Can Mary Be Redeemed?
Introduction
Second only to Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary is one of the foremost symbols of Christianity. She has been the subject of much religious art and iconography through the centuries. Her role is especially prominent in Roman Catholicism in which she is the subject of much theological reflection. In light of the large amount of attention she receives, it is no stretch to say that she has become the figure of Christian holiness. However, much of the theological writing regarding Mary has been by male subjects. The development of Mary in our religious imagination is a project that has been crafted by the hands of powerful, formally educated men. This begs the question: how much does Mary reflect the Divine and how much does she reflect masculine worldviews and desires? Is the Virgin Mary an instrument of patriarchy? And, if so, can we develop a new Mariology that is works against patriarchy? In this paper, I will argue that the Virgin Mary has become an instrument in the oppression of women, sexuality, and the poor, though new interpretations of Mary may be possible. First, I will discuss the patriarchal framework that has shaped traditional Mariology. This has resulted in making Mary into an image of the “patriarchal feminine:” a woman who denies her own gender/sexuality and is passive to the masculine domination. Second, I will expose Mary's role in the advancement of colonialism as an oppressive archetype of womanhood and as an icon that authorizes violence. Finally, I will attempt to point in other directions for reinterpreting Mary based upon the biblical text and upon the realities of gender/sexuality that will counter prevailing patriarchal constructions. Throughout this exploration I will make frequent references to Sexism and God-Talk by Rosemary Radford Ruether and Indecent Theology by Marcella Althaus-Reid.
The Theological Construction of the Patriarchal Feminine1
Patriarchy is the domination of an active agent over a passive subject. It is the asymmetrical construction of superiority/inferiority in which the superior wields determinative privileges while the desires, the rights, and the value of the subordinate is marginalized. This term has its fundamental meaning with regard to sex/gender within the family unit. Patriarchal societies are those in which males (particularly the father) in the family possess a high degree of privilege and authority which is denied to female persons. Masculinity is associated with superiority and femininity with inferiority. This familial construction, however, extends beyond the family unit and is replicated in many other segments of society. According to Ruether this opposition of masculinity with femininity is embedded in “centuries of cultural thinking that have made ('male') mind dominant over ('female') body, ('male') man over ('female') nature, ('male') God over ('female') creation.”2 Since it is the primary way in which order it established, patriarchy shapes the imagination of much ecclesial, economic, and political activity as the modis operandi. As a social pattern, patriarchy is a means of violence—social, physical, and sexual—and of denying women their dignity as being created in the image of God.3
The question of patriarchy is relevant to Christian theology simply by virtue of its tendency toward violence. However, as a structure that is rooted in the family unit, it is important to look at the familial centerpiece of Christianity: the Holy Family. Does the Holy Family reflect this pattern of domination? Is patriarchy reinforced through Mariology? In much of Christian tradition, Mary is portrayed in a manner that acquiesces to patriarchal construction. Mary is the passive subject of the activities of “the Father Almighty.” Her body serves as nothing more than a receptacle of the God's spermatic Word: the Logos.4 As a passive recipient of Divine activity, Mary has no other role than that of “a visual showpiece of pregnancy.” Regarding her submissive and silent role, Althaus-Reid writes, “Therefore, God the Father is the scribe of his lonely creational pleasures, for His is the pen/is (Battersby1989:50), the power and the glory. However, the Virgin Mary has no sharing in her symbolic construction of God's speech acts. She is no word; she is only appearance.”5 In fact, the male-oriented tradition of associating the Divine Logos with sperm (Logos Spermatikos) discloses the masculinity role of God's activity in contrast to the passivity and femininity of Mary. This portrayal reaffirms the patriarchal hierarchy that justifies structures of domination.
