What Is a Catholic Feminist? (A thoughtful blog post I wanted to share)

[severus68]

I. "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"

COLOR="Blac

By calling [God[“Father”**/, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that **he **is at the same time goodness and loving care for all **his **children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: is he is God He also transcends HUMAN fatherhood and motherhood, although **he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM​

+Militant feminists completely misinterpret and constantly misrepresent the phrase from the Catechism that “He is neither man nor woman.” . . . and they perpetuate their false witness/lie by repeating just that little phrase out of context . . . over and over and over . . . presenting their corrupt lying interpretation of this phrase as if it were some sort of foundational truth . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church portion quoted above clearly states God is not man or woman . . . and of course He IS NEITHER ** a man nor a woman . . . **man and woman are **. . . CREATURES . . . CREATED BEINGS . . . GOD . . . is NEITHER a creature NOR a created being . . .

Continuing on in reality . . . their is another creation reality connected to that little phrase . . . regarding our Holy God’s holy wonder and purpose of profound differences between his created attributes of . . . male and female . . . the masculine and the feminine . . . as complimentary and reciprocal necessities within creation . . which are present and surround us throughout all of God’s created world . . . **in which God always ** presents Himself in all three persons . . . Father . . . Son . . . and Holy Spirit . . . as clearly and irrefutably . . . MASCULINE . . . throughout Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and . . . The Blessed Virgin Mary . . . the Holy MOTHER of God . . . is the feminine creature our God has created and provided for mankind to come to know . . . understand . . . and embrace the epitomy of holyness of the feminine . . .
Whether the created creature is a duck or a whooping crane. . . a minnow or a whale . . . or a skunk or a grizzly bear . . . or a tree, plant or flower . . .or a human being . . .
**(and God is **neither a duck nor a whooping crane . . . nor a minnow nor or a whale . . . nor a skunk nor a grizzly bear . . . nor a tree, plant or flower . . . nor a human being) . . . **they alL are created male and female . . . masculine and feminine ** . . .

"So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)"

​

​

- EWTN Online Library​

​

​

What I posted is certainly not against the Catholic Cathechism.

I have gone to the ETWN link and find only one article/response by Colin Donovan. Firstly, I do not find everything you posted here above that link in that article. Here is also part of that article/response
“The use of male terms (Father, Son, He, Him etc.) are not statements about the masculinity of God, but ways to understand from our experience of ourselves, imperfect as we are, what are essentially spiritual realities”
The above is in line with what I posted.

However he makes this statement
“Not surprisingly, there is a close connection between the ideological foundations of feminism and those of lesbianism (less so, male homosexuality)…”
I disagree.

God is God, Christ is God, Mary is not God. All men and women should follow Christ and His Teachings. All should honour Mary chosen by God to be the mother of Christ.

 

[Jesus_123]

…
I have gone to the ETWN link and find only one article/response by Colin Donovan. Firstly, I do not find everything you posted here above that link in that article. . . .

+Really . . . ? . . . the only section I quoted . . . *which is incased in appropriate “quotes” *. . . from the EWTN Online Article is in the Inclusive Language section of the article . . . fourth (4th) paragraph down . . . *which is . . . in its context . . . below . . . *

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Inclusive Language
​

The common practice of English historically has been to use male nouns and pronouns (man, mankind, he) when referring collectively to human beings, regardless of sex. In recent decades some feminists have claimed that this is offensive to them, as it represents a “patriarchal worldview” in which men are superior to women. Through their media influence they have effectively ended such use in publishing, academia, television and movies, as well as in common speech. Within the Church, through the well-oiled machinery of dissent, the rejection of such “non-inclusive” language has been applied to the use of male terms in connection with God.

Whether in the secular arena or in the Church, almost no resistance has been offered to this forced development of language, and few are even aware of what is at stake, seeing it only as a matter of fairness to women. Thankfully, the Holy See has resisted the tide and clearly drawn the lines between what is an acceptable use of inclusive language and what is unacceptable. Acceptable use would include those collective expressions for human beings which today a speaker or author would be expected to use, such as “ladies and gentleman” or “brothers and sisters”. It is unlikely that any one would use “brothers” or “brethren” for a mixed audience today. Thus, there is nothing wrong in principle to this kind of horizontal inclusive language.

