Sunday Gospel Corner

Call No Man "Father"?

https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father

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 Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21). 

 

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 Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19). 

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. 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Quote of the Day

The incredible confusion of modern thought is always suggesting that men have any indication that men have been influenced is an indication that they have been forced.  All men are always being influenced; for every incident is an influence.  The question is, which incident shall we allow to be most influential.  - On a Humiliating Heresy, G.K. Chesterton, 1930.

I've realized this before, but it really was driven home at the baptism of our youngest last weekend. Between our family and the godparents we have 16 kids, 1 vocation (so far, out of the two kids who are 18+) and about 15 more years of fertility left. We are a little bitty parish (town population about 200), in podunk nowhere, but between the four families who had kids in the last couple of months we have 30 children. Our priests have not always been especially awesome in their orthodoxy and traditionally are against our traditional leanings. I know that we are not special or unique in any of the above, but as crazy as the Church seems right now, in 30 to 40 years, I think there's a good chance we could have the heresy thing licked. 

The Cross, the cross, always the cross

It's been almost eight months since I've written on this little blog.  I'm going to try to start again.  I can't say much except we got waylaid by life.  CPS, FSIS, FDIC, SATAN.  No matter where the problems lie or what kind of issue we have dealt with, I've not done a good job of dealing with it and many times have longed for death.  Thank the good God for the gift of faith, though, because it coupled with the fear of hell, has kept me from dwelling too long in those dark alleys.  

It's been a hard lesson to learn that suffering is actually the path to true and lasting joy, maybe not in this life, but ultimately and forever.  It's not a surprise mind you.  Christ was clear as a bell.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."  

Matthew 7:13-14

"[Y]ou will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." 

Mark 13:13

"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it."  

Luke 9:23-24

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit... Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:1-2,4-6

But it's hard.  It does not feel at the moment like the easy burden and the gentle yoke promised by Jesus, unless you keep it in context.  That's one thing, all the quotes above are coupled.  A promise with a threat.  If you bear your cross then you will be saved, if you don't you will go to hell.  Suffering feels like hell, but it isn't, it's just unpleasant.  Even a slow death being tortured by one's enemies isn't hell, it's just really unpleasant.  See here:

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Matthew 10:28

So there you go.  You, me, your sweet Aunt Mabel, the neighbor kid down the street, my darling baby boy, we're all going to suffer.  But how well are we going to suffer?  I'm going to try to suffer well and persevere until death, come what may.  

 "[K]eep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong."

1 Peter 3:16-17

Nuestra Senor de Guadalupe, ruega por nosotros

Today is the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It was in the examination of the story of this apparition that I finally went over the edge and came back to the Catholic Church.  I reasoned that a supernatural event that brought millions into the Church in an area of the world that had never heard the Gospel immediately on the heels of thousands leaving the Church during the Reformation, had to be either diabolical or heavenly.  In examining the fruits of such an event, I thought it obviously heavenly and a sign for me that Christ's Church was synonymous with the Catholic Church.  

Below is an example of the ongoing fruits of that branch, from Fr. Z's blog.

St. Juan Diego’s amazing miracle story

Posted on 9 December 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Remember…

If we do not believe in miracles, we do not ask for them. If we do not ask for them, they will not be granted.

We are not alone: the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant are closely knit, interwoven in charity. We on earth must intercede for each other and believe and ask for the intercession of the saints.

Today is the Feast of St. Juan Diego, of Our Lady of Guadalupe fame.  Mexican, native-American St. Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin (+1548), was granted an apparition by Our Lady Virgin Mary four times on the hill of Tepeyac.   He had been declared Venerable in 1987.  St. John Paul II decided to beatify him without the approved miracle.  He was beatified on 6 May 1990.

Under normal circumstances, for a beatification there must be a miracle which has been rigorously studied and approved by the Congregation for Causes and Saints accepted by the Holy Father.   St. John Paul bypassed the process.  Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have done the same occasionally… well… Francis pretty often, as it turns out.

There was a miracle for Juan Diego’s canonization, however.  It is quite a story.

Juan Jose Barragan Silva, of Mexico City, was a drug addict from his adolescence.  He and his mother had been abandoned by his father.

On 3 May 1990 – note the date – Juan Jose, after getting drunk and high on marijuana with a friend, went home and started to cut himself on the head with a knife.  His mother, Esperanza, tried to get the knife away but failed.  She implored him to stop abusing himself and give up the alcohol and marijuana.   He shouted that he didn’t want to live any more so loudly that the neighbors came to see what was going on, but the door was locked.

Juan Jose threw himself off the balcony of their second floor apartment (in the USA this would be counted as the third floor).

In that moment, Esperanza had a “flash”.  Knowing that Pope John Paul was to be in Mexico for the beatification of Juan Diego, she called on Juan Diego to intercede for her son.

Juan Jose fell about 10 meters and landed close to a friend of his, Jesus Alfredo Velasquez Ramirez, who saw him land on his head on the concrete pavement.  Juan Jose was bleeding copiously from the mouth, nose and ears.  They covered him, thinking he was dead.  He suddenly sat up, rose and went to the stairs leading to his apartment.  On meeting his mother coming down the stairs he asked his mother’s forgiveness.  They embraced and remained that way for another ten minutes or so before the ambulance came.

During the ambulance ride Juan Jose said he had lost his vision.  He was able to say a Our Father.  He was registered at Sanatorio Durango at 1830.

The medical prognosis was very pessimistic.

