Theologians challenged to set the pace for inclusive conversations

I don't know if I would go so far as to call this organization elitist. It is, after all, called the Catholic Theological Society of America. It seems reasonable that one should be a theologian to be a member. Wouldn't it be the same if there were a Scientific Society of America, or an Archaeological Society of America?

I think the CTSA isn't relevant because Catholics are rarely exposed to any sort of real theological thought. Homilies, first communion and confirmation classes, RCIA programs, the articles in our diocesan newspapers, etc. are all by and large geared towards catechesis and apologetics, not serious theology.

Before there is able to be any sort of lay discussion on theology, more of the laity will need to familiarize themselves with the subject. As I said above, we're not getting much theology from the pulpit, so it's something we have to pursue ourselves. The question is, how many of us are actually doing that?

Some years ago, Fr. Richard McBrien updated his book, "Catholicism," and re-released it. It is a wonderful, easy to understand introduction to a variety of theological thoughts and concepts. Yet, most of the people I know who own a copy are either priests or theology majors. Other authors like Richard Gaillardetz have also attempted to write popular theology, but these books simply do not sell among the general Catholic populace.

It seems that until Catholics are aware that theology deals with many issues of social importance (contraception, the role of women, the relationship between Christianity and the poor), most of them will remain uninterested. So, what can be done to change this? I wish I knew.

Or children ...

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)

"Why is it that 95% of Catholics do not know the true historical background of the practices that the Church embraces today (viz: Infallibility, Eucharist, Inquisition, Apostolic Succession)."
-- The Church embraces Inquisition?? I thought the Church was a lot nicer than that.

I enjoyed your response and insights, and I will enjoy sharing some of my thoughts, having been an RC for 77 years and a member of the "ordained."
1) You supposed that you were sidelined because you outed. But I will offer another possibility: The ordained tend to shy away from all sexual issues. I believe a goodly number are in some denial of their own sexuality, at least, it's never been talked about in any of the clergy groups I can remember--and I think I would remember a rare occasion like that. So, had someone talked about his heterosexuality, my guess, the same would have happened.
2) Over the years I have had friends who were gay (myself a hetero) and we continued spending time together as long as we were physically within visiting distance. So here's my observation (I wouldn't die for it) Gay men being only about three or four percent of the population are basically uncomfortable in a heterosexual world and are continually seeking "acceptance." This anxiety is incomprehensible to us hetero's; "everybody" is like us; acceptance is not on the agenda. So, for a gay man to out--what's the big deal? "There are larger fish to fry." "What am I supposed to do about it?"
3) Gay persons seem to value loyalty to persons more highly than do hetero's, who would be more interested in a theologian's reasons than his relationship or club status. And, sad to say, outside the gay community, I doubt that personal support is a high priority for the ordained--in theory, yes, but not in practice.
In conclusion: gays and hetero's laught at different things; yes, we're in different worlds. But, my belief: We are to love the persons we find ourselves with, not spend a lot of time looking around for persons we "can love," and that's how I manage my love life. donje

Thank you, donje. There's much wisdom in what you have to say. Learning to love those around us--whoever they are--is one of the fundamental life lessons for equilibrium, sanity, human development, and the scriptures tell us that our salvation depends on learning this.

My comments about acceptance are aimed at the question of inclusion, raised by Dr. Finn's address and Mr. Allen's article. It seems to me less than honest for a theological society to invite widespread inclusion and conversation about all significant issues, while it creates structures that tacitly prohibit the inclusion (and dialogic contributions) of gay/lesbian people.

This is hardly a marginal issue in today's society or church, is it? It deserves much honest, open theological discussion, and without fetters being placed on those who need to be able to be public about their orientation to contribute from where they stand.

I'd also note that, in my humble opinion, the appeal of gay/lesbian people for acceptance and inclusion has much to do with the appeal for social (and ecclesial) structures to stop practicing violence against gay/lesbian folks. In far too many places, including many places in the U.S., we are susceptible to violence ranging from verbal assault, loss of employment, exclusion from housing, exclusion from the right to visit partners in the hospital, to outright physical violence.

A man perceived to be gay was brutally beaten in the last two weeks in Indiana. This event has not even been reported widely in the media, but has been reported on a number of blogs.

