms Monsignor (my Lord) and Archbishop (your Grace). We can bring back the deacon as the lay director of the parish church, with priests to celebrate the sacraments. We can elect from below instead of appointment from below. Christianity was built that way and thrived. Church property need not be vested in a celibate bishop (to prevent inheritance by children). A 501(c)(3) can accomplish the same purpose.

As Garrry Wills points out, the priesthood was not part of the original Church. It evolved with the growth of the Church, which after 100 and St. Clement of Antioch was already practicing pastoral consecration of the Eucharist (which was used as a political tool to keep emerging parish communities in line). Originally, the Mass was modeled after a meal presided over by the head of the household, which in Judaism has not been centralized with the congregation, but is still home-based, whether the Passover meal of the unleavened bread or the weekly sharing of Challah and wine at Shabbat dinner.

Could we do without a priesthood? No, nor the public celebration of the Eucharist - but it need not be exclusive to the clergy. Judaism has thrived with private Shabbat. There is a strong tradition of education in the faith of my fathers (before assimilation). Now that w have a more educated flock, it can be trusted to remember the Lord in the breaking of the bread and its transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ. It takes faith, not magic.

It does not take a Theology degree to see any of this. Indeed, such a degree seems to favor living in the Church's inglorious past. As for the present problems with abuse, they are not new, were not caused by the sexual revolution, asexuality or clericalism. They thrive in domination and secrecy, who forces that will never be eradicated, but can be overcome with equality and forgiveness, not for the sake of the abuser but for the victim.