“Many Protestants claim that
when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an
unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth,
for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
In his tract 10 Reasons Why I
Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie
quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a
hoax."
Bill Jackson, another
Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his
book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of
Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a
title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic]
hierarchy" (53).
How should Catholics respond to
such objections?
The
Answer
To understand why the charge does
not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in
reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the
opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us
that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word
"father."
In fact, to forbid it would rob
the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there
would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine
Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if
we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
But in the Bible the concept of
fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to
refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign
of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his
brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of
Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a
father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of
Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly
role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched
out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself
declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house
of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah
. . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and
will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).
This type of fatherhood not only
applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like
Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly
spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my
father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2
Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of
A
Change with the New Testament?
Some Fundamentalists argue that
this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been
permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since
the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for
several reasons.
First, as we’ve seen, the
imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s
biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors
"father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our
father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father
Isaac."
Second, there are numerous
examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a
form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to
the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New
Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the
objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we
shall see.
Third, a careful examination of
the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words
here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not
to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all
brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is
in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master,
the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).
The first problem is that although
Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew
28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his
Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his
commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle
. . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7);
"For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher"
(2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher:
"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be
apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers"
(Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s
teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
Fundamentalists themselves slip up
on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example,
medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees
(i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is
simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and
"Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word
"master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were
meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using
the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as
Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding
of Christ’s words.
So
What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders
who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the
synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called
‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a
response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of
status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole
(exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and
proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority
and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate
authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for
example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it
out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that
your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47).
Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all
Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all
subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride
of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using
hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be
able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words
carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to
understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call
men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually.
(See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such
people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against
that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing
fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to
those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows,
some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they
can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse
their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our
supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to
view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people
have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if
they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction,
nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into
"gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the
Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially
those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly
exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the
formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus
is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as
master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the
perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does
have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles
shows us that.
The
Apostles Show the Way
The New Testament is filled with
examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child
relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is
worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy
as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful
child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17);
"To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God
the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my
beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our
Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his
son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the
prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage
the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the
grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s
worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the
gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his
converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace
and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4);
"I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my
imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal,
biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with
them.
Spiritual Fatherhood
Perhaps the most pointed New
Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is
Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to
admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in
Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ
Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom,
referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at
John said, "My little
children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does
sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1
John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children
follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his
congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
By referring to these people as
their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their
own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this
spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the
apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is
a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the
spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
Catholics know that as members of
a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus
they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father."
Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to
members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal.
4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
All of these passages were written
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly
recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual
fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men
their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this
role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is
to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change
that fact.”
[This
section quoted from: Catholic Answers, “Call No Man
"Father"?” (
| PRIESTLY VOCATIONS | HISTORY | GIVE US YOUR FEEDBACK | RELIGIOUS ORDERS | HOLY ORDERS |