Additionally, Mary's role in patriarchy extends far beyond popular interpretations of the text. Mariology, as developed within traditional Roman Catholicism, profess theological doctrine that inscribes Mary in patriarchal femininity. This traditional Mariology is built upon the patriarchal, cultural conception of masculine (God) over feminine (creation). Ruether explains that “the feminine represents either the original creation, the good material shaped by the hand of God, or the new creature, the eschatological community reborn from the Passion of Christ. As such, the good feminine is a spiritual principle of passive receptivity to the regenerating powers of God.”6 With this hierarchical principle as the foundation of this traditional Mariology, the Virgin Mary becomes a multifaceted and complex symbol for the creature in relation to God.
In traditional Mariology, the Virgin became an ecclesiological symbol. Following in the Judaic tradition of depicting Israel as the wife of God, the Church is portrayed as the bride of Christ. The hierarchical structure of “God” over “creature” and “male” over “female,” and their correlation, is made prominent in this matrimonial analogy. In light of the redemptive activity of Christ (the husband), the Church (his wife) should be purified, perfect and, in a sense, virginal “through submission to his redemptive authority.”7 The matrimonial imagery is eschatological in that it anticipates an eventual consummation of union of the Christian community with Christ. This metaphor is complex because though it imagines the Church's union with Christ as analogous to the union between a husband and wife, however the union is such that the Church regains its virginal purity.
This eschatological marriage between Christ and the Church is set over and against earthly marriage and procreation. Therefore, since the Church is to be the virgin Bride of Christ, virginity within the Christian community is exalted above earthly marriage. At this point, Ruether refers to the Symposium of Methodius in 311CE. In this text, “ten Christian virgins discourse on Christian virginity, culminating in a hymn to Christ as bridegroom of the Church. The virgins sing that they have spurned mortal marriage and worldly wealth so that they could come to Christ in immaculate robes and enter into his blessed bridal chamber.”8 Earthly marriage and sexuality are neglected in expectation of a superior intercourse between Christ and the Church. This latter celestial coitus is superior to the earthly pleasures because it reinstates the bride's virginity rather than stripping the bride thereof. Additionally, this Divine intercourse with the Church sets itself above human procreation. Through Christ's insemination of the virgin bride, the Church bears forth virginal offspring—faithful Christians—who are not bound by sin and death. This nullifies the value of earthly motherhood in which the woman's body has been dishonored by the removal of her virginity and the woman's offspring are fated to sin and death. The Church, however, is both Bride of Christ and Mother of all Christians. As both spiritual bride and spiritual mother, this theological tradition subordinates the value of earthly marriage, sexuality, and procreation.
Such an ecclesiology attempts to appropriate female capabilities to male persons while negating the sexual identities of actual women. Through identification of the Church as bride and mother, males—who, after all, comprise the ecclesial hierarchy—are able to participate spiritually in the female biological functions of conception and birth. However, in elevating this to the spiritual realm, the physical bodies and sexuality of actual women have been deemed inferior. “It then becomes possible to symbolize the female life-giving role as the source of 'death,' while expropriating the symbols of conception, birth, and nurture to males.”9 It is in this way that the Church has constructed a “patriarchal femininity”—in which aspects of femininity has been co-opted by a male-dominated structure while simultaneously denying the dignity of women.
In traditional Mariology, the Virgin Mary is a symbol is a multidimensional symbol of the Church. In light of Scriptural statements regarding the virginity and purity of the eschatological Church, the early Church found it necessary that doctrine surrounding Mary reflect this as well. Hence, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity which claims that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Her perpetual virginity correlates to the everlasting purity of the eschatological Church. Ruether discuss the implications of Mary's perpetual virginity when she writes, “If Mary is the sinless matrix of the sinless Christ who transcends carnal reproduction, then she herself must have been preserved from the 'taint' of carnal reproduction.”10 This leads the Church to the development of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception—that, through Divine intervention, Mary was been preserved from the contamination of original sin since her conception in her mother's womb. Through the Immaculate Conception, Mary becomes symbolic not only of the eschatological Church, but of sinless creation prior the Fall. Finally, in the doctrine of her Assumption, Mary's perpetual virginity is sealed when she ascends to the side of Christ as his bride and is appointed Queen of Heaven. As a symbol of the faithful community, Mary's Assumption is symbolic of the Church triumphant and exalted over world. In her Assumption, the Church—and the celibate male bodies that comprise its hierarchy—are established as possessors and administers of a heavenly authority. From her place at Christ's side, Mary serves as a maternal mediatrix of Divine grace from Christ to the ecclesial body. She serves as a womb for Christ's seminal grace which gives re/birth to virginal children—the community of faithful Christians. Therefore, in Mary are combined the complex themes of virginity, the prehistoric goodness of creation, eschatological victory, wife of Christ, mediatrix of grace, and mother of the faithful.
