Grace Presupposes Nature

     In his Defense of Purity, Dietrich von Hildebrand distinguishes between the purposes of sexual intercourse for man in quantum animal (procreation), in quantum homo (the union of man and woman in wedded love), and in quantum fidelis (the reflection in Christian marriage of Christ's love for the church).  Von Hildebrand describes the disasters that ensue when these purposes or meanings are severed from one another; the disasters are a result of the deep illogic or incoherence of the sexual sin involved.

     That has led me to wonder whether this insight regarding the sexual act can apply to questions regarding the priesthood or ordained ministry.  It seems to me that many people in my church -- I am a Roman Catholic -- will grudgingly admit the necessity of having a man serve in quantum sacerdos or in quantum imago Christi -- insofar as he is a priest or an image of Christ -- but not in quantum homo.  But man, as man, needs a father, not merely to reflect the Father, or Christ who is the image of the everlasting Father, but for perfectly human purposes too.  I don't want to labor the obvious here; should anyone be inclined to doubt our deep need for fathers (and I am not speaking only of fathers in blood), I suggest visiting the local penitentiary in the company of someone with a ministry to those lost men. 

     Now the three staunchly orthodox priests serving the communities on the island in Canada where we spend the summer are being recalled by their order to their mother house in Quebec.  For eight years they have served as best they could under trying circumstances.  Their order is not yet recognized by the Vatican (though the priests are all well educated and validly ordained); the local bishop invited them here on a trial basis; the people had been running the parishes their own way, seeing nothing untoward in having a woman teach catechism to children, though she was separated from her husband and living with another man, nor anything untoward in allowing a local doctor to receive communion, although she is an unbaptized Hindu; the divorce rate is over fifty percent, and cohabitation is a yawner; the hymnals are at best debased and at worst heretical; the parishes are relatively poor and the buildings have needed repair; young men are nowhere to be seen in the church.  So the priests have done a great deal -- they have reinstituted important Catholic devotions, and have gently let the scandalous catechizer go, and have run seminars on proper liturgical music, and have refused to marry cohabiters unless they separate and abstain for a certain time, and so on.

     But I can still say, barring a miracle (a qualification which must hold true of all human predictions), that these parishes will not produce a vocation to the priesthood in the next fifteen years, and that they are rapidly reaching the point, if they have not already reached it, at which one might confidently say that these parishes will never produce another vocation again.  That's because, among many of the people, the idea of a father has diminished, and the idea of a spiritual father has vanished altogether.  They have been taught from all sides except their priests that the laity ought to be in charge of everything but those few minor functions that have to do with certain parts of the Mass.  (From what I hear, many a Protestant congregation suffers from a similarly incoherent wish to have a minister as a presentable officiator at service, but not a teacher; a fellow that would look like a pillar of the community, but no leader.)  Now the good people of our island are in pretty dire need of strong paternal leadership, but the inertia of a declining culture, and the tacit acceptance of this severance of priest-as-priest from priest-as-man, will ensure that strong paternal leadership is exactly what the people are not going to get.

     Given Roman Catholic teaching regarding the valid operation of the sacraments, everyone will acknowledge the need for a priest: without him (or without a “him” on call from someplace or other) you can’t have Holy Communion and a few other incidental things that the old folks especially want.  So they need a priest around, and if he just sticks to his minimal Sunday duties he’ll be all right.  But it's strange; this ignoring of the priest's role in quantum homo, as a father and leader of his flock, tends not to exalt his supernatural calling in quantum imago Christi, but to debase it to the level of a brute superstition.  In other words, when we sever the idea of ordained ministry in quantum imago Christi from its foundation in human nature, we revert to the barbaric idea of the minister as magician or ritual functionary.  He is a father no more, but the sacerdotal equivalent of a sperm donor.       

     “Just consecrate them hosts, fella,” says the pious Madame, crushing her Marlboro into the thurible, “and don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”

Comments

[David Palmer]

Dr Esolen,

I do like your writing very much, having just finished your article, “over our dead bodies” in the June edition of Touchstone. You have many good things to say, and do so, so elegantly, but I did struggle with this statement: “That has led me to wonder whether this insight regarding the sexual act can apply to questions regarding the priesthood or ordained ministry”.

I think Catholics and Protestants, both confessional in their affirmations (I mean "orthodox"), do have different ways of thinking at times. And I say this even as I can relate to much of what you have said in your third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. I want to applaud the three “staunchly orthodox” priests, even though I’m sure we would fall out over certain important understandings which we don’t need to spell out now; I want to applaud them because you tell us something important – they are “staunchly orthodox”, which I take to mean that they a) affirm the Apostles/Nicene Creeds without quibble and with warmth, and b) are pastorally concerned to lead their people in good and therefore godly ways.

What I don’t understand is that, given Genesis 2:24, none of them should themselves be husbands and therefore fathers, modelling this vital aspect of the christian life to their parishioners.

[John Lamont]

Actually the fatherhood of the priest is the main reason in my opinion why God has restricted the priesthood to men. I would say there is no ontological obstacle to God's choosing to give the powers involved in the priesthood and episcopacy - viz. consecrating the eucharist, giving absolution, and teaching as one of the heirs of the apostles - to women; that is because these gifts are intrinsically supernatural rather than natural, i.e. they surpass the power of any created nature as such. Since they are supernatural in this way, the natural property of belonging to the female sex as opposed to the male sex is not as such an impediment to receiving them. We know from the tradition of the Church that God has decided not to confer them on women. When we ask why he has made this decision, however, I think the obvious explanation is that the form of authority that goes along with the exercise of these gifts is a fatherly kind of authority; that fatherly authority is different from motherly authority; and that men, not women, are fathers. The fact that the priest is an icon of Christ and that Christ is a man is not separate from this explanation. The divine nature of the Second Person of the Trinity, who became incarnate as Christ, is not as such male or female; part of the reason why this person became incarnate as a man rather than as a woman is because his incarnation involved the exercise of an authority that is fatherly rather than motherly, and because he is the image of the First Person whose authority over us is fatherly rather than motherly. Part of the nature of fatherly authority that makes it suitable to the priest and to Christ is that the father, rather than the mother, is the head of the family and has final authority over it. This is an unpopular thing to say these days of course, and much argument against the ordination of women tries to bypass it, but I don't think the case for having only men as priests can be adequately put or accepted without making clear its link with this feature of fatherly authority.

