What’s Wrong with the World

The crowd goes wild. Great post, Ed. And to add to all the other reasons: Jesus told us to refer to God in masculine terms.

Thanks, Lydia. Glad you didn't notice all the misogyny. ;-)

Misogyny forever.

That could be a bumper sticker.

Excellent, Dr. Feser! Thanks for directing us to this concise and helpful post of yours.

This is Catholic theological dogma and is not philosophically supported.

God is Being, and as such cannot be said to be male or female. The law of noncontradiction tells us God cannot be both non-sexual and male.

It is not a fully held position within Catholic theology, and is less so in Protestant circles.

It IS, however, a popularly supported image within conservative Christianity.

While I don't agree with Burl's point, I do want to pose a question about this. Let's grant that God, as He is in himself, is neither male nor female. But that when God revealed Himself to us, it did it under masculine language for HIMself. Fine.

Now, it is also clear that everything that God created expresses something good, and therefore reveals something true about God. This is more so in the higher beings, so much so in man that God says of man "to the image of God He created him." But immediately after that, He tells us: "male and female He created them." Given that the reference to "them" as male and female immediately follows the "to the image of God", it is clear that both males and females are created in God's image.

However, when God puts order into the created Order, He expresses superiority of some goods over others. Thus, in making man to have dominion over the beasts and growing things, He expressed that man is superior to them.

Now, if it is stated that men, as husbands, have authority over the family, then this establishes an order of superior and inferior. For it is unnatural to have the inferior be over the superior and command them. Therefore, because men are made fit to command women, men are designated by God as superior to women.

Likewise, when the Son took on human nature, He took it on as a male on account of that gender being made more fully prepared for command and authority, a more complete affinity to the Godliness of the Son. But this is simply to say that males are more like to the Godhead than are females, and are, therefore superior to females. And thus it would have been unreasonable for the Second Person to become woman.

Now, I don't really think that men are superior to women, simply. I think the above arguments are capable of being shown inadequate. But I would like to see how others perceive the issue.

C.S. Lewis says that God is not male but is properly perceived as masculine. I think this is correct.

God is Being, and as such cannot be said to be male or female

Yeah. I said that myself. But since He is not impersonal, we have to use either "he" or "she" at least in a non-literal way, and I gave reasons from both Christian theology and natural theology why "he" is the correct way to go.

"This is Catholic theological dogma and is not philosophically supported."

Do not leave the Christians East out of the mix. Orthodox theology, based on patristic thought (both theological and philosophical), insists on the eternal Fatherhood of God.

From Patrick Henry Reardon:

'Patristic literature asserts that, in God, the name Father is not titular but real. It is a “proper” name, pertaining to God as God, and not simply to God’s relationship to us. Before he is “our Father” outside the Trinity, he is the Son’s Father within the Trinity (cf. John 20:17).

Our God is not a father; even less is he like a father. He is the Father, the One “from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is so named” (Ephesians 3:14f.). We are speaking in strictest propriety here, not mere analogy, inasmuch as this Father has begotten us in Christ, who is God’s Son in an absolute and eternal sense. The invocation “our Father” reflects the fact that, in Christ and only in Christ, we ourselves have become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). In Orthodox theology, calling God “Father” has to do with our own deification.

Because of our incorporation into Christ, we are not simply called the children of God; we are the children of God (cf. all the major manuscripts and most translations of 1 John 3:1). Indeed, because of our participation in the divine life, it is even more proper to call God “Father” than to give this name to our own earthly fathers. Truth to tell, in comparison with this Father, no one on earth should even be so called (Matthew 23:9).

Some Christian thinkers have at times expressed this mystery rather boldly. Thomas Aquinas, for example, citing Ephesians 3:14f. as his authority, speculates that the name “Father” pertains more properly to the First Person of the Holy Trinity than to any other instance of paternity. Indeed, he goes on explicitly to deny that calling God “Father” is a metaphor at all, saying of the Lord and his Father: proprie et non metaphorice dicitur Filius; et ejus principium, Pater —“properly and not metaphorically he is said to be the Son, and his origin (principium = arche[!]), the Father.”'

The entire essay is worth reading:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-06-022-f

Since I may be the only person here who has met each person of the Trinity individually, I may have something relevant to add.

