Spiritual fatherhood

In my experience, those pastors who could be best described as spiritual fathers at churches I've attended were those who most consistently stood on the firm foundation of Scripture: they were authority figures because they relied on the authority of the Bible.

Perhaps this is of limited use to denominations that reject sola scriptura, but it has nevertheless been my experience.>

Leadership ROLE, not leadership wrong.>

Rod,
You have had the opprtunity to experience a pastor as an authority figure and a spiritual father and you choose not to even though you are only about 48 miles away. For ourselves, we have been grateful to have Fr. Paul Weinberger as a spiritual father for as long as we have had him even though it meant driving more than 2 hours to get there. Are there weak spiritual fathers in the family of the Church? Absolutely, just as there are weak fathers in secular families. Are there also spoiled brat children in the family of the Church who whine and complain and demand things their own way and remain in a state of spiritual infancy? Absolutely!>

But yes, you're right - good luck finding a genuine spiritual father in a run-of-the-mill Catholic parish these days. The times are evil. But don't despair, the seeds of recovery are there.>

Some priests have been better "fathers" than others. By and large, I have been blessed in my priests. And I live in the Boston area, and my parish was one visited on the Archbishop's recent pilgrimage, so I was just plain blessed by when I landed here. Earlier would have been too soon. Right now we have a pastor, parochial vicar, and senior priest, all of whom are wonderful "fathers". And you know, I have done nothing to deserve this. We chose this town because we went to high school here and there is a parish school. When we lived in a place where we could not find a spiritual "father", we ended up leaving, although that wasn't the only reason why. Rod, I pray for you that a new bishop (soon, right?) will bring a new spirit to your diocese.>

With the newer model of parish--the cluster parish--that is turning up in Catholic dioceses when there is a shortage of priests, finding a priest who has the time to be a spiritual father is going to be even more unlikely.

Personally I had never thought of looking for one until I got to know some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who frequently talk about theirs. But neither have I thought of the sacraments as a magic formula.>

As someone who eventually found his way from American evangelicalism to the Church and the sacraments as understood by the Lutheran Confessions, I had to deal with the issue of valid ministerial orders, apostolic succession, etc.

I don't suppose there is any chance that Roman Catholics or Orthodox would be swayed from their understanding of the matter by what Lutherans have to say about the topic. Persons who haven't yet committed themselves irrevocably but are, perhaps, interested in moving on from non-sacramental religion, might look up Hermann Sasse's essay "Apostolic Succession," which appeared in a book called We Confess the Church, published by Concordia Publishing House. It is quite an interesting historical treatment of the matter, which contends that apostolic succession is succession in the doctrine of the apostles, without the necessity of a succession of ministerial orders through the episcopacy, etc.

And for Episcopalians struggling with the excruciating things going on in ECUSA, the good news is that you do not have to stay in that church (or else go over to Rome or Constantinople), with Anglicanism's(in any event dubious - - cf. the Matthew Parker controversy) "apostolic succession," in order to be assured of authentic sacraments.>

I admit I have felt that way at times. Like I was going to a sacrament factory.

I wonder what came first, priests and pastors who act as "magician or ritual functionar(ies)" or parishioners who think and treat them as such. We very well could be in a shame spiral where we treat each other with mutual utilitarianism.

I do have hope in the future of the priestly vocations and that hope grows stronger each year. I live in a vibrant and diverse diocese with some awesome seminarians, priests and pastors. The not so awesome ones are getting older of course, but I have also heard some recent homiles from my parish monsignor that have been so powerful and orthodox and I have seen some changes in the catechetical program that are very positive.

I think a change in the way we view our priests could help in changing how they view themselves. Somewhere both parties lost that spiritual fatherhood view of the vocation of the priesthood. There are many many wonderful, holy priests and seminarians who are stuggling to live out their vocation faithfully. We must pray for them and lift them up with our attention and friendship. In a larger sense we must promote the priesthood in positive ways that give evidence to all aspects of the vocation, not just the distribution of the sacraments. That could mean how we explain the preisthood to our children, friends and family. It could mean being active in a vocation awareness or support apostolate. Here in Atlanta there is a Serra Club, I am not sure if that is a national apostolate, but they positively support the diocesean priests, sort of like a cheerleading team.>

In my experience, those pastors who could be best described as spiritual fathers at churches I've attended were those who most consistently stood on the firm foundation of Scripture: they were authority figures because they relied on the authority of the Bible.