[Gene Godbold]

At our small (~150 parishioners) continuing Anglican church, we have had the same rector for the last 13 years. Over that period, we have had ten men (including myself) explore vocations. Five are now priests. Three are deacons. One will probably be ordained in the next year. The Holy Ghost is obviously responsible for this, but I think our rector is particularly gifted in modeling "fatherliness". In my case, he didn't even approach me--the wife of another priest asked me a pointed question that kind of shook up my world and led me to consider it.

[Louise]

John, I would suggest you are wrong on marital authority, and therefore in the rest of your post.

The husband's headship of the wife is only protective, and has no authority over her that she does not have over him. We know as much from Mulieres Dignitatem, 1988; "However, whereas in the case of Christ and the Church the subjection is all on the side of the Church, in the case between husband and wife the subjection is not one-sided but mutual."

The same Apostolic Exhortation and the same Pope deny your idea that God the Father reflects anything male or male authority. MD has a section entitled "the anthropormorphism of Biblical language" in which JPII lists examples of God's motherly authority and of His motherly image; JPII also gave a talk at the Vatican entitled "Happiness is disovering the maternal love of God". Fatherhood, JPII tells us, in the title of God the Father, does not reflect specifically manly/fatherly properties but properties of "generation" present in both father, and mother.

I quote from that great writing by JPII:

"We may quote here some characteristic passages from the prophet Isaiah: "But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me'. 'Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you'". (49:14-15). And elsewhere: "As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (66: 13). In the Psalms too God is compared to a caring mother: "Like a child quieted at its mother's breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul. O Israel, hope in the Lord". (Ps 131:2-3). In various passages the love of God who cares for his people is shown to be like that of a mother: thus, like a mother God "has carried" humanity, and in particular, his Chosen People, within his own womb; he has given birth to it in travail, has nourished and comforted it (cf. Is 42:14; 46: 3-4). In many passages God's love is presented as the "masculine" love of the bridegroom and father (cf. Hosea 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19), but also sometimes as the "feminine" love of a mother.

This characteristic of biblical language - its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God - points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal "generating" which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this "generating" has neither "masculine" nor "feminine" qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since "God is spirit" (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither "feminine" nor "masculine". Thus even "fatherhood" in God is completely divine and free of the "masculine" bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood."

That the fatherhood of God the father comprehends motherhood, and motherly authority, in direct contradiction to what you are saying, is re-emphasized here:

"Although it is not possible to attribute human qualities to the eternal generation of the Word of God, and although the divine fatherhood does not possess "masculine" characteristics in a physical sense, we must nevertheless seek in God the absolute model of all "generation" among human beings. This would seem to be the sense of the Letter to the Ephesians: "I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (3:14-15). All "generating" among creatures finds its primary model in that generating which in God is completely divine, that is, spiritual. All "generating" in the created world is to be likened to this absolute and uncreated model. Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human "fatherhood" and "motherhood", bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine "generating" and with that "fatherhood" which in God is "totally different", that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the "unity of the two": both are "parents", the man and the woman alike."

Husbands have no authority over wives which is not mutual; God the Father is reflected equally in fatherhood and in motherhood.

It is, of course, dogma that we do not know for certain why Christ chose only to ordain men; only that His sovereign decision binds the Church for all time. My speculation, however, is the iconic argument. Christ was a man, and His priests are icons not of a theory but of an historical fact. Men and women are equally created in God's image but they have huge onotological differences, reflecting equal, but different, of His perfections.

Those perfections suited to the ordained priesthood (I speculate) are those found in men.

I agree with you that the nature of fatherly/marital authority must be looked at, but I submit that Mulieris Dignitatem explodes the idea of non-mutual subjection or of one-way fatherly authority. It is the *protective-only* nature of the "headship" (a terminology, JP tells us, influenced by the custom of the times) that I believe is reflected in Christ's soveriegn choice that only men should be priests.

Indeed, every time I watch a film on exorcism it seems right in my "gut" as well as iconically/theologically that only men should be priests; they are better suited to protection and defence and stand between their flock and the forces of hell, both everyday temptations and supernatural ones.

[Tony Esolen]

Louise,

Thank you for your calm and precise reply. I don't agree; and I'd ask you to look closely at St. Joseph Covenant Keepers' response to and interpretation of Mulieris Dignitatem. Not even the Pope can defy logic, as must happen when the phrase "mutual subjection" is used without careful definition, since A cannot be subordinate to B in the same way at the same time as B is subordinate to A.

You seem also to be suggesting that there is something metaphorical about Christ's address of the Father as Father. That too is problematic for me. Yes, I've read the passage from Isaiah that is so often put forward as evidence of the motherliness of God, but there and in those exceedingly few other places where such an image is used, it is clearly metaphorical and, as you say, anthropomorphic. (We could use much the same reasoning to suggest that God is also "galline," given Jesus' comparing himself to a chicken!). That is not the case with Christ's use of Father. That, I'd say, is ontological, not anthropological. We call God Father not simply because it is good for us to do so, but because that is what he is. Of course he does not possess masculine physical characteristics, but that is not at issue. What is, is the precise relationship of human masculinity to human femininity, of human fatherhood to human motherhood, and of all these to the Fatherhood of God. I think we agree there, but we may disagree on the implication of God's Fatherhood for the human family.

