Designating God as Father is as old as our Judeo-Christian Faith. Nor are we alone in ascribing Fatherhood as the characteristic of deity. As for us Christians, this is a revealed truth. Jesus in every instance and without qualification referred to God as Father, as his Father, and, that by adoption, we are children of the Father. Reference to God as anything other than Father is conspicuously absent in all of Holy Writ, though the Spirit and Wisdom are, in places, given a feminine attribute. This would seem to be cut and dried. But, wait! The (quite illiberal) liberals and feminists of our time have taken to designating God as mother as often as Father, and, some of them even refer to God exclusively with feminine designations. These folk even concoct clever locutions that avoid reference to the actual manhood, the very real maleness, of Jesus. This is but another facet of the blurring of gender and of gender roles which serves the social and relational goals of feminists, their male allies, and most (quite illiberal) liberals as well. In response to this it seems to me that it should be possible to propose that feminine and masculine are indeed different ontological realities which, while some traits are common to both, are distinct, purposefully created by God (the Father) for distinct roles, purposes, and destinies. Both are human. Both are equal (in a juridical sense), but, as far as social and cultural roles and callings, they are unarguably, scientifically verifiably, quite different beings. Only those bent on wiping out the last vestiges of our Western Civilisation will disagree with this, and do so obstreperously and without regard to the least respect or politesse.

So, let us have a discussion on what, exactly, are the ontological realities that distinguish masculine from feminine, manhood from womanhood, fatherhood from motherhood, and the blatant, existential reality of gender and its obligations. Further, do we not seem to live in a changed and changing culture that denigrates manhood and fatherhood while exalting womanhood and motherhood. A culture which more and more screams about equality, but, in fact, exalts the latter over the former, and does so without reservation in our legal system and court-case results, in the realities of married life, in the (mutual!) conception and bringing to birth of progeny, and more. Those who advocate incessantly for the 'ordination' of women do so from a position which effectively proclaims that priesthood is, after all, a uni-sex charism, and that no charisms exist which are specifically masculine or feminine (except, of course, when they wish to exempt women from this, that, or the other, because women do not wish, after all is said and done, to be 'that equal').

God, then, is known to be Father. He is not known (with any verity) to be mother. What does this mean ontologically. He has, really, no gender in the sense in which we know it. He is not, actually male nor female in the sense in which we experience these realities. He could just as well be referred to without exception as 'God'. Why has he chosen to reveal himself (through scripture and the witness of his Son) as 'Father'. What, ontologically, does this mean? What does it mean in reference to specific charisms in Church and society?

Nor are we alone in ascribing Fatherhood as the characteristic of deity. As for us Christians, this is a revealed truth.

MJO: the catechism distinguishes between the fatherhood of god ascribed to by other religions and the unique revelation of fatherhood which comes from Jesus.( as the quotes above show)

Why has he chosen to reveal himself (through scripture and the witness of his Son) as 'Father'. What, ontologically, does this mean? What does it mean in reference to specific charisms in Church and society?

Certainly interesting questions. Does the answer perhaps hinge around the way in which fathers and mother give life? The man gives life outside of himself, the woman by receiving into herself life from outside (not as a passive participant of course) Hence the male human can image God as Father in his transcendent otherness, giving life to others outside of himself, while the female human can image humanity, actively receiving life from God.

Hence the male human can image God as Father in his transcendent otherness, giving life to others outside of himself, while the female human can image humanity, actively receiving life from God.

I'll just say, I have big problems with this...

Except, Bonniebede, the normal female is not 'actively receiving life from God'. She receives it from a male, the husbandman. Your analogy is basically nice, but needs tweeking. The only woman who actually received life from God was the BVM. God was the Father of the Son she bore. This is unique. (I am laying aside for the moment the reality that, in a broader sense, we all, male and female, receive life [our very being] directly from God.)

Um, speaking of biological ridiculosity, Adam: what about the virgin birth, an incontestable article of the Christian Faith? And, being born of his Mother whilst leaving her virginity intact is not the only time he passed bodily through a physical obstacle without harm to it or himself: we are told that after his resurrection he passed through a closed door in the upper room.

Fussy, fussy. The idea is an archetype, a parable. But mention it and out come the literalists.

For that matter, one can probably rephrase it in clinically correct terms and the symbolic elements remain.

Richard,

I think the problems go beyond the merely clinical (as Adam suggests), perduring to encompass any reference to the Theology of Christopher West.

Count me with Alice Von Hildebrand on that one.

Um, speaking of biological ridiculosity, Adam: what about the virgin birth, an incontestable article of the Christian Faith? And, being born of his Mother whilst leaving her virginity intact is not the only time he passed bodily through a physical obstacle without harm to it or himself: we are told that after his resurrection he passed through a closed door in the upper room.

Those are super natural events, not poor readings of natural biology.