Back in 1990, the indomitable George Menezes was demitting office as National President of the All India Catholic Union (AICU), and was looking for a successor. His choice fell on me, a 39-year-old unlettered, dishevelled northerner! George said that I was like a son to him. Though flattered, I could not reciprocate by calling George my Father. Reason? In 1990 my own father would have been 93 years of age, and the evergreen George was nowhere that ancient! My dad was 54 years of age when I was born (hope for middle aged men, with spreading middles!) Perhaps that is why my psychological conditioning makes it difficult for me to call anybody “Father”. Am I talking in riddles?
I have just read a report in a Christian journal that some Keralite priests (both Catholic and Orthodox) in Bhopal, M.P., were outraged at Protestant and Pentecostal pastors calling themselves “Father”. I did not know whether to be amused or angry at their outrage. Let us do a little biblical, theological and sociological research.
Why should Catholic, or any other priests for that matter, be called “Father”? Jesus was quite explicit in saying, “Call no man Father, for you have only one Father, who is in heaven” (Mat 23:9). Jesus never had a paternalistic attitude in his human relationships. He always had a fraternal (brotherly) approach, based on equality and human dignity. He even decried those who gave undue importance to his physical relationship with Mary his mother. He retorted by saying, “Who is my mother, she who hears the word of God, and keeps it” (cf Lk 8:19-21). Far from belittling his mother, he was raising the relationship from a merely physical one, to a higher spiritual one. If we reflect deeply on the words and actions of Jesus, we find that he was very judicious in relating to people, and he resolutely abjured all forms of cultic adulation.
Peter, who succeeded Jesus, was also terribly human. He had learnt the lessons the hard way from his master. That is why when a devotee wanted to fall at his feet he reprimanded the latter, telling him that he too was an ordinary mortal like him (cf Acts 10:26). Some clergymen, who justify the use of “Father”, quote Paul referring to Timothy as his son (a la George and me). What such proponents forget is that Timothy was a young man, and Paul was like a natural father to him. There is absolutely no scriptural/ biblical basis for priests to be called Father.
Vatican II also holds a similar view. The ideological basis of the council is found in the church’s self understanding, enshrined in the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”, often referred to by its Latin opening words “Lumen Gentium” (LG). The document repeatedly refers to the clergy as “pastors”, and not as “fathers”. Chapter 4, which dwells at length on clergy-laity relationships, makes repeated reference to equality and dignity. It unequivocally states “the laity has Christ for their brother…. They also have for their brothers those in the sacred ministry” (LG 32). The Constitution exhorts the layman to interact with the pastor “with that freedom and confidence which befits a son of god and a brother in Christ” (LG 37).
Let us also examine the issue from the psychological/ sociological dimension. Is it natural for a 54 year old like me to call a 25-year-old priest, “Father”, or a 90 year old nun “sister”. I actually address youngsters by their first name, those of my age as Rev…, and those senior in age as Father or Mother. In our Indian society we always address elders as Mataji or Pitaji, and people nearer our age as “bhai” or “behen”. It is natural and pleasant, and does not require any religious sanction. St. Thomas Aquinas, considered the greatest Catholic theologian of all time, has an interesting observation. “Sacramental symbols represent what they signify by natural resemblance.” Note the last two words – natural resemblance. We should have natural relationships, not contrived or artificial ones. So how we address our priests should be based on natural relationships, not honorifics.
Vatican II attempted to do away with honorifics like – Eminence, Lordship, etc, which harkened back to European feudalism. Unfortunately, this changed self understanding, from a Triumphant Church to a Pilgrim Church, has failed to find takers in a deeply entrenched, feudalistic, Brahminical, pyramidical, institutionalised and establishmentarian Catholic church in India. Some 30 years ago, when I was living with Swami Deenabandhu, a holy Capuchin priest, his Superior General, Rev Pascal Rywalski ofm cap, had visited India. He issued a circular to all the Capuchin priests, that true to the Franciscan tradition, none of them should style themselves as Father. They were to be known as Friars (brothers). In fact, St. Francis of Assisi, their founder, always remained a brother, and called his companions Friars Minor (little brothers – chhotebhais). The Indian Capuchin priests followed their Superior General’s orders in letter, but not in spirit. They started prefixing their names with a small fr for friar, knowing full well that nobody in India knew its significance. And in no time they reverted to the big F anyway!
Sociologically, it is very flattering to be addressed as “Father”. We Indians are terribly cultic, and we know the art of flattery. In north India, if you want to get your work done by a Brahmin Government official, just say “Panditji Pranam”, and touch his feet. Your work is sure to be done. It is a big ego boost to priests, when they are called “Father”. This susceptibility to flattery often clouds their judgment, and their interaction with the laity. We are doing a singular dis-service to Jesus our Brother, if we address his priests as “Father”.
Ironically, evangelical sects, that enjoy “Catholic bashing”, including the sacraments and the hierarchy, have succumbed to the same flattering temptation. They too have adopted clerical garb – wearing cassocks, stoles, and crosses around their necks. So it is but a natural progression if they also are flattered into being “Fathered”. Let us not use double standards. Nobody has a monopoly of the Holy Spirit, or of Christ’s mission. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Catholic clergy object to protestant pastors being called Father, I would first object to any priest (Catholics included) using this honorific.
For the past 31 years my normal dress is a simple kurta pyjama, with a large wooden rosary and crucifix worn on my neck. Catholics, when they see me for the first time, instantly address me as “Father”. It is very flattering. But I assiduously reply, “I am a father, a father of two children, but not your father, so please call me chhotebhai”! It is a question of attitude, and a matter of humility. Our clergy spend 12 years and several lakh rupees studying all this. They know it too well. But false pride takes precedence over truth. How wonderful it would be if our Catholic clergy, joyously and humbly told the laity not to “father” them!
By George, I’ve already fathered two wonderful kids, and though I am at the exciting age of 54, when my Dad fathered me, I don’t think I’ll be doing any more fathering – neither biological, sociological nor spiritual.
2005
Leave a Reply