JP's language was often mystical, seldom practical; that's not a criticism, just an observation. But that's why JP's not the only Pope whose wisdom Catholics should heed. Pius XI's Casti Connubii comes to mind ...

David,

The justification for a celibate priesthood is based on Saint Paul's advice, that workers for the Word be as he was, unmarried. But the Catholic/monastic Orthodox view of the matter is that the priest is married to the Church; in that sense he is more fruitful (or is supposed to be more fruitful) than the average man, more deeply wedded, and more fatherly. That or a similar interpretation of God's command in Genesis, "Be fruitful and multiply," is very old, going back to the early justifiers of virginity. In other words, there's more than one level on which we can fulfill that command.

[Nick]

Louise, I respectfully admit to not being a Catholic but I don't believe your quotes do anything to support your case. Saying that authority is mutual doesn't make it any less of an authority. The authority relationship between myself and the President of the United States is mutual, since he is responsible to me, but it doesn't change our relative positions. I can rewrite the above as:
"God is only social in Trinity as he has no need of men; Husbands and wives, however, need each other to be complete"

Abraham, Isaac, and the patriarchs of old exhibited a great deal of "husbandly" authority. While we can argue all day that Christ introduced a more thorough understanding of what it means to be a husband, he does not seem to have thought it worth mentioning any sort of abolition of existing authority. Paul, after all, relates the authority of the apostles to that of husbands, "to lead about" *not* protect.

A presbyter's role then is to instruct, defend, and lead. We would not have such a clamoring for "female leadership" if it wasn't customarily understood that men in church roles lead.

JPII is only repeating the obvious in his quoted remarks. A brief survey of the Bible will show that God refers to himself using both male and female metaphors. However, when he references himself, it is always male.

[Louise]

Hi Nick and Tony,

I haven't read the PKers response but if you can point me to a link I will. I don't believe they are a Catholic organization, though.

With due respect, there is indeed a model for total mutual authority and it is the one cited in MD as the model of marriage - the theological basis for the creation of the two sexes, and it is the Most Holy Trinity.

The Trinity, God, exists as a Communion of Persons constantly giving and receiving love. These Persons are equal in every degree and posess equal authority. The Ordo Processionem exists but does not place the Father "above" the Son, they are equals in degree, in dignity and authority.

Men and women are made to exist in a complementary way, giving and receiving love, so that husband and wife are a type/an image of the Trinity in the sacrament of marriage.

Thus I would respectfully suggest that the Pope does not defy logic, and indeed, as JPII was a truly world-class theologian, he knew what he was suggesting. That he knew the interpretation was fairly radical is suggested in the following passage:

"The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew."

The teaching of the Church never changes, but it can be more fully developed and explained. Cast. Con. and prior teachings concentrated on the subjection owed by wife to husband; JPII on the previously unexplored subjection owed by husband to wife. Most important theologically was JPII's drawing a distinction between the Church's subjection to Christ (not mutual) and wife's to husband's (mutual). He states that the husband's headship is only the giving up of self even unto life, not authority, and he says that explicitly.

As far as previous teaching on marital authority, that too is covered in MD:

"But the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ". The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride."

We note "must" be understood in this sense, not may, and "all" the reasons.

I believe that the teaching on marital authority, and indeed on the divine fatherhood and maternity of God as explained in Mulieris, is very clear. Ultimately, most Catholic exegetes that object to it with whom I have previously debated wind up either simply rejecting the document ("JP II had no right to teach something so radical") or denying its authority, since it is an Apostolic Exhortation and not an Encyclical. Nonetheless, the important thing is that it was a teaching given from the Chair and addressed to the entire Church, which makes it binding, I suggest.

That Christ's use of the word Father for God was metaphorical is JPII's teaching as quoted above, and I concur with it. God's fatherhood rises above and encompasses both motherhood and fatherhood - as JPII says, it is the eternal principle of generation common to both human parents.

Re: married priests. We must not forget that priests in the Eastern rites can be married when ordained and can have children. The marriage of Christ and the Church is mystical... I am wary of extending the metaphor such as to include some human sexual element, the Church as Bride is an image, a holy image, not a sexual fact - were that so, one gets into odd territory where a married priest with children is "cheating" on his wife with the Church, or vice versa. That holy and mystical marriage remains just that, holy, spiritual, metaphorical.

I will see if I can google and find the audience where JPII said "Happiness is discovering the maternal love of God" - not sure I have a link.

[Louise]

I can't find it, because the article has gone from Catholic Online... it was June 17th 2003 according to a cached search.

But here is a recent example where Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote the introduction to Mulieris as Cardinal Ratzinger and who has referred to JPII's teaching on the dignity of women speaks of God's maternal love:

" Holding his weekly general audience Aug. 10 at the Vatican, the pope offered reflections on Psalm 131’s opening verses, which reject pride in one’s self-sufficiency.
Instead, the psalm presents a proper attitude toward God as being “like a weaned child,” still and quiet on the mother’s lap.
The image of the mother and child, the pope said, is a “sign of the tender and maternal love of God.”"

http://cathregaj.org/reg/hpage.php?id=73

I love traditional language and Liturgicam Authenticam, and "for us men" and "goodwill to men". I firmly support the binding teaching that only men can be priests. I am more of a Chaput girl on the liturgy than, erm, a supporter of Card. Mahony.....

BUT, all that love does not obscure, for me, the authentic equality in authority as well as dignity of myself and my husband, and the fact that God is pure spirit, always to be called Father, but my mother nonetheless as well as my father. With Pope Benedict and his predecessor I recognize His maternal love as well as His paternal love and see the marriage bond as a foretaste of the eternal beatitude of the perfect Communion of love of the Persons of the Most High God.

