Why are priests called "father?"

Recently my dad celebrated a “milestone” birthday – one when the person is over 70 and their age is divisible by five.  Many family members celebrated the occasion with him at my house. 

My dad arrived first at the party so he could help setup and was one of the last to leave so he could help clean.  We didn’t have to request “no gifts” because family and close friends just know the routine – any gifts should be a donation to charity rather than something given to him.  As per usual, my dad talked to his children and grandchildren – often asking questions to learn about their lives and to learn about life in general.  He dropped pearls of wisdom in the mix of conversation but was at ease shifting between being a learner and an educator.  Thus is the case with many good fathers. 

We do not call my dad “father” preferring more familiar terms such as “dad” or “pa” instead.  Yet we have a tremendous amount of respect for him.  I think if we addressed him as “father” he would assume we were joking.  However, throughout my dad’s birthday festivities, I found myself contemplating why this man who is a true father, and a very good one at that, isn’t called as such while conversely many priests who aren’t fathers insist on being called precisely that, “father.” 

I then started to compare my dad’s behavior with that of many priests, thinking perhaps the title was fitting due to vast similarities between the two.  However, it was instead a parade of opposites.   So I decided to make a table and share my comparative contemplations.  As a side note, since priests rarely have biological children, the priest column often refers to spiritual children, i.e., laypeople whereas the column for my dad refers to his actual children.

ATTRIBUTE	MY DAD	MOST PRIESTS
Has one or more biological children	√
Raised his children with the help of his wife	√
Collegially shared power with a female	√
Lived most of his life in community with multiple women	√
Has numerous healthy deep interpersonal loving relationships including with women	√
Taught his children to love via the example of his deep interpersonal loving relationships	√
Taught his children to love via his deep interpersonal loving relationships with them	√
Taught his children values via persistent unwavering alignment between his words and actions	√
Spent hours per day with his children in their formative years	√
Is available to his kids 24 x 7	√
Makes his children schedule appointments with him		√
Bi-directionally communicates with his children	√
Primarily uni-directionally speaks at his children		√
Encourages his children to ask questions and think critically	√
Demands unquestioned obedience from his children		√
Thinks his children are of inferior intellectual capacity		√
Treats even infants as intelligent beings who have tremendous capacity for wisdom	√
Readily learns from his children	√
Frequently seeks advice from his children	√
Takes direction from his adult children	√
Treats his adult children as adults	√
Dictates to his adult children		√
Assumes his children are incapable of helping with many chores until proven otherwise		√
Declares himself as the sole competent person to perform numerous tasks		√
Welcomes his children’s diversity	√
Supports expelling some children from the family		√
Asks his children for money		√
Prefers children give money to needy people rather than him	√
Prays	√	√
Highlights his human fallibility	√
Practices true reconciliation outside of the sacrament on a daily basis	√
Reconciles with others because he realizes he is no better person than them	√
Reconciles with others because he believes he is better than others		√
Asserts he is closer to God than his children		√
Feels his children interfere with him having time to devote to God		√
Feels his wife and children bring him closer to God	√
Cooks meals for his children	√
Does laundry for his children	√
Changed his children’s dirty diapers	√
Attended his children’s activities	√
Wears dresses		√
Has an expensive wardrobe to wear at church		√
Encourages his daughters in non-traditional roles	√
Treats his sons and daughters equally	√

In fairness I must highlight the one behavioral similarity between my father and most priests; they pray.  Also in fairness I must acknowledge there are some priests whose behavior aligns somewhat closer to my father’s but, not so much so that I would ever confuse a priest as my father.  And I realize that not all fathers behave like mine.   But it has been my experience that my father more closely emulates Jesus’ behavior than any priest I have ever known.  Therefore I find myself wondering if it bothers real fathers that priests co-opt the term “father” while not conducting themselves as such.

I realize many Protestants based upon MT 23:9 (“Call no on earth your father”) criticize Catholics for calling priests “father.”  But, I find myself questioning the practice given the tremendous divergence in behaviors.  At best the lack of cognitive similarities makes the practice very illogical but with differences far outnumbering similarities, it seems to confuse and degrade fatherhood to call priests “father.” 