I have never seen this; since Scripture is interpreted differently by thousands of individual pastors - even in the same denomination - this foundation is anything but firm without a magisterium.

Any spiritual father separated from a broaded authority and left with Scripture alone is no father - he is a renegade and cannot help but sow division, not family bonds. The Orthodox have the same difficulty.

If anyone has any doubts about this, just look at the shifted teachings of birth control and divorce from Orthodox and 'Scriptural' fathers of today.>

Anyone looking for a solid discussion of St. Irenaeus's great theology should check our Gustav Wingren's Man and the Incarnation.>

If economia isn't de facto approval, I sure would like to know what it *is.*

If the effect is: "Full steam ahead"...then I would say that represents something mighty much akin to approval.

In the Western tradition, we call this casuistry. And it's generally been considered a Bad Thing. (Pascal was rather severe on it, as you may recall.)

Not to mention the fact that Our Lord never says, "Oh about that 'let no man put asunder' stuff...well, y'see, that doesn't apply under economia.">

maria writes:
If economia isn't de facto approval, I sure would like to know what it *is.*

An acknowledgement that we live in a fallen world and that, for an individual's spiritual health, it might be necessary to choose the lesser of two evils.

I have a protestant friend who wants to convert to Catholicism. He cannot do so because he cannot get an annulment to his first (non-Catholic) marriage. Hence his second (current) marriage is invalid in the Church's eyes and he would never be able to take communion. He could use some economia.>

Congratulations to you, then, Mr. White. Fr. Albert is great in the confessional and you're totally right about the educated/down-to-earth thing. He's also the only priest I've ever heard give a whole (long) homily on the evils of contraception. (Sadly, this is the only diocese I've lived in where I even hear regular references to it.)>

I have a protestant friend who wants to convert to Catholicism. He cannot do so because he cannot get an annulment to his first (non-Catholic) marriage. Hence his second (current) marriage is invalid in the Church's eyes and he would never be able to take communion. He could use some economia.

No. He could use the Cross.

Sorry to seem flippant, but that's what it boils down to. Our Lord's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is indeed a "hard teaching"--it even shocked His disciples--but the answer is not to turn it on its ear. The answer is to beg for Grace to embrace the Cross.

We all have to face the Cross at some point in our lives. Accommodating to the world, fleeing from the Cross, taking the easy way out---this finally gets us nowhere, except into deep spiritual trouble.

I do not minimize your friend's pain, believe me. I have faced my share of pain, too. Pain stinks.

But nobody ever said the Christian life would be a bed of roses. In fact, the Author of that life seemed to indicate just the opposite.>

Bruce, imagine if all the teachings of Jesus in just that chapter of the Gospels were taken with the same weight. "Have you sold everything you own yet?" "No." "Then you can't be in our church."

Fortunately, Jesus doesn't demand our perfection and allows our mistakes.

I wonder too if a spiritual father has to be an ordained Father. My biological father has taught me, and continues to teach me, more about spirituality, Scripture, and the Christian life than any pastor I have had. He is my father, even if he doesn't preach sermons on a Sunday morning.

Where does it say our spiritual mentors have to be the same men who manage the Eucharist?>

On this issue of spiritual fatherhood, I wonder if we aren't expecting a bit too much of ordinary pastors. Maybe it's possible to act as a true spiritual father when one has a tiny parish, but when in the history of the Church (East or West) has that been the norm?

Though I am by no means an expert in Orthodoxy, I can say I have a very high regard for the Orthodox, as well as for the Oriental Orthodox. But this thread is actually the first time I have ever heard of Eastern Christians describing anyone as a "spiritual father" other than a monk.

For centuries, the married parish priests in the Orthodox Church (much like Roman Catholic priests before the Council of Trent) generally did not even have basic theological education. Their role was limited, quite literally, to celebrating the Divine Liturgy and administering the sacraments. Anyone seeking spiritual direction would go to a (celibate) monk. And of course, the married clergy could never become bishops.