[louise]

Here's one more: JPII in an Angelus message said of God

"He is a father; more, he is a mother."

In Italian: "E' papà; più ancora è madre."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_i/angelus/documents/hf_jp-i_ang_10091978_it.html

[Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz]

Thank you, Anthony, for this great piece. I've been arguing over on my blog that what is taking place in the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Green Bay and has taken place in other dioceses around the U.S. (most notably in New Ulm, Minn.) with (primarily) lay women being named to care for the parishes while priests come in to dispense the sacraments debases the meaning of the priesthood and reduces it to the level of a machine. Your last lines especially were superb.

[Nick]

So I have now read some of the document in question. I will note that JPII specifically seems to dance around the question of authority in the marriage. It’s never directly mentioned. The "mutual submission" is also not “equality of kind” if the text of Ephesians is followed. The woman offers submission to masculine authority while the man sacrifices himself. He does submit, to both the needs of his wife and Christ, but he does not lose, in doing so, his authority any more so than the properly constituted ecclesiastical authorities lose their authority over him (hence my metaphor with POTUS). The entire encyclical never denies this. It stresses, rightly, that women are persons with the proper dignity accorded to all human persons.

I personally think JPII goes too far in trying to characterize "divine fatherhood". Especially by Jesus' time this was probably unnecessary if he had meant something androgynous. The Philosopher's God was already sexless and yet Jesus didn't seem inclined to point that out as an example of the "Father". Jesus doesn’t seem interested in referencing the “One” and his emanations feminine or otherwise.

In content I don’t object, and I doubt from his comments, that Tony would object to any of the quotes you give. God does reduce himself to a child like state to teach us. He is, in a very metaphoric sense, like a mother. But he seems unwilling to consistently identify himself as such. Nor, despite all of his other extraordinary claims, does he claim to be something other than Father. He has, after all, by this point, claimed: to be the creator of all things out of nothing, superior to all other gods (who are more than lightly accused of being mostly impotent), and willing to pick certain peoples for salvation over and above all other claims from a nation of malcontents. You really have to ask why he wouldn’t claim what you seem to be trying to claim for him.

The contention that there isn’t some sort of implied hierarchy runs counter to church history. If not husbands, one has to ask, why bishops or popes? Why does the organization of the church, a family, have traditional “fathers”? We also would then have to read an enormous amount into Proverbs 31:23, where the wife brings honor, through her actions, to the one representing the family as a whole, her husband. We also run into trouble then with 1 Cor 11:7. Why is Paul insisting that Woman is a reflection of Man versus a reflection of God (this while not quoted is what seems to give JPII the ground work for his dignity argument).

Frankly I didn’t like what I read in Mulieris Dignitatem. It seemed that the theme was, “Look, we’re traditional and buy the traditional understanding, but we’re not misogynists, ok?”. A quick reading of Eph 5:22-33 seems much easier which amounts to:

Love your wife. Take care of her. She is, for all purposes you now. You wouldn’t give yourself a black eye, right? You’d want to be treated like Christ treated the congregation, right? Well, that’s what marriage is, see, a human outworking of the relationship between Jesus and the congregation. Yeah, it’s hard to understand (great mystery) and not clear on the first pass, but you’re involved with something divine. Don’t screw it up.

All of which brings us back to the essay above. Many have been so separated from "Fatherhood" that they now view it as something only to be tolerated for what is needed. This could easily be extended to all the other places "fatherhood" is dying, from the underclass in America, as Father Neuhaus points out, to invitro fertilization, and every Homer Simpson clone ever seen on TV.

[Caspar]

Louise,

I recommend you read C. S. Lewis's "Perelandra" for a great discussion of masculinity and femininity when the angel of Mars and the angel of Venus stand side by side. Lewis went into this a great deal, in fact. He once said, "God is so masculine that we are feminine in comparison." Male is some small reflection of masculinity. Masculinity is not a characteristic of the male. Similarly, female is some small reflection of femininity. Femininity is not some small characteristic of female.

JPII seems to say very much the same thing in his theology of the body. I recommend you look into that a great deal more before following your current train of thought on MD.

On the relationships of the Trinity: God the Father is indeed God the Father, otherwise the Virgin Mary is left in a rather odd position. Also, Christ is male. Christ is God. Therefore God is male, has a male body, and that is important. He was not born a man by chance. He knew what he was doing the entire time. If your train of logic was followed with that kept in mind, you'd end up with the Trinity of Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is really no reason for listening to it like that, when Christ was so clear on the whole Father bit and Mary is the Mother of Christ and the Mother of all who follow the teachings of Christ (see Rev. 12, end of the chapter). Also, Christ is indeed subordinate to the Father. He is equal in power, equal in Godliness, but he obeys the Father and does his will. The Father knows things the Son does not, including the day and the hour of the Son's coming. The Son will not act against His Father. The Father holds authority over the Son. An imbalance of authority, of say over what occurs, does not necessarily indicate degradation. Do not attempt to falsely impose absolute democracy on a hierarchical universe.

Why this disdain for the physical? Why this belief that the physical does not reflect spiritual reality? The sacraments, the hierarchy of the Church, the holidays and rituals, all of it is aimed at reflecting spiritual truths and signifying supernatural realities. Sex is sacramental in being the consummation of marriage. Maleness and femaleness can be truly said to be sacramentals.

Mutual subjection, yes/ Equivalent subjection, no. As a previous poster said, the man dies to self as Christ died for the Church. The woman obeys the husband. Because the man has died to self, he will treat the woman with respect, care, all as it should be. Because the woman is obeying this good husband, it'll work out. The problems occur when one spouse does as they ought while the other abuses the other's obedience. Does the woman obey because she is less than the man? No. Does the man die to self because he is less than the woman? No. To each their appointed task. The tasks are difficult indeed, and failure on either side is costly, but if you look at marriages that work, do they resemble this pattern?

