One of the great things about being a Catholic is that if you forget your priest’s name
or meet a new one, you never have to feel embarrassed.
Just call us father.
It’s a title that evokes the imagery of a caring person, someone who will look after
you, guide you, and protect you as you work out your salvation.
It’s a beautiful title, and I am honored to use it.
There’s just one problem: Jesus specifically told his disciples to call no one father.
As a result, some Christians criticize us Catholics for yet again ignoring Jesus’
words.
What do we make of this command, and is it wrong to call a priest “father”?
This is Catholicism In Focus.
The practice of using the title “father” to refer to a spiritual leader is by no means
a Catholic invention.
In fact, it’s quite biblical.
In the book of Genesis Joseph refers to himself as the “father of Pharaoh.”
Job considers himself a “father to the poor.”
In the 2nd book of Kings, the king of Israel addresses Elisha as “father.”
Isaiah exhorts the people to look to “Abraham your father,” a term that he did not make
up, but one that was actually spoken by God in the book of Joshua.
So, yeah…
Biblically speaking, God doesn’t seem to have a problem with the use of father to refer
to human beings.
At least, not in the Old Testament.
As fundamentalist Christians will point out, Jesus clearly states in Matthew 23 that we
are to call no one on earth father for we have but one Father in heaven, suggesting
that it was okay for the Old Testament, but not okay for us now.
And in one sense, that is hard to deny.
In its literal sense, the passage could not be clearer.
Jesus does not mince words: call no one on earth your father.
Since Catholics call their priests “father,” they must be heretics and backsliders and
against the teaching of Christ.
Which, if that is the way one wants to read the text, might be true.
But if it is, you better be ready to make the same claim against the Apostles and early
Christian communities.
You see, as seemingly clear as this one line is in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no evidence
in the early Church that anyone interpreted it that way.
In fact, the title of father is used even more by the Apostles than in the Old Testament.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul writes, “Even if you should have countless
guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ
Jesus through the gospel.”
The same can be seen in his first and second letters to Timothy, as well in his letters
to the Philippians, Titus, and Philemon, in which he refers to people that have no biological
relationship with him as his children.
St. Peter followed suit, referring to Mark as his son in his first letter, and St. John
not only refers to his community as his children, but refers to the leaders of the community
as “fathers.”
Add this to the fact that the leaders of the church in the 1st and 2nd century are referred
to as the Apostolic Fathers, that the time period is known by historians as the “patristic”
age, literally, the age of the fathers, and it’s clear that we have a disconnect: either
the foundation of the Church is built upon heretics, backsliders, and people against
the teachings of Christ… or Jesus might have meant something else in this teaching.
I’m going to go with the latter.
As is the case with any work of biblical interpretation, it’s important to read the passage in full,
within its context.
Matthew 23 says:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the
Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.
For they preach but they do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift
a finger to move them.
All their works are performed to be seen.
They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces,
and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’
You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.
The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings.
You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.
The passage goes on another 13 verses condemning the Scribes and Pharisees, but you get the
point: while Jesus does give prescriptions regarding appropriate titles, the overall
purpose of the passage is a rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Rather than being about titles, Jesus’ words about titles are meant to underline the importance
of humility.
Do not be like the Pharisees who use such titles as Rabbi, Master, or Father to lord
it over people, to gain places of honor but live as hypocrites.
It’s not so much the title in itself, but the witness of those who used those titles
in Jesus’ time.
It’s also important to place this passage within the overall context of the Gospel.
At this point, Jesus has not given the disciples the authority to teach; all they are commissioned
to do is proclaim the kingdom, cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and drive
out demons.
It is not until Matthew 28 that they are given the authority to teach.
Taken as a whole, one might come to the conclusion that Jesus did, in fact, mean these words
at that moment, to those specific disciples, but that they were not eternal prescriptions
to all Christians.
They were not to be called teachers at that time, but later, it was okay.
Rather than taking Jesus’ words literally and uncritically, Catholics—and most Christians,
for that matter—seek to understand what Jesus meant by placing his words in context.
We simply have a different interpretation of the text.
But let’s be honest: the problem is not a matter of interpretation.
It's a matter of selective reading.
If Jesus was very clear in this passage not to call anyone father, why do the same Christians
who criticize Catholics refer to others as teachers or doctors?
Jesus clearly says to call no one rabbi, and rabbi means teacher or doctor.
Why are some ministers called “mister” when mister is just a variation on the word
Master, a banned word of Jesus?
The fact of the matter is that no Christian had a problem with any of these terms until
the mid 19th century when uncritical, anti-intellectual, literalists interpretations of scripture began
to emerge.
Until that time, even some Protestant congregations—including Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists,
German Reformed, Methodists, and Universalists—referred missionaries, ministers, and founders of their
congregations as “father.”
How can this be, you ask?
Well, because both Scripture and Tradition tell us that the term father is an endearing
one.
It evokes the imagery of a caring person, someone who will look after you, guide you,
and protect you as you work out your salvation.
Jesus was not concerned with the title itself, but the attitude that often went along with
religious leaders, and for more than 1800 years, the Christian world understood this.
Is there a problem with calling a minister Father?
Only if the title is used to lord authority over others.
For those who are self-sacrificing, humble, and Christ-centered—it is a wonderful biblical
image that I can only hope to live up to.