What is unacceptable to the Magisterium, however, is the use of inclusive language in collective terms for human beings which have an anthropological significance, or, in terms for God or Christ (vertical inclusive language). The collective term man, for example, is both a philosophically and theologically appropriate term for the human race. Just as there is a certain precedence within the Trinity, by which the Father is God, the Son is God by generation and the Holy Spirit is God by spiration, Sacred :Bible1:Scripture reveals that an image of this Trinity of equal Persons in God is reflected in the creation of woman from man. Adam (which means man) is a man, Eve is a man (since she shares his nature), and each of their descendants is a man. This expresses equality, NOT inequality, as feminists claim. Whatever injustices men have perpetrated on women through the millennia, Adam’s sin is the cause, not God and His wise created design.

**So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)

- EWTN Online Library**​

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Gracious Holy Triune God+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+I fully believe what the Catechism reveals below . . . and rest in the knowledge that the authorship of the :bible1: **Holy Bible is Divine . . . and that Sacred Scripture is considered by Holy Mother Church as utterly infallible . . . and throughout the Old and New Testaments . . . each person of the Holy Trinity is always presented as masculine . . .
**
GOD said it . . . I believe it . . . and that’s good enough for me!

:coffeeread:
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred :bible1: Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED :bible1: SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred :bible1: Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

**In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly

to meet his children, and talks with them. **

:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b​

:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below is the definitive statement from the Vatican clearly delineated for Catholics concerning this grave disordered error/heresy of attempting to redefine the masculine gender of our Holy Triune God in which the Holy See clearly denounces this presumptious sin . . . and the **Holy See **has been very actively fighting against this virulent widespread gross heresy for many years . . .

CDF NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1995

[In 1995 the **Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued “secret norms” to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (of the United States) to guide their revision of the Lectionary used at Mass. Prior to this time the Congregation had REJECTED two versions of Scripture (the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] and the Revised New American Bible [NAB]) for use in the Liturgy,

**owing to the unacceptable use of inclusive language. **
These norms remained “secret,” even from most bishops, until just prior to the June 1997 meeting of the bishops’ conference. This meeting approved, by subsequent mail ballot, a version of the Lectionary agreed upon by a working committee of Vatican officials and US bishops in March 1997. This Lectionary conforms to the previously issued Norms. …]

1. The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the :bible1: Biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.
2. The **first principle **with respect to :bible1: Biblical texts is that of fidelity, maximum possible fidelity to the words of the text. Biblical translations should be faithful to the original language and to the internal truth of the inspired text, in such a way as to respect the language used by the human author in order to be understood by his intended reader. Every concept in the original text should be translated in its context. Above all, translations must be faithful to the sense of Sacred :bible1: Scripture understood as a unity and totality, which finds its center in Christ, the Son of God incarnate (cf. “Dei Verbum” III and IV), as confessed in the Creeds of the Church.
3. The translation of ** Scripture** should faithfully reflect the :bible1: **Word of God **in the original human languages. It must be listened to in its time-conditioned, at times even inelegant mode of human expression

without “correction” or “improvement” in service of modern sensitivities

INDENTa) In liturgical translations or readings where the text is very uncertain or in which the meaning is very much disputed, the translation should be made with due regard to the Neo-Vulgate.

b) If explanations are deemed to be pastorally necessary or appropriate, they should be given in editorial notes, commentaries, homilies, etc.

4/l.** The natural gender of “personae” in the Bible,** including the human author of various texts where evident, must not be changed insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/2. The grammatical gender of God, pagan deities, and angels according to the original texts **must not be changed **insofar as this is possible in the receptor language.

4/3. In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional Biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained.

4/4. Similarly, in keeping with the Church’s tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit.

4/5. There shall be NO systematic substitution of the masculine pronoun or possessive adjective to refer to God in correspondence to the original text.

4/6. Kinship terms that are clearly gender specific, as indicated by the context, should be respected in translation.