Through this intricate theology, the Virgin Mary has become a symbol and an instrument in the perpetuation of patriarchy. In her are the fortifications of oppressive cultural binaries such as male over female and God over creature. She is an image—without words of her own—of submission to the unilateral activities of God. Mary has become the centerpiece of a violent artwork in which the female anatomy has been assimilated to dominant-males while female sexuality and earthly motherhood have been erased. Rather than an affirmation of female dignity, traditional Mariology serves to construct a patriarchal femininity.
The Holy Virgin and Colonialism
This patriarchal theology has significant ramifications upon in the realm of politics and identity. As the modis operandi of organization, patriarchy is not simply the domination of male over female but is a sinister force which shapes politics, social ordering, and identity formation. In the realm of politics, patriarchy is found in the subjugation of nations—or regions, people, etc.—for exploitation by a stronger political body under the guise of “civilizing” those considered “barbaric,” “savage,” or “ignorant.” This was the agenda of European colonialism as it spread to the Americas, Africa, and parts of Asia. Through violence, enslavement, and “education” numerous peoples were made subject to European nations such as England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain. Accompanying colonialism were methods of social ordering. Those who were associated with the European colonial empires were deemed superior to those who resembled or retained their respective non-European ethnicities. The European empires possessed wealth and military power which were at the disposal of those who were its representatives, ambassadors, or, occasionally, willing non-European subjects. Conversely, those who struggled to preserve their local heritage suffered under brutal conditions. Many suffered from extreme poverty, disease, and increasing marginalization. This form of social stratification—superior Europeans over inferior non-Europeans—was replicated not only in economics, but in valuation of physical aesthetics and linguistics as well. Those who resembled the Europeans most or spoke their language most fluently were considered beautiful and eloquent. This hierarchical structure of values and persons forms notions of identity. European notions of gender, of sexuality, and of marriage were imposed as well. The “proper” behavior and role of men and of women were imposed unto societies which formerly had different practices. Despite the collapse of European colonial empires, its ideological and social influence are still prominent throughout Latin America and Africa. Rather than a mere preference for masculinity over femininity, patriarchy is intrinsic to politics, economics, and constructions of gender identity.
It is not surprising that an indispensable instrument in the colonization of America, Africa, and parts of Asia by oppressive European superpowers was Christianity. As the undergirding element of much of European culture, Christianity became a means of “civilizing” those who were considered brute and uncouth. For the colonizers, Christianity was a religion that established order and advocated submission to political authority. For those being colonized, Christianity became a force in the destruction of their culture and identity. Marcella Althaus-Reid is a Latin American theologian who is disturbed by the methods in which Christian theology has been used to perpetuate systems of domination and oppression. In her book, Indecent Theology, Althaus-Reid exposes various “perversions” of Christian theology that make it a powerful and tyrannical tool in Latin American societies.
