|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
SHOULD WE CALL PRIESTS "FATHER"?
Q: Often non-Catholics ask me, Why do Catholics call their priests "father"? They call our attention to Matthew 23:9, "You must call no one on earth your father." How should I answer?
A: A Catholic might respond, "How do you refer to your mother's husband? What do you call him?" If a Catholic is wrong in calling his priest "father," then everyone who refers to his own natural father as "father" is also in the wrong. Both usages would be prohibited by a literal interpretation of Jesus' words.
Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law of the Old Covenant (Matt. 5:17). If in Matthew 23:9 he literally forbids us even to acknowledge our natural fathers as our fathers, how can we keep the fourth commandment ("honor your father and your mother")? Taken literally, Jesus' words in Matthew 23:9 contradict his claim in Matthew 5:17, but we know that the Son of God never contradicts himself.
Look again at the passage in which Jesus says we must call no one "father." In contrast to the attitudes of the Pharisees and others, Jesus is specifying the qualities Christian leaders must exhibit (Matt. 23:1-12). The Pharisees aspired to being called "rabbi" (or "master" or "teacher"), leaders of schools of thought. Among the schools headed by teachers called "rabbi" there were divergences of belief, some of them in actual contradiction. A similar situation prevailed with regard to the term "father" (in Aramaic, abba, a title of honor). The title was given to well-known Jewish religious authorities of the past. As with "rabbi," so with "father." The term designated the progenitor of a particular, even contradictory, interpretation of the Jewish faith.
Why did Jesus declare that no Christian leader is to be called "rabbi" or "father"? He was telling us that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the Catholic faith and seek followers for his opinions. The role of leaders in Christ's Church is faithfully to hand on Christ's teaching received through the apostles (Matt. 28:19). The words of the apostle Paul epitomize the essential attitude of the Christian teacher: "This is what I received from the Lord and in turn passed on to you" (1 Cor. 11:23). Paul condemns in the church at Corinth "these slogans you have, like 'I am for Paul,' 'I am for Apollos,' 'I am for Cephas' (1 Cor. 1:12).
The history of Protestantism is essentially the story of this very process-the unending proliferation of sectarian groups, saying "I am for Martin Luther" or "I am for John Calvin" or "I am for John Wesley." The World Christian Encyclopedia (David B. Barrett, ed.; Oxford, 1982) reported that in 1980 there were 20,780 distinguishable Christian denominations in the world. Moreover, at the time the encyclopedia was published, an average of 270 new denominations were springing up each year-more than five every week. If that rate has continued, then there are over 25,000 denominations today. Every single one of these competing, contradicting denominations was formed by some person who said, in effect, "Call me 'Master,' call me 'Teacher'; I will tell you what the Christian truth is!"
Jesus foresaw this problem and provided the means for avoiding it. In the passage under discussion, he tells us, "you have only one teacher, the Christ." And how are we to be taught by our one Teacher? By the means he provided. He founded the Church on the apostles and their successors, with a special role for Peter, the Rock, the earthly head of the Church. A Catholic knows that when the Church Christ founded speaks solemnly, Christ himself is speaking through her to each member.
Every follower of Christ wants to know the truth, for "the truth [and only the truth] will make you free" (John 8:22). For acquiring that truth in its fullness, the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ offers the only alternative to the chaos of ever-expanding denominationalism.
Incidentally, both Old and New Testaments associate priesthood with fatherhood (cf. Judges 17:10, 18:19, and 1 Cor. 4:15), but in this case, Jesus' command is not violated. Being a simple priest is in no way turning yourself into a guru and founding your own school of thought.
Ray Ryland
Q: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "knowledge of revealed truth" is "deepened" by "theological research" and by "the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience" (CCC 94). I thought that the magisterium was the authentic interpreter of Scripture and that private interpretation was taboo
A: There is no conflict between the work of exegetes, scholars, and believers in exploring the meaning of Scripture, on the one hand, and the work of the magisterium in authentically defining the meaning of Scripture, on the other hand. Exegetes and believers must not pit their private judgment against the mind of the Church or treat their methods as the ultimate arbiters of what Scripture can or cannot mean (this is what is meant by "private interpretation"). But that doesn't mean that ordinary Catholics and Scripture scholars cannot use their intellects to probe the meaning of Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is so rich that even when a given passage has been connected authoritatively with a certain doctrine, that does not remove that passage from the sphere of scientific or devotional inquiry. We can interpret and explore Scripture, just not in a way that contradicts what has been defined concerning it.
There is an interrelationship between the work of exegetes and believers and the work of the magisterium. It is the magisterium's task to be the ultimate arbiter of whether or not a given theological idea belongs to the Catholic faith. But where does the theological idea come from in the first place? Who thinks of it, formulates it, develops it, expresses it? Bishops, yes, but also priests, saints, scholars, even ordinary believers. All of us, bringing our spiritual and critical faculties to the sources of faith (Scripture and Tradition) in a spirit of humility and docility to the teaching authority of the Church, may explore the meaning of divine revelation for ourselves.
