Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
She Reached Over and Squeezed Roger's Hand...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
CLASSIFIED ADS
My Friends Jewelry - “Home of the Original Pillow Rosary”: Our Pillow Rosaries are shorter i...(read more)
San Diego - Father Joe's St. Vincent de Paul Village: Help us keep all of our neighbors...(read more)
San Marcos: St. Joseph Academy is a lay run, traditional K-12 school that teaches the C...(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
Montclair 40 Days For Life: Montclair joins 100's of cities across America for 40DaysforLife...(read more)
Fresno: "Latin Mass 101: A Workshop for Curious Catholics": The Fresno Traditional Mass Soci...(read more)
Santa Barbara/Oceanside/Danville: Silent Ignatian retreats, based on the Spiritual...(read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
Cardinal Levada to Nebraska Rick and JLS You have proven nothing with your responses to ... [Doug - 2/8/2010 2:10:25 PM]
Group Assails Mother Teresa Postage Stamp In reply to Woody Guidry (2): On April 4, 2008, this websit... [John F. Maguire - 2/8/2010 2:08:01 PM]
Pointing the media in the wrong direction? Anne T., I see similar things in some of the pompous, arroga... [Ski Ven - 2/8/2010 1:46:07 PM]
Lay woman named to key Vatican job No, I do not believe the sword used by Peter is in any colle... [Tom - 2/8/2010 1:22:38 PM]
eHarmony caves I agree with Pilsun. I would have fought to the end and los... [Isabella - 2/8/2010 12:52:53 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

“Can you ordain a hermaphrodite?”

Santa Clara University theology professor says Church had long history of ordaining women that ended because of “virulent misogyny”


Gary Macy, a professor of theology at Jesuit-run Santa Clara University, told attendees at a Monday night lecture at the Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee, there is little room for historical doubt that women were ordained in the Catholic Church until about the end of the 12th century.

Macy’s lecture, entitled “A Higher Calling for Women? Historical Perspectives in the Catholic Church,” was given at Benton Chapel on the Vanderbilt campus. The university’s news service described the lecture this way: “The very idea of the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church is dismissed by many as contrary to basic church doctrine. Gary Macy, the John Nobili, S.J. Professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, says historical evidence is overwhelming that for much of the church’s history, the ordination of women was a fact.”

Macy has held his post at Santa Clara University since September 2007. Before that, he taught at the University of San Diego for 29 years. “During his years in San Diego, Dr. Macy published several books and over twenty articles on the theology and history of the Eucharist and on women’s ordination,” says the Santa Clara University web site. Among his books is The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination, published in 2007.

According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. “Women were considered to be as ordained as any man… they were considered clergy,” he said.

By the middle of the 12th century, said Macy, a profound change occurred in the Church’s understanding of the concept of ordination, largely as a consequence of political considerations as the Church sought to protect its property from feudal lords by inventing “a separate clerical class.” Theologians came to view women as “metaphysically different from other people,” so that, by the mere fact of being female, women were considered incapable of being ordained. Canonists adopted the position, “Women were never ordained, are not ordained now, and can never be ordained,” said Macy.

From the standpoint of history, said Macy, women’s ordination is a matter of historical fact, though he conceded the theological issue is a separate question. Nonetheless, he said, “By the end of the 12th century, the debate was over.”

The change in Church thinking on women’s ordination poses a dilemma for theologians, said Macy, because, if the ordinations of women during the first 1200 years of the Church were “not real,” then “the men weren’t ordained either.” He said the shift in thinking on the question occurred as the consequence of a “virulent misogyny” influenced by Aristotle, who held that “all women are mistakes.”

To illustrate his trouble with the idea that women are metaphysically different from men, Macy posed the question, “Can you ordain a hermaphrodite?” He answered his own question by suggesting that, if a hermaphrodite were biologically more male than female then, yes, a valid ordination could occur. But, he said, if the person were more female than male, ordinations “don’t take.”

During a question-and-answer session following his hour-long lecture, Macy was asked if he was “hopeful” about the future role of women in the Church. “I’m very hopeful,” he said. “I’m fairly optimistic” because there is “a new structure emerging” within the Church. “I have no hope any longer that any change will come from the bishops or from the papacy,” said Macy. “But that’s ok. It didn’t come from them in the past; it doesn’t have to come from them now. And, once the change takes place, you know what they’ll say, ‘This is the way we’ve always done it.’”

Macy noted that 80 percent of the jobs in parishes are now held by laity, and that of those lay positions, 80 percent are held by women. Of ordained priests, he said, “They’re disappearing.”

“The Holy Spirit is alive and well,” said Macy. “And what She wants, She gets.”

Vanderbilt University has posted a podcast of Macy’s lecture and the question-and-answer session. To hear it, Click Here.


