opposed to each other on the issue ofrnwhether Christians should follow Jewishrnlaw that their followers turned in the twornmen to Roman authorities. This speculationrnis based entirely on Peter’s silence afterrnbeing reproved by Paul, which meansrnto Wills that Peter did not accept the admonitionrnto dine with gentiles! No biblicalrnscholar would even venture this absurdity.rnWith this ridiculous scenario,rnWills destroys his credibility as an author.rnHow Wills can think of himself asrnstill a Catholic is anyone’s guess.rnExamining critically the role of thernpriest, he charges that his powers to transformrnbread and wine into the Body andrnBlood of Christ “were invented to makernthat physicality more evident.” Is it notrnodd that “the power of the priest to consecrate”rnis not mentioned in the NewrnTestament, he asks?rnWhat of the Last Supper and Jesus’srncommand to “do this in memory of me”?rnWills makes no mention of the four NewrnTestament accounts of the institution ofrnthe Eucharist (Matthew 26:26-29; Markrn14:22-25; Luke 22:16-20; and 1 Corinthiansrn11:23-30). St. Paul writes:rnFor I have received from the Lordrnwhat I also delivered to you, thatrnthe Lord Jesus on the night he wasrnbetrayed, took bread, and when hernhad given thanks he broke it andrnsaid, “This is my body which is forrnyou. Do this in remembrance ofrnme.” In the same way also the cup,rnafter supper, saying “This cup is thernnew covenant in my blood.” For asrnoften as you eat this bread andrndrink the cup, you proclaim thernLord’s death until he comes. WTioever,rntherefore, eats the bread orrndrinks the cup of the Lord in anrnunworthy manner will be guilty ofrnprofaning the body and blood ofrnthe Lord.rnThese verses clearly bear witness to thernearly Christian faith in the Eucharist, asrnPaul wrote these lines around A.D. 57.rnBut these powerful citations go unmentionedrnin a passage which does not missrnopportunities for megalomania.rnIn the Church’s 2,000-year history,rnthere are numerous examples of dishonest)-rnand deceit, usually connected withrnpower struggles where the teaching ofrnfaith and morals was not involved. Willsrninsists, however, that dishonesties at thernhighest levels of the Church are emblematicrnof a deep-seated problem withrnthe truth. Such a radical thesis needsrnrock-solid proof, which Wills does notrnprovide.rnArguing that priests should marry, hernfabricates a bold rationale: He interpretsrnthe Creek gunaika as “wife” rather thanrnas “woman,” its root meaning, assertingrnthat, since some of the apostles were married,rntheir successors should also have thernright to be married. In support of femalernpriests, he insists that there were such inrnearly times, citing Romans 16:7 for support:rn”Greet Andronicus and Junius, myrnkinsmen and my fellow prisoners; theyrnare men of note among the apostles andrnthey were in Christ before me.” In Wills’rntortured treatment, Junius was a womanrnwhose name was changed in later translationsrn(an old charge going back torn18th-century anti-Catholic polemics).rnFollowing a twisted reasoning process.rnWills shifts gears and insists there is nornprecedent for male priests, so why shouldrnwomen not be ordained? You see, thernaposties were not priests and did not ordainrnpriests. Never mind the ancientrnprophets who passed on their propheticrnpowers to those who would follow themrnas teachers in Israel; never mind thernpriestly castes of the family of Aaron,rnwhich passed on its sacerdotal privilegesrnfrom father to son; never mind the royalrnfamily of David and his descendants, tornwhom the Messiah was to be born; neverrnmind that this concept of succession wasrnclear in everything Christ did —Hisrnchoice of the 12 apostles who wouldrnjudge the 12 tribes of Israel, and the ver’rnname “apostles” as those whom He wasrnsending; and never mind that, at the LastrnSupper, He told the apostles to continuernwhat He had just performed and that, onrnEaster Sunday night. He instructed themrnto forgive sins in His Name, that He wasrnsending them into the world to teach andrnpreach, to baptize and sanctify, to makerndisciples of all nations. These things arernignored in Wills’ book.rnThere was never, Wills insists, a layingrnon of hands. But Paul didit. Wills deniesrnhe was an apostle. But Holy Writ hasrnhim an apostle, although not one of thern12—a convenient lapse of the kind Willsrnfrequently makes.rnWills berates the Church for being unjustrnto the Jews, never recognizing JohnrnPaul IPs frequently expressed sorrow forrnthe excesses of some clergymen and hisrntouching visit to the Wailing Wall. Withrnthe case of Edith Stein, Wills concentratesrnhis fire on the Church. Stein, a giftedrnintellectual, was born to Jewish parentsrnin Breslau, Germany. She pursued arndistinguished career in philosophy, convertedrnto Catholicism, and entered arnCarmelite convent, taking the name ofrnSister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. AfterrnKristallnacht (November 9, 1938),rnshe left Germany for the Carmelites’ conventrnin Echt, Holland, taking her sister,rnRosa, who had also become a Catholic,rnwith her.rnBut Holland was a precarious domicilernfor Stein. Like other Jews, she wasrnforced to wear the Star of David. Wlienrnthe Nazis ordered the arrest of all convertedrnJews, she was picked up. “Come,rnlet us go for the people,” she told her sister.rnShe and Rosa were transported tornAuschwitz. After vocal complaints fromrnCatholic clergy, the Nazis tried to cut arndeal with the Church: Stop defendingrnthe Jews, and we will let Jewish Catholicrnconverts go free. The bishops of Hollandrnrefused. Angered, the Nazis exterminatedrnall Jews who were Catholic converts,rnincluding Stein and her sister.rnWills ornaments his ugly propagandarnagainst John Paul II with academic jargon,rnbut the basis of his rage is clear: Byrncanonizing Stein, the Pope was trying tornmuscle in on the exclusive Jewish proprietorshiprnof the holocaust. His argumentsrnare imconvincing. Stein was the first personrnin the 400-year history of the congregationrnof cardinals and bishops to be confirmedrnas both martyr and confessorrn(“confessor” is the term denoting heroicrnsanctity). The Pope declared that, “in thernconcentration camp, she died as a daughterrnof Israel and at the same time as Si.sterrnTeresa Benedicta of the Cross.” I’herncause of her marfyrdom, the Pope rightlyrnsaid, was the Dutch bishops’ letter againstrnthe deportation of the Jews. And becausernof her great desire to unite with the sufferingsrnof Christ on the Cross, he added,rn”she gave her life for genuine peace andrnfor the people.”rnOnly a mean-spirited, anti-Catholicrnbigot could seek to deny not just her martyrdomrnbut her sanctity —and Wills,rnleaning upon ex-priest James Carroll,rndoes just that. The Church credits Steinrnwith a miracle received by a voung girl;rnCarroll found the girl’s doctor, who deniedrnthat her recovery was a miracle.rnAnd so it goes. Wills accepting uncriticallyrnCarroll’s reporting in the New Yorkerrnwhile failing to point out the facts:rnCatholics suffered grcatiy, second only tornthe Jews, at the hands of the Nazis. Overrna third of the Catholic clergy in Polandrn26/CHRONICLESrnrnrn