As is often the case when I contemplate such things, my mind heads down tangential avenues paved with more questions.   Priests say they best represent Jesus – whom they say wasn’t a father.  Why do they want to be called “father” since Jesus is never portrayed as one?  God is portrayed as “father” in the Holy Trinity.  By desiring to be called “father”, are priests subliminally proposing to be God?   

William Saunders published an article in 1995 explaining the practice of calling priests like him “father.”  In defending the practice Saunders states:

First, we must remember the context of the passage. Jesus is addressing the hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees—the learned religious leaders of Judaism. Our Lord castigates them for not providing good example; for creating onerous spiritual burdens for others with their various rules and regulations; for being haughty in exercising their office and for promoting themselves by looking for places of honor, seeking marks of respect and wearing ostentatious symbols. Basically, the scribes and Pharisees had forgotten that they were called to serve the Lord and those entrusted to their care with humility and generous spirit.

With priests detached from God’s people, operating as if superior to God’s people, taking seats upon the altar while wearing a blinding amount of “bling”, instructing people as though they are mindless children, living more comfortably than many of God’s people, seeking donations where the vast majority of funds are used to promote their environment rather than feed, clothe or house the poor, and admonishing God’s people for not following the vast array of rules they invented whilst they wantonly ignore some of God’s commandments in their own behavior, are we again at a point where in MT 23:9, “Jesus is addressing the hypocrisy of…the learned religious leaders…?”   

Saunders’ article continues to explain the evolutionary process by which calling priests “father” became a common practice amongst Catholics.  Originally bishops, the word meaning “those who oversee”, were often called “papa” (pope) until around the year 400 when that term was reserved for the bishop of Rome (i.e. THE pope).  In the 6^th century St. Benedict called monastic community leaders “abbot”, a derivative of “abba” (the Aramaic word for “father”).  In the Middle Ages, monks from religious orders who worked amongst the people caring for physical and spiritual needs were often addressed by the people as “father.”  Eventually that morphed into people calling all priests, “father.”  However, the official title of a priest is “Reverend.”

It seems originally when the bishops actually intimately cared for people on a practical level and when the mendicant friars lived amongst the people caring for them, those who were addressed as “father” more closely resembled the behavior of my dad.  It is curious that the title morphed to include more and more men whose behavior less and less resembled that of my father. 

I think there is danger in associating behavior that is almost mutually exclusive from something with the title of that thing, such as associating the title “father” with priests whose lives have almost no parallel behaviors with good fathers.  I think it confuses people, especially those raised by men with sub-optimal fathering skills.  It validates biological fathers who treat their children as subordinates, who are domineering, who are hypocrites, who abuse their children, who abuse power, who operate by one set of rules while imposing more demanding rules upon their children, who indulge their tastes while watching their children lack for basic necessities, etc...

The clergy bemoan the decay of the family structure as well as its societal impact.  They point to many potential culprits but what role does their abysmal example of “fathering” while calling themselves "father" play?  Why do people permit the image of fatherhood to be co-opted by men who would make abysmal fathers?  Do the people of God play a role in the distortion of fatherhood, by mindlessly using the term “father” for priests?

God has blessed me with an excellent father whose spirituality, charity, humility and love surpass those of any priest I’ve ever met.  My father has blessed me with the fruits of his character.  In this I not only see but experience the Holy Trinity.  I prefer my father not share the same title as that of priests.  Perhaps it’s time to address priests by their baptismal names rather than indulge them in what Saunders calls “seeking marks of respect.”  Or, if they have earned respect, why not address them by their actual title, “Reverend?”   

"Doubting Thomas" - a person of faith or a person of beliefs?

This weekend we will read about Thomas.  Likely someone will refer to him as “doubting Thomas” though he was brave enough to be out and about after Jesus’ crucifixion while many of the disciples were fearfully cowering in a locked room.  Because he was brave enough to be out and about, likely continuing work in imitation of Jesus, he missed when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the “chicken” disciples locked in the room. 

Now, none of these female and male disciples believed Jesus had risen until they saw Jesus.  Yet somehow over the course of history, Thomas’ character has been maligned as though his faith is of inferior ilk because he too didn’t believe until he saw the resurrected Jesus.  One might argue that since Thomas was brave enough to continue Jesus’ work, his faith surpassed that of the chicken disciples.  He operated in faith without the certitude of belief, and the opportunity for certitude presented itself a week later for him than for those paralyzed in fear.