READER COMMENTS

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:59 AM By Charles O'Connell
In the April 1993 edition of "First Things", theologian Michael Novak wrote on "Women, Ordination and Angels". (The reference to the latter is in regard to the fact that we are composite spiritual-corporeal beings in our fundamental nature; excessive "spirituality", beyond the balance of temperance, leads to pride, the first sin even before our race's creation.) Novak wrote that "God knew 'in advance' that He would send His Son to redeem us, as one of us, embodied in male flesh. God had sexual differentiation in His mind at the very foundation of the history of salvation. [To put it differently, God decided upon His means of salvation even before He created the two sexes.] … The two sexes cannot be reversed without entirely altering the story of salvation. The conception of the Savior could not have happened by the instrumentality of a divine mother. To grasp that much requires no special gift for narrative. One cannot picture a human father (Joseph) conceiving the Man-God by a divine mother. Does the infant just suddenly appear in the straw? In what way is it human? In the story of Bethlehem, the humanity of Jesus is vitiated if Joseph is imagined to be the generator and God the mother. (Besides, Christianity without Mary would have had an impoverished history, so much so that apart from her its narrative is virtually inconceivable.)" Novak goes to great lengths to honor the current sense of injustice at women's treatment.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:59 AM By Charles O'Connell
The People of God in ancient Israel were counter-cultural among other nations when they were obedient to God's implicit commandment (in the book of Leviticus) not to employ Priestesses. This went towards avoiding worship of the Ba'als and the ashteroth; in our time we see the logical antithesis in the revivial of the modern worship of Moloch, throwing our unborn children onto the red-hot arms of an idolized sexual-freedom. We Catholics cannot ordain women without fundamentally violating our tradition, without changing it so it's no longer Catholic. Gilbert Chesterton wrote in the fourth chapter of "Orthodoxy" that "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:13 AM By MarkF
I've looked into what Prof. Macy writes and it boils down to that he says that since women were deaconesses in the Church, then they must have been priests as well. He does not ever present direct evidence that women were ordained as priests, just that they were deaconesses. This does not take a lot of research to find; it's right in Romans 16:1. Many women were deaconesses in the early Church, but the First Council of Nicea says that they were still part of the laity and not part of the ordained priesthood. Some confusion comes in when the Council of Chalcedon talks about the "laying on of hands" in the act of creating deaconesses. Usually the expression "laying on of hands" refers to priestly ordination. Some have argued that this meant that the deaconesses were ordained in the same way as priests, while others have said that this refers to a blessing upon being made deaconesses. But note that despite what Prof. Macy says, there is no direct evidence that women were ordained as priests, only as deaconesses. His whole argument is that if they were made deaconesses, that means that they were made priests as well. We cannot know why for sure Jesus only chose men for apostles, or why when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, only the Peter and the eleven apostles spoke to the crowd (Acts 2:14). Jesus constantly broke with the gender rules of the Jews, yet he did not give to his sinless Mother Mary the keys of the kingdom, but gave them to a very flawed man named Peter. Who could deny that Mary was a better person than Peter who was so prone to mistakes? I suspect that the reason for the male only priesthood has to do with the different but equal roles that man and women have, roles that mirror the marriage between Christ and his Church, and in sacramental marriage between men and women.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:19 AM By St. Christopher
These arguments are old hat and well, and long, refuted. In fact, they are much in line with the arguments of homosexuals who seek to dismiss biblical prohibitions of their sexual practices by pointing out the prohibitions on eating shell fish. Macy is simply an old hippie, referring to the Holy Spirit as "She" and the like. No surprise that he teaches at a Jesuit college.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:20 AM By JLS
Macy can't verify his claim, and so he supports it by saying the Holy Spirit will verify it. Seems like he's putting himself in deep water.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:38 AM By Doug Lawrence
Reading this, I had to go check my calendar, to see if it was somehow April 1st again. Perhaps the professor might team up with Dan Bown on his next novel. There's always a big market for historical fiction ... which Macy's totally unfounded assertion most certainly is.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:58 AM By Sister Maureen Paul
AMEN, AMEN, A M E N

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:00 AM By rita
Evidently, this dear man has not read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, a document some regard as infallible. Regardless, of the merit of those opinions, I put little stock in his heterodox view.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:15 AM By irene
So, on and on this debate continues. This new 'anything goes' theology is being taught, and great confusion is spreading like wildfire. Meanwhile, the pews are empty on Sunday, and many in the flock have left the Church for greener pastures, or so they hope. Kind of reminds me of Nero, who fiddled, while Rome burned.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:25 AM By Laurette Elsberry
The devil is alive and at work at the University of Santa Clara. Re the fact that the majority of lay positions in parishes are held by women is a continuing of the "Eve Syndrome": "We will be like gods".

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:00 AM By bud
What else but a smug, inspired by the Holy Spirit theologian comes up with such a question? And why does it matter? The article says nothing about being ordained a priest. Most Catholics should know tht deaconesses existed in the early church!

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:23 AM By The original Frank
Editor: Thank you for posting the podcast link. It's great to listen to Prof. Macy's original presentation. I thought your headline, however, missed the point. Something like "Historical evidence for ordained women" or similar would be less sensational but more to the point. I think it is because most of us grew up in a church where priests are ordained (and a few of their number are later ordained bishop), that we assume "ordained" means "authorized to celebrate the Mass." Macy isn't claiming that the Catholic Church had women priests routinely saying Mass, rather that women were ordained as deaconess, abbess and even bishop. Women administered sacraments and in some cases held positions of significant political and clerical power.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:23 AM By BJ
Apparitions of the BVM consistently plead for obedience to the Holy Father. Gary Macy ( who he?), if it's you or the Holy Father, i'll stick with The Rock of Peter and pray for your inspiration and awakening..... to reality. The BVM has a position within our religion only just short of the Saviour; women saints have been instrumental in Church development. If the BVM and Our LORD had wanted women to be priests i am sure they wouldn't have to rely on Mr Macy and various feminists to bring it about.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:24 AM By Kay Goodnow
This is wonderful! Truth, humor, politics and hope. Should be required reading for all.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:45 AM By Dave N.
If memory serves, he used to teach at Notre Dame.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:17 AM By garvan
Dissident Macy is dead wrong. For a reliable discussion of the myth of women's "ordination" see Fr. Manfred Hauke's "Women in the Priesthood" (Ignatius Press, 1988). For starters, turn to page 445 where Fr. Hauke discusses the Middle Ages.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:37 AM By Dan
Move over Dan Brown, you've got compamy.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:10 AM By pete
This is the university the Bishop of San Jose has chosen for several years to have his so-called Institute for Lay Ministry!

