What is really scary is the fact that I personally had to say the same thing about "being like a mother is not the same as being a mother" to Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson when he defended the reference to God as mother position in front of a number of his flock.
I will send him your column.
Bishop Jugis is a holy man, and I think he will not be pleased about this. Good for you, Phillip, for calling it to his attention. I'm in the Charlotte Diocese, too - I will be interested to hear what kind of response you get.
Kudos to you Ami (and Phillip). Does not all of this business of God as "mother" and women's ordination eerily smack of that primordial invitation for Eve to "be like gods?" Since Eve only knew of one God, the Father, she clearly rejected her very own womanhood. Meanwhile, Adam stood impotent. They were, in other words, divorced. When I hear of Ami's Bishop Kicanas and like-minded men, I cannot help but think of Adam.
Teresa,
Thanks to you for your encouraging remarks.
It is so difficult to realize that your Bishop is ignorant of such basic theological thought.
I do not think him impotent. He is just full of modernist ideas. He also said at that same meeting that homosexuality was a gift from God. When I said that the homosexual was a gift as person, but that
homosexuality was a disorder and God does not gift disorder, but may bring good out of disorder, he was silent.
He was rector of the Mundelein Seminary for a number of years.
Don't you wonder about those semenarians?
Did not John Paul I say that God is our mother? Did not the prophet Isaiah use such metaphors as well? Did not Christ speak of himself as a mother hen? What is the point of all this nit-picking?
Did you not read what Dr. Blosser wrote?
+J.M.J+
Though I agree with most of your arguments against feminism and "God the Mother," the statement that the Holy Spirit "impregnated" Mary is problematic.
The Church does not use this terminology, preferring "was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary" or "became incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary." Impregnate implies a paternal action and the Holy Ghost is not the father of Christ in the Incarnation; see:
Augustine's Enchiridion (scroll down to Chapter 40)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1302.htm
Summa Theologica: Whether the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of His humanity?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4...umma/
403203.htm
While it would certainly be wrong to imply that Jesus had "two mommies," we must take care to not fall into the opposite error that Jesus had "two daddies" - God the Father and the Holy Spirit! God the Father alone is the Father of the Son; the Holy Spirit does not play a paternal role in the Incarnation. Our Lord's conception occurred in a miraculous, non-sexual manner, "without seed". The Third Person of the Trinity did not in any sense have "relations" with the Virgin Mary (the title "Spouse of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding).
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
>>>Did not John Paul I say that God is our mother?
In his Angelus message of 10 Sept. 1978, commenting on Isaiah 49:14-15, he said, "(God) is a father; more also, he is a mother" (E' papà; più ancora è madre).
The address is available in Italian only on the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/
holy_fathe...0091978_it.html
He was not making a doctrinal statement, let alone an infallible decree. He was just speaking metaphorically while expounding on a Scripture passage. Sacred Scripture never uses the title Mother for God, and the "Smiling Pope" certainly did not intend to replace God the Father with "God the Mother," as many feminists do.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie --
A thousand thanks for providing the context of His Holiness' much vaunted comment. It is truly amazing what difference a context makes. I used to have trouble with Pius X's support of Archbishop Bugnini's active participation -- but there it was, plain as day, that Pope Pius X had called for an increase in active participation. When I finally screwed up the courage to read Tra le sollecitudini, I was astounded and relieved to find that he meant nothing remotely like what the modernists mean. Now I can sleep more easily, knowing His Holiness did not promote goddess worship. Yes, I am absolutely serious.
Chris
Let's hope this is a blip, not a trend. RCL's new Legacy series of religious education program materials looks solid enough.
That "blip" went off right here in Australia, too, and I don't think the priest was even aware of it. He was ending his homily, speaking to children (who were standing in front of him, on the front row). Then he blurted out "We can call God our father as well as our mother. God has no gender."
Our pastoral associate, who also noticed the blip, said that our visiting priest might have been confused since he had to prepare two homilies. The earlier one was given during an ecumenical celebration that involved the Uniting Church and another one. That could be it but I was just a bit upset that that lapse was blurted out in front of children. My children were too young and distracted to hear that, but many other kids were naturally listening. I hope their parents did set that straight.
How does one handle this delicately? Should I print out this post and hand it to our pastoral associate (let himi worry about it)? Give it to the visiting priest (I'm very uncomfortable with that)? Or post it on the bulletin boards (sneaky)?