Faith is acting based upon trust.  Belief is certitude that something is so.  We act in faith without knowing based upon what we accept in certitude as beliefs.  So, in some ways faith is the opposite of belief while at the same time stands upon the shoulders of belief.

What did the disciples believe?  What was their certitude? 

Scripture writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31).”

Ah, they believed Jesus was the “Messiah” and “Son of God” and such belief would give them life. 

Once upon a time, Christians had no creed.  They just came to simple acceptance that Jesus was Son of God and Messiah and somehow following his example would render life.  The various Christian communities approached this in slightly different ways but were united in their simple foundational beliefs.  They acted in faith upon those simple beliefs and their actions galvanized a caring community.  One might say they were long on faith-based actions and short on certitude coming from beliefs.

But, as time marched forward and human nature’s impact took its toll, things changed.  Within a few hundred years of Jesus’ death people had vehement arguments as they tried to complete the sketch of Jesus, filling in details not recorded.  People sought certitude where there was none and so they ascribed certitude to their suppositions.  Yet scripture tells us that Jesus did many things not recorded.  Scripture seems to tell us at the end of the last written gospel, that the details about Jesus aren’t as important as just remembering a few key things: Jesus is the Messiah and is Son of God.

But since humans are curious to know intimate details about celebrities, the interpolations and interpretations continued.  Also, the cerebral exercise of “believing” in certitude is a lot less work and involves a lot less risk than the physical effort of “acting” in faith.  It seems too that many humans fixate upon being right more so than on doing right. 

History tells us laypeople argued in the marketplace and on the streets about these unknown and unknowable details associated with Jesus.  Uncomfortable with the public debate and in an effort to force unity, the emperor Constantine, not Pope Sylvester, called the Council of Nicea. 

The debate tearing apart Constantine’s kingdom was one around the question, “What does it mean to be the Son of God?”  One camp insisted one relationship between God and Jesus and the other camp insisted upon another.  Church leaders leading the different camps sanctioned violence against those holding different views.   As emperor, Constantine could not defend his kingdom with intra-country division.  So, he called all the bishops together in hopes that they would end the internal argument.

The Council of Nicea produced the Nicene Creed, which expanded upon what one must believe to be called a Christian.  It primarily was trying to give a definitive answer about the somewhat unknown and unknowable relationship between Jesus and God.  But the debate did not subside with the imposition of the Creed.  The creed just divided people.  Some of that division went underground while some of it remained public.  The creed said nothing of love.  It said nothing about actions.  It said nothing about faith. 

We fast forward to today and see the continued shift from people who acted caring for each other due to a trusting faith based upon limited certitude of beliefs to being people who build an elaborate, complex and intricate set of certitudes (beliefs) and whose actions focus mainly on imposing or propagating their certitudes upon others. 

According to scripture, God is the full embodiment of love and truth.  One might assume from Jesus' actions, words and role as son of God that he's big on love and truth too.

However, somehow “love” has transformed from being patient, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, not seeking its own interests, not quick-tempered, not brooding over injury, not rejoicing over wrongdoing but rejoicing with the truth, bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things (1 Cor 13:4-7).

Though scripture admits it does not provide a complete record, certitude is ascribed to interpolations of things not said.  Scripture says nothing of Jesus mandating clergy gender for all perpetuity.  But “love” has been perverted to ascribing certitude to Jesus’ intentions and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people unless they affirm certitude drawn from conjecture. 

Oddly enough certitude is ascribed to things contrary to what is recorded in scripture too.  For example, scripture indicates Peter was married yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ desire for celibate clergy and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people too.

Scripture says nothing about birth control yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ opinions on the topic and using that certitude to marginalize people, deny health benefits and sue civil governments that insist upon providing healthcare coverage.