Jesus called God, Abba, because that is the automatic response to His Presence and being. It has nothing to do with sex, though. Oddly enough, since he is the Begetter, you still can't react to him as a female.

When you meet Jesus, you encounter a person in male garb/flesh/spirit/divinity and masculine presence. You couldn't think otherwise. Yet, you don't automatically think "Son of God". Why? Because he is God and not some other relation to God. He's always been this person. You only think, "Jesus."

The Holy Spirit is the only Person you might consider female as the OT seems to refer to Wisdom. In fact, the Spirit is sexless and without image or a Presence that is a gender. You simply think, "God", and yet, that classification seems vague. Truth, yes, but formless and without as distinct a personality as Abba and Jesus.

I think this is the form of God that most ancient people and other religions speak of from their experience and why Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism envision ultimate reality as rather amorphous. I know I spent decades wondering if I'd really encountered God. I can't see how you can have a "personal" relationship with the Holy Spirit as we speak of the Father and Jesus.

You can attune yourself to the Spirit, but not really experience "her" in any tactile sense. The spirit is like the breeze that comes and goes, but you don't feel "air" but sense Truth.

I cannot say this enough, folks. Meet God. If you haven't, then thinking and talking about what He must be like is not the same. In fact, it's a diversion away from the Source of being. Don't waste time on words. Use it on prayer.

First text, then commentary as scholars say. Get the experiences, then spend years absorbing them, then see what you have to say.

Too many people say to themselves, "Blessed are those who haven't seen and yet believe."

Recall what Aquinas said about his work after his vision of the divine. "All straw."

Mark, just a minor point: I've been praying for getting on half a century. Sometimes more than others. When I meet up with God, either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, in the form of a personally felt encounter, felt as interacting with a person, felt as experiencing a presence, is ENTIRELY up to God, not me. I can no more make it happen by choosing to pray than I can grow a 3rd arm by choosing to.

Nevertheless, the Church has always taught that such a perceived and felt experience here in this life is not the essence of being one with God: it is in choosing, willing, unity with His will by being obedient to His Word. It is not those who say "Lord, Lord" but those who do as He commands. A great holy saint can be perfected in spiritual fire through an entire life without ever experiencing what you are talking about. That particular route of connecting with a human being is just _one_ of the methods God uses, and He doesn't do it with everyone, and He does it on His timetable, not ours.

Tony,

I agree that "blessed is he who knows the will of God and does it."

And, no, you can't "make" God come to you, appear to you. It's an iffy thing, indeed. But I think it may have something to do with being God haunted and God hunting.

Paul wasn't looking to encounter Jesus on the road to Damascus, but he was a man zealous for truth, suffering deeply in his own way for lack of it, suffering in that he was filled with a rage to kill Christians.

Paul was a fanatic, we would say. I know that I was a fanatic, too, in my own way that was different from others. Yet, perhaps the destiny was set as a child when I feeely had conversations with him in the guise of a deceased Grandfather.

I've studied as much as I can of theophanies. Why do some people have them and others who are zealous, prayerful, and eager do not?

Part of the answer has to do with trust, I believe. Can God trust you not to abuse the experience, exalt yourself, and seek power. Think of the temptations in the desert. They are very real, and God is very shy; He knows what you are really like more than you do.

I don't know, in fact, that a great, holy saint can be perfected in fire in this life. There have been a lot of really dumb saints. Every saint I've studied is deeply flawed and would say so himself.

Also, most or many theophanies occur outside the Church. People who are going to spend their lives never questioning dogma or doctrine are not likely to receive experiences they don't want that might lead them away from their orthodoxy.

Mostly, though, people don't meet God because they don't want to, I think. Are you ready to have your entire life taken over by a strange, loveable, yet terrifying "Him" who will turn your life inside out in an instant, ruining all your plans, upsetting all your relationships, taking you where you do not want to go? Do you have that kind of trust in you?

I've met very few people or read of many that are willing to lose their "reason" for God. Are you willing to appear insane to your family, friends, and neighbors for the sake of following God? The effect is that radical.

I was and am.

And Tony,

About prayer. If you've been praying for 50 years, what state or stage would you think yourself in regarding it?

All prayer leads to contemplative prayer if we seek it or allow it, yet, I see people in church saying the Rosary and making petitions to God and that's the extent of their development over a lifetime.