A last thought: Be careful what you declare to be authoritative teaching.

I probably won't check this article again, so if you want to respond to me specifically, use the e-mail link.

I loved the article, by the way. It said what needs to be said very well.

Blessed be.

[louise]

HI Nick and Caspar,

But you see, then you are left in the position that usually arises for those wedded to the earlier understanding of marital authority, which is, I would suggest, the simple rejection of MD.

Caspar, God is not male. That is in the Catechism. Woman is as much made in His image as man. "God is pure spirit". CCC.

My trouble with those who are too focused on traditional language (which I defend, and which I always want to hear used - I am an altar BOYS and plainsong sort) is that sometimes they use it to depart from Church teaching, as, here, the suggestion that God is male. (Which I am sure is a perfectly good faith confusion).

I have quoted from both Benedict and JPII in referring to God's "maternal" love and that God "is a mother". MD is explicit that Christ did not intend to impute masculininty to God when He used the word Father, I quoted that passage already above.

And no, woman's subjection is the same as man's in marriage.

The argument Caspar makes here:

"As a previous poster said, the man dies to self as Christ died for the Church. The woman obeys the husband. Because the man has died to self, he will treat the woman with respect, care, all as it should be. Because the woman is obeying this good husband, it'll work out."

Is contradicted, directly, in Mulieris Dignitatem here:

"This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."

Christ dies for the Church - the husband dies for the wife

BUT

the Church obeys Christ, and it's NOT mutual - whereas the wife obeys the husband and it IS mutual.

Your argument that self-sacrifice = the husband's subjection is negated there, for Christ self-sacrificed for the Church yet he is *not* subject to her authority. Husbands and wives, who model the Trinity, are *in contrast*, mutually subject.

The Holy Father does not negate Paul but takes his text from Eph 5:21 and reads every other utterance about subjection in marriage in light of verse 21, a reading Cardinal Ratzinger supported, BTW.

As far as binding: the teaching was addressed by the Pope as Pope from the Chair to the entire Church. It is thus binding under the terms of Vatican II when it is stated that "assent must be given" in a "special way" to the clear "teaching of the Roman Pontiff" even when "he does not speak ex-cathedra".

And I would note in quoting Benedict XVI's recent exhortation to us to remember the maternal love of God, there does not seem to be any contrast between Benedict's position on God the Father's motherhood as well as fatherhood, or on husbands/wives - as Card Ratzinger he said of that document "The Holy Father, along with the most modern exegetes" takes Eph 5:21 as the "title" of the whole passage that follows it.

Please do not take any of the foregoing as in any way suggesting a departure of the use of traditional masculine pronouns for God the Father or the persons of God as "He". I embrace traditional language with all the more fervour precisely because I am perfectly secure in the Church's teaching of God's lack of masculinity or femininity, being Spirit that is above us all, and in Her teaching that I am as created in the image of my Father as my husband is - yet he and I reflect different of God's perfections.

Ultimately, we are all made in His image and not the other way around.

[Charles Curtis]

Dr. Esolen:

I'm a P.C. grad, BA Humanities, class of 93'. I haven't given to the college in a decade. I just want you to know that that dereliction of filial piety is about to end. My Alma Mater will recieve her due this year, and hence forth, so long as you and Fr. Shanley continue doing us proud.

So long as PC continues her embrace of the Catholic tradition, I ought to say. I was just thinking of Western Civ the other day, and realised that if I have any claim to being educated it is due to that experience. Thinking of the Dominicans, professors like the Drs. Deasy, Dr. Barbour, Dr. O'Malley, etc. - of all their profound learning, humanity, faith and wisdom..

I am inexpressibly glad for having chosen- in my dumb, adolescent ignorance - to matriculate at Providence. I only wish I had had the opprotunity to be your student.

I throw this out as an open comment, to give a general endorsement to the College, so as to encourage others to consider supporting and attending her.

Keep on knocking 'em dead, Friars!

SS. Dominic & Anthony Nerot, All Holy Fathers of the Order, Pray for us +.

Charles Curtis PC 93'

[Nick]

Louise,

You attempt to be trying to make the document say something that it does not. Saying that, "the subjection is only on the part of the Church," does not imply that, as you put it, "the traditional," view of marriage is undone. Yes, the man is subject to the needs of his wife in the same way that he is subject to the needs of his body. He is still the head. Christ is in no way subject to the needs of his body, he *chooses* to be. Hence, this is a statement about the love of God rather than authority (which seems to be your stumbling block). There is a difference and JPII goes out of his way to never mention authority in a huge (I'd argue overly long) document.

As Casper pointed out and I tried to imply, if it was *useful* to understand God as feminine why wasn't Christ either a-sexual or a woman? Both are possible within the realm of nature. That choice wasn't made. We can argue for a female god but it wouldn't be a Christian one. The nature of the revelation has to mean something. We don't assume that God roles dice and chooses a sex. When he reveals his nature he's trying to teach us something. The CC is right, God is a spirit and therefore in essence sexless, that doesn't mean he doesn't fit into a gender archtype.

I haven't read the "Space Trilogy" (I'm missing the first book! Wrong one included in the set I bought!) but if that is what Mr. Lewis argues I'll agree. We *are* femine when we compare ourselves to the divine. In fact Ephesians is essentially saying that. Since we are the church we become feminine in relationship to Christ's headship. That, to me, is a great thing. It's a reminder to men to be balanced and loving.

