Yes, I did. I can appreciate what he’s trying to get at, but it has an unquestionable slant to it. For instance, I think his argument that language can’t change that fast is false. It can. It does. A better argument is that it should not; that is, that the traditional inclusive use of “he” should be preserved, if only because it has an irreplaceable use in liturgy. (It should be preserved because it lends greater elegance to the language, too, but that is less important.)
Also, he writes about males being the ones who historically “accepted” danger. I think that is a bit backwards, too. Men, historically, had to seek out danger. Manhood wasn’t a matter of taking what came at you. Womanhood, OTOH, did put the person in an accepting position. A woman, whether she liked it or not, would risk her life to bear children, would shed blood without having any control over when or where that happened, would be in a position of self-sacrifice in which another could not take her place. The honor she got for doing these things was also going to be of an entirely different nature. There weren’t going to be songs sung by the masses about how you endured your difficult labor, or worked in the fields up until the day you delivered, or any of that. The rites of passage for men and women reflected these differences.
As I said, I think he also gets the “sons and daughters” thing backwards, to the point of doing exactly what he is trying to argue “non-inclusive” language does not do, which is to denigrate the feminine. Again, it is Mary, referred to by the angel as God’s “highly favored daughter”, who is Queen of Apostles and the Help of Priests. I like that he points the whole thing back to the mysteries of marriage, the mysteries of the Church as Bride and Christ as Bridegroom, but I think it is a mistake to make this into some implication that women are supposed to become men in order to be holy. That is not what is meant by referring to all of us as “brethren.”
I think I agree with what I think he meant to say. What he actually said, though, has some real difficulties with it.
), I’m sure he wants to know what his congregation thinks. Changing the gender of God in the liturgy is a serious abuse, not only because it is making unauthorized changes to the liturgy but also because it is heresy. If you know other people who were offended/concerned by it, get them to go with you and talk to the priest together, or perhaps email the parish office/priest’s email?