Also, you set the timetable with God. God will only act on your approval, desire, and sincerity. You get as much God (wisdom, truth) as you want. God is pleased to give you the kingdom and everything in it. He's not holding back.

Death will not open a door and suddenly, all will be well and perfect. The person who goes to Heaven is the same person who wasn't dead a moment before. There are no shortcuts to the beatific. If you won't do the work on Earth, what makes you think you'll do it in the next world? No distractions? Maybe (how would I know?), but the selfish will is a persistent thing and habit of mind, pride, fear, and resistance gets harder to overcome with age from what I've seen.

It also comes down to a capacity for suffering. You can make no great progress without great suffering. You have to let God keep ratcheting up the agony of being.

what state or stage would you think yourself in regarding it?

Poor, of course. But farther than 10 years ago, and that was farther than the prior 10 years before that.

I don't know, in fact, that a great, holy saint can be perfected in fire in this life. There have been a lot of really dumb saints. Every saint I've studied is deeply flawed and would say so himself.

I don't know where dumb comes in - do you mean sinful? Even the just man sins 7 times a day. But a man can be purified sufficiently in this life that when he dies he goes straight to heaven. That's purified enough for my purposes. If you have been cleansed enough to have left no habits of sin, and no attachment to sin, this is the kind of thing we can call perfected, even if it is not perfect in all respects. Even though there is always room for more love, because God's love is infinitely beyond ours, so there is always a way in which even a great saint is imperfect.

Also, you set the timetable with God. God will only act on your approval, desire, and sincerity. You get as much God (wisdom, truth) as you want. God is pleased to give you the kingdom and everything in it. He's not holding back.

But the "acting" that God will do on your approval, desire, and sincerity, is not that of appearing to you or coming to you in directly perceived form: That result He only means for certain folks, not for all universally, and THAT experience He doesn't give when you ask for it, He gives it when it suits Him because it is suitable for His plan for you. The acting that God will do on your approval, desire, and sincerity is that of making you more perfect, especially by suffering and trials: it appears to be the case that He will almost always answer in the positive a sincere prayer for more suffering.

Rob:

Some Christian thinkers have at times expressed this mystery rather boldly. Thomas Aquinas, for example, citing Ephesians 3:14f. as his authority, speculates that the name “Father” pertains more properly to the First Person of the Holy Trinity than to any other instance of paternity. Indeed, he goes on explicitly to deny that calling God “Father” is a metaphor at all, saying of the Lord and his Father: proprie et non metaphorice dicitur Filius; et ejus principium, Pater —“properly and not metaphorically he is said to be the Son, and his origin (principium = arche[!]), the Father.”'

When Aquinas denies that the first person of the Trinity is called 'Father' "metaphorically," he obviously does not mean that it is just like the human case of begetting. He means that the human case of begetting is an analogue of it: the primordial and primary case of begetting is that of the Son by the Father, so that a human father's begetting a child is just a faint, derivative likeness of it.

But it doesn't follow that the female role in procreation is not a faint, derivative likeness of something in God. After all, when Genesis says that we were created in the "image and likeness" of God, it specifies: "male and female he created them." The complementarity of male and female on the created level indicates, I should think, something about the perichoresis of the divine persons. Or so John Paul II argued in his "theology of the body." God is an interpersonal communion, and that communion is characterized by a dynamic giving-and-receiving among all three persons. That is faintly expressed in marriage and family.

This is why I'm inclined to agree with those who say that Jesus' speaking of his "Father," and of himself as the "Son," is a borrowing of terms from natural procreation to suggest how God is related to his people. God's people are the Bride; Christ is the Bridegroom; and their union gives to humanity the life for which it is destined.

Best,
Mike

God's people are the Bride; Christ is the Bridegroom;

And the priests are married to God's people (Mother Church' as Christs avatars, so

and their union gives to humanity the life for which it is destined.

And so it goes...

Corrected typos

God's people are the Bride; Christ is the Bridegroom;

And the priests are married to God's people (Mother Church) as Christs avatars, so

their union gives to humanity the life for which it is destined.

And so it goes...

You forgot the apostrophe in "Christ's." As long as you're correcting typos.

Tony,

Very fair and reasonable responses. Theophanies are usually not the end of journey, but the impetus for the start of one, the beginning of conversion; and yet, they often seem apart from religion, but not faith.

But I'm of a mind of their necessity at some point. The work of prayer, the practice of virtue are essential to the discipline of faith.