Has Orthodox practice developed in the US or elsewhere such that the faithful now turn regularly to the parish clergy as "spiritual fathers"? If so, why/how did this develop, and how does it work? Can a parish priest really serve as a fatherly guide to hundreds of individuals in his parish, all the while having a wife and family?

Please do not mistake the tone of my questions as some kind of interrogation: I'd really like to learn the answers.>

Re: spiritual fatherhood

When a seed is planted, there is hope for the sprout, and the planter has an idea of what kind of seed it is, what it will take to help it to grow. The soil and rain and processes of nature nurture the seed and contribute/flesh out the growth, and the form of the seed determines what potential may manifest. If a tree grows and needs pruning, the planter may prune. Or maybe help a vine grow alongside a fence or wall.

A spiritual father can hope, challenge, and guide. To do so, requires a vision of such hope, a vision of the essence of such spiritual seed, and the courage and insight to be of assistance, to be a vehicle for the Heavenly Father.

Those roles are not necessarily met by a therapist or buddy, though some therapists or buddies may be able to pull it off. To be able to really KNOW something, to really HAVE insight, and to have WISE advice, and to offer it as a father, with the authority of spiritual insight and maturity, and to challenge us, is something that not everyone has.

Misguided heirarchies, lazy and corrupt authorities, don't have a suitable basis for being such spiritual fathers. Neither do other decadent and soft worldly pretenders.>

simon writes:
For centuries, the married parish priests in the Orthodox Church (much like Roman Catholic priests before the Council of Trent) generally did not even have basic theological education.

Fortunately, that is not the case today.

Has Orthodox practice developed in the US or elsewhere such that the faithful now turn regularly to the parish clergy as "spiritual fathers"? If so, why/how did this develop, and how does it work?

One might ask how it developed that the priest started hearing confessions. It's a very natural extension for the priest to then advise the repentant on steps they should take for their spiritual health.

Can a parish priest really serve as a fatherly guide to hundreds of individuals in his parish, all the while having a wife and family?

Mine does. The point is well taken that it doesn't work well for large parishes. Hopefully at that point their is more than one priest. And, as you mentioned, one can also seek a monk as a spiritual father. So every parishioner does not necessarily go to the priest.

I think it's also a bit different here in a America compared to the "old world". Unfortunately we do not have many monasteries, so the priest is sometimes all that's available.>

maria aka Diane Kamer, you should accept your banning and not resort to deception.>

M_David writes:
Let's be clear: no spiritual father can define sin, it simply is.

We agree -- divorce is a sin.>

M_David says: "We disagree -- marriage is a sacrament that cannot be desolved (sic)."

A RC annulment is a divorce in ALL but name--it effectively terminates a sacramental marriage. You merely call it by a different word. I agree with Bruce--along with divorce, both are sinful.>

Basileus: Abuses of the annulment process may give you the impression that annulments are "Catholic divorce." (That is why the Vatican is now cracking down on the annulment process--apparently with results; viz. Bruce's friend, cited above.)

But annulments are NOT in fact "Catholic divorce." This is a standard, common calumny, which has been refuted many times.

I will leave it to M_David to respond further. He is doing fine.>

Bruce,

Many thanks for your clarification about spiritual fatherhood in the Orthodox Church. I had been under the (mis)impression that monks alone fulfilled that role in Orthodoxy, and it is interesting to learn that at least in the US parish priests do also.

As an aside to my earlier comment that it may be unreasonable to expect each ordinary parish priest to act as a spiritual father, it's worth noting that in large parts of the Catholic world (e.g., Italy, Spain), the term "father" is reserved for monastic/religious order priests. The parish priest is referred to and addressed as "Don" --the respectful term for an ordinary (clerical or lay) gentleman, e.g., "Don Alberto," "Don Luigi" "Don Carlos, etc." Only the religious are called "Padre.">

maria or M_David,

Explain to me how the Catholic Church does not sanction, at least in potentia, fornication. Either one is married, and the relations are proper, or the couple is not married and the relations are fornication. The Catholic Church sets up a third category--the "oops, we thought is was a marriage but it wasn't, so the sex wasn't really blessed but we won't call it a sin" category. One can never really know whether the sex they are having, and their married life in general, is sacramental or not.