To read the rest of the Holy See’s Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith’s publication please cllick on the following link:

:compcoff: Link: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNORMS.HTM

[Adoremus Bulletin, III, No. 5, July/August 1997]

---

Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210[/INDENT][/INDENT]

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . in dedication to our Father Who Art in Heaven+​

 

[Dale_M]

+Below is the definitive statement from the Vatican clearly delineated for Catholics concerning this grave disordered error/heresy of attempting to redefine the masculine gender of our Holy Triune God in which the Holy See clearly denounces this presumptious sin . . . and the Holy See has been very actively fighting against this virulent widespread gross heresy for many years . . .

The document you linked to does not mention sin, let alone heresy.

What it does say is that in the liturgy of the Mass, traditional gender pronouns and expressions should be used, in order to convey the time-conditioned truths of revelation. However, this document does not concern itself beyond the liturgy of the Holy Mass. It seems reasonable to be extra cautious with the liturgy of the Mass, to ensure that essential truths are not lost. However, this does not mean that the traditional forums are the only spiritually acceptable, or meaningful, expressions outside the liturgy of Mass.

 

[severus68]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 2. THE FATHER

I. "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"

239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that **he **is at the same time goodness and loving care for all **his **children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that **God **transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: is he is God. He also transcends HUMAN fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.​

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM​

+Militant feminists completely misinterpret and constantly misrepresent the phrase from the Catechism that “He is neither man nor woman.” . . . and they perpetuate their false witness/lie by repeating just that little phrase out of context . . . over and over and over . . . presenting their corrupt lying interpretation of this phrase as if it were some sort of foundational truth . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church portion quoted above clearly states God is not man or woman . . . and of course He IS NEITHER a man nor a woman . . . **man and woman are **. . . CREATURES . . . CREATED BEINGS . . . GOD . . . is NEITHER a creature NOR a created being . . .

Continuing on in reality . . . their is another creation reality connected to that little phrase . . . regarding our Holy God’s holy wonder and purpose of profound differences between his created attributes of . . . male and female . . . the masculine and the feminine . . . as complimentary and reciprocal necessities within creation . . which are present and surround us throughout all of God’s created world . . . in which God always presents Himself in all three persons . . . Father . . . Son . . . and Holy Spirit . . . as clearly and irrefutably . . . MASCULINE . . . throughout Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and . . . The Blessed Virgin Mary . . . the Holy MOTHER of God . . . is the feminine creature our God has created and provided for mankind to come to know . . . understand . . . and embrace the epitomy of holyness of the feminine . . .
Whether the created creature is a duck or a whooping crane. . . a minnow or a whale . . . or a skunk or a grizzly bear . . . or a tree, plant or flower . . .or a human being . . .
(and God is **neither **a duck nor a whooping crane . . . nor a minnow nor or a whale . . . nor a skunk nor a grizzly bear . . . nor a tree, plant or flower . . . nor a human being) . . . **they alL are created male and female . . . masculine and feminine ** . . .

"So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)"

​

- EWTN Online Library​

​

:compcoff: EWTN Link: ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm#inclusive

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You our Gracious Triune God+
. . . thank you Dear Blessed Virgin Mary+​

Please read the paragraph "What is unacceptable to the Magestrium’ in your post. How is that in line to what I first responded in a post of yours and how did my response contradict this please. Also, with respect, your bolding and caps and colours mean that I am limited in the characters of my response. I am sure we can all read and understand without all that. Thank you.

 

[Jesus_123]

The document you linked to does not mention sin, let alone heresy. …

+In relationship to Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . heresy is the . . . changing . . . of known established written . . . Truths of God . . . which are confirmed and taught by the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church’s Magesterium as infallible fact and infallible truth (infallible = without error) . . . into lies to suit oneself . . . to lie is a sin and a breaking of the law of God - specifically the Eighth Commandment of the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses . . .

**Using an example: **If a pharmicist “changes” the complex formula for a specific medication to suit himself/herself . . . and sells it under the name of the original medication . . . he/she perpetrates a gravely sinful dangerous fraudulent lie . . . and breaks both the Law of God and the law of man here in the United States . . . such behavior is considered both sinful and criminal . . . below is the definition of heresy from the *Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary *. . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . .**her·e·sy noun \ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-\plural her·e·sies

Definition of HERESY

1a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma

b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church

c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

2a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice

b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

Examples of HERESY

They were accused of heresy.