I realize that the Church has a lot to say about sanctification, but it helps to see it from a different perspective, and that view might only come with some direct experience or, perhaps, particular graces. God is much bigger than the Church (and simpler), but that is difficult for many to accept.

I find the Church is like AA, everybody takes what they need and leaves the rest.

If you are working on prayer, I recommend Fr. Keating's books to you. Merton's "New Seeds of Contemplation" is what helped get me on course years ago. And no one has heard of Bernadette Roberts, but her books on the Experience of No Self have managed to add a whole new chapter to mystical theology, and she remains a devout, eucharistic Catholic.

Also, keep in mind that Jesus only became Christ after Abba and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. If you want to become Jesus, you're going to have to let that dove fly above you, too, experience the I Am That I Am and be a newly begotten beloved son.

Faith is really weird. The Church tries to hard to make it not seem too weird, but it is weird.

Also, keep in mind that Jesus only became Christ after Abba and the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

I am absolutely certain that is a heresy of some kind.

If you want to become Jesus, you're going to have to let that dove fly above you, too, experience the I Am That I Am and be a newly begotten beloved son.

Mark, I'm all for mysticism and epiphanies, but if you want to BE Jesus Christ, in a literal sense, well that's just pure demonic delusion.

Whoa! Yes, definitely a heresy. Others will have the name down pat better, but I believe Nestorius taught that Jesus was not God in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

If priests, like Christ, are married to the Church, and celibate gay priests are allowed to be ordained, does the Catholic Church in fact condone gay marriage?

Excellent point! I never thought of it like that. They use the married to the curch reasoning to deny straight priests the right to marry women. So why is it OK allowing homosexual priests to marry what is primarily constituted by an all-male hierarchy.

What a hypocrisy to deny gays the right to marry.

Also, most or many theophanies occur outside the Church. People who are going to spend their lives never questioning dogma or doctrine are not likely to receive experiences they don't want that might lead them away from their orthodoxy.

Mostly, though, people don't meet God because they don't want to, I think. Are you ready to have your entire life taken over by a strange, loveable, yet terrifying "Him" who will turn your life inside out in an instant, ruining all your plans, upsetting all your relationships, taking you where you do not want to go? Do you have that kind of trust in you?

This sounds suspiciously like Quietism?

Seriously, this is so far removed from balanced and proper mysticism that is would take me an hour to deconstruct. No less a mystic than St. Terese of Liseaux once commented: "To ecstasy, I prefer the monotony of sacrifice." Without proper doctrines and dogmas, it would be impossible to know that the "IT" that one is conversing with or who is giving one directions is really God. Discernment of spirits, one of the gifts of the Spirit (under wisdom), is given to the Church, not the individual. One must always be suspicious of any locutionary activity or even emotive activity until it has been properly discerned. There are many good books that discuss how to discern spirits. Some examples:

The Grace of Interior Prayer by Fr. Auguste Poulain (considered THE classic in the field)

A Still, Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations by
Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel

The Fire Within by Fr. Thomas Dubay

Enthusiasm by Mnsr. Ronald Knox

I have not posted the works of mystics, themselves, but they are fairly well-known. Sadly, the Church no longer required priests to take courses in mystical theology.

If you want to become Jesus, you're going to have to let that dove fly above you, too, experience the I Am That I Am and be a newly begotten beloved son.

This is not how one ordinarily receives the Holy Spirit and such a reception does not make one "become" Jesus. One becomes incorporated into the Body of Jesus and receives the Holy Spirit, ordinarily, at baptism. The Biblical examples of the Holy Spirit being poured out on large groups serve a number of purposes, but primarily, it is as an introduction or sign of the need of a mystagogia, an introduction to the mysteries of God. Such an introduction is supposed to be done in the context of a mature, discerning Christian community.

There is much I could say about the reception of the Holy Spirit, but it is not germane to the topic of the post. I remember Michael Liccione wanting to discuss such at one point on his blog. If he still does (or anyone else, here does), we can e-mail.

The Chicken

"If priests, like Christ, are married to the Church, and celibate gay priests are allowed to be ordained, does the Catholic Church in fact condone gay marriage?"

AND

"Excellent point! I never thought of it like that. They use the married to the curch reasoning to deny straight priests the right to marry women. So why is it OK allowing homosexual priests to marry what is primarily constituted by an all-male hierarchy.
What a hypocrisy to deny gays the right to marry."