Like Ruether, Althaus-Reid is disturbed by theology's ability to degrade the female body, however Althaus-Reid gives a more critical analysis than Ruether of the sexual nature of theology and the political consequences. Among the aspects of Christian theology she critiques, she speaks about the role of the Virgin Mary in the perpetuation of unjust constructs of gender, sexuality, and politics—with special attention to Latin America. She explains that “to write theology is similar to the act of putting our head in the hole at the funfair photo-booth. It is an act of identification with religious symbolism.”11 She accuses theologians of falsely believing that Latin American women are able to identify with the Virgin Mary. This belief however does not take seriously the very sexual lives of poor women in Latin America. What identification is there between a Virgin and a demographic were virginity—or so called “sexual decency”—is scarce? What commonality is there between the Queen of Heaven and the disempowered, marginalized women? Why should one identify with Mary, the happy and passive recipient of God's [masculine] sexual advances, when one has been the victim of rape and molestation? Rather than one with whom poor Latin American women can identify, the holy Virgin is an icon of a male fantasy of femininity—desexualized and submissive. Althaus-Reid writes, “the divine empowering women have received from the worship of the Virgin has been the power to suffer that theological clitoridectomy performed by the church down the centuries.”12 If Mary is empowering for poor women at all, it is to enable her to bear the weight of patriarchy, to suffer domination, and to deny her own sexuality. Like the colonial imposition of social constructs upon the lives of non-Europeans, the Virgin Mary becomes an archetype in the patriarchal theological imagination that is violently enforced onto the social world of poor women.
As part of the archetype of holiness and womanhood in Latin America, poor women desperately commit themselves to veneration and imitation of the holy Virgin. For poor women, devotion to and imitation of Mary offers the prospect of empowerment. For example, by their religious devotion, poor women avoid the demeaning classification as a “whore” or “prostitute.” However, Althaus-Reid explains that “the return for a woman's investment in decency is so poor that in the end it allows her to keep a rebellious spirit in spite of her sexual/gender investment.” This is the bittersweet reality of devotion to the Virgin Mary—there is little social benefit that poor women receive and yet, ironically, that lack of return enables them to maintain their rebellious passion. However, on a more sinister note, Althaus-Reid explains that worship of the Virgin has been used as a means of political “domestication” of women who are outspoken and challenge society. Her example are the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo—women who protested the secretive kidnapping, torture, and murder of their children by the military government in the 1970s and '80s. Rather than supporting their resistance, male clergy members usually told them to pray to the Virgin Mary in hopes that “Marian worship would domesticate them, make them decent mothers who would educate daughters into decency and not political subversion.”13 Contrary to beliefs regarding empowerment, the Holy Virgin serves as an instrument of the patriarchal feminine to keep women sexless, submissive, and silent.
Therefore, Mariology is part of a process of indoctrination and habituation of peoples under an oppressive framework. Rather than being an historical Palestinian peasant, “Mary” has been transformed into the “Holy Virgin Mary”—of an Immaculate Conception and reigns as Queen of Heaven—through patriarchal theological reflection. And it is this Mary—the Holy Virgin Mary—who has become the socializing construct for defining gender and acceptable sexuality. Contrary to essentialist claims that gender and sexual identities are based in nature and are able to be categorized, gender and sexual identity are social construction that do not always reflect reality. There is no universal understanding of “man” or “woman.” Different cultures possess different archetypes and concepts of what constitutes masculinity and femininity. These archetypes are historically constructed and, though they resided deeply within shared cultural symbols, they are able to be discerned. And though they are powerful due to their deep historical and social force—not to mention the power of internalization within participants of the culture—these constructs are not always true to real life situation. Rather, members of particular cultures attempt shape their notions of gender in the image of their historically conditioned archetypes. Additionally, citizens of respective societies learn of their gender, not through an inherent knowledge of masculinity or femininity, but through imitation of the performances of those who have been classified within their respective gender. Gender is not learned—it is a matter of performance and imitation that is based on a constructed archetype.14 This leads Althaus-Reid to declare, “Gender is usually considered in linearity and punctuality. It has never occurred to theologians that gender, for instance, can be thought of as processual instead of punctual.”15 Rather than an inherent or fix identity, gender is an always performing and developing construction. Therefore, gender—and sexuality as well—are far more fluid and unstable than is commonly assumed.16 Based on this understanding of a historical construction of gender archetypes, Althaus-Reid explains that “the concept of woman can be dated to the [Holy] Virgin Mary.”17 “Woman” has become constructed, performed, and imitated not based on the historical poor woman, Mary, but based upon the Holy Virgin Mary of traditional Mariology. Womanhood has been identified with passivity and female sexuality has been “everlasting virginity.”18 Any “sexuality”—if it can be called that—which Mary expresses is submission to God's [masculine] sexual advances, which somehow do not “mar” her by removing her status as “virgin.”19 Mary as “woman” began in Europe and spread through colonialism to other regions of the world. As a cultural symbol in Latin America, she is the prominent figure of womanhood and sexuality. Through attempts to perform and imitate the Holy Virgin Mary, and one another, many women in Latin America attempt to imitate an oppressive construction of femininity. And the refusal to conform to this pattern of gender results in further marginalization by being considered a whore. Therefore, what we have in the Virgin Mary is an oppressive attempt to define gender—particularly femininity—and to define sexuality—that is, virginity or solely within a heterosexual marriage in which the male party is the aggressor and the female party is passive.