He was preaching dangerous heresies.

Origin of HERESY

Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take

First Known Use: 13th century

Related to HERESY

Synonyms: dissent, dissidence, heterodoxy, nonconformity

The idea that Sacred :bible1: Scripture can be radically changed as to meaning . . . such as . . . **redefining the gender of God ** . . . which since the beginning of time in the Judeo/Christian religion has been known as masculine . . . and redefining God as being also a goddess . . . a Him and her combined . . . essentially dissolving God into a neutered “it” . . . clearly falls into the category of heresy . . . and that one version of the Holy Bible can be held as truth inside liturgy within the church walls . . . and that people can personally believe whatever they like and . . . **radically change **. . . Scripture to suit themselves outside the walls of the church . . . is not Catholicism . . .

The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church holds **Sacred :bible1: Scripture **as the holy and infallible Word of God. The incredibly . . . strange. . . idea that **Sacred Scripture **is just a bunch of words that can be thrown out . . . arbitrarily changed at will . . . paid no attention to . . . believed or not believed. . . and not believing that Sacred Scripture is absolutely necessary spiritual food for a healthy spiritual life to be lived close to . . . Jesus . . . our Wonderful Beloved Saviour and Lord . . . and for living a righteous holy life walking with . . . God the Son as our Lord . . . in accordance with our . . . Gracious Heavenly Father’s . . . Holy Will . . . **is grave error **. . . and is an utterly non-Christian/non-Catholic point of view . . .

:bible1:
“For there shall be a time,
when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but,
according to their own desires,
they will heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears:”
- 2 Timothy 4:3

:bible1:
“Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
***- Isaiah 5:20 ***

"To be ignorant of :bible1: Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ."

• St. Jerome

Peace . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Blessed Virgin Mary our Mother+
. . . please pray for us+
. . . St. Michael, Holy Archangel of God+
. . . please protect us from all heresy+
:knight1:
​

 

[LemonAndLime]

Jesus_123, I think you’ll find people more likely to reply to your posts if you didn’t use so much colour and formatting. I actually find it very hard to read. :hypno:

 

[severus68]

The idea that Sacred :bible1: Scripture can be radically changed as to meaning . . . such as . . . redefining the gender of God . . . which since the beginning of time in the Judeo/Christian religion has been known as masculine . . . and redefining God as being also a goddess . . . a Him and her combined . . . essentially dissolving God into a neutered “it” . . . clearly falls into the category of heresy . . . and that one version of the Holy Bible can be held as truth inside liturgy within the church walls . . . and that people can personally believe whatever they like and . . . **radically change **. . . Scripture to suit themselves outside the walls of the church . . . is not Catholicism . . .

The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church holds **Sacred :bible1: Scripture **as the holy and infallible Word of God. The incredibly . . . strange. . . idea that **Sacred Scripture **is just a bunch of words that can be thrown out . . . arbitrarily changed at will . . . paid no attention to . . . believed or not believed. . . and not believing that Sacred Scripture is absolutely necessary spiritual food for a healthy spiritual life to be lived close to . . . Jesus . . . our Wonderful Beloved Saviour and Lord /QUOTE]

I must say it is difficult to read what you post and to reply.

On two of your points.
Firstly God has no gender so your saying the gender of God “being masculine” is not correct. The goddess thing is not a byword or tenet of feminism.
Secondly, Catholics believe the Bible was inspired by God, not that God is its author. The Bible is holy. Where are you getting the idea that Catholic/Christian feminists view that Scripture is just a bunch of disposable, interchangeable words.

Perhaps if you took away the colouring, bolding and all the quoting and just explain your view?

 

[Joan1969]

I might have misunderstood what you say above and if so my apologies. God is God. Christ as God made Man came to earth as a man but God is neither a man nor a woman. We are made in God’s image. We usually refer to God as ‘He’ and "Him’ for convenience. What is wrong with a person seeing the maternal charecteristics of God please?