People this ignorant of Catholicism shouldn't be commenting on it. And I'm not even Catholic.

What I don't get is the reliance on 'natural law' . What's so freaking great about nature, anyway ? Isn't one of the wonderful things about being human the fact that, unlike animals, we can look nature in the eye and spit in it ? After all, we aren't naturally supposed to be communicating instantly around the world, but we're all using computers, aren't we ?

People this ignorant of Catholicism shouldn't be commenting on it. And I'm not even Catholic.

And so you must not be aware of how seriously the Church takes its symbols.

Your quotes are fair assessments of the Catholic Church's dogma. They literally say the reason priests cannot marry is that they are already married to the church body. Thus gay priests are also married to the church. Thus they condone a form of gay marriage.

How's that a gay marriage, Burl? Are you saying the Body of Christ is a gay male? And what if a gay man marries a woman? Is that another case of the Church allowing a "gay" marriage?

Puzzled,

You seem not to understand what natural law theory means by "natural." If you're interested in finding out what is meant, you might take a look at the first half or so of my paper "Classical Natural Law Theory, Property Rights, and Taxation," which is devoted to explaining the overall approach of natural law theory. (The rest of the paper is not relevant to the subject at hand.) You can find a link to it here:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=SOY&volumeId=27&issueId=01&iid=6819856#

Burl:

They literally say the reason priests cannot marry is that they are already married to the church body. Thus gay priests are also married to the church. Thus they condone a form of gay marriage.

The Catholic Church does not say that priests "cannot" marry. There are active priests in various Eastern-rite churches who are married. That is traditional. And some married, former Anglican and Lutheran clergy who became Latin-Rite Catholics have also been ordained to the priesthood without having to give up their wives. What the Church does say that celibacy is more fitting for the priestly state in that it is a clearer sign than a married priest of the priest's standing in persona Christi as Bridegroom vis-à-vis the Church as Bride. That is one of the theological reasons why the tradition of a celibacy as the norm for priests in the Latin Rite is maintained. For the full case, go here and study--if, that is, you care to inform yourself.

"Your quotes are fair assessments of the Catholic Church's dogma. They literally say the reason priests cannot marry is that they are already married to the church body."

It's not dogma. It's not even doctrine. If it were, the Eastern priests and former Lutherans and Episcopalians would not be allowed to "opt out." What it is is a discipline.

The faithful are also characterized as children of Holy Mother Church, who is the Bride of Christ. The point of this imagery is that the role of the Church relative to the faithful is comparable to that of a mother who nourishes her child in the womb in preparation for birth – the “birth” in the case of the faithful being their entry into eternal life. And God protects and provides for the Church and the faithful as a husband and father does his wife and children.

To suggest that God might be described as a mother or wife would make nonsense of all of this, and (given the outré sexual imagery it would suggest) add blasphemy into the bargain. And it can have no justification whatsoever in either reason or revelation. Feminists who pretend otherwise are worshipping a god of their own invention. There’s a name for that sort of thing.

(All of these considerations are, by the way, relevant to the question of why from a Catholic point of view women can never in principle be ordained priests. For the priest is an alter Christus, “another Christ,” who absolves us of our sins and transforms mere bread and wine into divine flesh and blood. He is the father of his flock. His role is God-like, and thus, given what has been said, essentially masculine.

Let's be honest, here, folks. Who has never been led to believe (when it suited one purpose or another) that priests are married to the Church.

With the loose and loaded symbols I quote from Ed and many similar ones in the combox and easily linked on quick searches, it is just a bit disingenuous to say I am crazily making things up. I spent a good deal of my life listening to Catholic priests and had some as personal friends.

The 1st 3 paragraphs of my prev post should all be italics.

You are crazily making things up. Your crazy logic doesn't even follow from you've quoted.

I do not appreciate the illuminati who post prejudiced opinions here suggesting they have done their homework while others are ‘uninformed’ and ‘crazy’. They do not support their counter claims with any information.

It is a practice the moderators should comment on when it arises.

I do not expect apologies from those who have behaved as such - that requires integrity, but I will support state my accurate p[ostings as follows.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html

In the conclusion, from Pope JP II

In n. 29, in the very paragraph where the Holy Father speaks of virginity and celibacy, he cites in full the Synod’s Proposition 11 on this subject. Then, to explain «the theological motivation for the ecclesiastical law on celibacy», he writes: «The will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and Sacred Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her.