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:24 AM By John F. Maguire
By using the term "ordination" expansively -- in effect, to mean: appointment-to-office -- Macy is able to bait-and-switch his readers on the issue of the sacerdotal ordination to the priesthood, that is, on the issue of the sacerdotal ordination to the priesthood of the Order of Melchisedek. This latter ordination has always been reserved for those persons with the SAME GENDER as Christ the High Priest, since Christ himself is the High Priest whom, as priests, they represent at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and by whom, as priests, they co-offer Christ's ownmost Sacrifice on Calvary.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:29 AM By Cy
Hey Santa Clara U, try to tell that to your 12th century patroness Saint Clare.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:45 PM By Rob
How can a professor of higher education at a Catholic University be so wrong?

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 12:52 PM By tom
....AND TO THINK THAT THIS GUY USES THE THE FR. NOBILI CHAIR AT SANTA CLARA TO EXPOUND HIS THEORY. I AM CERTAIN THAT THE GOOD FATHER WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE HIS NAME REMOVED. THERE ARE MANY PRESENT DAY JESUITS THAT WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HAVE THEIR NAME USED. a S.C.U. alumnus from the days when it represented the catholic church.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:03 PM By Anne T.
Well, we know "right off the bat" that this man is heretical when he refers to the Holy Spirit as "she". Deaconess, by the way, only had authority over and worked with women. They were used to baptize women in such places as harems, etc. where only women could go. My! how some people love to revise history to survive their own, sometimes decadent, purposes.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:06 PM By Elizabeth
Calling the Holy Spirit 'SHE' is a sacriledge!!!! May the Holy Spirit enlighten this man and get him back on the right track with correct theology.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:54 PM By The original Frank
Since this was a lecture about History, not Theology, accusations like "dissident" and "heterodox" make as much sense as complaining that the sky is sour. History is not about doctrine but about written events.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:04 PM By JLS
ToF, the glaring evidence against Macy is the utter lack of any treatment by any of the Church Fathers or later Doctors or any other credible documents. Even worse for Macy, is his implicit slight of hand which goes like this: Communications then were the same as now, so therefore if there were women bishops then it was legitimate. After all, today even we have ordained priests who claim to be Catholic (although the Church has excommunicated them); to note as well, None of the Churches which are not heretical yet are in schism have any record of women priests or bishops. St Paul describes the women deaconesses, and it shows that they indeed were not clerical, but helpers.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:37 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Tom: If I am less certain than you are that Fr. John Nobili "would be happy to have his name removed" from a Chair of Theology that (quite rightly) bears his name, it is because Fr. John Nobili, S.J., together with Fr. Michael Accolti, S.J., FOUNDED Santa Clara College -- and, axiomatically, those who forget their founders pay the price in lack of historical self-understanding. ~ Born Giovanni Pietro Antonio Nobili (1812--1856), John Nobili entered the Society of Jesus in 1828. An instructor in humanities at several Jesuit colleges in Italy, including the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Nobili was ordained a priest in 1843. Asssigned to missionary work in North America, Fr. Nobili assisted Fr. Jean-Pierre de Smet, S.J. in his missionary labors among North America's native societies, notably among the native Americans who lived along the shores of the Columbia River. Fr. Nobili succeeded in the moral and evangelical conversion of the Chilcotins (the moral issue involved Chilcotin polygamy; see John Nobili, S.J., _Oregon Missions_ (New York: 1847)). Fr. Nobili, in fact, worked as a missionary in the Oregon Territory until 1849, when his fellow Jesuit Fr. Accolti ordered him to repair to San Francisco. As soon as Fr. Nobili had recoverd his energies, he found himself laboring amid the cholera epidemic of 1850. These labors, we read, "made his name well known over a large part of the country." The Archbishop of Monterey, the Dominican Joseph S. Alemany took note and, in 1851, made Fr. Nobili the pastor of Mission Santa Clara. "Shortly thereafter, [Fr. Nobili] founded the College of Santa Clara, which grew in prosperity under his direction, and was for a long time the principal seat of learning in California" (_Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography_ (1999 [1887-1889]). Fr. John Nobili's name, then, will always -- and for good reason -- be associated with the University of Santa Clara.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:47 PM By William
As Groucho Marks used to say, "who you goona believe? me or your own eyes? Women were ordained to the Catholics priesthood for thousands of years; and this we must believe because this one omniscient Jesuitical scholar tell us to!

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:05 PM By Anne T.
Doctrine, Original Frank, IS the written evidence of and comes from the early Church Fathers, and sometimes Mothers. No female Saint was ever a priest, nor did Christ ordain women as priests. None of the writings of the early Church Mothers mention women priests. Take it up with the Lord Jesus Christ. Your argument is with Him. And calling the Holy Spirit a She IS heretical.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:41 PM By Raving Papist
Theology professors who believe the Holy Spirit is female? “They’re disappearing.”

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:49 PM By Anne T.
Two corrections to my post of 1:03, May 14: the word should be "Deaconesses" instead of "Deaconess", and I should have written, "My! how some people love to revise history to SUIT their own, sometimes decadent, purposes".