Scripture indicates Jesus likely healed a homosexual centurion’s male sexual servant/lover.  (As background, Matthew 8 and Luke 7 contain the story in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal his pais who is his entimos doulos.  The Greek word pais can mean son, servant or a special servant who is a male lover.  Entimos doulos means “honored slave.”  Given the context, it is unlikely that the centurion speaks of his son and the added qualifier of entimos doulos seems to say this was no ordinary servant.  This leans towards the likeliest meaning is that the centurion told Jesus he was not worthy to have him come under his roof to heal his male sexual servant, but if he only said the word, his honored servant would be healed.)  Yet “love” has been perverted to certitude about dehumanizing marginalization of homosexuals instead of following Jesus’ example of extending tender inclusive care.

Scripture indicates Jesus used compassionate, merciful common sense but somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that Jesus wants mothers to die unless the child she carries who is killing her can also be saved.  Somehow love has been perverted into certitude that Jesus would prefer two dead people than just one dead person.

Scripture doesn’t indicate Jesus excluded people from communion based upon their morality or political voting patterns.  Indeed “at that first Eucharist before he died”, Jesus gave communion to Judas, knowing that Judas had already betrayed him and had not confessed to it.  But, somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that communion should be withheld from people who don’t share certitude of beliefs 100% in line with those of the hierarchy.

Many in the church scratch their heads that the masses flee organized religion.  Yet, many who have fled organized religion do so because they passionately desire to imitate Jesus’ caring actions acting in faith rather than certitude.  The certitude they carry is that they must care for the world and all its creation without judging it. 

Are you a person of deep faith trusting and acting to unite, include and care though you do not know or are you a person filled with certitude of beliefs that justify your inaction, rejection or divisiveness?   Do you believe scripture when it says it doesn't contain Jesus' complete history or do you require so much certitude that you ascribe certitude to your interpretation that scripture is the complete revelation of God?  Do you require more certitude than scripture offers so you insert certitude into interpolations, traditions and dogmatic utterances?  Are you like Thomas able to act in faith despite uncertainty or are you like the majority of disciples, locking yourself in somewhere, cowering in fear waiting for certitude?  Do you malign those who act in faith while you enshroud yourself in what certitude you have and hide in fear?  Are you a person of faith or a person of beliefs?

A smaller, purer church...

I unintentionally went on an Easter “bender” this weekend.  Saturday night I hit the moderately attended Easter vigil at the local cathedral and then went to a moderately attended Easter morning Mass with one of my daughters.  Since that Mass included only two Easter hymns and one of them was played at a tempo my daughter thought might inspire Jesus to re-mount himself on the cross, she insisted we hit yet another Easter Mass in hopes of singing some standard favorite Easter hymns.  That Mass wasn’t full either with most every pew having room for a few more people. 

I seem to recall Easter Masses that were standing-room-only even as recent as a few years ago.  “Where have all the people gone, long time passing?”

The attendance shift did not go unnoticed.  One of the priests remarked about the decline in Mass attendance over even the last 5 – 10 years.  However, he said that we don’t know why people stay away.  And, once again, I found myself uttering something aloud in church when I said, “Yes we do.”  But, this time I was not alone because my daughter said the same thing simultaneously, and then began to enumerate causes: sexual abuses, bishops' lack of accountability, power abuses, money mismanagement, misplaced priorities, new Mass translation, marginalization of women and homosexuals, ignoring the poor and immigrants, political agendas of bishops, excommunications, leaders who seem to act opposite the gospels, etc…

I found the whole thing a bit ironic.  On Christmas day, 1969 Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) gave a radio address that predicted a smaller and more pure church.  That has been the mantra of neo-orthodox Catholics for decades with them speaking gleefully about how wonderful having a smaller, purer church would be, and working hard to achieve it. 

Well, it seems that with Easter unable to draw a full-house many places, the much vaunted "smaller church" has arrived!  The ortho-cratic temple police succeeded driving people away, to the point many won’t stomach even one sentimental holiday liturgy with them.  One would expect celebration for achieving a target rather than hearing “Wha’ happened?”    

Note to Ortho-crats: If you have a long-standing stated objective and undertake sustained concerted efforts to achieve that objective, don’t feign dismay and confusion that you achieved your target.

Some area churches were giving away copies of a book written by a prominent but theologically unqualified self-promoting Catholic author.  Having heard the guy speak, and read part of one of his books, I know he plays fast and loose with facts, inventing them if necessary to support his points.  He counts on people not checking his facts and with millions of sold books, he seems to have assumed correctly.  My theory is that since the guy also runs a secular motivational speaking business, his Jesus-business is a front to increase demand for his secular business – but using a non-profit organization and all its tax shelters to do his marketing.