You are correct, Burl, but "theological motivation" is not "dogma" or "doctrine." The actual practice is a discipline with a theological motivation, and could, in theory, be rescinded with an equally valid theological motivation from the other direction. This would not be true if the practice were dogmatically based.

How's that a gay marriage, Burl? Are you saying the Body of Christ is a gay male? And what if a gay man marries a woman? Is that another case of the Church allowing a "gay" marriage?

Does anyone know whether the Church would allow the marriage of an admitted gay male to an admitted straight woman?

I cannot google this.

Does anyone know whether the Church would allow the marriage of an admitted gay male to an admitted straight woman?

Why wouldn't the Church allow it (at least if what you mean is that the man has homosexual desires but does not act on them and wishes instead to live in accordance with the Church's teaching, and thus to sleep only with his wife)?

By admitted, I should have said an avowed gay man who would never sleep with a woman. Perhaps he would consent using his semen as an injection.

Limited google responses, but typical forum posts like the following do come up...

Here's my 2 cents' worth- don't you deserve a husband who desires you with his whole heart? Not just one who manages to resist his true attractions?

Wouldn't you love to wake up next to a man who can't get enough of you?

I guess I just want you to want something better for yourself. I have no doubt that he loves you, but that's not everything, is it?

Let me ask you this- is there any way you could force yourself to be sexually attracted to a woman? For the rest of your life? Solely to conform to your religion and "fit in"?

I truly wish you both well. This can't be easy for you.

I think the question is serious.

In my post (again), the italics should go all the way until the last line where I say 'I think the question is serious.'

By admitted, I should have said an avowed gay man who would never sleep with a woman.

Well, impotence is an impediment to marriage, even for a heterosexual man. So if the man was simply unable to get aroused by a woman to a degree sufficient for sexual intercourse, then no, he could not marry her. But the reason would be the impotence, not the presence of homosexual desires per se. A man with strong homosexual desires who was nevertheless able to have intercourse with a woman would be able to marry her.

I know I will get kicked in the teeth for this post, but since it is only a figurative whooping...

I happened on the link that I think Rob G may have relied for his discussion of celibacy as discipline not dogma

http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

It quotes Jesus on the vocation to celibacy as higher than that to marriage

Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

And Paul adds that

Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Cor 7:27-34).

And previously I quoted Pope JP II

The will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and Sacred Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her.

Two points come to mind:

First, it is a higher vocation for a man to remain celibate and single than for him to enter into Holy Orders and thus take on the duties of the priest husband to his Spouse.

Such a man would be anxious only about the affairs of the Lord and how to please Him, rather than be the married man anxious about worldly affairs such as are incumbent upon a husband to his Spouse who wishes to be loved by the priest in a total and exclusive manner.

So it would seem that by placing Christ and priests in the role of spouses, that their focus on God the Father is distracted.

Secondly, the vaulted position of celibacy in the marriage between a priest and his Church-Spouse seems contradictory to what is otherwise the the Church's emphasis on consummating with sex all other marriages.

Why would the absence of sexual relations in man-woman marriage because of impotence, as Ed noted, or as Jesus more psychologically inclusively says because “some are incapable of marriage because they were born so” be grounds for not allowing the marriage? Put another way, why does sex in man-woman marriage seem to be necessary, while just the opposite is true of the priest-Church marriage?

And finally, all this puts a weird light on the Catholic position on gays marrying:

If you are a gay male, you may be married to the Church body, but you cannot have sex.

If you are a gay male in a traditional male-female marriage you are required to have sex.

On a similar note, the Church makes a big deal about the importance of the family, yet its founder says it is far better that one remain single and celibate - this irony has always bugged me.

If you are a gay male, you may be married to the Church body, but you cannot have sex.

If you are a gay male in a traditional male-female marriage you are required to have sex.

In case 1, the institution that marries the gay man to the church because "The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her" is placing the expectation upon a gay man to also be heterosexual.

In case 2, the gay husband is expected to give his wife the heterosexual conjugal rights she is due.

In both cases, the proper term for the married male is bisexual, not gay. Hence clearly the church is condoning a form of gay marriage. It is simple logic.