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:54 PM By Jon
Five or ten years ago (or so), a commission retained by Rome studied this issue and concluded that there is no historical evidence – none – that women were ordained as priests in the early Church. Naturally the commission's report received little fanfare in the media. It should be somewhere on the Internet, though.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:08 PM By Fr. M.P.
Macy says "The Holy Spirit is alive and well, and what She wants, She gets." Some outright heresy, so you know how much to trust this "teacher" for itching ears. In the days of full immersion Baptism, "deaconessess" were helpful to avoid the obvious scandal. But very simply, no matter what training, no matter what skills, no matter how capable, women cannot be fathers. Women cannot be in Persona Christi since Jesus is male.

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:32 PM By Richard Flores
As with many areas of study, American academia is truly falling apart. (As a highly-educated research engineer, I feel qualified to make this statement!) These people START with a false conclusion, and then use faulty logic to prove it! Brilliant research! The "deaconesses" were the beginnings of the "sisters", NOT the present-day deacons! The problem is with the changes in the language/vernacular. This guy could NOT be more wrong! He did NOT even try to establish the comparisons and differences. Because his entire point was to cause trouble and promote lies, he simply failed to do his job/research. Just because he obtained a PhD does NOT mean that he actually is always correct! (Or even close!) The "Catholic" church has NEVER ordained ANY female priests! This guy should be fired for faulty and fraudulent research! There is NO indication that it was ever even considered! (And we have ALL of the historical records.) What are parents paying to have their children filled with this trash? Another example of a "formerly" Catholic University destroying the minds of the vulnerable young adults! Is it any wonder that most of the graduates fail to continue with their faith? (The Jesuits are really outdoing themselves this year!)

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:10 PM By ALFONSO
So much for the made-up, "big lie" theology of this confused man. The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox because they are true, apostolic churches tracing back to the apostles in an unbroken line do not change and invent things as this "professor" would like to think. Under the action of God the Holy Spirit, Apostolic Succession and Sacred Tradition transmit to every age in defiance of the centuries what the apostles really did and taught. The essential matter and form of the sacraments because they are of Divine institution can never be changed. This man's modernist fantasy reads like a tour through all the condemned propostions in LAMENTABALI (which still retains its teaching force).

Posted Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:10 PM By The original Frank
From newadvent.com: doctrine is "instruction by word of mouth". History is the study of written records. They really ARE different, and it is important for us to deal with each kind of Truth appropriately and to differentiate when a Theologian's research address historical fact from when it addresses theological doctrine. Faith is diminished if we demean it to the purpose of contradicting written historical or scientific fact (as is argued for example, by "young Earth" Christians). Whoever doesn't like Macy's conclusions about women's ordination or his conclusions is welcome to argue against him based on historical research --- But please don't use my FAITH to argue historical FACTS.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 5:52 AM By Dai Yoshida
As I recall Macy was a student of dissenting theologian Bernard Cooke and formerly the head of Religious Study at USD. (I would think that his post at Santa Clara is a demotion.) He is well known among the Voice of the Faithful bunch. I read an article about St. Francis seminarians complaining that Macy often ridiculed the Church and gave poor grade in exams if students answered in accordance to Church teachings rather than per Macy's personal theology.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 7:21 AM By The original Frank
Regarding the use of feminine pronouns in reference to the Holy Spirit: Obviously, Jesus the man or Jesus Emmanu-el is always masculine, but I don't know of any theological reason why the Holy Spirit *must* be exclusively masculine. Could someone point to an authority prohibiting use of feminine pronouns in reference to God? I'm looking for something more explicit than just the gender of Latin or Greek words, since grammatical rules are clearly of human and not divine origin. Quite a few priests and theologians I know use both gender pronouns (as Macy does, occasionally for emphatic purposes) or none at all (my preference) out of respect for "God made them in God's own image, male and female." In the few languages I know, using "God" rather than "He" or "She", "God's" rather than "His" or "Hers", is mellifluous and shows respect by never diminishing God to a pronoun. It avoids any suggestion of Goddess worship and affirms God's universality.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 9:24 AM By Anne T.
Sorry, Original Frank, to contradict newadvent.com, if it says that, but doctrine is also gotten from the writings of the early Church Fathers and Mothers and many of the Saints. Their writings, including the Biblical ones, are always mentioned and used to show that the doctrine is historically accurate and has been preached or implied since the beginning of Christianity. Yes, the teachings were originally passed by word of mouth, but then written down. We even have some of the writings of St. Clement, who is mentioned in the New Testament. All Popes have used those written records, including the Bible, to form doctrine, so in that since doctrine is historical. As far as using the word word "He" or "she" for the Holy Spirit, one only needs to look at the Lord Jesus Christ's formula for baptism. No one has the right to change that formula. You, Original Frank, are "straining at gnats and trying to swallowing camels." And by the way, I am partially a Frank, a descendant of the "Church's Oldest Daughter."