What is flabbergasting is that this is troubling at all to you. My wife is horrified at what she sees as a war being waged against men. She accepts my authority and, privately, points out where I've hosed a decision up. It works brilliantly. Someone sometime has to be the decision maker. God has ordained that the tie breaker falls to men. He could have easily picked women. He is the ultimate tie breaker. He, therefore (amongst other reasons), describes himself as male.

Another good reading to consider is Sarah and Abraham. Note how God sides with Sarah over the final Hagar decision but passes the instruction *through* Abraham. If women possessed equal authority in the marriage along with equal dignity that form of communication wouldn't make sense. It would have been given to Sarah. Also note that Sarah, despite being obedient, was obviously far from a push over. She had dignity and she knew how to use it :)

[katie]

At the risk of jumping in too late I gotta say Louise is absolutely correct in her calm assertion of MD, JPII's and BXVI's perspectives.

Really Nick, Christ asexual? And how would that have even been apparent? So that's a non starter. And so, am I to conclude that because Jesus was male and called God Father that God is in fact male? While I image God as fatherly and don't ever utilize female images in thinking about God I find it very difficult to conclude that God's reality is exhausted by the masculine - so where do feminine attributes come from, fit in? I concur with Louise - no changing of pronouns thank you, no ordination of women BUT that does not mean God does not encompass both the female and the male - In His image he created us - male and female.

Nick's last reference - OT - would be seen in light of MD as a reflection of the consequences of the fall in the relationship between men and women and the corresponding manner in which God dealt with humanity. JPII has discussed a restoration of God's original intent for men and women in marriage to be mutally subject to one another, a restoration consequent from the Incarnation and our redemption/restoration. Finally, at my house, as we muddle through the complexities of life, no signficant decisions are made without concurrence (at least in principle). The notion that my husband would override my strong disagreement and move forward on a decision is just about unthinkable. This does not mean that I do not defer to him on a number of occasions - and vice versa. But our respect for each other is an active thing and we would never undercut or embarass the other.

[louise]

Nick,

I'm afraid what you are saying is factually at odds with what JPII teaches and Benedict teaches, and also what the Catechism teaches.

God is NOT male, and that is dogma. It's in the CCC! He is also, as it says in the CCC, "not masculine". Not male, and not masculine. Not female, and not feminine. Above both! Both equally, yet differently, reflecting Him!

Far from a feminine image of God "not being useful" the Popes have used it. I've quoted them here, with links.

JPII "God is a mother".
Benedict XVI "the maternal love of God".

And Mulieris is explicit on "subjection". Not mutual love, though that is covered, too. "Subjection". Subject to means under the authority of. The Church and Christ have mutual LOVE but are not mutually subject. It doesn't say mututal self-giving, it says, subjection.

Here's another, earlier, address by JPII on the same subject where the husband's subjection is described as "just as" that of the wife. The word "subordination", which is even more explicit, is used to describe marital authority:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb88.htm

"Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband. The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection. Christ is the source and at the same time the model of that subjection, which, being reciprocal "out of reverence for Christ," confers on the conjugal union a profound and mature character."

and

"In fact we read: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord" (5:22). In saying this, the author does not intend to say that the husband is the lord of the wife and that the interpersonal pact proper to marriage is a pact of domination of the husband over the wife. Instead, he expresses a different concept: that the wife can and should find in her relationship with Christ—who is the one Lord of both the spouses—the motivation of that relationship with her husband which flows from the very essence of marriage and of the family. Such a relationship, however, is not one of one-sided domination. According to the Letter to the Ephesians, marriage excludes that element of the pact which was a burden and, at times, does not cease to be a burden on this institution. The husband and the wife are in fact "subject to one another," and are mutually subordinated to one another. The source of this mutual subjection is to be found in Christian pietas, and its expression is love."

The headings are "Husband not the Lord" and "No one-sided domination".

The mutual authority in marriage is there because marriage models the Trinity.

I just can't see, with sincere respect, why you would say that God has a gender or fits a gender paradigm when the CCC and the two most recent Popes say exactly the opposite! Woman is made in God's image in *exactly the same degree* as man is.

Christ's masculinity could have meant many things but one thing it did not mean was that God was or is male - the CCC tells us that's not true. Christ said God was the Good Shepherd searching for the lost sheep - and the Woman searching for the lost coin. The Jewish word "Shekinah", used of the Holy Ghost, is female in gender. God has spoken of himself carrying Israel in his "ummah", womb. And we all know of the Book of Wisdom.

Mulieris specifically says that language used in the Bible of God is anthropomorphic. How could it be otherwise? "Even 'fatherhood' in God is completely divine and free of masculine characteristics' - MD.

It doesn't trouble me precisely because the words "subjection" and "subordination" have very distinct meanings in relation to authority. My husband is under mine, subject and subordinate to me, and I am under his.

[louise]

One last thing may be useful? In Mulieris' key passage:

"However, whereas in the case of Christ and the Church the subjection is all on the side of the Church, in the case between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."

It is really important to note that the first time the Holy Father uses the word "subjection", from the Church to Christ, he does not put it in quotation marks - for the subjection is a literal, hierarchical one. The second time he uses the word, to describe the loving subordination of spouses that's mutual, he puts it in those quotation marks. In one sense the authority is concrete, in the other it is more figurative - as Kate says, a giving way, which husbands and wives regularly do with each other over the breakfast table!

There's no tie breaking authority for the hub, when he's mutually subordinate to me, and the expression of our mutual "subjection" is our love.

[David Palmer]

Tony,

You suggest to me that "the justification for a celibate priesthood is based on Saint Paul's advice, that workers for the Word be as he was, unmarried."

You are of course playing a little fast and loose with the text. As I recall, the Apostle went no further than saying, "I wish that all men were as I am" and that a comment not to priests but to all men, regardless of vocation. And then there is his requirement that the episkopos/presbuteros be "the husband of but one wife".