In addition to imposing concepts of gender and sexuality on a reality that does not conform with its demands, the Holy Virgin Mary has become the face of colonialism and oppression in general. Citing other works, Althaus-Reid exposes historical accounts by Spaniards which claim that the Virgin Mary was an aid in their conquest over the Native Americans. She is claimed to have blinded, and even killed, Native Americans, eventually putting them into submission to her and to the authority which she represents—the Spanish Crown. Additionally, Althaus-Reid makes reference to the claims of the Virgin Mary's appearance throughout postcolonial Argentina—many dating as late at the 1990's. She writes, “All the Argentinian apparitions...do not speak the current Spanish of the country but use pronouns and verbal forms from the current usage of Spanish from Spain.”20 Despite almost two hundred years of independence from Spanish rule, the Virgin Mary—the archetype of holiness and womanhood—continues to be a patriarchal, colonial symbol. Even the Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, claimed deep devotion to the Holy Virgin and a sincere belief that she is responsible for his protection. During the oppressive governments of Argentina during the 1970's priests shouted in the streets phrases such as: “The Argentinian person who does not venerate the Virgin is a traitor to the Fatherland [Patria] and deserves to be shot in the back” and “Argentines who do not show respect for the Virgin are Communist sons of bitches.”21 It is clear from these accounts that the Virgin Mary has been an image in the procession of domination and violence.
Theologically and historically, the Holy Virgin Mary has become an tool in the heavy hands of patriarchy to control women, to silence the oppressed, and to administer violence. She is the image of the patriarchal feminine—passive, even supportive, in the face of phallic imperialism. Desexualized and submissive, she is “woman”—possessing virginity while being nonresistant to male [God's] activities. She is the symbol of womanhood stripped of humanity, motherhood stripped of sexuality, and peoples stripped of dignity before the authoritarian power of masculinity—be that God, monarch, dictator, or husband.
Can Mary Be Redeemed?
In light of traditional Mariology, the ideological structure she embodied, and her use in violence, one might despair. The doctrine regarding her—such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, and her Assumpion into Heaven—are backed with rigorous arguments, centuries of development, and a large institution. Her establishment as the icon of womanhood, female sexuality, and colonialism is deeply embedded in histories, societies, and the unconscious. Due to the system of domination and the structural/ideological violence it upholds, traditional Mariology demands revision. For the sake of the kingdom of God [and of justice] to come, theologians are obligated to reconsider what a Christian Mariology—for the 21st century—might look like. But, one might ask, is such thing possible? Is there hope for redeeming Mary?
