Sunday, June 19, 2011

I Looked into My Father's Eyes

For those of you who have been following, we'll return to the "You Never Even Call Me by My Name" series tomorrow.  This being Father's Day, I thought I'd seize the moment and tackle a different topic today.

A couple weeks ago, a good friend and seminary classmate of mine named Andre was ordained a priest.  I often tell stories to my wife about our seminary adventures, and when I mention Andre, my older son, who’s 3—going on 26—takes great pleasure in correcting me by saying, “Dad, you mean FATHER Andre?”  ...“from the mouths of babes,” I guess.

One problem protestant (non-Catholic Christians, getting their name from the concept that they are Christians who “protest” the beliefs of the Catholic Church) faiths have with Catholics is that we call our priests “Father.”  They like to point to the passage in the Gospel of Matthew that says, “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one father in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).  They (protestants) like to say we (Catholics) are wrong because Jesus clearly tells us to call no one on earth “father.”  But we like to point out that this is another shining example of why you should never take a single verse of the Bible out of context.

To show how things need to be taken IN context, let’s look first at the Book of Exodus Chapter 21, verses 23-25:

“But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Someone reading ONLY this line would think that the Bible is saying that it’s ok to take vengeance upon someone who has done wrong to you.  This is, as common sense would tell us, not exactly the case.  This verse was part of a set of rules God had given to Moses to lay out for the Hebrews who had just been freed from slavery under Pharaoh in Egypt (watch “The Ten Commandments” for the classic film version of the Exodus story).  This “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” rule was given to a society whose mentality was more along the lines of “you stepped on my foot, so now I’ll drag your loved ones from their beds while they sleep and set fire to their homes.”  Now, when Jesus came along with HIS teachings, he told us, “To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well…” (Luke 6:29a).  Now, even here, when taken out of context, it could seem that Jesus is telling us that not only should we NOT defend ourselves, but we should willingly subject ourselves to abuse.  Of course, since we have an innate duty to preserve and protect life, this sentiment is also against Christian Theology.  Rather, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good” (CCC 2288).  See, when you know the WHOLE story, the Bible can reveal much greater and deeper truths than first may seem from reading a line at a time.

Meanwhile, back at the Hall of Justice—I mean back at the “father” issue… (Sorry…bad “Super Friends” reference…)

In the “call no one on earth your father” verse, Jesus is scolding the Jewish leaders of his time for the sense of entitlement they felt as leaders of the church (probably the way some of our politicians feel—just watch the national news if you need an example of people who think they can get away with anything these days).  He was illustrating that no matter your rank, position, or vocation in life, no one is to hold himself in higher regard than others simply because of the position they hold.  He was calling out those leaders who presented a “holier than thou” persona.  Jesus was not literally saying to call no one “father.”  If he WAS, he would’ve broken his own rule SEVERAL times throughout the Gospels. Mark 11:9-10, Matthew 23:29-31 (same chapter as the “no fathers” verse), and Luke 6:23 are a few examples of where he uses the term “father.”  Plus, St. Paul used the term plenty of times in his letters.  In the interest of time and length of this post, though, let’s make looking up those verses your homework for today.

So why use the term “Father” for a priest, if they don’t get married, and therefore don’t have children to define them as “fathers”?  It is because we refer to priests as our “Spiritual Fathers” in the Church and give them the title “Father” to signify that concept.  We (Catholics) didn’t make up this concept, though.  It actually comes to us from (surprise, surprise) the Bible!  In St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 4, Verse 17, he speaks of Timothy as his “spiritual son”: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ.”  He also referred to Timothy in this way in his 2 letters to Timothy (see 1 Timothy 1:2 & 2 Timothy 1:2 for those examples).  More pointedly, St. Paul gives the most direct expression of spiritual fatherhood in his First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 4, Verses 14-15 where he says, ” 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.  Hard to argue with St. Paul.

So if you saw a priest today, I hope you told him “Happy Father’s Day!”  If not, that’s ok.  Just remember the next time you DO call your parish priest “Father,” don’t let that just be a respectful title you pin to the front of his name.  Allow yourself to learn from him the things of God, as children learn from their fathers in the home.