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 9:54 AM By Aphrodite
Unfortunately Professor Macy got his courses and subject matter all mixed up because he obviously should be teaching mythology courses not theology courses at a Catholic university.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 11:02 AM By FrMichael
The man can't name a single woman who was validly ordained to the priesthood or episcopacy from either Patristic or Medieval times. I had the misfortune of reading his book on the Eucharist at seminary: a mix of fact with wild speculations. Definitely a theologian who should have his mandatum to teach as a Catholic theologian removed by San Jose's bishop.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 11:42 AM By John F. Maguire
Certain bloggers in this thread, although they correctly exclude the gambit of projecting -- from our human experience of gender-differention -- the female gender ONTO the Holy Spirit (as if it were appropriate to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity as "She"), nonetheless have overlooked the Marian dimension of this question. The Franciscan theologian, the Blessed Maximilian Kolbe, however, has redressed this situation. Fr. H. M. Manteau-Bonamy, O.P. writes: "On February 17, 1941, Father Maximilian was arrested by the Nazis. That very day he had written one of his most moving pages on the *Immaculata and the three divine Persons*. This text is the only one that contains the statement: 'The Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception.'" The import of Fr. Kolbe's formulation is great; it provides the analogate that subtends the following analogy: Just as Mary Immaculate is the Immaculate Conception in the created order, so the Holy Spirit is the Immaculate Conception in the uncreated order. Kolbe's thesis, which is at once Marian and Trinitarian, renders explicit the ANALOGICAL FILIATION of Mary and the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. She -- Mary most holy -- is the Immaculate Conception, that is, she is the Immaculate Conception in the created order. Given, then, that the Trinity is Father (Principal), Son (Word), and Holy Spirit (Conception), we now can fairly say, with Fr. Kolbe, that the Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception. In this recognition, we preserve the feminine -- the Marian -- affiliation of the Holy Spirit, without however falling into the theological impropriety of referrng to the Holy Spirit as "She". ~ For a full account of the analogy between the the created Immaculate Conception -- Mary -- and the uncreated Immaculate Conception -- the Holy Spirit -- see H. M. Manteau-Bonamy, O. P., _Immaculate Conception and Holy Spirit: The Marian Teachings of Father Kolbe_, trans. Bro. Richard Arnandez (1977).

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 1:19 PM By Fr. M.P.
The original Frank, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth - infallible Bible quote (1 Timothy 3:15). There are no women in Apostolic succession, a documented historical fact. You can trace all valid ordinations of every deacon, priest and Bishop back to the original Apostles.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 3:31 PM By John F. Maguire
Blessed Maximilian Kolbe's teaching is that it is Mary the IMMACULATA -- THIS and just this SHE -- who lives in the midst of the life of the Three Divine Persons. In consequence, Fr. Kolbe emphasized, "When our Blessed Mother was asked by Bernadette to tell her name, she answered: 'I am the Immaculate Conception'; this is the Immaculata's self-definition of herself" (Conference, July 26, 1931). "At Lourdes [then], the Immaculata did not say say of herself that she had been conceived immaculately, but, as St. Bernadette repeated it, QUE SOY ERA IMMACULADA CONCEPCIOU: 'I am the Immaculate Conception.'" It is in recognition of this truth that Pope Paul VI, in the homily he gave at Fr. Kolbe's Beatification, recognized that: "Maximilian Kolbe was an apostle of the formal veneration of Mary seen in her primal, original and privileged splendor: that of the definition she gave of herself at Lourdes" (October 17, 1971). It was in the context of this formal veneration of Mary that Fr. Kolbe, on February 17, 1941 -- "a few hours before his second and final arrest [by the Nazis]" (Manteau-Bonamy at 1) -- was able to formulate his analogico-Marian understanding of the Holy Spirit -- I mean, his cardinal thesis that the Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 4:09 PM By JLS
Words with gender endings do not necessarily mean that the thing the word represents is that same gender. This ought to be known from "language 101".

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 5:45 PM By JLS
For example, sometimes the gender of a word has to do with who the word is for. The Holy Spirit's main thing is to give life to the Bride of Christ, thus it is the Bride's affinity that determines the gender ending of the word for spirit.

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 6:38 PM By RR
The original Frank: The authority is the prayer: In the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST. AMEN

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 6:55 PM By Anne T.
John F. Maguire, in other parts of the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ refers to the Holy Spirit as He (the Comforter).

Posted Friday, May 15, 2009 11:11 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Anne T.: Thank your for your comment. My post addressed "the impropriety of referring to the Holy Spirit as 'She'" but attempted no inventory of gender-pronominals as used in sacred scripture by way of reference to the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. That, indeed, would be a large study.

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:50 AM By Zoe Brain
So - can someone who's Intersexed be ordained?

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:06 AM By The original Frank
RR: I'm looking for an explicit authoritative instruction, that we are to call the Spirit exclusively male. The blessing assigns no gender to the Holy Ghost; how does that tell us anything?

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:26 AM By The original Frank
Anne T: Are you thinking of "the Comfortor" as in John 14:26? The greek work ekenios is used primarily by not exclusively in male-gender context. I regard the "he" in various English translations as an consequence of translation, not an authoritiative direction to embrace an exclusively male Holy Spirit. Regarding your earlier post, I'm not aware of Christ "ordianing" anyone in the formal sense. Jesus built his Church on Peter, but I don't remember any Gospel passages where he explicitly assigns priestly functions.

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:33 AM By Fr. M.P.
The original Frank, where do you get your belief that a Person of God is a 'she' when He reveals Himself as a He? And one logical disproof of your belief, assuming that you believe the Creed that "He was conceived of the Holy Spirit," shows that Jesus could not be incarnated from a lesbian relationship of the Blessed Virgin Mary and a 'she' Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. *** Mr. Maguire, do you claim that the Uncreated Immaculate Conception can be a 'She' based on your understanding of St. Maximillian Kolbe?

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 12:01 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to Anne T.: Human language, we know, is not adequate to express uncreated Being -- not adequate to express the "I Am Who Am" of God's self-communication to Moses on Mount Sinai. Whence our reliance on analogy. When, for example, we use gendered pronouns in reference to God, we use these pronouns analogically, not univocally. At the same time, this use, in its realism, is genuinely referential. Here are two examples from the Trinitarian writings of Fr. Kolbe in which the Polish Franciscan uses the possessive pronominal *his* in reference to the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit has made Mary his own Spouse" (_Miles Immaculatae_, 1938, n. 2). And: "The Mother of God is the most perfect of all creatures; she is immaculate, full of grace, all beautiful. From her God receives the highest glory a creature can possibly give him. So perfect is she, so closely bound to the Holy Spirit, that we call her his spouse" (Conference, June 20, 1937). Both quotes here are from H. M. Manteau-Bonamy, O.P., _Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit: The Marian Teachings of Father Kolbe_, trans. Bro. Richard Arnandez, F.S.C. (Libertyville, Illinois: Prow Books / Franciscan Marytown Press, 1975; French edition: _La Doctrine mariale du Pere Kolbe, Esprit-Saint et Conception Immaculee), p. 46.