Dear Servus,

First off, apologies for not having visited this website for several days. I’ve just been tied up.

I am happy to reserach the theology here if needed, but I really think the best thing to do off the bat is to point out that this [God as our Father, and not our Mother] is the overwhelming position of Sacred Scripture, and of the Tradition of the Church. No, God is not a male in any biological sense since He has no body. However, the Fatherhood of God is objective and is not a convenience.

Remember that Jesus is, to all eternity, the Heavenly Bridegroom, so His masculinity is not a fluke or a mere adaptation of God to cultural conditions.

Also, do not forget our Blessed Mother, who can’t be replaced and Who was given to us by God precisely to be our one and only Heavenly Mother.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Joan1969]

Actually I think it is a problem b/c men die and people get divorced and too many SAHMs end up either in poverty or with a lower standard of living than they should have…

…I do really think it’s a problem that the corporate mentality is so widely accepted that long breaks are viewed as highly detrimental. I also think companies and other groups such as nonprofits should be far more flexible with mothers than they are. If they said OK take a year off and then work 5 hours a week for another year or two and then see how things go, some mothers might have an easier time. A lot of people don’t want to completely quit but end up being forced into it b/c the workforce is not flexible and these days with computers, blackberrys, cell phones and numerous other forms of technology, flexibility makes more sense than it used to, in my opinion.

Hi Silentstar,

As I said in my post above, apologies for having been away for some days.

I am sorry to hear that you are in a difficult position. One part of the solution, I would say, is that everyone have a good insurance policy, both for death and disability. I have a generous policy on my own life, since my services simply would cost a great deal in a sheer economic sense.

Divorce is generally an injustice, and I don’t really know how people who undergo it avoid economic consequences regardless of whether or not they work. As far as workplace flexiblity, I do agree that workplaces need to be more friendly to families where feasible. No disagreements there; not at all!! Yet I would say that most workplaces find at least some of what is requested not to be feasible. Also, many people are choosing to let the workplace overshadow their family life, and they have a great impact on what companies can do and demand.

I don’t have any pat solutions to any of this, except to say that men and women should do the best that they can for their families, without individualistic demands for a certain level of career success at the expense of either marriage or kids. But like all “shoulds”, it’s often easier said than done.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[severus68]

Dear Servus,

First off, apologies for not having visited this website for several days. I’ve just been tied up.

I am happy to reserach the theology here if needed, but I really think the best thing to do off the bat is to point out that this [God as our Father, and not our Mother] is the overwhelming position of Sacred Scripture, and of the Tradition of the Church. No, God is not a male in any biological sense since He has no body. However, the Fatherhood of God is objective and is not a convenience.

Remember that Jesus is, to all eternity, the Heavenly Bridegroom, so His masculinity is not a fluke or a mere adaptation of God to cultural conditions.

Also, do not forget our Blessed Mother, who can’t be replaced and Who was given to us by God precisely to be our one and only Heavenly Mother.

God Bless,
Joan

Hi Joan. That’s quite alright.

I was responding to posts like “the gender of God has always been masculine”, to quote loosely. However I probably expressed some of my thoughts wrongly. Christ always referred to His ‘Father’. The Lord’s Prayer’ begins with 'Our Father". I have no issues with that. However we both male and female are made in the image of God so there must be the masculine and feminine in God as in the one God. However God is God and a spirit so we cannot say God has a gender and that God is of the masculine gender.
I have not and will not commment here on why Christ , God made Man came as a man. To be honest, I have never really read about that as I have always taken it as a given with any questions I have to be answered in the afterlife - in heaven I hope and pray…

Sometimes I understand why some Protestants believe that Catholics worship and pray to Mary in the same way as we do to God. Yes we specially honour Mary and ask her to pray for us. Yes she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus. Not sure what this has to do with the issue being discussed.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 2. THE FATHER

I. "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"

239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that **he **is at the same time goodness and loving care for all **his **children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that **God **transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: is he is God. He also transcends HUMAN fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.​

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM​

+Militant feminists completely misinterpret and constantly misrepresent the phrase from the Catechism that “He is neither man nor woman.” . . . and they perpetuate their false witness/lie by repeating just that little phrase out of context . . . over and over and over . . . presenting their corrupt lying interpretation of this phrase as if it were some sort of foundational truth . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church portion quoted above clearly states God is not man or woman . . . and of course He IS NEITHER a man nor a woman . . . **man and woman are **. . . CREATURES . . . CREATED BEINGS . . . GOD . . . is NEITHER a creature NOR a created being . . .