3 comments:

  1. Thanks Nick! And Happy Fathers Day!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was challenged a bit about this post by a Protestant friend of mine through Facebook, and it was recommended by some of my blog followers that his challenge and my response merited being re-posted here.  So here goes…with a bit of editing
    to make it more relevant (and to fix some of my typographical errors, since I typed this out on my Android).
     
    The challenge of this post was that when Jesus said something, he meant it, and that the words of Jesus need to be taken for what they are with no interpretation needed.
     
    My argument was that there is an obvious interpretation of the Bible that HAS to take place if we're going to try to apply it to the present society.  Jesus never talked about abortion, pornography, or many other issues we face today that
    weren't ...issues at that time.  How are we as Christians supposed to develop a system of ethics (whether personally, or for the greater society) if we don't study and pray about the Scriptures to figure out what they mean for us today?  Even further, I challenged
    that if we ARE to take the words of Jesus literally (like so many Protestant faiths argue), how can any Protestant faith POSSIBLY say that Catholics are wrong about the Eucharist?  I'd like for any Protestants who say that we have to accept the words of Jesus
    literally in all cases to go back and re-read John Chapter 6 (mainly verses 48-58).  This is something Catholics seem to stand alone on (except for the Episcopalians, and possibly one or two other Christian denominations).  I don't see how a denomination of
    Christianity can say they take the Bible literally and say that Catholics are wrong about the Eucharist after reading these verses.
     
    Another former seminarian commented that if Christians just take the word of Jesus straight from the Gospels and don't interpret it and that's all there is to it, what about the people who lived from the time of Jesus’s
    death until the New Testament was done being written? What were they supposed to follow?
     
    My Protestant friend responded that they probably received the teachings of Jesus passed down by word-of-mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So I (so far) then wrapped up the argument by saying that my Protestant friend was 100% correct. 
    The teachings of Jesus were handed down verbally, along with other traditions of Christianity. St. Paul addresses this directly in chapter 2, verse 15 of his 2nd letter to the Church in Thessalonica when he says, "Therefore brothers, stand firm and hold
    fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement, or by a letter from us."  This particular letter was (probably) written around 10-20 years after the Resurrection. The Gospel of Matthew, thought by scholars to be the earliest written, is
    placed as early as the year 50 A.D. by some schools of thought, and as late as the very end of the first century, and wouldn't have had a wide geographical spread until MUCH later (as there were no Xerox machines or Kinkos locations back then).  So Paul's
    letters to the Thessalonians most likely preceded the first written Gospel. We have to realize, then, that the argument HAS to be made by Christians of any denomination (or even non-denominational Christians) that some interpretation is fundamentally necessary.
    We have to be able to realize that the truth is the truth, and if we say that what is true for one person in matters of what is morally right and wrong is different from what is true for another, then we have a flawed system of determining universal morality,
    and absolutely NO hope for ever being able to agree on a fundamental system of ethical beliefs that shape not only our own actions, but also local, state, and national laws.  We also have to remember that we do not read the Bible.  We read man's best attempt
    at a TRANSLATION of the Bible (remembering that Jesus didn't speak English), and so we have to take into account not only the general message portrayed in the English translation, but also the original meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words used, and how the
    society they were being written to would've understood them. This is where the danger comes in for an individual with little to no knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages to sit down with a limited English translation of the Bible and try to establish
    a belief system that will shape ethical decisions (which is EXACTLY the faulty system many Protestant churches today use as a way of establishing their belief systems).  People like to insult the "hierarchy" of the Catholic Church and say that we shouldn't
    trust in what the Church "tells" us the Bible says, but we should read it for ourselves and figure it out for ourselves.  Well, I trust that God would not lead the Church He, Himself founded (Matthew 16:18) astray, and that the holy men of the various Vatican
    offices, who for centuries have dedicated themselves to praying about the scriptures, studying their history and original meanings of the words used, and discussing that compilation of prayer and research both amongst themselves and with scholars of other
    faiths can teach me far more than I can figure out in my short 28 years with my incredibly limited knowledge of ancient languages.
     
    I hope this clears up some confusion.

    ReplyDelete