The Western theology of hopeful agnosticism puts very little faith in the effectiveness of the Church's blessing and has huge problems. I don't disagree that Eastern theology here is problematic, but the West cannot take the theological high road here. It's theology is highly nuanced and parsed, and ends up with de facto divorce and a continual agnosticism.>

justin writes:

The Catholic Church sets up a third category--the "oops, we thought is was a marriage but it wasn't, so the sex wasn't really blessed but we won't call it a sin" category. One can never really know whether the sex they are having, and their married life in general, is sacramental or not.

Nonsense. If a person is faking it at vow time, the sex afterwards is a sin for that person. If they were simply ignorant regarding the vow, then it is not.

Marriage is simply not sacramental unless both parties vow. Just like any legal contract today. This is a no-brainer.

the West(s)..theology is highly nuanced and parsed, and ends up with de facto divorce and a continual agnosticism.

Again, nonsense. What is "nuanced and parsed" about ZERO divorce (what God has joined and all that) and acknowledging that there will be some fakers out there when they vow? This is so simple of a concept that it hardly merits discussion, let alone being parsed.>

"If they were simply ignorant regarding the vow, then it is not. "

You're talking culpability. I'm talking on a different level. Objectively, was it blessed and soul-benefitting, or was it not blessed and thereby detrimental? Such things are not morally/spiritually neutral, even when there is no "culpability".

More importantly, you never address the fact that there is indeed a great deal of agnosticism in the Western system. I cannot ever really know whether or not my marriage is truly sacramental. I can look at friends who have gotten annulments (sometimes against their will) in which they had all the indications you, I, and the someday-to-be sainted Martin couple have/had of a valid marriage. If you cannot admit that this is at least a problem with the theory, even if you ultimately agree with the theological shema, then there is no more that we can discuss.>

I said: "A RC annulment is a divorce in ALL but name--it effectively terminates a sacramental marriage. You merely call it by a different word. "

M_David said: "Nonsense. Following you logic, if a woman was held at gunpoint and said 'I do', that was a sacramental marriage. It is this type of situation - where a person did not vow under the rules but pretended to do so - that Catholics (and everybody else) acknowledge that there was no vow. This is doctrine - if people are abusing it, then the marriage still stands in God's eyes and Church doctrine, regardless of what a corrupt priest/bishop might say."

I never questioned the validity of your sacraments, my friend, so your logic is off, to say the least. But it is interesting/odd where annulments DO question the validity of your sacraments. The end result of annulments are no different than that of a divorce and that is the bottom line. The marriage is no more.

Simon: I am with you on that this is NOT a church-dividing issue and your other thoughts in your most recent post. The cooperation between Rome and Constantinople is very promising and they need each other more than ever. Merely was addressing how some on here seem to get on a high horse and talk down to other faiths when it comes to the marriage sacrament.


M_David said: "But let me get this straight: you believe annulments are the same as divorce? Please explain to me how; I would love to hear it."

See above--it ends with the dissolution/termination of a sacramental marriage. It is thus no more. Play the word games if you will, but it is no different, although it might make you feel better. Using YOUR logic, that is like saying you don't drink COLA, you instead drink PEPSI. ;-) Ok, I am done with this issue.>

Basileus and simon:

pursuit of the Truth must be carried out in CHARITY

Agreed. And charity requires an honest and clear debate.

You guys obviously feel this is a Catholic/Orthodox argument and take an Orthodox view. I am not defending Catholic belief, I am simply telling the truth about what Catholics believe. I don't know all RC doctrine, but it is just an anti-Catholic smear to claim an annulment is divorce.

To demonstate this one last time, I ask once again: if a person is married at gunpoint, do you feel this is a valid sacramental marriage? Yes or no.

If yes, you guys are the first people I've met who can't accept that a marriage sacrament will not stand in every case. I've never heard such an argument before - no Christian religion on earth believes that to my knowledge. All of them have room for annulments, defined as a never-happened sacrament.

If no, then we are in agreement. Annument is not divorce; it simply is claiming the sacrament never happened.

In closing: charity means giving an honest look at the other religion's views. Can you honestly before Christ say you have done this? If so, God bless.>

Basileus and simon:

You guys obviously feel this is a Catholic/Orthodox argument and take an Orthodox view.