Rosemarie ~ Excellent points, and well-taken. I understand the term "impregnated" was used with some license, banking primarily on the St. Louis de Montfort's statements about Mary-- that she is "daughter" of the Father, "mother" of the Son, and "spouse" of the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas Aquinas' Reply to Objection 2 is to to point: while this may imply a sort of paternity, it isn't paternity simpliciter, but only in an "imperfect" sense (which belongs only perfectly to the Father).
Fr. O'Leary,
Regardless of what Pope John I said (which is amply answered by Rosemarie), nowhere in Scripture is God called "Mother," as I note in the post. He is said to be LIKE a mother, as when He is compared to a mother hen (Mt 23:37, Lk 13:34). But a clear distinction is always observed between similie ("is like") and metaphor ("is"). God is a "Father," even if He may be like a "mother."
What is the point of "this nit-picking"? Answer: the difference between Gnosticism and Christianity. Put more simply still: the difference between fantasy and reality.
+J.M.J+
I am not familiar with a statement from St. Louis de Montfort's that the Holy Spirit "impregnated" Our Lady. I would be interested to read the passage in question, if you can forward it to me. As for saying that the Holy Ghost "begot" Christ, we should refrain from this because "beget" is the terminology used for Christ's eternal generation from the Father.
>>>St. Thomas Aquinas' Reply to Objection 2 is to to point: while this may imply a sort of paternity, it isn't paternity simpliciter, but only in an "imperfect" sense (which belongs only perfectly to the Father).
Objection 2 states:
Further, as the minds of other holy men are fashioned by the Holy Ghost, so also was Christ's body fashioned by the Holy Ghost. But other holy men, on account of the aforesaid fashioning, are called the children of the whole Trinity, and consequently of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ should be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as His body was fashioned by the Holy Ghost
Aquinas replies to Objection 2 as follows:
Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore they are called sons of God in respect of imperfect sonship, which is by reason of the likeness of grace, which flows from the whole Trinity.
But with Christ it is different, as stated above. (emphasis mine)
Note the final sentence, that "with Christ it is different." The above statement to which he refers is:
Wherefore, although in His human nature He was created and justified, He ought not to be called the Son of God, either in respect of His being created or of His being justified, but only in respect of His eternal generation, by reason of which He is the Son of the Father alone. Therefore nowise should Christ be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, nor even of the whole Trinity. (emphasis mine)
So I respectfully submit that Aquinas actually concludes that Christ should in no way be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, even though the Spirit did create His body.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie- -
Oh nevermind. I thought I had a good idea. It fizzled. Sorry.
OK, I agree that God IS a mother sounds gnostic and God IS a father sounds right -- for Freudian reasons. However, note that the Fatherhood of God is also a metaphor (happily) and what that metaphor means is a target for interpretation. Indeed what "God" means is hardly handed to us on a plate.
Freudian? Perhaps God is a Father sounds right (and God is a mother does not) because that is the way Jesus spoke about God? (and I assume he knew what he was talking about).
+J.M.J+
Actually, the Fatherhood of God is both literal and a metaphor, depending on which aspect of it you consider.
The relation of the First Person of the Trinity to the Second (what theologians call the "Divine Paternity") is a true and literal Fatherhood, for the Father eternally begets the Son from His very substance. This is the Paternity from which all fatherhood in heaven and on earth gets its name (Eph. 3:14-15). This Fatherhood is so literal that "Father" is actually the proper Name of the First Person of the Trinity!
Summa: Whether this name "Father" is properly the name of a divine person?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1...mma/103302.htm)
God's Fatherhood of Christians is also literal. All who are in Christ - members of His Mystical Body, one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17) and partakers of the divine nature through Him - become true sons of God in the Son, and so have God as their true Father. Of course, they become sons of God by grace, not by nature, for only Christ is the "natural" Son of God. But theirs is still a true sonship.
However, when we say that God is Father of all creation or all mankind, that is a metaphor. God does not generate the cosmos from His substance, as He generates the Son, nor are all men children of God in Christ. Rather, God is the transcendent authority over all creation who cares and provides for His creatures like a father does for his children. Since they are His handiwork, we may call Him their "father" in much the same sense as we might call Thomas Edison the "father" of his inventions - not a literal father, but a metaphorical one.