Continuing on in reality . . . their is another creation reality connected to that little phrase . . . regarding our Holy God’s holy wonder and purpose of profound differences between his created attributes of . . . male and female . . . the masculine and the feminine . . . as complimentary and reciprocal necessities within creation . . which are present and surround us throughout all of God’s created world . . . in which God always presents Himself in all three persons . . . Father . . . Son . . . and Holy Spirit . . . as clearly and irrefutably . . . MASCULINE . . . throughout Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and . . . The Blessed Virgin Mary . . . the Holy MOTHER of God . . . is the feminine creature our God has created and provided for mankind to come to know . . . understand . . . and embrace the epitomy of holyness of the feminine . . .
Whether the created creature is a duck or a whooping crane. . . a minnow or a whale . . . or a skunk or a grizzly bear . . . or a tree, plant or flower . . .or a human being . . .
(and God is **neither **a duck nor a whooping crane . . . nor a minnow nor or a whale . . . nor a skunk nor a grizzly bear . . . nor a tree, plant or flower . . . nor a human being) . . . **they alL are created male and female . . . masculine and feminine ** . . .
]

The idea of the Christian God as masculine (or even outright male) being has a lot of historical mileage behind it, and frankly fits Scripture and Christian traditions better than the idea of a God as an asexual or even (in some way) feminine being (from what I have seen anyway).

The problem is that if we revert to using man/men as the measure of all things (as the ancient Greeks did) and judge women by how closely they adhere to masculine ways and ideals, then idea of equality between the sexes (especially when it comes to spirituality/godliness) must be rejected.

Moreover if the concept of God as Father and Son is legitimate but the idea of God as Mother (or any other sort of feminine being) is illegitimate, then that implies (or outright says) that femininity is in some kind of profoundly spiritual way inferior to or less than masculinity.

-AngryAtheist8

P.S. I had to cut off the end of your long rambling post because it was too long.

 

[Joan1969]

…Sometimes I understand why some Protestants believe that Catholics worship and pray to Mary in the same way as we do to God. Yes we specially honour Mary and ask her to pray for us. Yes she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus. Not sure what this has to do with the issue being discussed.

Hi Servus,

I referred to Mary since the search for maternal characteristics in God seems to overlook her role. Why would God give us our Mother if He wanted us to reflect extensively on maternal characteristics in Him? The Bible does reflect this way- exactly twice. So such analogies are not prohibited, but they are only analogical and don’t reflect objective Truth the way speaking of God as Father, or of Jesus as Bridegroom, does.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[streamerfan]

There are a number of interesting opinions mentioned in the previous posts, and if readers want to read some in-depth research on the subject, it is worth reading this book: Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement; by Mary J. Henold. Ms. Henold is a self-proclaimed Catholic feminist college professor who writes about the movement since it surfaced in the 1960’s.

A review of the book can be found in the June 2011 issue of New Oxford Review, pp. 38-41. The review may be reachable at this URL: newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0611-gardiner

 

[Joan1969]

There are a number of interesting opinions mentioned in the previous posts, and if readers want to read some in-depth research on the subject, it is worth reading this book: Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement; by Mary J. Henold. Ms. Henold is a self-proclaimed Catholic feminist college professor who writes about the movement since it surfaced in the 1960’s.

A review of the book can be found in the June 2011 issue of New Oxford Review, pp. 38-41. The review may be reachable at this URL: newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0611-gardiner

Hi Streamerfan,

Certainly an interesting review. Obviously, several of the Catholics here who identify themselves as feminists will avoid this kind of extremism, and will define feminism very differently than some of the folks in the article.