The doctor, Juan Homero Hernandez Illescas, later explained that it was already incomprehensible that he was still alive.

They did tests immediately and found that Juan Jose had a fracture of the epistropheus, a large hemotoma in the right temporal-parietal region extending to the lateral part of the neck and lacerations of the muscles about the parapharyngeal space,  fractures from the right orbital to the clivus, intracranial hemorrhages and air in the cranial cavity and in the cerebral ventricals.

Fr. Manuel Ponce gave him the last rites under the impression that Juan Jose would soon be dead.

He continued to live.

Fore the first few days Juan Jose was sedated. On the fifth, doctors found that his pupils were symmetrical and reactive and that he could move his arms and legs.  On the sixth day he was released from the ICU to a regular ward.  On the seventh day his feeding tube was removed.  He was released on the tenth day after the fall.   Subsequent tests by neurologists and other specialists showed a total recovery.  Juan Jose subsequently gave up his drug habit and started school.

It was determined that his change of condition came on 6 May at the very time John Paul II beatified Juan Diego.

For a miracle of curing to be authenticated as such, the cure has to be sudden, complete and lasting.  It has to be inexplicable by science. It has to be demonstrated that the venerable or blessed was invoked in a particular way.  There are usually spiritual effects, such as conversion of life of the person cured and also witnesses.

The decree concerning this miracle was promulgated on 20 December 2001.  Holy Father Pope John Paul II canonized St. Juan Diego on 31 July 2002.

Arctic chill

I'm finally done.  The temperature is dropping and I'm finally done getting ready for it.  We've had some chilly weather already, but tonight a wall of cold arctic air is supposed to slam into us at 35 miles per hour.

In years past, I've treated that sort of thing rather casually.  Our first year back in the country, I paid lip service to winterizing our pipes (this is before we had any animals or plants) and the end result was a house that was uninhabitable for about 4 days, a broken down suburban, and a back door destroyed by my hammer when I ran out to the house in a borrowed truck to get something I left behind, and forgot the house key.

Often times, the price of wisdom is scars.  I spent the last two days getting ready for tonight.  Yesterday, the kids helped me bring in and stack a week's worth of well seasoned oak wood from pasture stashes, for the fireplace, along with a mountain of kindling wood.  The oldest boy went all around the farmstead with me, winterizing exposed pipes and hose bibs and emptying hoses.  We ended the day like we began it, in the dark.

Today, I butchered the two Christmas geese, a surprisingly sad affair.  After that, I spent time building and outfitting a winter hut for Beulah, our faithful Jersey milk cow.  When the boy brought her in out of the pasture, she settled right in to her little hotspot and ate a bite of cubes.  The 50 baby chicks in the brooder didn't need much, but I did place a barrier it and the cracks I'm sure the arctic air will find.

My wife's grandmother said they always waited for a "blue norther" to butcher the pig.  It was a good idea then, it's a good idea now and that's what we'll do tomorrow.  But for now, it's time to sit by the fire, pray the family rosary,and afterwards smoke my pipe and wait.

We are concerned...

I should be up to my elbows in raw chicken parts right now, but instead I'm sitting at this computer while the Polka Hour is playing on the radio, figuring out how to craft a clever rant, or at least just a rant that communicates my ire against the State.

On Tuesday afternoon I received an email from my inspector that began, "We are concerned..."  Nothing good ever comes from a State agency being concerned about anything.  Well, in this case, their concern consisted of a need for me to demonstrate the percent of water retained in the whole chickens after they go through the ice bath.

"No problem," says I, "I've got a scale and will simply weigh the birds before they go in and then after they come out."

"That's exactly what you need to do, but the scale must be certified and registered with the State."

That would have been a great thing to tell me a couple of weeks ago, not 36 hours before my customers are supposed to arrive.

"If you don't have one, you can still butcher, we'll just have to condemn the birds and they will have to be destroyed."

I spent the next 36 hours trying to navigate the system of getting a scale registered and certified with the State.  It isn't pretty.  First, you must fill out Form RWM-700 and pay an application fee of, in my case, $35 for one year.  Then you must contact a third party contractor licensed by the State to certify that your scales are indeed accurate. Depending on who you find, this fee can run anywhere from $100-$1000.  Then after the scale has been certified as accurate you must request a Weights and Measures bureaucrat to come out and put a sticker on the scale.  Right now that is a 2 month waiting list.  You may not take the scale to them, and the sticker that is there to "protect the consumer" cannot be mailed to you.

To top it off, the Weights and Measures division doesn't actually think that they should be certifying my scale, since it isn't going to be used to determine price, but a non-monetary measurement.  The meat inspectors disagree.  This question has to now be resolved at the level of the State capital.

All of this came about because on January 9, 2001, the US Department of Agriculture adopted by fiat a new regulation because they were concerned that, "Without published limits on retained water, FSIS cannot adequately protect consumers from adulteration and misbranding due to excessive retained water in whole birds."

So there you have it, folks, this is all about you and the Federal government's concern for your safety and protection.  Nevermind the income lost to my family, nor the woman who will now miss the farmer's market she finally got into, nor the two employees that I told on Thursday morning, they wouldn't be needed.

Guess what, though, the inspector still showed up and spent 4 hours working on paperwork in my shop.  I've spent a total of 6 hours working under State inspection, and he's spent a total now of 10 hours doing paperwork for my plant.  Something seems a little off.

The next time you wonder why the food at the local farmers' market is so much more expensive than the grocery store, please remember that not all costs are visible on a sticker.

Time to milk the cow...til next time.