I am a Catholic. I prefer, in fact, the Roman approach to failed marriages (annulment, if certain criteria are met) over the Orthodox practice (permission to remarry as a concession to human weakness in certain circumstances).

But neither approach is crazy. In both cases, permission to remarry in the Church is an extraordinary act (even if it's become almost scandalously common among Catholics in the United States in recent decades). These are different ways -- in both cases evolved over time -- of handling a very difficult but common problem without compromising fidelity to the command of Christ that marriage is for life.

Some of the comments on this thread imply that the Orthodox take a lax, pick-and-choose, "Protestant" approach to Christ's command about marriage. That is ludicrous, and it suggests a gaping lack of understandind of the Eastern tradition or of Church history in general.

Charity requires speaking the truth. But it also requires assuming the good will of others, and trying to understand the reasoning behind their positions. For centuries there have been FAR too many mountains made out of molehills by both East and West. This is one of them.

I don't think Pope Benedict considers the somewhat different treatments of marriage as a major, fundamentally Church-dividing issue (nor do most Orthodox patriarchs and theologians). So why should we?>

M_David, I think the reason that your question doesn't get answered is because it is a gross-overstatement, the answer to which you will then try to argue means that any lack of full consent (however exactly that is defined) means that the marriage isn't valid. The problem is that the answer to your overstated initial premise skews the entire discussion and ends with a not very applicable result.

I don't know if there is a specific name for such a hyperbolic rhetorical style, but I know from my experience in the courtroom that it is most often used by those who aren't comfortable with the debate focussing on reality.>

this demonstrates that there is such a thing as an annulment and it is different than a divorce

In theory? Yes. In practical practice? It doesn't appear so.>

M_David,

My lack of an answer has more to do with the lack of ability to answer than ignoring you (I cannot be a constant presence on these boards). :-)

Hehe...to further go off from the original topic of this thread...

I see and agree with your fundamental point: a person 'married' without their consent or affirmation given via free will would not be a sacramentally valid marriage, as I am asssuming your example of affirmation by gunpoint is taken to be. As others have pointed out, you gave a rather extreme example and a very slim minority of how the policy is actually practiced. Here are the primary reasons that the RCC sites as grounds for annulment (among others they did not list). Now understand that I lifted this off a RCC parish web page and may or may not necessarily reflect official Church teaching (since I am an outsider to the RCC):

(1) Was the marriage ceremony legally acceptable to the Catholic Church?
(2) Were both spouses free to marry each other?
(3) Was each spouse adequately prepared to understand, accept and fulfill the rights and obligations of marriage?
(4) Did each spouse intend to accept and fulfill what, in the Church's tradition, has been taught as the divine plan for marriage?
(5) Was the marriage physically consummated after the wedding?
(6) Were both spouses baptized Christians either before or during the marriage?

While (1), (2), and (6) are pretty definitive, the others leave a heck of a lot of 'wiggle' room and is likely the primary reason that otherwise sacramentally valid marriages are allowed to become annulled.

I am not here to debate RCC doctrine, though. My original point that I am sticking with is that annulments, in practice, are many times no different than a divorce for other faiths--end result is the same in an otherwise sacramentally valid marriage. The RCC theory on annulment is good though...if only it were applied more rigidly.>

Basileus:

My lack of an answer has more to do with the lack of ability to answer than ignoring you

My apologies.

(RC doctrine)...leave a heck of a lot of 'wiggle' room and is likely the primary reason that otherwise sacramentally valid marriages are allowed to become annulled...

The RCC theory on annulment is good though...if only it were applied more rigidly.

I agree with you 100%.

There is a LOT of spiritual corruption in the American Catholic Church, especially when it comes to pelvic issues.>

"You said it yourself - if your bride was under an unknown threat to marry you, you already agree the marriage would not be valid"

This is exactly what I was talking about--taking an extreme example and applying it where it should not be applied. When opposing counsel starts arguing like this, I know that I'll be putting food on the table for a while longer.

When Christ through His Church says we are one, we are one.

If what I said is anti-Catholic, you folks have thinner skins than I thought.

You have not answered my question, except to mock it. Either you entirely missed my point, or you are unwilling to deal with the consequences.

I find it sad to think that there are folks out there who think that it is part of God's sacramental plan for us to never know if we are actually receiving grace. That's not a loving God, but a trickster.>