I would argue that the church plays a role in fostering such violence, and the silence of the church--including the silence of major theological societies--feeds, rather than addresses, the violence. In my view, a major aspect of our Christian vocation is to combat violence and to bring everyone to the table of the Lord. That can't happen, when gay/lesbian people are asked to be invisible.

William D. Lindsey

Maryah I believe you are in error when you say CTSA bears no responsibility in anyway. CTSA is responsible for each and every action it takes. Shirking responsibility is cowardly. I think CTSA should start listening to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

These dissenting voices marginalize themselves by preferring their own opinions to Church doctrine.

Just curious ... REALLY! How does someone in your position "voice dissent"?

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)

Peace and Good,

Is dissent to the Truth really an option? As Catholics we are not free to dissent from the teachings handed down by Christ. If a member of the Church is not following those teachings, especially if it leads to scandal, we may be obliged to do something (ie. Catherine of Sienna's repremand to the Pope).

Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

Excuse my lack of knowledge about this issue, please, and tell me to what teachings of Christ this organization dissents.

"As Catholics we are not free to dissent from the teachings handed down by Christ."

Which teachings are handed down by Christ? Teachings like the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the inherent evil of contraception and IVF, the ordination of men alone, the exact number of sacraments, etc? Were these things spoken of by Christ? Or, are you referring to teachings like the beatitudes, the law of love, the existence of a loving God, the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and similar truths? Is it these doctrines that theologians dissent from?

Christ Himself gave us the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the inherent evil of contraception, abortion and IVF, the ordination of men alone, and the sacraments. They most certainly were spoken of by Christ in Matthew 16:18. Remember? The Church will prevail in Truth against Hell itself? Christ is very much alive today, in the Holy Spirit which guides His Church for all eternity with the Pope is His personal representative.

If you're Catholic,you embrace that accomplished fact.

"Christ Himself gave us the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the inherent evil of contraception, abortion and IVF, the ordination of men alone, and the sacraments. They most certainly were spoken of by Christ in Matthew 16:18. Remember? The Church will prevail in Truth against Hell itself? Christ is very much alive today, in the Holy Spirit which guides His Church for all eternity with the Pope is His personal representative."

Aren't you forgetting that when Jesus said this there existed only he and his band of followers, who were all still within the Jewish faith? There was no separate Christian religion, and no such thing as the Christian/Catholic church (nor would there be for quite sometime). Likewise there was no hierarchy, and certainly no papacy. Even in the post-resurrection apostolic era, the modern Catholic will look in vain to find the current institutional church which you consider to be of divine origin. Most of these structures, in fact, would not emerge until the Church became a distinct, and mostly Gentile religion, at which time a hierarchy largely modeled on the government of pagan Rome emerged. I strongly doubt this is what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 16.

I should add that I am in no way denying the leadership role of Peter among the twelve, and the unique position he held within the very early church. However, there is no evidence of Peter even being a bishop, much less is he described as having the complete and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church that popes centuries later would claim for themselves. I also believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well within the Church. What I absolutely do not believe, is that the hierarchy has a kind of monopoly on this Spirit, as the Church I speak of is the whole People of God, and not simply a select few men in Rome and elsewhere.

And yes, I am a Catholic.

You're not getting it at all, SJ. If you deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church and all her teachings in their totality, then INEVITABLY you are led to denial of the divinity of Christ. The Church has always maintained that Peter was the first Bishop and apostolic succession is the will of God. By coming here to argue and split hairs over this or that doctrine, you're either saying that that God is mistaken and/or Jesus Christ lied to us when he declared that His established Church would NEVER err in teaching Truth.

If Jesus Christ is God, then the Church cannot be in error in her teaching truth on doctrine, faith or morals. If the Church is wrong, then Christ is a liar: these are the two possible choices. So what do you say? Do you assent or dissent of this fundamental declaration by the Church? The answer will sort out whether you are a Catholic or not. It really is that simple.

The historical church has changed in it's understanding of numerous issues. I don't see where change makes Christ a liar, it maybe that it only proves mankind can be blind, selfish, and dense. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church, not because the Church is always and everywhere right, but because it won't be left in it's various forms of ignorance, selfishness, and blindness. It will be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and has been in it's history, to a deeper and more enlightened understanding of the totality of the truth of Jesus. We are a pilgrim church on a path towards love, peace, and joy. We are not a stagnant pond in the process of decay. At least I hope we're not.

