UNIT 8 : I

ASSIGNMENT Would it be blasphemy to change the Lord's Prayer to "Mother, who art in Heaven" ?

For centuries, the Church has used the pattern of prayer of Jesus, as recorded by Matthew and Luke. In every major language the prayer begins the same : "our Father in heaven...". It has become so ingrained in us that any change to the familiar wording - even the inevitable changing 'thou' to 'you' to reflect English usage - causes controversy. So any proposal to change it needs to be considered carefully.

Migliore suggests that there are three possible approaches : to get rid of gender-related terms for God altogether (but that would be to depersonalise him); to view the Spirit as the feminine part of the Godhead (buthat would be to risk splitting the Trinity into two gods and a goddess, a tendency which most branches of the Church have always fiercely resisted); or to speak of the Father and the Spirit - and possibly even Jesus - as being both masculine and feminine.

The Church has over time established three 'authorities' which need to be kept in balance: conscience, scripture and tradition. What do each of these tell us? Conscience - the developing understanding in the individual of the spiritual and moral realm of life in response to experience - may indeed lead some people to conclude that God is only masculine, but many others experience a feminine side to God too. Whereas fathers tend to educate by imposing discipline, mothers tend to guide their children by affectionate love, and it is this experience of a loving, caring God which could be described as her feminine side (remembering that calling God "her" is no more one-sided than saying "him", which is to be understood throughout this essay).

Scripture is thought of by many people as only addressing God as masculine, especially the Old Testament, which is seen as patriarchal. Indeed, anthropologists know that patri-archal societies (such as African tribes) do tend to have male gods, and matriarchal ones (such as India and prehistoric Europe) female gods. But on closer inspection, the Old Testament in a number of places surprisingly shows God's feminine side, e.g. Isaiah 49:15 "Can a woman forget the infant at her breast, or a mother the child of her womb? But should even these forget, I shall never forget you"; Isaiah 66:13 "As a mother comforts her son so shall I myself comfort you." and Psalm 131:2 "But I am calm and quiet like a weaned child clinging to its mother."

And the words for "wisdom" in both Greek and Hebrew, and "spirit" in Hebrew, are feminine. To the Jews of Jesus' time then, words describing God in both genders were familiar.

So why does the New Testament avoid describing God as Mother? Perhaps because of the risk of Greeks or Romans misunderstanding. At Acts 17:18, Paul is preaching about the resurrection (anastasis) which apparently is a feminine word, taken by his hearers as the name of a goddess.

Likewise, Jesus himself may have realised that it would be too radical to appear to change God's gender. If God has a feminine side, Jesus of all people would know that! Maybe he did refer to God as Mother sometimes, but the gospel writers for reasons of their own did not record it. According to Stanton, redaction criticism of the gospels has shown that whereas Luke, writing to gentiles, uses the family word for 'father' (abba), Matthew, writing to Jews, uses a more formal phrase "Our Father in heaven". This suggests that one, or possibly both, evangelists is not quoting Jesus' exact words! We do not know.

What about Church tradition? According to Moss, when the early church talked of "God made man", the words used for 'man' (Greek anthropos, Latin homo) meant 'mankind', with different words for a male adult. And both Julian of Norwich (a woman, despite her name) and St Anselm, often referred to God as Mother. Indeed, Julian said that "Mother is the best of God's titles". The Catholic church has generally tended to avoid calling God "mother", but makes up for it by referring to Mary as "Mother of God". Celtic and Orthodox christianity are much more open to the idea of God possessing the best of all human characteristics - after all, God made mankind both male and female in God's own image.

The question asks about blasphemy. The definition of blasphemy is "words or actions showing disrespect or scorn for God or anything held sacred" (Collins). So, would such a change be scornful or disrespectful, to God or to other believers? It would be disrespectful to God to fail to try and understand God's nature, or to ignore the way in which God has revealed Godself. So if one is aware of God's feminine+masculine nature, then it not only permissible but valuable to address her in this way.

It is disrespectful to other people to ignore their understanding of God. For some people, the use of exclusively masculine terms for God is acceptable - they understand 'inclusive usage' at both an intellectual and emotional level. But some women feel uncomfortableor left out, getting the impression that they must be second-class citizens in the kingdom of a male God. Conversely, some men seem threatened by feminine language for God : perhaps we find it hard not to equate femininity with sexuality. During the debate on women priests, it was contended that men would be distracted by the sight of an attractive priest : to which the response was that women didn't seem to find that a problem!

However, since there are many understandings of God, and since we live in a society which promises freedom of conscience and tolerance, I conclude that as long as one can sincerely believe that "Our Mother" reflects as much of God's nature as "Our Father", then it is a valid usage. Rather, let those who would cry "blasphemy" argue their case why God cannot be thought of as having a feminine side.

Finally, a personal view. This has not been an easy assignment. Having looked at all the issues, my rational side acknowledges that God is as much feminine as masculine. From experience, God calls and entices me towards her to seek wisdom, as Solomon put it. But it still seems strange to use the feminine form of address. I know that I must call on God the Holy Trinity to reveal him/herself to me more and more.

Bibliography D.L. Migliore , "Faith Seeking Understanding", Eerdman, 1991 G.N.Stanton, "The Gospels and Jesus", Oxford University Press, 1989. R.Moss, "God's Yes to Sexuality" (report of the British Council of Churches), Collins, 1981 APPENDIX

A prayer from an American woman, Joan Elmo-Storey

OUR MOTHER-

Our Mother, Life energy that permeates and is the essence of all things, our heaven and our earth, I praise and find joy in you. Hallowed be your name.

May that Life that kingdom -which presents itself to me in many forms and degrees within my view and beyond my comprehension, that which awes and overwhelms me - come, exist, be.

