Not from me. It’s from the USC Annenberg Religion Dispatches:
And it’s the most comprehensive explanation of the problem I have ever seen. Sister Barbara Fiand explained the unjust notion and social and theological implications of males as “begotten” and females as “misbegotten” at a Sophia Inclusive Catholic Community retreat last year. This article adds the historical and biological implications from Aristotle to Aquinas. Brilliant! OK the problem has now been precisely identified. Now how are we going to FIX IT???
I also love this comment from cranefly:
Here’s what everyone misses. The priesthood is not about real things – like leadership or strength – at all, it’s about symbol. The Male symbolizes God, pumping it out, and the Female symbolizes the Church, taking it and not complaining. They call this female quality “receptivity” and praise it as the most wonderfulest righteousness of the feminine, praise and glory upon the woman who can perfectly exhibit its caged, silent, self-erased, oven-like service to God’s life-giving plan, being not the subject (doer), but the object (receiver). If that’s crude, then take it up with Catholicism, because that is what it teaches. Women can’t symbolize God in a particular male-pleasure-based sexual metaphor, so they can’t play God in our earthy sacramental pantomime; THAT is why they can’t be priests. That is why priests are called “Father” and the Church is called “Holy Mother Church.” Catholicism does not use symbol in order to express truths about the reality of our lives in relation to God; it created a symbol of God from the self-glorifying depths of the male hindbrain, and expects reality to conform and say thank you.