But I still see things as before- since so many people who have taken the term “feminist” have engaged in activities and attitudes which, like these, are offensive to faithful Catholics, I really don’t see what is to be gained by any of those same good Catholics taking the term for themselves. There are other ways to express solidarity with the authentic interests of women. Possibly a new term could be coined?

God Bless,
Joan

 

[severus68]

Hi Servus,

I referred to Mary since the search for maternal characteristics in God seems to overlook her role. Why would God give us our Mother if He wanted us to reflect extensively on maternal characteristics in Him? The Bible does reflect this way- exactly twice. So such analogies are not prohibited, but they are only analogical and don’t reflect objective Truth the way speaking of God as Father, or of Jesus as Bridegroom, does.

God Bless,
Joan

Hi Joan,

We are made in God’s image so we see the masculine and feminine in God. Mary, holy as she is is also a creature of God. Of course she has been given a special status by God… We can look to Mary and other holy people as examples and role models. Mary as a mother and especially as the \mother of Jesus is of especial comfort to many as she understands and underwent the pain and suffering of a mother who saw the suffering of her beloved son.

I have no issues with the Trinity as God the Father,…We say the “Our Father”. However the one God is neither male nor female. Jesus was born as a man.

God bless Joan.

 

[severus68]

The idea of the Christian God as masculine (or even outright male) being has a lot of historical mileage behind it, and frankly fits Scripture and Christian traditions better than the idea of a God as an asexual or even (in some way) feminine being (from what I have seen anyway).

The problem is that if we revert to using man/men as the measure of all things (as the ancient Greeks did) and judge women by how closely they adhere to masculine ways and ideals, then idea of equality between the sexes (especially when it comes to spirituality/godliness) must be rejected.

Moreover if the concept of God as Father and Son is legitimate but the idea of God as Mother (or any other sort of feminine being) is illegitimate, then that implies (or outright says) that femininity is in some kind of profoundly spiritual way inferior to or less than masculinity.

-AngryAtheist8

P.S. I had to cut off the end of your long rambling post because it was too long.

Hi,

I disagree with the second part of your first sentence and other parts of what you say above. God is a spirit, He has no gender. I use He to refer to the one God as it is the tradition and has been used in the Bible. I use He also to refer to God the Father. The Trinitarian concept is difficult to understand and as my parish priest said, is difficult to understand. I have no problem waiting to have all the answers in the afterlife. It is about faith.

Re your second para, I do not think that it is a matter of judging women by how closely they adhere ways etc. It is about using Scripture to deem women as not equal to men spiritually and in other ways. As I am Christian I have taken on faith the Trinitarian concept but I repeat God as the Godhead has no gender. I am no theologian so please excuse my less than graceful and clear explaination .

I believe there is no issue about seeing and referring to both the masculine and feminine attributes and characteristics of God. We are made in His image.

 

[Contarini]

Even about gender equality one must be specific regarding which area of equality: whether in workplace or in sexual behavior, or in raising children. Some feminists promote equality in sexual behavior so that if men go to strip clubs, female must go male strip clubs too.

But surely a Catholic isn’t going to object to that proposition. Rather, a Catholic–or any other orthodox Christian–is going to say that neither sex should go to strip clubs. So the if/then proposition you construct remains perfectly unobjectionable.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The idea of the Christian God as masculine (or even outright male) being has a lot of historical mileage behind it, and frankly fits Scripture and Christian traditions better than the idea of a God as an asexual or even (in some way) feminine being (from what I have seen anyway).

The problem is that if we revert to using man/men as the measure of all things (as the ancient Greeks did) and judge women by how closely they adhere to masculine ways and ideals, then idea of equality between the sexes (especially when it comes to spirituality/godliness) must be rejected.

Moreover if the concept of God as Father and Son is legitimate but the idea of God as Mother (or any other sort of feminine being) is illegitimate, then that implies (or outright says) that femininity is in some kind of profoundly spiritual way inferior to or less than masculinity.

-AngryAtheist8

P.S. I had to cut off the end of your long rambling post because it was too long.

I completely agree, I think the masculinity of God and MEN being the image of God is emphasised too much, especially on some aspects of this forum here on CAF.