It won't amuse you (me neither on all but one point) to hear that the local Catholic priest in my part of the world, having just retired at 75 years, informed all and sundry via an opinion piece in one of our major newspapers that he welcomes gays to the communion table, advocates the use of the pill, avers that it isn't natural for priests to be celibate and thinks it about time that women be ordained as priests.

[louise]

David: How tragic - let's pray for that poor man and all who think like him.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, obtain for us a number of good and holy priests!

[Nick]

Katie,

You didn't answer the question, if God whishes to reveal himself as femine why not a female Christ? What, really, would stop him? And, in all dead seriousness, why not asexual? Again, what would stop Him? Why couldn't have Jesus been the Daughter in order to show God's feminine qualities? Other religions, in the period of Jesus preaching did *exactly* that. This has leant strength to the whole "Mother Godess" movement in modern times (deluded or not).

Nor do we have Jesus ever addressing a prayer to the Mother. If this was important don't you think that it would have poped up in the first, say, fifteen-hundred years or so of church history. I mean, this sex role stuff is pretty pervasive and the church was willing to tread on other sacred cows like abortion, child sacrifice, the dignity of all persons including slaves, and polygamay.

I will also note that if your husband is unable to produce a decision over your strong objection then you are running the house. You have broken the tie. Your husband wants one thing and you want another. Where there is only two their can not, by definition be an egalitarian democracy. It just *can't* happen.

I will also note that while you dismiss the example of Sarah I have yet to have found any quote by Jesus or the apostles where the relationship is attributed to the evils of the fall. In fact the opposite seems to be the case as can be seen in 1 Peter 3:1-8.

[katie]

Nick,
While it is quite true that in God all things are possible, therefore had he so chosen he could have come as a woman or even asexual, to make the leap from Jesus was a man therefore his revelation is that God is masculine is well, quite a leap - and certainly does not hold in the view articulated (very well) by Louise on behalf of the RC view. Are there conclusions to be reached on the basis of Jesus' maleness - absolutely, ex. priests should be an icon of Jesus' and therefore male.
In reference to the sacred cows that the church was willing to tread upon - well - that slavery thing took quite a while and hasn't been a settled thing for so very long. The development of Christian understanding of the dignity of the person, which is the consequence of reflection on the personhood of Christ articulated in the early creeds, eventually led to the conclusion that slavery was intolerable. Just so, we have discarded some of the misogynist views and language of some of the Fathers denigrating women (ex.as in the question of whether women actually have souls)and twentieth century papal statements (at least) recognize that our transcendent God transcends gender.
Finally, as to your conclusion that I run the house if my husband does not overrule my strong objection - No, for similarly I do not overrule him either. This is no democracy, with the taking of votes and tiebreakers but a UNION. When we disagree (rare for one thing) about a decision to be made it is frequent for one to defer to the other, but such a deferrence is not a thing to be commanded. If both feel strongly, we would pray for a period of time for a unity of heart, mind and spirit and return to the issue another time. Our unity is more important than the issue at hand and is a thing of itself to be protected. Viewing marriage in categories of power is a risky business.

[Tony Esolen]

Charles,

Thanks for your kind words! So I never ran into you during your years at PC? (I arrived in 1990).

Everybody:

I'm writing this on the quick, from a local library (on vacation). I am reminded of what Etienne Gilson said of Thomas Aquinas, that the deeper he plunged into the metaphysical truths that can be posited of God, the more closely he found himself bound to the literal word of God in Scripture -- in his case, "I am Who am." Any examination of the maternal care of God must, if it is to be legitimate, return us to Christ's revelation of God as Father, not as Mother, and not as Parent, and not as Hermaphrodite. The ancients had hermaphroditic gods too (Venus Hermaphroditus was the most notable) and sexless gods (the apotheosized eunuch Attys) and gods beyond personality altogether. But Jesus taught us to call God our Father.

It may be, then, that God's Fatherhood, which again I insist is ontological, reflects not a description of God but a NAME, reveals everything we want to know about his "maternal care"; but the converse would not have been true. Steve Hutchens has written for us on just this point, in an article of several years ago.

One last comment about mutual subjection: Stephen Clark has I think the most sensible and Biblically precise take on that whole passage in Ephesians, relating it to all of the other relevant passages in the New Testament. Folks, the mystery of Christ and the Church is high theology; the advice regarding obedience is practical wisdom, some would say a part of the natural law, and should not require a doctorate in theology to understand. Simply put: I subject myself to my wife by loving her, by being willing to be slain for her, by -- in fact -- being the head of my household. I serve by leading. There are other ways in which I serve, but that's the prime one that defines my role in the household. It's not my wife's role. She leads rather by serving; she has made me better by her obedience, far better than she could have made me by any attempt at playing the role of head of household. It's a dance of love, this.

This is my last comment on this string -- I have only a little computer time every week and have to make the most of it. One question -- I understand what a husband's duties to his wife are. What are a wife's duties to her husband? In what way is she to be FOR him? I promote my wife's fulfillment as a woman; how does the woman these days promote her husband's fulfillment as a man? Note, I do mean as a woman and as a man, not simply as a person; there are a whole lot of things we do that have little reference to a person's sex. I'm not talking about those .....

[firinnteine]

A few comments...

God the Father is clearly not male, as maleness is an intrinsically physical fact. God the Son is male. Keep in mind, throughout, that maleness and masculinity are not the same thing. Maleness is physical; masculinity is not, or at least not solely so. The assumption that masculinity requires physicality is (as I understand it) a feminist dogma with no basis in historical Christian teaching.