"If you deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church and all her teachings in their totality, then INEVITABLY you are led to denial of the divinity of Christ."

I do not deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church, nor do I reject all of Rome's teachings in their totality, nor have I denied the divinity of Christ. Your comment not only suggests that non-Catholics do not believe in the divinity of Christ, but that there was no Christian belief in the divinity of Christ before there existed a fully established specifically Catholic hierarchy. Oh, and are you aware that the pope didn't even attend the council at Nicaea?

"The Church has always maintained that Peter was the first Bishop and apostolic succession is the will of God."

In "Ordained Persons and there Ministries: New Testament Foundations and Variations," which can be found at http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_7/gleeson.htm, Fr. Brian Gleeson CP writes:

"There is no NT evidence that any of the Twelve ever founded local churches or, like James of Jerusalem, served as heads of local churches. Carolyn Osiek remarks: 'It seems that the apostles did not have local leadership positions but functioned more as a wider group of overseers, for what we might refer to as long-range planning.'[15] There is no evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, for instance, that any one of the Twelve presided over a local church. It is generally agreed that James, who as head elder was the leader of the Jerusalem church (although not called a bishop), was 'the brother of the Lord' and not the same as the James of Alphaeus mentioned in the lists of the Twelve. Although Peter has sometimes been called the bishop of Antioch, there is no evidence in Acts that he either brought Christianity there or presided over that community (cf. 11:19-20). A more ancient tradition reports that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. This seems quite unlikely from what we know of Christianity at Rome. The supposition that, when he did come to Rome (presumably in the 60's), he took over and became the first bishop of Rome represents a retrojection of later church order (organization).[16] It is only several centuries later that particular apostles are described as 'bishops' of first-century Christian centres, descriptions which are anachronisms.[17] The fact that the Twelve (founding apostles) were not bishops or local church leaders, and, in fact, coexisted in Jerusalem with James who was the local church leader, is one reason why exegetes have a difficulty about bishops being successors to the apostles.[18]

"Nowhere in the NT are the Twelve understood as having successors[19] or providing successors. As to the question of succession to their function, the NT never raises the issue of succession to their role. There is nothing in the NT literature about a regular process of ordination, nothing to support the assumption that by a chain of laying on of hands (what Yves Congar has called ‘linear descent’), every local elder-overseer could trace a pedigree of ordination back to 'the apostles'.[20] The NT tells us nothing either, about whether church appointments were held for a limited time or for life.[21]

"Consequently, it is more accurate to see the role of the Church's hierarchy as continuing the original mission given to the Twelve at a further stage of its development, than to speak simply of the transmission of the responsibilities and powers of ministry from the apostles to bishops and their co-workers.[22]"

If you have historical evidence to refute this, I'd be glad to hear it.

"By coming here to argue and split hairs over this or that doctrine, you're either saying that God is mistaken and/or Jesus Christ lied to us when he declared that His established Church would NEVER err in teaching Truth."

Again, there was no "established church" when Jesus spoke in Matthew 16. It wasn't until later that Christianity grew out of being a sect within Judaism, and even by then it was far from being the heavily institutionalized religion which you speak of. Also, do you consider us to be part of that "established Church" as well, or does this church consist solely of the hierarchy? Do you believe that all of us together cannot err in faith and morals, or do you think Christ was telling us that the Holy Spirit was only accessible to a chosen few?

"If Jesus Christ is God, then the Church cannot be in error in her teaching truth on doctrine, faith or morals. If the Church is wrong, then Christ is a liar: these are the two possible choices. So what do you say? Do you assent or dissent of this fundamental declaration by the Church? The answer will sort out whether you are a Catholic or not. It really is that simple."

We're both Catholics who are sincere in our beliefs. Our disagreements don't change the authenticity of our faith. To say otherwise only goes to show why there needs to be more dialogue within the Church.