He also plays fast and loose with Catholic theology but the hierarchy loves him anyway because he rabidly implores people to follow hierarchical leaders blindly.  Jesus says the only unpardonable sin is denial of the Spirit but the Catholic hierarchy these days seems very comfortable denying the Spirit in others and deems questioning them or holding them accountable as unpardonable sins instead. 

I’m not going to promote the guy by mentioning his name.  But, I will say that his charitable foundation with an abysmal score of 23.84 out of 70, and zero out of a possible four stars has the lowest ratings I’ve ever seen given by Charity Navigator, an organization that tracks legitimacy and fiduciary responsibility of charities. 

As I mentioned, many of the neo-orthodox love the guy and so does the hierarchy even though the guy spouts numerous theologically incorrect concepts…but then so do the neo-orthos and the hierarchy.

Anyway, I looked at one of his websites and found this sales pitch for his books:

You decide… Forget the spiritual benefits for a moment and focus just on the financial benefits. If one person comes back to the Church because you give them a book on the way out of Church this Easter or Christmas and that book re-engages them, here are the statistics: If that person is 40 years old and lives to be 80, and puts just $10 in the basket each week, that returning Catholic will contribute $520 over the next year… and $20,800 over the rest of his/her lifetime.

Ah, suddenly it becomes clear… a “smaller, purer” church is “good” but a “smaller, poorer” one isn’t.  Oh the difference a vowel can make.  Those retro, disco-ball vestments call for real coin, my friends.  And let us not forget the bill to pay for the new Mass translation materials.  Lobbying politicians also is an expensive hobby as are direct marketing campaigns to marginalize and dehumanize fellow humans.  But, all those pale in comparison to the expenses of court costs fighting to not pay restitution to abuse survivors and then eventually paying restitution to abuse survivors when every "loving" last effort to discredit them and avoid responsibility fails.  Let’s face it, dividing the flock costs money so they need to re-attract some of the people they drove away to help pay to drive them away again. 

One pastor questioned in his Easter bulletin column if the early Christians truly sold everything and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles, who then ensured that "There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:34 - 35)."  This same pastor (an apostle), as is the case with most pastors (apostles), allocates precisely 0% of the parish budget to care for the poor. He instead encouraged others to share with the poor.  "Where has all the money gone, long time passing?"  The money currently laid at apostles' feet primarily goes to fund the apostles' staff and property upkeep.  And we wonder, "where have all the people gone?"   

It is a smaller church but is it a “purer” one?  I dunno.  For whatever reason when I turned to shake hands with one woman near me at the sign of peace, she looked me squarely in the eye and then turned her back on me...without shaking my hand.  Was that indicative of a purer church?  Who would Jesus snub?

Interestingly enough, the gospel reading for the Easter Vigil tells of the three women learning of Jesus’ resurrection and running to tell the Apostles…who didn’t believe them...  Let’s think about this.  The male apostles did not believe the truth of the gospel good news the women apostles told them and this dehumanizing dismissal of the women's experience is just skimmed over usually.  

How did the male apostles' "epic fail" initially rejecting the gospel good news proclaimed to them by women turn into their supremacy in interpreting the gospels, their exclusive control on the ministry to proclaim it, and their exclusion of women from proclaiming it anymore? Perhaps the same way today's apostles doubt that their early Christian predecessors actually took money given them and used it for the poor instead of building edifices and staffs?

There seems to be a fair amount of re-writing history to preserve what the apostles hope is truth rather than seeking truth.  And this is accompanied by persecution of those who commit the unpardonable sin of questioning the invented history as they seek truth.  The ortho-crats prefer that those who commit the unpardonable sin of questioning invented histories leave the community.  This has happened with many believers leaving the community.  How sustainable is the current model?   

If the church will not die unto invented history, can it be resurrected in truth?  Do you and should you fund your own or others’ delusions?  Do you overflow in sharing with the poor or is it a token gesture to make you feel good?  Should we be concerned that the church is smaller or rejoice that many of the faithful left the institution rather than lose their faith?