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:46 PM By RR
The original Frank: If you believe the Holy Ghost is a female, then you believe that God is a hermaphrodite, male and female. God is three persons in one, the Trinity. Father M.P. stated perfectly the (authority) proof you needed that God (The Holy Ghost) is not female.

Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009 10:10 PM By JLS
I cannot believe that the people arguing the gender have never studied languages other than English. I pointed out that gender tagged words do not necessarily mean that the object of the word is that particular gender. The word, eg, for dog in German is masculine, and the word for cat is feminine. So, does this example turn on any lightbulbs?

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:36 AM By Johnnie Z
Historical "Fact" Indeed: Council of Nicaea I "Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in.this position although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity (canon 19 [A.D. 325])." Council of Laodicea "[T]he so-called "presbyteresses" or "presidentesses" are not to be ordained in the Church (canon 11 [A.D. 360])." Epiphanius "It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess (ibid.)." The Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD) "A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Anna those women of great reputation let her be chosen into the order of widows (ibid., 8:25)." "A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women (ibid., 8:28)."

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:37 AM By Anne T.
Original Frank, what do you think Christ was doing on Holy Thursday, according to articles in the Adorams Bulletin and many other orthodox Catholic teachings, Christ was ordaining the Apostles to perform the Mass. Also, at another time he breathed on them, and told them whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retained are retained. I believe it was after he gave the Keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter.

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:39 AM By Anne T.
Amen! Amen! Johnnie Z. That is exactly why and how deaconesses were used in the early Church.

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:51 PM By Anne T.
A correction: I meant to write Adoramus Bulletin in my 11:37 post.

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:45 PM By Fr. M.P.
God reveals Himself as "He." Male is the source, female is the receiver. That's why He is the Bridegroom, and the Church is the bride. The Trinity is the undivided Unity, and is not inconsistent within Himself. Claiming any form of goddess is blasphemy.

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 10:42 PM By The original Frank
I want to very explicitly state that I do NOT think God or the person of the Holy Spirit is exclusively a "She" nor have I EVER used a feminine pronoun to address God!! Neither do I believe God or the Holy Spirit is exclusively a "He." The Uncreated Immaculate Conception, the Paraclete, the Comforter and all the rest,... are beautiful and imperfect expressions of something much deeper and forever beyond what I can hope to express or ever imagine. For me and many people like me, attempting to "determine" God's gender by human logic seems fraught with peril; better to let the mystery of God remain mystery. I would greatly appreciate it if those who pray to Him praise Him without ceasing, and know that all of us who believe in God are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We will praise God without ceasing, that everything we do this and every day may serve God and only God.

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 12:35 AM By Amanda
"God 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." (CCC#370) But, when it comes to language, for example, in Syriac as in Hebrew, the word for Spirit, ruah, is feminine, and so it ordinarily called for a feminine pronoun. And in the Book of Wisdom, chapters 7-9, God's Wisdom is referred to as 'holy spirit', and the Hebrew word for Wisdom, hokmak, is also feminine. As JLS reminds, the "feminine gender" in language is not the same as literal femininity or femaleness. The Italian word for chalkboard - lavagna - is feminine in gender, but a chalkboard is not feminine, even though it's given a feminine word in language. Thus, if someone uses the word "She" in connection with the Holy Spirit, charity calls for a deeper look beyond the superficials of language. As the CCC says, "to avoid rash judgment... every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it."

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 11:02 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: I am making an argument AGAINST referring to the Holy Spirit as "she". I am doing so, however, in terms of the analogical filiation between (A) the the Holy Spirit as uncreated Conception (Father = Principle; Son = Word; Holy Spirit = Conception) and (B) the Immaculate Conception: the created person, Mary. At May 16: 12:01 PM (this post immediately follows your query) I quote Maximilian Kolbe's (correct) use of the masculine-possessive pronominal *his* in reference to the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit has made Mary his own spouse."

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 12:52 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Ananda: Given the analogical character of gender-pronouns as applied to God as God, that is, God as uncreated Being, it is of course not unusual to characterize this one and true God in terms suggestive of both maternal love and paternal love. Quoting the CCC, you say why: "[T]he respective 'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfections of God...." That God is Love is the signal revelation in this, as indeed in all, contexts. No one, then, can deny that the love of God is, in a profoundly real but also analogical way, paternal; nor can anyone deny that the love of God is, in a profoundly real but also analogical way, maternal. From within this perspective, the ancient Hebrew *ruah* -- as you suggest -- will always have an important place in our understanding of God. As you also suggest, though more obliquely, there is no place in this understanding, however, for a reduction of analogical language to univocal language, with the consequent attempt to submit (were such a thing possible!) the triune God into a forced gender-ID distribution: say [God forbid], two "he's" and a "she". Male/female tritheism, in fine, has no place in Trinitarian theology.

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 5:10 PM By Richard Mc Candlish
Christ Jesus was made incarnate in Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is female, then 'Jesus had two mommys', to quote Dale Vrees of NOR. I think that puts paid to this nonsense.