Any interpretation we arrive at must not contradict what has already been defined as Catholic truth. That is why God gave the Church the power of defining things-to keep us from going wrong. We must be willing to submit our interpretations to the final judgment of the magisterium. But it would be a mistake to think that we are limited to parroting what the magisterium already has defined. That would be a recipe for crippling the ongoing development of doctrine that continually enriches our faith and unfolds the glories of that which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: I am a Muslim woman considering becoming a Christian. Can you tell me what is the Catholic view about women? In Islam "they" say that women are shown high regard, but in Islam men have the power regarding almost everything and women don't. Women are bound by too many rules and regulations that don't make sense to me, while men are off the hook. I know that Catholics show Mary very high regard and even call her the Mother of God. Can you tell me more about the Catholic view about women?
A: The Catholic view is that men and women are equal in the sight of God. In marriage, each is to sacrifice himself or herself for the other. They are to build a family together through cooperation with each other and mutual respect.
There are differences in the roles they naturally play. Women are the more natural care-givers for the children, and men more naturally work outside the home. Yet women can and do work outside the home and men do act as care-givers for the children (changing diapers, feeding babies their bottles, burping them, walking with them when they are crying at night-men do all these things, just as women do). Their roles tend to be focused in one area (care-giving for women and working outside the home for men), but one can fill in for the other whenever needed.
Where there is an absolute difference in the roles the two sexes can play is in the giving of life. By natural law, only women can give physical life by serving as mothers. By supernatural law, only men can give spiritual life to the faithful by serving as priests. Women have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through birth, and men have the privilege of being intimately associated in the giving of life through the priesthood.
Mary displayed the fullest extent of the maternal calling by becoming the Mother of Christ, who is God, while Christ displayed the fullest extent of the priestly calling by becoming our High Priest before his Father.
James Akin
Q: Once people are baptized Catholic, are they Catholic forever? What if they marry outside of the Church or join another religion? If they aren't Catholic anymore, how can they become Catholic again?
A: Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become "unbaptized," although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin. But as to whether someone baptized Catholic is thereafter always Catholic, that's a slightly different question.
In most cases, the answer will be that someone baptized Catholic remains Catholic (see CIC 111, 205). But, by implication of canon 205-which requires, to be considered in full communion with the Church, a basic profession of the faith, some level of sacramental participation, and some degree of submission to ecclesiastical governance-one can imagine circumstances under which someone who was baptized Catholic might reject any or all of these elements to the point at which he could not be considered fully Catholic anymore, nothwithstanding the fact that he remained baptized.
In support of this interpretation, keep in mind that the Code of Canon Law contains a norm that, although dealing with technical requirements related to marriage, has implications for your question. Canon 1117 requires that canonical form for marriage be observed by anyone baptized Catholic unless that person has "left the Church by a formal act of defection." The 1983 Code does not define "formal act of defection," but clearly the concept of leaving the Church, as opposed to simply lapsing in one's faith or breaking the laws of the Church, exists in canon law and has repercussions in Church life.
While what is really needed here is an "authentic interpretation" by Roman authorities as to what constitutes a formal act of defection, a few things seem clear: (1) merely marrying outside the Church does not by itself count as a formal act of defection, and such a person would still be considered Catholic under canon law (albeit perhaps a "bad" Catholic and certainly one in an invalid marriage); (2) mere attendance at the services of another denomination, even if over a long period of time, does not constitute a formal act of defection from the Church; and (3) the failure to practice one's Catholic faith, even over a long period of time, does not constitute a formal act of defection.
That said, it is generally accepted that formal registration in another denomination, especially when coupled with support or work for that denomination and extended participation in its religious services, does constitute a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church. For that matter, a public declaration of defection from the Church, under otherwise credible circumstances, might well constitute a formal act of defection, since registration in another denomination is not strictly required for defection to take place. In any case, though, since Catholic baptism establishes a canonical presumption of Catholic affiliation, canonical proof of defection from the Church must be produced to overcome that presumption.
Finally, as to how one can come back into the Church, canon law does not specify a procedure to be used. The "abjuration of errors" formerly required by canon law under certain situations similar to the one you describe (1917 CIC 2314) has not been carried over in the 1983 Code. Therefore, I think that sacramental confession is generally the best route to follow. If there had been some public act (say, a letter to one's bishop) by which one's formal defection was accomplished, I think it prudent to repudiate such an act in the same or a similar public manner so as to remove any lingering doubts about one's ecclesiastical status.
All of this deals with one's juridic (legal) status as a Catholic. It does not deal with other forms of union one may have with the Catholic Church, such as the moral obligations one has toward the Church, even when one is in rebellion against it. The Code itself acknowledges the existence of certain continuing legal obligations to the Church, even after a formal defection. Canon 11 states that ecclesiastical laws bind those baptized or received into the Catholic Church, but the Code nowhere makes express provision for the corresponding legal obligations to be obviated when a person defects from the Church (except in a few cases, such as observing the Catholic form of marriage). Thus, for example, a priest who formally has defected from the Church is still bound by his vow of celibacy.
Edward N. Peters
Q: As an Evangelical, I believe in measuring things against the Bible. Where is the scriptural justification that says I should honor Mary or treat her different from any other woman?
A: Look at Luke 1:48, where Mary speaks by the Holy Spirit and says, "From now on all generations will call me blessed." Have you called her "blessed" lately?
Mark P. Shea
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
