It is no secret that Christianity has throughout its history neglected the feminine, feared it, suppressed it, relegated it to the realm of the irrational and untrue. But if we’re being honest, we must admit that the Christ we meet in the Gospels is not a particularly masculine figure. A savior who comes not in power but in weakness, who preaches mercy instead of justice, forgiveness in place of revenge, who measures his wealth not by how much he can possess but how much he can give away, who shows us how to inhabit our vulnerability and be honest about our frailty, whose love is abandonment—that is not a very manly savior.
What is the agenda here? Why is the interpretive lens being applied to Christian teaching and for what purpose? There is plenty that raises red flags, but I'm not going to catalog them here yet.
For comparison (or contrast?)...
The Redemption of Eros: Philosophical Reflections on Benedict XVI’s First Encyclical by D. C. Schindler
Deus Caritas Est:
According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually degenerated into vice. Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely-held perception: doesn't the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions, turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn't she blow the whistle just when the joy which is the Creator's gift offers us a happiness which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine?See also MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2007
Perhaps Clemente would say that his view complements Benedict XVI's. I have doubts about his philosophical and historical premises.