[15] Carolyn Osiek, 'Evolving Leadership Roles in the Early Church', The Bible Today 34:2 (March 1996), 72-76, at 74.
[16] Raymond Brown, Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (New York: Paulist Press, 1970), 52-53
[17] The idea that Peter functioned as the first bishop of Rome, e.g., can be traced back no further than the third century. There is no indisputable evidence, in fact, of a single bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.
[18] Brown, Priest and Bishop, 54. Cf. Mitchell, Mission and Ministry: 'The Lukan view of the Twelve does not, then, portray them as early "bishops" (heads of local churches), nor does it regard them as "sacramental practitioners" responsible for activities like baptism, eucharist, "ordination" or reconciliation' (119). Cf. Paul Bernier, Ministry in the Church: A Historical and Pastoral Approach (Mystic CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1992): ‘Note that nowhere in the New Testament does it say that the apostles or the Twelve, were bishops. This equation was made by Cyprian at a later date. There is no evidence for linking the “college of apostles and the college of bishops”. To say that the apostles were the first bishops goes beyond the New Testament evidence’ (40)
[19] Mitchell, Mission and Ministry, 118. Cf. Lumen Gentium a.20: ‘. . . the apostles were careful to appoint successors in this hierarchically constituted society’. Also: ‘They . . . designated . . . men and ruled that on their death other approved men should take over their ministry.’
[20] Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible, 138.
[21] Ibid.
22] David Power, Ministers of Christ and his Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1969), 108.

1) The Church does not hold to Sola Scriptura, that the Apostles (other than Paul) are noted as having founded churches in Scripture is counterbalanced by the Tradition of them doing so throughout Europe and Asia.

2) Not all bishops now are territorial bishops, that the Apostles held council in Jerusalem shows only that they could gather, and that they wanted to keep some sort of centralized governance.

3) That James the brother of the Lord (son of Alpheus) was not one of the Twelve requires ignoring Gal 1:19. (see also: Catholic Encyclopedia)

4) Succession: The Eleven raised Matthias to be another Apostle, that their number might bt that which the Lord had chosen. They commissioned Paul, who in turn commissioned other disciples and elders (notably Timothy) who he ordered to install elders in each city by the laying on of hands. How the author is able to avoid this is beyond me.

5) The Institution of the Church. There can be little doubt that Jesus intend a Church (and thus a certain amount of development) when He states: "Upon this rock I will build My Church." This IS the institution of the Church, the conception of it, if you will, brought to birth at Pentecost.

6) While all of us are part of the Church and guided, in a sense, by the Holy Spirit, Peter and the Apostles received distinctive charges from each other and from the rest of the Church. Peter, the rock, was given the keys (symbolic of stewardship in Jewish culture, making him the second head of the household). The Apostles were in general given the power to bind and loose.

While I won't go as far as jolenecasa, you do seem to deny any teaching held distinctively by the Catholic Church, and put forth a number of ideas that our contrary to it.

---
What might the future hold?

I'll try to answer a few of your objections.

"The Church does not hold to Sola Scriptura, that the Apostles (other than Paul) are noted as having founded churches in Scripture is counterbalanced by the Tradition of them doing so throughout Europe and Asia. "

The traditions regarding apostolic activity in Europe and Asia would not be regarded as Sacred Tradition, as they do not relate to divine revelation. These are solely man made traditions which don't generally date early enough to be taken as historical fact. This differs in the cases of Peter and Paul, as no serious historian will deny their martyrdom in Rome. Many of the stories which surround their executions, however, were later additions (e.g. Peter being crucified upside down).

"The Eleven raised Matthias to be another Apostle, that their number might be that which the Lord had chosen."

I agree. This does not prove what is traditionally understood as being "apostolic succession." Matthais was chosen to be an actual member of the Twelve, and not "ordained" as an independent elder-overseer. Rather than being the establishment of a "line of succession," this was an instance of the Twelve making a replacement in their immediate circle.

"They commissioned Paul, who in turn commissioned other disciples and elders (notably Timothy) who he ordered to install elders in each city by the laying on of hands. How the author is able to avoid this is beyond me."

The author does not avoid this. He covers all of this in the article which I quoted from and linked to (http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_7/gleeson.htm).

"There can be little doubt that Jesus intend a Church (and thus a certain amount of development) when He states: "Upon this rock I will build My Church." This IS the institution of the Church, the conception of it, if you will, brought to birth at Pentecost."

I tend to see Jesus as laying the foundation for an eschatological community within Judaism. This community would undergo radical changes when Jewish Christians were excommunicated and the mission was opened up to the Gentiles. It would undergo even greater changes after the destruction of Jerusalem. A lot of this relates to questions of low and high Christology and a number of other larger issues, such as whether or not we see Jesus' mission as being primarily aimed at the renewal of the house of Israel.