Give me this day O mystery and magnificent Life, my daily bread, give me the awareness of my connectedness to all that ebbs and flows in the universe. Give me my physical, emotional and spiritual food.

Forgive my blindness to the miracles that continuously surround me, in others and in all things, as I forgive those who harm and injure the life force within me.

Lead me not into the temptation of seeing myself apart from all creation. Deliver me from apathy and true aliveness.

For you Oh Life force are the power, and the glory and the joy present in the now, in the moment that is eternity.

-- Joan Storey (godessss@mindspring.com), April 16, 2002

Answers

Saint Peter's 2nd Epistle, Chapter 1 :16

''For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we have been eyewitnesses of His grandeur. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when from out of the majestic glory a voice came down to Him, speaking thus, ''This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.'' And this voice we ourselves heard borne from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mount.

Blessed be the Word of the Lord.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 16, 2002.

In the name of the FATHER and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. AMEN!!!

We know Thee, Father --Abba! Through thy glorious and Holy Son Jesus Christ Our Lord; in union with Thee and the Holy Spirit, One God, World without end! Amen--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 16, 2002.

off b

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 16, 2002.

Joan, precisely, what are you on about? Are you here to learn through valid queries, or are your intentions rooted in proselytizing for your manufactured religion? I suspect the latter. Should your aim be such, I invite you to develop your own forum. Your objectives will be an epic waste of time, both yours and ours.

To even post such bollocks as this, is utterly pointless on this forum.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), April 16, 2002.

In a word~yes.

Go to an online Bible and type in the search box Father Jesus and see what all comes up. Does Jesus say Mother, into your hands I commit my spirit? Nooooooo. He says FATHER. Does He say Mother, forgive them for they know not what they do? Noooooooooo. He says FATHER. Does He say I am not possessed by a demon but I honor my Mother and you dishonor me? Hmmmmm lemme think.....nooooooooo. He says FATHER. Does He say Godde or Goddess? That would be a big old negative on that one! He says God.

Give it up, Joan. You're no more Catholic than Dennis is.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 17, 2002.

+

Joan, As St. Augustine said, "If we could understand God he wouldn't be God." He has revealed himself to us in the flesh and in doing so he has given us a loving Mother...The Blessed Virgin Mary. The Catholic Tradition has always honored Mary and is the only Tradition that does honor Mary. Mary is our spiritual Mother and the ideal Christian. We look to Mary in times of need because we know she perservered in her times of need and Christ was always there with her. She never left his side and that is what we as Christians strive to do...stay at his side.

Why are you so adamant about redefining God, renaming God and rejecting God. You change his character to fit your ideals of what society wants in a god or godde. God accepts you as you are accept God as he is.

We as Catholics have a Mother in Heaven. She is Mary. She is not a god or godde. She is our Mother and if we use gender specific terms when we speak of God or the Virgin Mary we take away a very important character of that person that God is trying to reveal to us. God has revealed to us a family. A Holy Family. A family we are all part of and it is a family I am proud of. I am proud to say I have a Father in Heaven, I have a Mother in Heaven and I have all the Saints as my brothers and sisters. They all love me and I love them.

They are waiting for me to come home.

-- Michael (pickandpen@aol.com), April 17, 2002.

2 Timothy 4:3

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" -- i.e., to tell "storeys."

-- (@@@.@), April 17, 2002.

Beautifully put, Michael. Bravo!

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

I once would have agreed with the above mutation of the 'Our Father'. It makes for beautiful poetry and fantasy.

But I have learned that the Christian spiritual life is not about experiencing cosmic consciousness or following my imaginations into flights of fancy about how we are all part of some oneness of creation.

It is, rather, about being willing to follow what Christ actually said, and when others would like to mutilate his teachings, taking the heat for standing up for what He actually said and taught. "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26)

Oops, He said "Father" again. Sorry.

There certainly is a level of beauty in creation, and I don't think anyone could deny that. Your way with words could perhaps be better applied to composing a prayer of praise to the Father for His handiwork in creation, rather than misquoting His Son.

As for our interconnectedness with the rest of the universe, seems like a sneaky way of sliding down a path to abandoning ourselves to any of our emotional responses and evading self-responsibility. We are separate, free-willed beings and we may be in relationship with each other and creation, but the beauty of our free will is that we can stand up to the 'ebb and flow' when it's ebbing and flowing in the wrong direction.

You do have a poetic sense and have said a few beautiful words, but beauty does not always equal truth. The Christian faith is a whole in itself, and not 'interconnected' with every other religion, and when you water it down, you don't have Christianity anymore.

Good luck on your career in poetry. As for your career in theology, well, don't quit your day job.

-- Jerry I. (jfi_32@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

P.S. I can't help but notice you use some pretty sexist language about mothers and fathers:

"Whereas fathers tend to educate by imposing discipline, mothers tend to guide their children by affectionate love"

Catholics are lucky enough to have the most tender and affectionate Father there is. 'Nuff said.

-- (jfi_32@yahoo.com), April 18, 2002.

Hi, I am new to the forum, was posting a considerable amount over on the Fr. Sudac board after I attended one of his Masses. Anyway, I felt the need to chime in here, since I have faced this kind of feminist/New Age/Modernist agenda so, unfortunately prevelant in the Church.

I won't say much, but this has already been proposed by an now ex- Dominican by the name of Matthew Fox. The Cosmic Christ, the trying to redefine God, who was revealed to us as the three persons of the Trinity, in all male form, and the need to "change" or, as I like to call it, usurp Holy Catholic and Apostolic Tradition. The thing is, this man was silenced by the Vatican, kicked out of his Dominican order, and is now taking shelter where his views are more acceptable, ie: Episcopalean Church. You can read all about him and others at the following link: http://www.watchman.org/reltop/changgod.htm

To include Wicca, which is how a lot of feminists feel they can "change" God, is absolutely absurd. Wicca is a distinct belief system from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, heterodoxy cannot exist in the true heart of Catholicism. Try as you may, God never revealed Himself as a woman, even the Holy Spirit is referred to as male.