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 10:01 PM By Anne T.
Sorry, Amanda but I consider using the word "she" for the Holy Spirit when Christ used the "word" he, heretical -- no ifs, ands or buts about it. If that hurts someones "feelings" that just too bad. I don't soft pedal heresy. See John 14: 16. See John 14: 26. See John 16:13. where Christ used "he" and "him" for the Holy Spirit. I am sick of people opinions. What about Truth.

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009 10:21 PM By Anne T.
Amanda, we all know God is spiritual and has no sex, except for Jesus Christ. But Christ used the words He and him for the Spirit, and so has the Church down through the ages.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:07 AM By The original Frank
Were I to insist on identifying God as a purely masculine or feminine entity, I would feel a blasphemer's shame, like a pervert peeking under the divine skirt to see what's there! That doesn't mean I think OTHER people blaspheme when they refer to Him. You who call on Him have your own experience and it obviously fits our common tradition, as does simply insisting (as I do) that God is God and nothing (not a thing) else. --||-- The true statement "God transcends gender" does not mean God is a hermaphrodite, any more than "God transcends ethnicity" means God is a multiethnic person like our President. In my judgment, nobody has, on this thread, identified a scriptural quote where Jesus unequivocally says the Spirit is male. Analogies which happen to have masculine gender (like "parakletos") or the word "He" in English translation don't satisfy at all. In John 14:26 and 16:13, the word is "ekeinos" which is not gender-specific (like "who is"). In John 14:16, the word is "didomi", a verb meaning "to give." This sentence poetically avoids gender-specificity and I believe the original author picked the non-gender-specific forms deliberately.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:08 AM By Talitha Kumi
i agree with FLORES; Macy should be fired.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:19 AM By CJ
This is from today's Gospel... isn't the "advocate" the Holy Spirit a male? John 16:5 Jesus said to his disciples: "Now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' But because I told you this, grief has filled your hearts. But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and condemnation: sin, because they do not believe in me; righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; condemnation, because the ruler of this world has been condemned."

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:01 AM By Sister Act
In reply to CJ: You ask: "Isn't the 'Advocate' the Holy Spirit a male?" A male? The answer, CJ, is a flat No. *** As Amanda, quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, correctly points out: "...There is no place for the difference in the sexes" -- that is, for the male/female difference -- in Trinitarian theology. This means, CJ, that you'd be just as mistaken, had you asked rhetorically: Isn't the 'Advocate' the Holy Spirit a female? Stop and consider: A male? A female? CJ, this differentiation -- the sex differentiation -- is proper to the order of creation, not the order of God. When we use gender-terms in reference to the triune God, we are using these terms only analogically. For example, ADVOCATUS has a masculine ending and is indeed used to refer to the Holy Spirit; but not for a moment does that mean that the Holy Spirit is "a male". Likewise, the Hebrew RUAH has a female ending and is indeed used to refer to the Holy Spirit; but not for a moment does that mean that the Holy Spirit is "a female".

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:11 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Anne T.: You rightly note that God is Pure Spirit and therefore, as such, not male/female-differentiated. But then -- without qualification -- you add: "God...has no sex [identification], EXCEPT for Jesus Christ [emphasis mine]" This formulation, however, is inexact. You would have been on safer ground had you said: God has no sex identification, but God-become-man has a sex-identification in virtue of Jesus' maleness -- I mean, the very maleness of Jesus Christ in his sacred humanity. It is the sacred humanity of Christ -- the sacred humanity of God-become-man -- that is MALE. See Leo Steinberg, _The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion_ (University of Chicago Press, 1996). What needs to be remembered is that: as Son, Christ Jesus was begotten, NOT MADE (Nicene Creed: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [that is, of the essence of the the Father, God of God] Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father"). The male-female sexual differentiation is a differentiation that belongs to the order-of-the-God-made -- that is, the male-female differentiation belongs to the order of creation -- and not the order of uncreated Being.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:30 PM By Steven
Anne T, Jesus did not use the words "He" and "him". He didn't speak English. What you're citing is someone's English translation of a verse written in a language that too Jesus may not have spoken. Language belongs to the people. If some people choose to refer to God as "blik" or "Shehe" rather than "He", they can do so. A change in language doesn't mean God has changed any.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:59 PM By Anne T.
Wrong! Steven. The early translators knew exactly what Christ meant. It is people like you in this day and age who doubt it because YOU don't know what it meant in other languages at that time. St. Jerome was far closer to the languages of that day, and so were the early translators of the Bible for the Orthodox Churches, and none of them use "she".

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:30 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Steven: You are right that "a change in language [use] doesn't mean God has changed any" but wrong to endorse an arbitrary nominalism according to which "people [are free to] choose to refer to God as 'blik' or 'Shehe' rather than 'He'...." God's own self-revelation as Being itself ("I am Who am"); God's own disclosure of his ineffable name YHWH, precludes treating human language as subject to raids the booty of which is that any vocable whatsover (blik, etc.) can be applied to God on the ground that, as an arbirtrary exercise of human will, "[people] can do so." In effect, your arbitrary nominalism militates against the analogical use of language no less drastically than the does the univocal fixation of those who use the words "male" and "female" to identify -- PER IMPOSSIBILE -- the "sex" of the three divine Persons of the Trinity. Whereas this univocal fixation on sex-categories produces male-female tritheism rather than orthodox Trinitarianism, you err in the opposite direction. You write: "If some people chose to refer to God as...'Shehe' rather than 'He,' they can do so" and do so because, according to you, language-in-use is an arbitrary inventory of vocables. Language-in-use, however, is not an arbitrary inventory of vocables. What governs the use of gendered terms in reference to uncreate Being (God) is the principle of analogy, not the unprincipled axiom that you use: namely: people can use any vocable whatever in reference to God (blik, for example) simply because, as a matter of physical will, "they can do so".