Looking at these comments, it appears that some unintended things become logical requirements when 'first we do anthropomorphize.'

On the comments page for this dual posted blog over at Ed's site, there is a super document titled "Gender and Intra-Trinitarian Love in the Theo-drama of Hans Urs Von Balthasar" It is subtitled “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:27, NAB)

You can read it at http://www.medaille.com/gender%20and%20intra-trinitarian%20love.pdf

All the gender contortions and misogynistic thinking about God having to be masculine only appears to be unenlightened, and in many ways destructive.

...clearly the church is condoning a form of gay marriage. It is simple logic.

That equivocates on the phrase 'gay marriage'. It tacitly stipulates a definition of gay marriage according to which any marriage involving at least one partner with ongoing same-sex desires is a "gay" marriage. Or: a gay marriage is one in which at least one partner's sexuality is, at least in part, homosexual. But that's not what most of us mean by 'gay marriage'. By that phrase, what's generally meant is a marriage in which (a) both parties are homosexually oriented, and (b) the sexual acts which in which they engage as a "married" couple are not of the procreative sort—i.e., the acts what traditional Christian ethics, and until quite recently the common law, have called 'sodomy'.

An argument by equivocation, with the term equivocated on merely being redefined tacitly, is a very bad argument.

Why wouldn't the Church allow it (at least if what you mean is that the man has homosexual desires but does not act on them and wishes instead to live in accordance with the Church's teaching, and thus to sleep only with his wife)?

A man with strong homosexual desires who was nevertheless able to have intercourse with a woman would be able to marry her.

In several previous threads on this website, I have let pass comments to the effect that men with homosexual tendencies who have undergone counseling to overcome those tendencies should be applauded for entering into heterosexual marriage. But, as the issue has come up yet again (although I know Ed did not say exactly that on this thread), I feel I must register my strong disagreement with such a notion. Such a man really should not marry a woman under those circumstances, even if marriage is "allowed" in theory and even if the man is completely dedicated to refraining from engaging in homosexual acts and even if the man is "able" to go through with it. It is so unfair to the woman in the marriage.

A man does a woman a horrible wrong if he marries her when he is not definitely and affirmatively interested in having sex with her. No woman in her right mind wants to be with a man who finds having sex with her distasteful, whether he sometimes forces himself through the motions or not. So, unless a man is absolutely sure that he desires a continuing sexual relationship with a woman (and I don't know how he could be certain about that if he has had homosexual tendencies), he should not enter a heterosexual marriage which could potentially doom his unfortunate wife to the miserable fate of being trapped in a marriage to a man who does not truly desire her in a physical way.

I could not agree with you more, Teresa.

But in a psychotic clutching of out-dated and seriously convoluted bridal theology (among others), many conservative dogmatists subvert the good of the individual to the 'higher' cause of propping up something they can cling to in a busy world.

why does sex in man-woman marriage seem to be necessary, while just the opposite is true of the priest-Church marriage?

How does a priest have sex with a Church? It would require a series of orgies of planetary proportions. Are you out of your mind?

How does a priest have sex with a Church? It would require a series of orgies of planetary proportions. Are you out of your mind?

Probably not the 1st time a line is taken out of context for ridicule. You might google 'context' to get a little knowledge on.

Could you dig a bit deeper and speak more to the question of just how seriously can bridal theology be taken. It seems as though it is nearly literal in one instance (celibacy for priests), and a loose metaphor at others (see some biblical and papal quotes above).

Are you out of your mind?

It would appear as though someone (or some institution) is: consider the implications of the incongruence of sexual preferences, religious imagery of marital sex, and the current global church scandal - where it seems, some priests really are trying to do as you suggest!

I feel I must register my strong disagreement with such a notion.

But Theresa's comments totally IGNORE the meaning of "overcoming" the homosexual tendencies. The phrasing is not a reference to "overcoming" the tendencies by refusing to act on them. It is, rather, that the man in question quells the inordinate homosexual tendencies themselves, and instead comes to have heterosexual inclinations. There are known cases of previously homosexual men changing, so that they become heterosexual in inclination, for a LONG TIME. I.E. as an established reality. That's enough to warrant the man saying "I physically desire sex with this woman, and I have satisfactory reason to believe that this is not transitory but long-term." And that's sufficient for marriage. (With all the other intentions, of course.)