There have been some interesting comments by some. However, some seem to be on this thread simply to argue their point. I noticed my comments went (seemingly) unnoticed. OK you may have thought it a little presumptuous for a Muslim to comment - fair enough. However, Maybe as the outsider I may be able to act as an arbitrator?
Surely their is agreement that ‘He’ or more specifically ‘Our Father’ does not refer to a man in the sky? In Islam or Judaism, such thinking would send you out of the religion quicker than you could say Jehovah! Whilst such a belief may be less heretical given the person of Christ, it surely is still a false belief because he is viewed as fully man and fully God; male body but God’s soul, right? So God even in this belief is clearly no a man in any literal sense, agreed?
It has been put forward that Catholics use ‘He’ and ‘Our Father’ because Jesus did and for that matter every Pope, Bishop, Priest and Monk throughout Christian history. This is a compelling argument, surely? There were incidents were Saints may have used She but these were in specific situations of personal intimacy only - which I’ll continue in a later point. That said, if we are taking that argument literally then maybe the Aramaic masculine pronoun should be used or at least the Latin one? It seems pretty reasonable to everyone that is unnecessary.
To say that the patriarchal angle doesn’t hold is - and I do understand your point - is a little naive. God has put an order where masculinity are the attributes of authority and thus males are meant to take the responsibility of leadership - though not exclusively. This in no way detracts from femininity; it is not less just different, any interpretation suggesting otherwise is a modern calamity. Femininity is more inclined to love, like a mother, since you believe God is love then it would suggest femininity is more fundamental to the Divine nature - not that, it means God is woman neither does it deny the use of He as will be mentioned. And just to return to the first sentence: given the context of Judea 33AD a man would have been the only practical form a Divine being would take.
He is used in reference to transcendence as many have stated, and by authoritative sources which surely no lay Catholic can refute? It is term of respect rather like my current monarch would only be addressed by me as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, it would be incorrect to call her an endearing term like Liz because she is in her position of Majesty. If however, I was her husband and in private then calling her Liz would be appropriate because she is now in her position of wife. Calling her your majesty would not deny her mode of being as loving wife either. Saints have used she in private when intimately with God because this is appropriate as they call on the - as you have it - the Divine essence of Love - a characteristic of femininity.
Being in God’s image is not literal either but rather we share a sort of analogous character to His, right? He has characteristics both classically masculine (eg Justice) and feminine (eg Mercy). So it would suggest the soul is both; in balance. However as I have postulated, the Divine nature is possibly more feminine and thus we may say the ideal soul is also such? Since a relationship is sort between Beloved and lover then this may tell us something about ourselves? It is said that Eve was created from Adam’s rib thus man loves woman because he wants to be whole and woman loves man because she wants to return home. Could this be a metaphor for our relationship with God? When He is Beloved we are feminine and when He loves us we are masculine? Deep stuff, huh? Has anyone read Theology of the Body by HH Pope John Paul II?
Anyway, so it seems fairly clear (in public at least) God is referred to as He not because He’s a man, but because it is more becoming of His Majesty and because religious authority and tradition have also done so. Hope this helps and God knows best
] Take care.
I hope that man meets God face to face.