I had an epiphany this afternoon… I plan on organizing these thoughts into something more coherent over the next several months.
Q. What is the fundamental between the masculine and the feminine?
A. Aristotle proposes four causes: formal, final, efficient, and material. I propose that “the masculine” is the formal and final cause. “The feminine” is the material and efficient cause.
We speak of God as father because He is the formal and final cause. We speak of Church/Earth as mother because it is the efficient and material cause. The formal and final cause is indirect, the efficient and material is direct.
God feels distant to us for the same reason fathers seem distant, namely, because they are both indirect causes. They are “gone all the time.” Their support is indirectly experienced by children. Whereas mothers make our food and care for our wounds, children only vaguely grasp the role fathers play. They leave, they work, they earn money.
God “dwells in unapproachable light,” but the Church is present moment by moment. In the same way it is easier to love man (“whom we have seen”) than God (“whom we have not seen”), the love of mothers comes easier than the love of fathers.
And yet, without direct causes there are no indirect causes, and vice versa, which is why mothers tell children, “Ask your father,” and fathers tell children, “Ask your mother.” This is not shirking duty, but natural, because direct causes and indirect causes cannot exist without one another.
A materialist society cannot help but favoring the feminine. The feminine deals in causes (efficient, material) which a materialist society acknowledges, whereas indirect causes (formal, final) are thought specious. Baconian science inherently diminishes the role of fathers.