I think instead of reading all these books on new theology and a new hermeneutics towards Scripture, you should stick with the Fathers of the Church, whom were admant in explicating Scripture in line with the Chair of Peter.

Just my two cents

Brian

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), April 23, 2002.

'In His image He created him, male and female He created them'

The Godhead is as much female as male for God is beyond gender differences. Praying to a female aspect of God is far more biblical than praying to Mary.

Why can't you respect the views of other's even while challenging them or disagreeing with them? Is it so hard to show pure, genuine, Christ-centred love to the Lord's creation. Don't let other people's bigotry blind you to your own. For how you judge will be how you are judged.

-- Sharon Guy (sharon-guy@fsmail.net), April 23, 2002.

Sharon

Christ DID not say our Mother.. He clearly said Our Father. Mary IS the Mother of our Church. She has from day one guarded the Church from harm for her son. What is it that you all can't understand? The Mother Church our Catholic Church has this to keep her from falling into satan's hands. The new Adam--Christ and the new Eve--Mary. That is our Catholic heritage and God's gift to us all. Let's not distort this.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 23, 2002.

Why can't you respect the views of other's even while challenging them or disagreeing with them?

Because her views are in total contradiction to the Catholic Church. If I were to let them pass by I would be implying that your idea of Catholicism is Ok, and therefore, be guilty of religious indifferentism. The Church Christ founded over 2000 years ago was and is the true Church. If I were to stand by idly and let these things go I would have to make an account of them before Our Lord as Judge for the sin of omission, I would rather avoid that thanks.

Is it so hard to show pure, genuine, Christ-centred love to the Lord's creation.

What do you mean? In correcting a fellow human being I am trying to save them from their own damnation. Feelings will only take you so far when appealing to Christ, He will be looking for more than just that.

Don't let other people's bigotry blind you to your own.

Other people's biggotry? Are you implying that the Pope, Cardinals, Priests, and other successors of the Apostolic Church are biggots, and that I to am a biggot for adhering to their tenets and teachings? If so, and I pray that you are not, you are implying the same of Christ, since He was the one that appointed them over 2000 years ago, and still calls them today.

For how you judge will be how you are judged.

You call my wanting to help my fellow human being judgement? I am merely stating the same thing Christ, who appeared as a male, did when He was here on earth. The Catholic Church is the Church of God, Father, Son, and Spirit, instituted by Christ, and preserved by the Holy Spirit, anything different is a mockery and a spit in the face of everything that makes the Church what it is today.

I pray for you and Joan that you will come to know the true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), April 23, 2002.

Well, Sharon,
That --You called down upon yourself; for stating too much with too much feror.

I have no theological reason to dispute a non-gender definition of the Divine Godhead. Your instinct is more theologically stylized than God may have expected of women. If a definition of the deity makes Him neither fish nor fowl, why would His Son make a blunder like calling Him My Father?

Because, maybe the definition isn't the point. It's more the revealed Perfection of God that we must aim for in our concept. Jesus Christ made the concept altogether clear, we are Children of the father. Mothers are also related to children, yes. But God made His revelation stree His Fatherhood. He could well have stressed His Burning-Bush aspect, or His Nature aspect. We see a revelation of Him in Nature.

But no-- He made Himself real to our mind's-eye as our heavenly Father. By the Son; who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

And now, coming on the heels of women's liberation, this is seen as inadequate? Why? Isn't it because of the agenda, which must take precedence over all else, even respect for God? ''She Who Must Be Obeyed'' is letting the world know, after 2,000 years of ignorance, how badly males have miscalculated? Isn't this hunger after human distinction and rank a FARCE??? You will end up throwing all males over the cliff. Only then will you be satisfied, I suppose.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2002.

I'm always amused when people whip out the old 'fear, ignorance and bigotry' line. Is that supposed to be all-dreaded stinger of a comeback line? Lame.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2002.

It is possible to correct views that differ from your own without being rude, discourteous or judgemental. There is a lot in Catholicism that I have trouble with but I respect you all as fellow travellers on the road to salvation. I worry that enquirers coming to this forum to find out more about God will read these postings and conclude that Christians are narrow minded and bigoted. Catholics believe that only they have the Truth. I do not agree with that BUT I would defend to the death you're right to believe it. Surely in our discussions we should seek to hold the Christ-light for people and show them the way to God not bitch and snipe and put each other down. Come on be light and life for Christ and don't let the rightful desire to defend you're faith hurt others or destroy the potential faith of the enquiring browser.

-- Sharon Guy (sharon-guy@fsmail.net), April 24, 2002.

Hi Sharon,

I saw this note, and thought I would respond quickly too, if you don't mind. Catholics do not believe we ONLY have the truth. We do believe the fullness of truth is within the Catholic Church, but that all religions, especially our Christian brothers (erm, and sisters :)) have some element of truth to a greater or lesser degree. If some of us were rude, many apologies. On the other hand, sometimes the whole God as mother thing gets out of hand, witness the wholesale changing of the Gospel. I once heard a little dictum about judging truth that seems to work pretty good..."what would your grandmother say?" If she would have a problem with it, then probably you should too. :)) Regards

-- JRC (me@nospam.net), April 24, 2002.

just an addendum, I for one would just as soon NOT be called a 'fellow traveler' :)) Ciao

-- JRC (me@nospam.net), April 24, 2002.

Sharon,

I am curious, what is your definition of bigot? You seem to use it very often in discussions/debates such as these, and like to pigeonhole certain people with it as such. I am curious.

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), April 24, 2002.

Sharon

yesterday, i finally found the reason the Church of England exists, well, so they day they do. In one of the sites I noticed the English considered themselves isolated only because the Romans left England during the fall of the Roman empire. With the Romans no longer on the Island they figured the Church had abondoned them. So the English developed the Church of England.

That is about the weakest excuse that anyone can ever use that I have ever heard of. First, Christ was not Roman. Second, Peter was NOT Roman, Third, the Church was NOT Roman, Forth, the fall of the Roman Empire happened many centuries prior to the time of Henry VIII, and actually proves to me that the excuse of the Church of England in it's claim of abandoment is FULL of holes. CHRIST never did abandon his CHURCH nor did PETER. From this knowledge I am fully convinced that the Church of England owes her people a huge explanation for the sins of the monarchs of her country to the lies they produced to allow the split of the Church and the killing of many religious in England at the time of the formation of the Church of England. By this split the Church of England actually denied her own ties directly to Christ through the reign of Peter as Pope and his successors. Lord Have Mercy on all of us. AMEN.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 24, 2002.

Well, hello, Sharon Guy.
I haven't seen your name for several months.
Do I recall correctly that, when you were last visiting us, you mentioned that you were heading off to prepare to be an Anglican or Episcopalian priest?
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

JRC

Actually my Grandmother was not a great role model so measuring truth against her racist, anti papist, xenophobic views would be dangerous. Personally I ask myself 'what would Jesus do/say?' That works for me.

Brian,

A bigot is someone who uses negative language against anyone who does not think like or believe the same things as themselves. I do not always agree with Catholic views but I am prepared to listen to and learn from them. Those who are anti-Catholic will soon betray themselves by thier own bigoted language. I merely think that as Christians we should respond with love, tough love at times sure, but love all the same. Name calling and disrespecting someone made in the image of God is in His eyes on a level with murder. All I am saying is defend your Church and Faith, put across your views but don't stoop to the same level as those that slander you by speaking from a place of anger and not of love. I am sorry that you do not consider us companions on the road to Salvation in Christ Jesus. It hurts that you cannot see the beliefs we have in common because of the differences that divide us.

Fred,

I am not an historian. I have not read the source of your claims. I cannot defend something I do not know.

Back to the original question, I would never say 'Mother God' in the Lord's prayer. I do occassionally focus on the female aspects of God using passages from the Bible that reflect this. Such as the bit about God gathering us up like a mother hen, etc. The Bible tells me that I, a female, am made in the image of God. How can this be if there is no female in God? I do not say that God is female just that there are female aspects to His character. I long for a personal pronoun that reflects both the masculine and feminine, held together in perfect harmony and unity.

-- Sharon Guy (sharon-guy@fsmail.net), April 28, 2002.

Sharon

Funny thing is GOD created man first and realized he needed to domore so he created woman from the rib of the man. That should say something if not many things. The facts of the Anglican Church are true. In fact the British "forced" the Bishops and priests to convert or suffer the most horrific death of being tortured and quartered. There are many sories around of these facts and historical evidence to these things and many safe sites still preserved throughout England to attest to these horrors.

What the British monarchies did to the persons of the Church in England cannot be ignored. I wonder if the British Monarchs have ever apologized to these inhuman horrors to this day.

May GOD be just.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 28, 2002.

Dear Sharon,
Not just to quibble, but you say things lots more anthropomorphic than even a male/female suggestion for God, pure spirit.

He cannot be said to have character; only the infinite range (oxymoron though that is) of perfections. I'm not interested in ''tagging'' God with anthropomorphic male identity. But I do believe Christ was revealing an infinite power which can only be attributed to the One Creator-- Father. In Christ's own contemplation of Almighty God, there's a concept of Father. If He were Mother as well, Jesus would have revealed it, too.

I'm far from saying this would be trivializing Him. There is infinite love as well in God, as if he bore us; a Mother. But He didn't bear anyone. He begot the Eternal Son, and created all of the rest; including mothers. If He didn't bear us in the womb, He can't be a Mother; but since His infinite perfection makes Him omniscient, He KNOWS the mother's love as well as any woman.

I think this is in fact what Christ meant, saying My Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 28, 2002.

Dear Sharon,
Not just to quibble, but you say things lots more anthropomorphic than even a male/female suggestion for God, pure spirit.

He cannot be said to have character; only infinite perfections. I'm not interested in ''tagging'' God with anthropomorphic male identity. But I do believe Christ was revealing an infinite power which can only be attributed to the One Creator-- Father. In Christ's own contemplation of Almighty God, there's clearly a HUMAN concept of Father. If He were Mother as well, Jesus would have revealed it, too.

I'm far from saying this would be trivializing Him. There is infinite love as well in God, as if he bore us; a Mother. But He didn't bear anyone. He begot the Eternal Son, and created all of the rest; including mothers. If He didn't bear us in the womb, He can't be a Mother; but since His infinite perfection makes Him omniscient, He KNOWS the mother's love as well as any woman.

I think this is in fact what Christ meant, saying My Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 28, 2002.

Hi, Sharon.

You really surprised me by stating some of the things mentioned in this paragraph:
"I would never say 'Mother God' in the Lord's prayer. I do occasionally focus on the female aspects of God using passages from the Bible that reflect this. Such as the bit about God gathering us up like a mother hen, etc. The Bible tells me that I, a female, am made in the image of God. How can this be if there is no female in God? I do not say that God is female just that there are female aspects to His character. I long for a personal pronoun that reflects both the masculine and feminine, held together in perfect harmony and unity."

I don't know if you have arrived at these ideas through private reflection or through the reading of feminist writings or through seminary lectures. However it has happened, though, you have arrived at an erroneous understanding of the nature of God and of mankind made in his "image and likeness."
I am not just stating my opinion about this, but rather reaching back to the beginnnings of Christianity. Jesus imparted to his Apostles the correct understanding of these things, and the truth has been handed down through the generations since then by the successors of the Apostles, the Catholic bishops. A noted Catholic bishop of Lyons, (who was born around 130 and who learned from a holy disciple of St. John) was St. Irenaeus. This "Father of the Church" gives us the truly orthodox understanding of the image and likeness of God.

St. Irenaeus does not say that being made in God's image and likeness means that we are divine -- though some heretics have so twisted those words.
St. Irenaeus does not say that being made in God's image and likeness means that we act with authority, as God does.
St. Irenaeus does not say that being made in God's image and likeness means simply that we are able to dominate lower creatures.
And St. Irenaeus does not say that being made in God's image and likeness means that we resemble God in physical characteristics. No! God, in his divinity, is pure spirit, neither male nor female. He has neither "male aspects" nor "female aspects," contrary to what you claimed. Rather he has all perfections, all aspects of goodness. Each man and woman then partakes in some of God's good aspects, each in different degrees and respects.

So what does St. Irenaeus relay to us from Jesus through his apostles and their disciples?
Being made in God's image and likeness means that:
-- We are endowed with freedom, because we have a soul and spiritual powers of memory, intellect, and will. [God too has freedom and the named spiritual powers.]
-- We are personal beings capable of relationships with other people, with angels, and with God. [God too has relationships with people, with angels, and within the Trinity.]

Thus, Sharon, I (a man) and you (a woman) are made in the image of God -- in spiritual, not physical ways. And we do not need a noun or "pronoun that reflects both the masculine and feminine" for God, because he is neither.
The only thing we need to do is imitate Jesus, who (being God) was incapable of error or shortcoming. He told us what to call God -- "Abba" (Papa)/"Father" and "Spirit"/"Paraclete" and "Jesus"/"Son." We need nothing more, except humility.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

It's funny how women who try to engage with God as anything less than male are branded feminist or erroneous. God is Spirit beyond male or female as I said originally. The English language does not have a personal pronoun to adequately reflect the 'beyond gender' nature of God. So patriachal society homes in only on the male and justifies the subjugation of women. Eve was Co-caretaker with Adam not some inferior being. Why is it that women who are tired of being treated like 2nd class citizens are labelled raving feminists?

Nowhere in my postings have I claimed divinity with God or that we are physically like Him. Merely that male and female chrachteristics as contained in gendered bodies are a reflection of God. Sin has marred and twisted that reflection but through the sacrifice of Christ we are restored in Him.

Christ taught us to say Father, and He was the Son. The Spirit is Spirit. These are purely MALE manifestations when referred to with inadequate language. God does show what could be termed female characteristics - how could he make woman at all if there was nothing female within his perfectness. Or are you saying that women are 2nd class citizens because God has no female in His character?

I know I will be called a feminist, I am not. I simply believe that men and women were created equal and together they reflect the beauty of God.

-- Sharon Guy (sharon-guy@fsmail.net), April 29, 2002.

Dear Sharon,
Maybe you think the Catholic faith is just a patriarchal manifestation, without a spiritual bearing on the truth as Christ taught it? You over-react when you state this was only done to subjugate women. Man and woman are equal; they have the same nature: human. But the sexes are indeed a particular providence coming to the human race. It's God's will for our procreation and life in the world. Not for any other natural reason. If we didn't need to reproduce, all there would be is men. I don't say this to disparage the woman. I simply say it for what it means.

Women are child-bearers first, and manly (I need a term for equal) second. Speaking only of a NATURAL ideal.

Yet, our modern woman has determined she is a MAN. --That is, her station in life is NOT to remain *JUST A WOMAN!* --She doesn't care about a natural ideal for the human race.

This is pure ''victimology''. You can't blame patriarchism for what nature decreed! --And certainly, you can't justly second-guess God's providence and divine Will; simply to ''fight your way to the top!''

I'm not for discrimination; and I agree, whatever demeans you is demeaning to me. We love our mothers and our sisters; is that a fault of patriarchism, or is it really God's divine will?

You may not remember subjugate is a word coming from the root: yoke. To place under the yoke, like oxen. Marriage is also this root, in conjugal; meaning together under the same yoke. Like partners, carrying the load.

What's missing? The man isn't supposed to be under it? Or, the woman isn't?

Both man and woman carry the yoke. You and your spouse; and this is all equality means. Not getting the upper hand. --Modern women are determined they will either be the upper hand; live as MEN; or take no yoke at all. I find this absurd. Men are made to love and respect and protect their spouse. To serve and stabilize their home. If women think this is patriarchism, they've gone round the bend, IMHO. You make a liar and a blunderer out of God, whose Will is the only REASON. He owes no one any favors. He is our FATHER. Plain and simple, and GLORIOUS.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 29, 2002.

Actually, I would like to point out that the Holy Spirit exhibits more feminine aspects than the other persons of the Trinity.

The Holy Spirit is analagous to the "Wisdom" of the Old Testament, to whom feminine pronouns are applied, and is referred to in other books as "Ruah" (Breath), a feminine noun.

Greek translations neutralized "Ruah" into "Numah," which was then masculized in Latin translations as "espitirus." (If this information is incorrect, let me know--it comes from a Christian Mysticism class at the UofA).

In any case, while it is true God is pure spirit, it is perfectly legitimate to use male pronouns and imagery for God the Father and the Son, because of the reality of Christ's maleness and the example of his language. By speaking otherwise, it seems to me we are insinuating some defect in Jesus Christ, which is unacceptable.

Nonetheless, proper scholarship seems to acknowledge that feminine language is proper to the Holy Spirit, though again I reiterate, God is pure spirit. What we're discussing here is not whether God actually has gender, but rather what language is appropriate to use. In my mind, Christ's consistent reference to "Father" is a clear indication that his followers should do the same.

It's a paradox: The word "Father" is _inadequate_ to arrive at any sort of accuracy regarding God's nature; and yet it is also _perfect_ because it comes from Jesus Christ, who is Truth.

The insistence upon the of feminine pronouns, names, and language I believe is flawed, unscholarly, prone to political agenda, disrespectful, and at the very worst insubordinate--but it isn't blasphemous. What it does is imply that independent truth (That Jesus used the name "Father") is subordinate to personal perceptions, and is the seed of relativism.

Now, I hope that, by illustrating that the Holy Spirit can be properly referred to using feminine pronouns (blessed Wisdom and her fruits, and such) that I allay any prejudices that I am simply defending the dominant male agenda. That's not my interest.

Rather, I have to come down on the side of a proper response to the teachings and example of Christ and the Scriptures, which appears from all angles to support "Father" as a title for the first person of the Trinity.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), April 29, 2002.

In the Latin, ''Sancta Sofia'' or Sacred Wisdom is properly applied to the Word, the Eternal Son, I believe. Not by way of contradicting you, Jeffrey-- but I seem to recall reading that in the past.

Christ says of the Paraclete: --''He is the spirit of truth;'' and so even there, the male is indicated. In fact, though, pure spirit is neither male nor female. For the woman's insistance on finding a ''Her'' about God is just as backward as if ''He'' were unreasonable. But Jesus' word is good enough for Christians. Father makes sense to us.

Is it a blasphemy, then; to change the words to ''Our Mother''??? --Not a blasphemy. Just absurd. Why don't we also change Jesus' given name to Jesusita? Or Jessie?

And Mary can be called Mario, Joseph Josephine, and John the Baptist Juanita. Let's change all of them!!!
Salvation can become ''My Gal Sal'' / / /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 29, 2002.

Eugene,

I find it hard to believe that you actually said that if it were not the need for procreation there would only be men. If anything is absurd than it is that. Snails are hermaphrodite as are many other creatures in nature. God is perfectly capable of continuing a species without male and female.

Perhaps you would be happier in a totally male world and this is just wishful thinking on your part. What do you think it does to a woman to be told her only value is in bearing children? What about those who cannot have children? Are these women valueless? Jesus saw great value and Paul in his letters greeted his fellow workers several of whom were women. God has called me to serve Him in bringing people to His name. I thank Him that He loves and values me as a part of His beautiful creation.

Perhaps the scientists should develop the technology to develop life from just the male and then you could get rid of us erroneous women all together. I am sorry that you think women are only here to be incubators. You say you love your mothers and sisters but I can't help wondering if you would rather not have to.

Your posting disturbs me Eugene because as far as I can see there is very little of the love of Christ contained in it. I see now why the full on feminists are given such a hard time on this forum. There is obviously no room for women with opinions or intelligence in your theology. Women are just baby makers and no more. I am greatly saddened by this assertion. Thankfully it is not God's.

-- Sharon Guy (sharon-guy@fsmail.net), April 29, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Jeffrey. I was finally able to finish writing my response, almost a week after you posted your message.

You stated: "I would like to point out that the Holy Spirit exhibits more feminine aspects than the other persons of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is analogous to the "Wisdom" of the Old Testament, to whom feminine pronouns are applied, and is referred to in other books as "Ruah" (Breath), a feminine noun. Greek translations neutralized "Ruah" into "Numah," which was then masculized in Latin translations as "spiritus." (If this information is incorrect, let me know -- it comes from a Christian Mysticism class at the UofA)."

Jeffrey, I will take up the challenge of showing you that the "information is incorrect." By "UofA," I assume that you mean "University of Arizona." The kinds of things you mentioned were never stated anywhere prior to the rise of the radical feminist movement in the late 1960s, and you won't find them stated in orthodox Catholic colleges and seminaries. These are the kinds of things that feminist "theologians" have been spending the last three decades creating and spreading, in order to justify their quest for power.

I specifically stated, in my message to Sharon (a couple of messages before yours) that God does not have masculine or feminine "aspects," so I was very surprised to notice that you referred to the Holy Spirit's "feminine aspects." Things that we can label as "masculine" or "feminine" are properties only of a physical body, which neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit has. I'm going to say more about this, quoting from the pope, in a near-future message to Sharon.

I see now that I was not sufficiently explanatory in my last message, when I stated: "God, in his divinity, is pure spirit, neither male nor female. He has neither 'male aspects' nor 'female aspects,' contrary to what you [Sharon] claimed. Rather he has all perfections, all aspects of goodness. Each man and woman then partakes in some of God's good aspects, each in different degrees and respects."
Now let me add, to clarify ... It is not true that women alone exhibit a certain set of "feminine" virtues and aspects that men do not exhibit at all. And it is not true that men alone exhibit a certain set of "masculine" virtues and aspects that women do not exhibit at all. Rather, both sexes exhibit all virtues, all spiritual aspects, but women exhibit certain ones (tender caring, receptivity, etc.) to a much greater degree than men exhibit those same virtues and aspects. Conversely, men exhibit certain virtues and aspects to a much greater degree than women exhibit those. In this way, every person, regardless of sex, can participate in any of the divine perfections, any of the aspects of goodness that God possesses without his being male or female.

Jeffrey, opposing your statement that the "Holy Spirit is analogous to" Old Testament "wisdom" (sophia in Greek), someone else stated that he/she had heard that "wisdom" is more closely linked to Jesus instead. Actually, though, "Wisdom," personified as a woman in the O.T. book of the same name, is not clearly linked to a single Person of the divine Trinity. Rather it is one of the many perfections or qualities of the Trinity itself. The O.T. book is sometimes called "Wisdom of Solomon." All of us recall how the king was considered the wisest man who ever lived. He writes: "But I perceived that I would not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me." Wisdom is not a Person, but an attribute of God, a gift that he shared even with unbaptized humans like Solomon. The author of the O.T. book anthropomorphizes the gift of wisdom as a woman, perhaps because the noun "sophia" is feminine. This is just a literary device, not a way of saying that wisdom really is a person.

The next thing to touch on is the "gender" of certain nouns you have mentioned. The first thing to keep in mind is that we cannot allow uninformed amateur theologians to fool us about this. In English, we have strict agreement between the gender of the nouns we use and the sex of the person, animal, or object to which they apply. Thus, wife is feminine, rooster is masculine, and flower and rock are neuter. This is not always true in other languages, including those with which we associate the Bible (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin [in the Vulgate translation]). Sometimes, in non-English languages, the "gender" of a word is something merely linked to the liguistic construction of that word, without regard to the sex of the person or animal to which the word applies. Thus, a word of masculine or neuter gender may be applied to a female, or a word of feminine or neuter gender may be applied to a male, without anything strange being intended.

Holding this in mind, we need not find anything surprising (and certainly nothing conspiratorial) in the fact that the Hebrew "ruah" (or "ruach" or "ruwach") is feminine, while the Latin "spiritus" is masculine. Both literally mean "breath" or "wind." By extension, they can mean a personal spirit (such as the Holy Spirit). But notice this ... When "ruah" was used in the Old Testament, as in Genesis 1:2, the author meant the "breath" or "wind" of God. He knew nothing of a personal Spirit of God, and he was not hinting that God's Spirit is female (or has female aspects) by using a word of feminine gender.

Jeffrey, you were mistaken about the Greek word found in the New Testament to refer to the personal Spirit of God -- Pneuma. That noun does not have the feminine gender, but the neuter gender! The writers knew that they were speaking of a Person, but did not seek a word of feminine or masculine gender. They just used the Greek word for breath/Spirit, and it happened to be neuter. As I mentioned above, in some languages, the sex (or lack thereof) of a person may or may not be communicated by the gender of the noun used. [By the way, "pneuma" was the word used in place of "ruah" in Genesis 1:2 when the Greek-speaking Jews (in centuries B.C.) created the Septuagint translation.]

Further illustrations to help us to avoid being tricked by the genders of non-English words:
(1) Do you think that Jesus or anything about him Jesus is female/feminine? I didn't think so. However, many of us pray the "Anima Christi" prayer ("Soul of Christ, sanctify me"). The word, "anima," Jesus's human soul or "life principle," is of feminine gender, but that does not make him female!
(2) Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." Both in Greek and in Latin, the three words (way/truth/life) are of feminine gender, but that does not make Jesus female!
(3) Picture the hands of Jesus that healed people and held his own Body and Blood at the Last Supper. Both in Greek and in Latin, the word for "hands" is of feminine gender, but that does not make Jesus female or hermaphroditic!

Jeffrey, you also wrote these words: "[W]hile it is true God is pure spirit, it is perfectly legitimate to use male pronouns and imagery for God the Father and the Son, because of the reality of Christ's maleness and the example of his language. By speaking otherwise, it seems to me we are insinuating some defect in Jesus Christ, which is unacceptable. Nonetheless, proper scholarship seems to acknowledge that feminine language is proper to the Holy Spirit ..."

Your first conclusion is true, that Jesus's manhood and example tells you, me, and Sharon that we are to speak of Son and Father and to use male pronouns. [If a person were to refuse to do this, he would say that Jesus (divine) could err, and this would makes the person a heretic.] I think that I have shown by now that your second conclusion is false -- that "feminine language is proper to the Holy Spirit." If that were true, Jesus would have used such language, and the Church (the Body of Jesus) would have followed suit for 2,000 years. Neither Jesus nor his Church has used "feminine language" concerning the Holy Spirit, so we simple lay people can't start imposing it now. In Christian imagery, God's people are collectively "feminine" -- his "bride" (faithful, we hope); therefore, there can be no "feminine aspect" in God. Moreover, our Blessed Mother is called the "spouse of the Holy Spirit," and it was by that Spirit's power that she conceived her Son. Without being a Lesbian [what a sickening thought!], Our Lady could not be called the "spouse" of a Spirit that has "feminine aspects." Moreover, she could not have conceived a child by a Spirit with "feminine aspects." It should be pretty clear that the natural and supernatural factors in all this simply cannot add up to the radical feminist ideas that you heard in college. I conclude then that it is simply inaccurate and inappropriate to use any feminine terms in speaking to or about any Person of the Godhead.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

John,

You are a great defender of you're faith. This forum is Blessed to have such a learned Catholic, like yourself, on board. I can feel your love, for the Holy Trinity, in most of your posts.

Thank You, and God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), May 05, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Sharon. I was sorry to see that my message to you last time not only failed to modify your thinking, but seemed to irritate you a great deal. I have considered what you wrote in return on April 29, and I found that it contained some mistakes that need to be corrected. Some of what I would have said to you can be found in my reply to Jeffrey, so I recommend that you read that, if you have not already done so.

Sharon, you stated: "It's funny how women who try to engage with God as anything less than male are branded feminist or erroneous."
You said "less than male"? I don't consider (and the Catholic Church does not consider) "female" to be "less than male." I'm surprised to read that you do so. The Church considers males and females to be equal in dignity, but not identical in vocations. Maybe you meant "other than male"? But I don't encourage you to "engage with God" as either male or female, so what you stated, whether amended or not, does not really apply to me.

You continued: "The English language does not have a personal pronoun to adequately reflect the 'beyond gender' nature of God. So patriachal society homes in only on the male and justifies the subjugation of women."
Later you state, "I know I will be called a feminist, I am not." Nonsense, Sharon! You could not have uttered that silliness about "patriarchal society" and "subjugation of women" without being a feminist -- at least a sort of "semi-feminist," since you reject the some of the most foolish tenets of radical feminism. Jeffrey and I have already shown that no Christian can criticize the use of "male-seeming" words to refer to the Persons of the Trinity -- because Jesus gave us those words, and he (being God) cannot make a mistake and cannot be an unjust, subjugating force.

Sharon, you stated: "Nowhere in my postings have I claimed divinity with God or that we are physically like Him. Merely that male and female characteristics as contained in gendered bodies are a reflection of God."
I did not accuse you of claiming divinity or physical likeness. I only mentioned those things as part of a list of ways that various people, through the ages, have misinterpreted the phrase "image and likeness of God." Then I tried to explain how you too had misinterpreted it in yet another way. I hope that what I told you last time, taken with the expanded explanation I just gave Jeffrey, helps you to see that God does not possess male and female "aspects" (your and Jeffrey's original word) or "characteristics" (your new word). God simply possesses all good qualities, all perfections; then humans (both male and female) share in those same qualities to varying degrees and manifest those qualities in different ways -- characteristically masculine or feminine ways, because of our different physical/psychological constitutions (mental, emotional, chemical [e.g., hormonal], etc.), not because of some imagined masculine and feminine components within divinity.

Here are the words of a very wise man on this subject:
"Although man is created in God's likeness, God does not cease to be for him the one "who dwells in unapproachable light": he is the 'Different One,' by essence the 'totally Other.' This observation on the limits of the analogy -- the limits of man's likeness to God in biblical language -- must also be kept in mind when, in different passages of Sacred Scripture (especially in the Old Testament), we find comparisons that attribute to God 'masculine' or 'feminine' qualities. ... This characteristic of biblical language -- its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God -- points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal 'generating' which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this 'generating' has neither 'masculine' nor 'feminine' qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since 'God is spirit' and possesses no property typical of the body, neither 'feminine' nor 'masculine.' ..."
This was taken from Pope John Paul II's writings. He clearly states that God does not actually possess sex-based qualities, though we may be led to think that he does if we misinterpret the figurative language, the anthropomorphic words, in the Bible.

Sharon, you continued: "Christ taught us to say Father, and He was the Son. The Spirit is Spirit. These are purely MALE manifestations when referred to with inadequate language."
Jesus was perfect God and perfect man. He did not use "inadequate language." Incapable of error, he could only have used "accurate language." If there was more to reveal than "Father" and "Son" and "Spirit," he would have revealed it. If you think otherwise, you accuse Jesus of error or weakness -- and that is heretically unChristian.

I suggest that you study this more deeply, Sharon. Pray about it, and extricate every vestige of radical feminism from the depths of your mind and soul, because it will only cause you more and more trouble and sadness.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

May the Lord bless you for your kind encouragement, David.
Please pray for me to have a deeper love for the Holy Trinity, against whom I shamefully sin every day.
Thank you for your good example of the Spirit's gift of Piety.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.

John,

I thank you for your corrections. Note that when I repeat something from the UofA, I usually use qualifying terms like, "seems like" and "appears to be." Informative posts like yours are the reason I did that.

Although, I did know that pneuma was neuter; that much of my University education was correct, at least. :)

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 05, 2002.

A reply to Sharon Guy, hoping she'll understand this time:

Sharon
I stated emphatically men and women are equal. Equal in dignity and worth. Men have no particular advantage whether in virtue, or intelligence, over the female counterpart. She is just that-- his counterpart as Divine Providence intended.

When I shock you saying we have to reproduce, and the purpose of MAKING us two sexes is no mystery; I don't discount woman's inherent soul and humanity. Her SEX is for reproductive purposes. Her soul and destiny are wholly human and in no way inferior to males.

You think I said ONLY as a reproductive measure; and nothing more. But I said that was the PURPOSE of a coupled humanity. Without reproductive necessities, humanity would be single-sexed, presumably. That seems logical. Not chauvinistic, logical.

You counter with a somewhat lame analogy-- the hermaphrodite condition of certain species. That simply corroborates my own point. No difference equals no superior and no inferior.

But in reality, human beings created in God's image are capable of uniting in LOVE, and love knows no inferior. So, don't put words in my mouth. I love woman as she is. I wouldn't change her for the world. She is worthy of all my love; discrimination is hardly love. You seem to see an intent to discriminate. I was pointing out an obvious purpose in God's plan. I'm sorry; if I misled you, take this post as a corrective measure. But my post a few days back (April 23) is quite the point. You ought to see it once more, to understand what I'm trying to say to you.

''. . . now, coming on the heels of women's liberation, -- Why? Isn't it because of the agenda, which must take precedence over all else, even respect for God? ''She Who Must Be Obeyed'' is letting the world know, after 2,000 years of ignorance, how badly males have miscalculated? Isn't this hunger after distinction, importance and rank a farce? You will end up throwing all males over the cliff. --Then you might be satisfied, I suppose.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 05, 2002.

Thank you, Jeffrey.
I sincerely apologize for not having read your message carefully enough, which made me think you had said "Pneuma" is feminine. I see now that you said: "Greek translations neutralized 'Ruah' into 'Numah' ..." I did not pay proper attention to your word, "neutralized."
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.