The depiction of God as Father in the Old Testament was substantially metaphorical, though it foreshadowed the future New Testament revelation that God is the Eternal Father of an Eternal Son. In contrast, all maternal images of God in the Old and New Testament are metaphorical, not literal. God is close to and loves His creatures much the way a mother loves and cares for her children (Ps. 131:2; Isa. 49:15; 66:13); this image parallels the metaphorical Fatherhood of all creation. Yet there is no such parallel for the Divine Paternity or God’s Fatherhood of Christians. God is not revealed as the "Mother" of Jesus Christ or of all Christians; in fact, the Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary fills those roles.
In Jesu et Maria,
Thank you Phillip for this article and everyone for your comments. Our late bishop of 23 years had established a diocesan 'tradition' of singing to a female god(dess) and that's just the tip of the iceberg --sigh.
Our new bishop is requesting comments/suggestions for the future (read: clean-up of the mess leftover). I'll eagerly copy this blog for his review.
Dear Rosemarie, I did not mean to leave you with the impression that St. Louis de Montfort literally says that the Holy Spirit "impregnated" Our Lady. He does, however, refer to the Holy Spirit as Our Lady's "Spouse," which may suggest something like that. Where in the corpus of his writings? At the moment I couldn't tell you, though what I've read only two or three of his most popular works-- his book on the Rosary, his book on "Total Consecration" to Mary, and another Marian book whose title I don't remember. It's there somewhere, for what it's worth. The creeds' statements that Jesus was "conceived of the Holy Spirit" or became incarnate of the Virgin Mary "by the power of the Holy Spirit" are seem at least minimally suggestive of something like this, even granting the perhaps insurmountable objections posed by the Angelic Doctor himself.
Thank you for your most welcome observations.
Fr. O'Leary,
While conceding that God as Father "sounds right"--you say, "for Freudian reasons (whatever that means)--you go on, to state, as with a sign of relief: "However, note that the Fatherhood of God is also a metaphor (happily) and what that metaphor means is a target for interpretation."
There's probably enough here for a dissertation, but let me say this. Besides the fine distinction Rosemarie draws between the literal and metaphorical Fatherhood of God, there is something else I think it's possible you may missing here. That is, a "metaphor" doesn't simply grant license for arbitrary eisegesis--reading into it whatever we'd like. While it takes time to demonstrate, there are objective constraints rooted in the nature of reality that govern the use of metaphor, just as there are in aesthetic judgments. It is not an accident that "hot" links to "red" and "restless" and "sexual excitement," while "cold" links to "blue" and "stillness," "sterility" and "death," etc. Similarly, even among, say, Polynesian islanders who have no sheep but only pigs, there are constraints in the objective nature of things (and not just in our own socially-condition subjective responses) that would militate against a translation of the Gospel of John that had "Behold, the Pig of God who takes away the sins of the world." There is something in the nature of a pig (as opposed to a lamb) that makes it unfitting as a representation of Jesus as the sacrificial victim in His atoning sacrifice for us.
Likewise again, the metaphor of "Father" when used for God is not an empty Tillichean "symbol" into which just anything could be read. In fact, metaphor has the capacity to bring us closer to the heart of reality than sterile scientific or metaphysical language, particularly (but not only) when the metaphor is divinely inspired Holy Scripture.
Rosemarie, an paternitas Patris sit vera et litteralis paternitas? Guillelmus de Ockham subtiliter disputat de hac quaestione. Dicit: "generatio divina nec est proprie univoca nec proprie aequivoca" sed "quod magis assimilatur generationi univocae" (In Sententias I d.9 q.2). Secundum principia thomistica paternitas Dei differt infinite a paternitate humana. Paternitas, sicut alii attributi, praedicatur de Deo sensu eminentiori.
+J.M.J+
Well, William of Ockham never exactly received the same level of papal approval for his theories as did the Angelic Doctor. A saint and Doctor of the Church carries a bit more weight than a quasi-Nominalist philosopher sometimes dubbed "the first Protestant." 
Yes, the Divine Paternity is infinitely different from human paternity, for the latter is a finite, created image of the former. The former is not a mere a metaphor based on the latter.
Sorry I didn't respond in Latin; I only took one year of classical Latin in high school (it was an accelerated course because we were all seniors, but still wasn't nearly enough). Also, my progress in teaching myself Ecclesiastical Latin has been a bit slow lately. So I understand more than I can express, if you know what I mean.
If this argument is going to leave my native tongue, I should perhaps bid you vale.
In Jesu et Maria,
Father O'Leary:
Do you shave with Ockham's razor?
Chris
A reprise of this debate, focused on St. Anselm's remark that Jesus may be understood as our "mother," can be found HERE.
Commenting by HaloScan