"While I won't go as far as jolenecasa, you do seem to deny any teaching held distinctively by the Catholic Church, and put forth a number of ideas that our contrary to it."

In no post did I deny Rome's teachings regarding IVF, the Immaculate Conception, etc. What I denied was SaintandSinner's assertion that these were teachings handed down by Christ. I can assure you that I am desperately in love with the Catholic faith. I think that faith is bigger than the papacy, apostolic succession, etc.

Fr. Richard McBrien writes in "Catholicism:"

"Catholicism is distinguished from other Christian churches and traditions especially in its understanding of, and practical commitment to, the principles of sacramentality, mediation, and communion. Difference between Catholic and non-Catholic (especially Protestant) approaches become clearer when measures according to these three principles"

I don't have the time to expand on McBrien's notions of sacramentality, mediation, and communion, but suffice to say that I tend to agree with him on the primacy of these principles.

Your reply was very charitable, and I thank you for that.

God bless you.

That it may not be part of Sacred Tradition in no way denies that there is often a strong case made that the Apostles did historically found and head various local Churches. Nor does this answer that James of Jerusalem IS identified with James the Apostle, by none other than Paul.

In defense of apostolic succession, the basis of the author's assertions is that the NT is not conclusive. He acknowledges that the office of bishop did quickly come to replace that of apostle, and that the office of apostle was a higher office, entailing every aspect of the episcopate save territorial government (for which I point back to Peter and James). He seems to ignore that the Early Fathers, dating back to the first century, have upheld the succession that he is unable to find evidence for. Lack of evidence is not a very strong argument.

It would seem that Jesus did a very poor job of communicating His desire for a the community to remain in Judaism, as it was those closest to Him that repeatedly defied the leaders of the Jewish faith. They also accepted converts to Christianity without binding them under the law of Moses (which happened before the excommunication of Christians from the synagogues).

Your opinions that I differ with lie primarily in those areas of Christology and ecclesiology, subtler than those others may have taken offense at. (While Saint and Sinner may have exaggerated, the authority by which these are taught is handed on from Christ.)

I thank you for your polite replies, as well.

Here Today, all bona fide scripture scholars--including Catholic ones, several of whom SJ cites--have long accepted that Jesus proclaimed the coming of the reign of God. He did not envisage the structures that grew up as a result of his proclamation of the reign of God. He did not envisage the church.

The text you cite is a retrojection. The gospels were written quite a few years following the death of Jesus, within a polemical context in which the followers of Jesus were separating from Judaism--church from synagogue--and in which the memory of Jesus was often framed to fit the needs of the emerging church.

To understand the gospels, we have to do more than parrot them. We have to study them, within the historical and theological context in which they were written.

Does this mean that the church is an aberration of Jesus's message? Not at all. It grew out of his proclamation of the reign of God.

However, within its tradition, the memory of Jesus remains dangerous, because it points to something that transcends the church--the reign of God. There have been many developments emanating from this memory, some of them valid and faithful expressions of the reign of God, others not.

Part of the job we have as followers of Jesus is to keep listening to the gospels as we walk in the footsteps of Jesus, to see how our lives (and the church today) enshrine the central aspects of Jesus' teaching. This requires constant discernment and discipleship. Simply citing the words of papal edicts is not going to dispense us from the hard work of seeking God's will in our world today. The truth lies at the end of history. We are part of the making of that Truth. If we had all the answers in our journey, the whole biblical motif of faith as journey would be meaningless.

William D. Lindsey

If I come back with a number of internationally acclaimed scholars who are contrary to your position, it doesn't matter because they won't be "bona fide". I would respond further, but I have a feeling that it would be pointless.

You have stated a profound truth here Bill. One which is easy to forget in the dimness of the forest of dogmatic trees which choke off the light this truth:

"However, within its tradition, the memory of Jesus remains dangerous, because it points to something that transcends the church--the reign of God."

In it's essence, the Good News and the life of Jesus are all about the coming reign of God and how we are to operate as humans both then and now. In keeping this in mind, it maybe that we are being called as individuals on a faith journey, to transcend much of the intitutional Church as we approach the reign of God.

The best of our mystics seem to have come to similar conclusions. They speak more of our connectedness than our separateness. They speak of Light. They speak of Joy. They speak of the unspeakable in metaphor and poetry as they attempt to make their visions meaningful. It is difficult to articulate that which is transcendant.