The insistence that marriage images the Trinity is a good one. Ephesians makes it very clear that the union of the man and the woman represents both the relationship of Christ and the Church and that of the Father and the Son. However, it should be clear that both of these are unidirectional; the woman cannot be Christ and the man the Church in this scenario, nor can the wife represent the Father and her husband represent the Son. This is precisely a matter of authority (probably it is a matter of many other things as well, but authority is clearly one of them) -- because both these relationships are relationships of authority. The Persons of the Trinity are equal in power, in glory, in all attributes; but they are not equivalent or interchangeable. The Son submits to the Father in a way the Father does not submit to the Son. If John Paul denies this, he denies the clear teaching of Scripture -- I suspect he does not.

One final point: as a human being, woman certainly does bear God's image. However, Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) writes that man is "the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man" (I Corinthians 11:7). It does not say woman is not made in the image of God; but clearly there is some kind of difference in the relationship here, whatever its precise characteristics may be.

With much respect for the Apostolic Exhortation and Catechism, let us try not to read them in ways that would be inconsistent with Holy Scripture....

[louise]

Tony Esolen,

I am afraid that your last post is directly, again, contradicted by the teaching in Mulieris Dignitatem.

If we compare what you are saying to that text:

You say:

"Simply put: I subject myself to my wife by loving her, by being willing to be slain for her, by -- in fact -- being the head of my household. I serve by leading."

But Mulieris says, on the contrary:

"This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."

So your idea that loving, leading, and giving up for - all things Christ did for the Church - equal your share of subjection is completely denied here.

Christ did all these things and they do not amount to subjection. Christ leads the Church, dies for and loves the Church - but the *subjection* is all on the side of the Church.

Mulieris is explicit. What the wife owes to the husband in Eph 5:22, that same thing is owed by husband to wife Eph 5:21.

The word, for what each spouse does to the other, is identical. You may not recognise your wife's authority over you is mutual, but I know the Holy Father JPII has told me that it is.

Secondly, you state, again I fear erroneously, that God was revealed by Christ to be Father and not Parent (ie you infer some masculine difference in God the Father's Fatherhood that is not proper to both human parents).

This too is directly contradicted in Mulieris:

You say:

"Any examination of the maternal care of God must, if it is to be legitimate, return us to Christ's revelation of God as Father, not as Mother, and not as Parent, and not as Hermaphrodite."

the Apostolic Exhortation however says:

"Nevertheless, in itself this "generating" has neither "masculine" nor "feminine" qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since "God is spirit" (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither "feminine" nor "masculine". Thus even "fatherhood" in God is completely divine and free of the "masculine" bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood."

and

"Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human "fatherhood" and "motherhood", bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine "generating" and with that "fatherhood" which in God is "totally different", that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the "unity of the two": both are "parents", the man and the woman alike."

God's fatherhood is reflected in human motherhood, as much as fatherhood; God IS a mother - "E papa; piu ancora, e madre."

You are insisting the Christ revealed God's fatherhood in some way analagous to human fatherhood as distinct to human motherhood, whereas the text teaches us the diametric opposite.

Firinnteine's post is where all this must lead - to a direct denunciation not only of the teaching authority of the Holy Father, which, cf Vatican II, is binding even when not taught ex-Cathedra, but also of the CCC! It is not a question of whether or not scripture is valid - what is being done here is the private interpretation of scripture, which belongs to Protestantism. God made man in his own image "Male and female he created them".

What this line of thought all leads to is a making of God in man's image - of supposing that He is more masculine than feminine, that men are more like Him than women are.

God is above the sexes, both reflect different of his perfections. When you get to arguing against the Catechism, that is when you are in trouble.

" but clearly there is some kind of difference in the relationship here"

No. There is not. As the Catechism says. I think I had better go back to basics here and quote the CCC on both God's non-male, non-female ness and also marital authority:

"369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241"

and on marriage and authority therein:

[louise]

"1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony." Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another's burdens, to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ," and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb"

You will find absolutely nothing in the CCC that gives the husband one-way or tie breaking authority over the wife.

The word Paul uses of what the wife owes to the husband is subjection and MD and the CCC make that mutual.

Christ's self-sacrifice and love and leadership of the Church do not equal subjection to her, nor does the husband's self sacrifce equal subjection to his wife; in the matter of protection, husband and Christ, wife and Church are analagous; in the matter of authority, they are not.

[louise]

It must be noted that Mulieris does not merely say that God is not male. It also says he is not masculine. However you cut it, the difference between the sexes does not appear in God.

CCC: "God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes."

MD: "God is spirit" (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither "feminine" nor "masculine".

Tony Esolen, many thanks for the question as to what are are a wife's duties to her husband.

I would say, firstly, she must exercise her mutual authority over, and subjection to, him, as his wife, according to the model of the Trinity. In practical terms that means accomodation and giving way, love, and respect at all times.

Secondly, she must model God's fatherhood in the way proper to mothers, both in that generation which the Holy Father speaks of, and then specifically in terms of motherly care of his children that is reflected in God as a mother and God's maternal love (cf: BXVI, JPII as cited above with links).

Thirdly, she must use the 'feminine genius' spoken of elsewhere in Mulieris and not often quoted because it isn't controversial - softness, love, and gentleness, to make the whole house a warm and welcoming home.

The good wife of Proverbs is a businesswoman as well of course! "She considers a field, and buys it... she brings forth goods from the work of her hands..." and buys and sells things in the marketplace... so for me helping to provide, as modelled i Proverbs, is also a good thing a wife can do.

Lastly, the good wife of Proverbs in general brings honour on her husband and children with her modesty, industry and charity. A wife can be a "fruitful vine in the heart of his house" and bring great credit to her husband.

The ultimate task of both spouses is Trinitarian self-giving, mother/fatherhood and mutual subjection. IMO :)

[Mary]

Well, I'd like to say that your site is very interesting.
Hi,My name is Mary Morgan,my blog is here