A standard go-to Bible passage for Catholics in rebutting the Protestant argument that Jesus forbids calling religious leaders “father” (Matt. 23:9) is 1 Corinthians 4:15. There, Paul says, “Though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” If Matthew 23:9 forbade calling religious leaders “father,” so Catholics argue, then Paul would be disobeying Jesus’ express command. Since Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4:15 are divinely inspired and, therefore, can’t contradict what Jesus says, it follows that Jesus isn’t forbidding calling religious leaders “father.”
For most Catholics who dabble in apologetics, the above argument is “old hat.” However, what’s not “old hat” are the Protestant comebacks.
Consider, for example, how some Protestants might counter and say that Paul doesn’t say “father” (Gk., pater) in this passage. Rather, the Greek is gennaō, which means “to become a parent of.” Since Paul isn’t using the term “father,” it can’t be used as evidence for calling religious leaders “father.”
In response, Paul juxtaposes gennaō with the previous pateras in the first half of the verse—“you do not have many fathers[Gk., pateras].” The implication, therefore, is that he is their “father.” And if that’s his role, then the title of that role can appropriately be applied to him.
Another counter to our appeal to 1 Corinthians 4:15 is that Paul is merely describing a familial relationship he has with the Corinthians. Protestant author Todd Baker makes this argument in his book Exodus from Rome, Vol. I. Here’s what he writes:
Paul is merely describing the familial relationship he has with Corinthians because he fathered their conversion. . . . Paul fathered their conversion through the gospel he preached to them, which they believed for salvation and spiritual rebirth. Therefore, Paul was not demanding that all Christian ministers be called “father.” . . . Paul was not claiming an ecclesiastical title for himself, but rather he was stating a fact about his relationship with the Christians at Corinth.
For simplicity’s sake, we can summarize Baker’s argument as follows:
P1: If Paul never demands an ecclesiastical title for himself, then we shouldn’t use that title.
P2: Paul doesn’t demand the ecclesiastical title “father” for himself.
C: Therefore, we shouldn’t use the ecclesiastical title “father.”
My first response is that Baker seems to think the issue is whether the title is “demanded.” But that’s not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is whether it’s appropriate to call Paul and priests “father.” That’s why Matthew 23:9 is appealed to in the first place.
Given that Paul has in fact fathered the Christians in Corinth spiritually, it’s appropriate for him to label himself, and for the Corinthians to call him, accordingly.
Secondly, Baker wrongly assumes that we need a “demand” from Paul to justify the Catholic practice. But we don’t need a “demand” from Paul to ask the Holy Spirit to intercede for us because he reveals that the Holy Spirit in fact intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26-27). Similarly, we don’t need a “demand” from Paul to call him “father,” because we know in fact that he spiritually fathered the Corinthians.
So the “call no man father” objection and response might be “old hat” for some, but the comebacks to the Catholic response are a new hat that Catholics might want to examine.
***This article was originally published in the Indulgence column for Catholic Answers Magazine Online on March 21, 2025.