I had one other thought as I read this. I think it's kind of ironic that Jesus would ask Peter to transcend physics by walking on water. Of course Peter failed, maybe that's why Jesus referred to him as the 'rock'.

God Bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

SJ wrote on June 21, 2007 - 6:01pm.
"Which teachings are handed down by Christ? Teachings like the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the inherent evil of contraception and IVF, the ordination of men alone, the exact number of sacraments, etc? Were these things spoken of by Christ? Or, are you referring to teachings like the beatitudes, the law of love, the existence of a loving God, the forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and similar truths?"

Again I'm not theologian (or canon lawyer) but are any of those "optional" for a Catholic? Aren't theologians to help clarify, understand and explain teachings not tear them down?

Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

"Aren't theologians to help clarify, understand and explain teachings not tear them down?"

I understand theology to be a largely critical function within the Church. It is not to be confused with the repetition of Church teachings (catechesis), or the defense of church teachings (apologetics). Instead, it is the ongoing critical reexamination of church teachings according to the current historical situation, up to date Biblical scholarship, the sense of the faithful, etc. Many such reexaminations often result in official changes in church teaching, as was the case with Modernism, the doctrine concerning usury, or the famous "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus."

Now, excuse me if I am wrong, but weren't you just telling us a few months ago that we were dissenting from the TRUTH if we dared suggest that God was not male? Help my poor memory out...

If I came across too strongly in defending what I believe, I sincerely appologize. I think that issue has been beaten around already so I wont derail these discussions with this tangent.

Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

SaintandSinner, I wasn't at all looking for an apology. I would love if you could understand that you use the word TRUTH not only to refer to Christ's or the Church's teachings, but also to your own spin on them. Your response suggests that you still believe in the maleness of God, which is actually more a mormon belief in God's physicality than ever a catholic belief, not that I would suggest your need to become a mormon. You surely have some catechism to tell you what you believe, and in that I think you will still find that God is spirit, as the catechism I memorized as a child said. Your interpretation may just be a dissent. Have you considered that probability?

Peace and Good,

Since you don't accept emails it is difficult to respond without derailing the current conversation ;-) *wink*

As I said before...God is Spirit and essentially beyond our conceptions of male and female. Also there is clearly a maternal side to Gods affection for us. God has however specifically revealed himself as Father and as Son. Of these two the revelation of God as Son, in the person of Jesus Christ, is what I was trying to discuss. The spiritual aspects of God are clearly and without question beyond male and female...there is nothing that will make God the Father or God the Holy Spirit male or female, in the way we would understand. But Jesus is clearly male, and this was not an accident. Being God He chose his revalation to clearly transmit some essential component of his being. I think this has to do with our relationship with God being bridal we are to marry God to being united with Jesus like a bride and groom are united...totally and without reservation. In the sence that Jesus is God and Jesus is male then God is male. No other implications are intended or implied.

Was this helpful? My email is available for futher discussion, if you would like.

Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

No, SaintandSinner, it's not particularly helpful. I've had a number of discussion regarding these issues of dissent and how people should supposedly be leaving the church if they think about something in their own or different way, and these easy strawmen boundaries are to me the 'moveable feast' of religion. I'm not sure you can tolerate me pointing out that if you go to this very physical description of God passing his maleness into our relationship for the purpose of us understanding that we are his brides, you then become a male bride to a male God. I'm not sure you're going to like things in exactly that physical a presentation after all, are you really? There is a reason that mormons don't use the same bridal language of the psalms after all, and that does relate to their belief in being able to sit with God, a man among men, in his living room someday (or better yet, become "him").

All I'm suggesting is that you stretch a bit in your thinking regarding "dissent," which is nearly a word with no meaning at all to me after hearing the lines other people draw in the sand. In other words, a more judicious use of words might actually serve your purpose better. Many of our saints are not where you are in their thinking, and the language of the mystics might be more baffling to you than you realize. People seem to use the dissent of others a lot as a way of making their own beliefs (mostly apologetics) carry more weight, but I don't think it floats much here.

Peace and Good AnnieO,

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. I love my Church and I believe She has been given to us at great price. I do not in any way mean to suggest that God will be 'physically' involved with us. No, I probably cannot express this as well as I should. As Jesus said, in heaven we would not be married or given into marriage. We will be like angels, loving with the entirety of our being.