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:42 PM By CJ
Good point Sister Act. But language and gender designations are not without importance for our understanding of God. The wise priest Father Vincent Serpa said on Catholic Answers: "Scripture always refers to the Holy Spirit in the masculine. Keep in mind that it was by the Holy Spirit that Mary concieved. Some feminists would very much like to see the Holy Spirit as feminine in this context."

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:07 PM By Anne T.
Go to the New Advent Encyclopedia. Look up the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit in its search engine. Read the Synopis of Dogma, and the rest. Never is the Holy Spirit referred to as either "she" or "its", but "he". All the articles about the previous Councils, etc. for the dogma are listed there and can be accessed.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:10 PM By Anne T.
People, Steven, can do whatever they want, but they have no right to change the formulas or dogmas of the Church and call themselves Catholic. That, Sir, is the heighth of hypocrasy and heretical.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:50 PM By Sister Act
In reply to CJ: To refer to the Holy Spirit "in the masculine" (to quote Fr. Vincent Serpa) is not for a moment to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a male anymore than to refer to the Holy Spirit in the feminine [Ruah] is to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a female. Gender terms are used ANALOGICALLY when they are used in reference to the three Divine Persons of the Trinity.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:43 PM By Anne T.
Sister Act, we will not be fooled. We all know that Professor Macy has an "agenda" when he calls the Holy Spirit "she". Next on his agenda is to call God the Father, Our Mother. We all know where that leads. I bought unwittingly years ago a book by a dissident priest (I forget his name) called St. George and the Dragon. Expecting to get a sermon on the usually story of St. George, I got the surprise of my life. The author suffers from what is called in the field of education as reversals. In the story the Dragon was good, God was a woman, etc., etc.. It was just awful. I trashed it. I suggest everyone due the same with Professor Macy's class.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:48 PM By Anne T.
Oh, the priest who wrote the book was Father Edward Hays.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:46 PM By JLS
The actual issue which is being missed is not founded on the language but on Church Tradition. God, as Anne T. has pointed out, is not a man ... except in the case of Jesus Christ. But God is the Father. There is no mother in the Godhead, but only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son: Mothers do not proceed from Fathers and Sons. The Holy Spirit is not a mother, nor a woman, nor a female. All the correct things have been said on this thread by several people, but there continues to be posts which go way off track, arguing whether the Holy Spirit is a female. The "female" happens to be the Church, whose groom is Jesus Christ. Jesus teaches us that in Heaven there is not marriage. Catholic wedding vows say, "until death do us part". Upon death a Catholic spouse can remarry ... if this spouse were still married to the deceased spouse, then it would be a sin. It's not, therefore Heaven has to do with something different from the nature we have here on earth. Another way to look at it is "need"; is there any need for the Holy Spirit to be female? No. Is there a need for the Father to be male? Well, of course ... but here we are dealing with the nature of God, so the whole question takes on a level of discussion that cannot be hampered by nonsense such as is being tossed about on this thread. If you stick to what the Church plainly teaches, then you can see the vanity in the absurd proposals by people who insist on something different. It's just another feminist religion movement, trying to trump reason with the emotion of vain pride. Remember what the Apocalypse teaches us ... let no Catholic fall for the ruse of the "Great Whore of Babylon", a character of some sort who plays a major role in the war against God.

Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:59 PM By The original Frank
In Catholic Encyclopedia articles, use of "He" for God has the same SYMBOLIC significance as the use of "she" for the Church: We, the Church, are intimately and passionately wedded to God our creator and lover. It doesn't mean we should decorate ourselves or our church buildings with pink lace. I don't know Dr. Macy, but I would guess "what She wants, She gets" was a teaching tool intended to stimulate critical self-examination and shake some mental cobwebs from his audience's minds rather than a dogmatic assertion that the Holy Spirit is female. If that was his intention, the back and forth on this page demonstrates that he succeeded. Thank you, Dr. Macy!

Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:42 PM By Sister Act
In reply to Anne T.: You free-associate too much. Reversing the valence of the story of St. George and the Dragon is an unwelcome instance of "culture-jamming" but has nothing to do with the Catholic tradition of proper use of pronominals in the context of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:05 PM By JLS
We are made in the image and likeness of God. Man and woman make one unity in marriage. This unity becomes the Bride of Christ. The problem in understanding it comes upon the vanity that some follow which is that man and woman are meant to some ends other than the marriage unity.

Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:59 PM By Steven
John Magure, you're welcome to your language theory, but people are just as free to come up with a new language as they were to come up with English, Finnish or Zulu, and as I said, if in that new language, or variant of a language, the word for God is spelled b-l-i-k rather than G-o-d (English) or J-u-m-a-l-a (Finnish) or N-k-o-s (Zulu) then that's what it is. Maybe that's "arbitrary" to you, but only if you believe language is arbitrary. I gave no opinion on that.

Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:32 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Steven: Point well-taken. By "language in use" I meant language-in-use in socio-linguistic contexts (English context, Finnish context, Zulu context, etc.). Still, even in the context of Anglophone culture -- if perhaps not in the context of a seminar on Ludwig Wittgenstein -- "blik" is an arbitrary rather than a traditional reference to God -- that is, inasfar as *blik* is intended to be a reference to God in the first place (presumably for analytical purposes). Which is why I am slow to agree that the vocable *blik* as used to reference God, is arbitrary in the sense that is arbitrary only to me.

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device













 
Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com