Expert: J.M.J. West - 5/13/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hello!  I am a passionate Catholic and consider myself to be pretty good at apologetics in everyday encounters (no expert, though).  My friend asked me a question the other day that got me wondering myself.  He's never malicious.  He asked about Genesis and biblical procreation:  In the early days, with few inhabitants at the start from Adam and Eve there had to be some sort of incest to procreate.  How did God view this and why did he plan it like this?  Even after the flood, Noah's sons had wives but they would've had to sleep with close relatives (i.e. cousins).  And moreover, it was wrong when one saw Noah's nakedness.  I'm sure we're missing something here! LOL.  Any insight would be appreciated.  Thanks for your service in teaching others about Catholicism too.  Your responses to other questions that I read were very insightful!  God Bless!

ANSWER: Joseph,

Thanks for your kind comments.

The simple answer is that Adam and Eve had "other children" and that, if we take this story strictly literally at this point, Cain would have married his sister.  Similarly, Noah's sons children would have married their cousins.

It's interesting to note that the prohibition against marrying kin too closely related doesn't arrive until the time of Abraham (it's in the .  So, God permitted it as a necessity, but as the population grew, it was easy to marry outside of close lines of sanguinuity (blood relation).  Even a purely secular Darwinian account would have to permit this!

Hope that helps.

Pax Christi,

-J.M.J. West

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks! Makes sense. Since I got an expert now, I was always wondering something else:  Matthew 23:9.  I've heard Protestants try to argue against us calling our clergy "Father" because of this Scripture verse.  How can I respond?  My guess is that Our Lord meant something else in the original Greek since our Protestant brothers/sisters only focus on the English and take one verse alone and out of context.  Last question, I promise!  Thanks again!

Answer
Joseph,

No problem.  I really don't mind, especially charitable and straight-forward questions!

The simple answer is that Christ was speaking hyperbolically (eg. over-emphasizing to stress a point, like when we're commanded to "hate father and mother and spouse" (cf. Luke 14:26)).  

At this time, many religions had pagan "father-gods", including the Roman Caesars, and the Pharaohs of Egypt before them, who claimed to be the literal father of their people.  God is our only father, the first and ultimate father from which all other fatherhood stems and is a reflection of.  Anyone who tries to lord such power over you is gravely mistaken.

The whole context of the passage is actually about the fallen "seat of moses" which Christ was in the process of replacing, but which until replaced still held a binding authority on the Jews.

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

The pharisees were abusing their authority.

Christ also commands in this passage to not call anyone Teacher (i.e. Rabbi), or Master, yet even today we do this.  Mr. and Mrs. are shortened versions of master.  "Doctor" means teacher, let alone our whole class of teachers in the educational system.  They don't object to using the terms thusly, so they are at the least being inconsistent.

But Christ himself commands us to teach (Matt 28, the great commission, "go and make disciples... and teach them...", and Christ himself calls Abraham "Father", showing that he was not opposed to this usage.

*"Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers." ...

"Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "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" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

"Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

"John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

"By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood."*

Then, of course, there's the simple fact that, if we couldn't call anyone father, the term would mean very little, and then to say that God is our father would in fact diminish in meaning.

Hopefully that's helpful!

Pax Christi,

-J.M.J. West

*For more info, see here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp