I guess I’ve always wondered if anyone else has a problem with this imagery for this reason:
People have used the term “Bride of Christ” to refer to a consecrated, vowed woman religious, a sister or nun, as though she were “married” to Christ.
The male counterpart to a sister or nun is a brother, friar, or monk. He is a consecrated, vowed man religous. (Don’t confuse this with priesthood - they are two separate callings.)
So why not use the term “Bridegroom of Christ” for men religous? After all they are bound, “married” to Christ in the same way that women religious are.
What, what?? A “Bridegroom of Christ”? That can’t happen! That would, be, like, a homosexual marriage or something. Jesus was male, and Jesus was called the Christ. So therefore Christ must be male and can only be a bridegroom. Anathema!
Okay, then, maybe these consecrated male religious are only spiritual spouses of Christ, and since Christ has to be the bridegroom, then a male religous is really also a spiritual bride of Christ.
What, what? A male being called to be a “spiritual bride”? Good heavens, no! Spiritual Bridehood is really just a precursor to Spiritual Motherhood. And men, well sorry, but they’re just not ontologically ordered to be a spiritual mother. You can never turn a daddy into a mommy, right?
This posting drips with sarcasm to make the point that there are serious problems with calling women religious Brides of Christ. To make the title work, one must either deny the masculinity of men religious, and/or take a long hard look at the arguments against admitting homosexual couples to marriage or women to holy orders.