The following method for reexamining Mary requires the following disclaimers. Firstly, this is will not be an engagement with the theological arguments of traditional Mariology which attempts to expose its inconsistencies.22 Neither is this an attempt to unearth the “real” and “historical” Mary from the sands of time. Rather, this is an analysis of the biblical text in hopes of finding new ways of thinking about Mary. Secondly, this is not an attempt to produce a new archetype in place of the old one. While there is an intention to counter the influence of traditional Mariology, a new universal archetype will not be presented due to the fact that a new archetype can become equally oppressive as the former. Instead, what follows are simply new ways of thinking about Mary that do not necessarily conform to the ways of traditional Mariology. This leads to the third point, the following examination of Mary is done with full acknowledgment being historically and culturally situated, this is not an attempt an interpret Mary with any finality. The following interpretation of the biblical text is in response to sexism as it has been manifested thus far and is performed within a postmodern, 21st century Christian context. Finally, the following interpretation has no claim of pure novelty. Instead, it is a synthesis of the insights of Rosemary Radford Ruether and Marcella Althaus-Reid that will hopefully present new emphases that are overlooked by both authors. With these guidelines established, a reinterpretation of Mary can commence.
When one looks at the Lucan account of the Annunciation, one sees an fascinating exchange. The angel Gabriel suddenly appears to Mary and declares that God has found favor with her. He explains that she will bear a son. She is perplexed as to how this can occur due to the fact that she is a virgin. Gabriel declares explains that “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you,” (Luke 1:35) The dialogue closes with Mary's response, “Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word,” (v.38). Though told differently, the Matthean account does not conflict with the Lucan account.23
An incredible feature of this episode is so obvious that it is easily overlooked: this is a dialogue. Through Gabriel, God comes to Mary and they speak back and forth regarding the matter at hand. This event is not a unilateral act from God upon Mary's body. Instead, the dialogue shows that this exchange is between two parties that acknowledge each others' dignity: Mary acknowledges God's—not too surprising—and, importantly, God acknowledges hers. This stands contrary to social hierarchical structures of [masculine] God over [feminine] creature. Neither are coerced. What we have here is a conversation with mutual respect of the other's personhood. Mary's agency reaches its pinnacle when she says, “Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Unlike Zechariah who lacked belief, this statement is declaration of Mary's faith in the words of Gabriel.24 Regarding Mary's free act of faith, Ruether writes, “In contrast to the patriarchal theories of divine grace, exemplified in Augustine and Calvin, Lucan Mariology suggests a real co-creatorship between God and humanity, or, in this case, woman. The free act of faith is possible only when we can recognize the genuine unity between response to God and our own liberation.” Mary's response is not passive submission to God's omnipotent power, but a bold act of faith to participate with God in the advent of the Messiah.25 Therefore, Ruether rightly concludes that, “This is the radical dependence of God on humanity, the other side of our dependence on God, which patriarchal theology has generally denied. Mary's faith makes possible God's entrance into history.”26 In this passage, God and Mary are mutually depended upon one other—each needing the other's active participation—to bring about the birth of the Messiah.
Moreover, another significant feature of this event is that it takes place without any prior discussion with Joseph, Mary's husband-to-be. Rather than submitting to a patriarchal standard that would require consultation with a male—particularly one's future husband—, God speaks directly to Mary who holds no economic, political, or social power. Here, God's disregard for human customs is made clear. Even in the Matthean account, Joseph is only told of the miraculous pregnancy after the fact. However, equally noteworthy is Mary's disregard for the patriarchal standard as well. Instead of requesting to speak with Joseph concerning the matter, she consents to Gabriel's announcement in her own free act of faith. The Joseph's absence is pronounced through the author's reference to him prior to the Annunciation and then followed by a [deliberate?] refusal to mention him again until chapter two. Is it not possible that the removal of the patriarch in this narrative is the removal of patriarchy's domination?
Through the interdependence of God and Mary and the dislocation of Joseph, one can already see how this brief narrative attempts to disrupt patriarchy. In this passage, the hierarchies of male over female and God over creature are disrupted. Mary is an agent who asserts her dignity in her free decision, she engages directly with the Divine—with no mediation by a male [husband, priest, etc.]—and she shows her independence from Joseph, the patriarch. Therefore, in this text, Mary is a figure of resistance rather than one of submission, she is a figure for pressing toward future possibilities rather than passivity, she is a figure of self-affirmation rather than self-negation.
So far a reexamination of the text shows us that the account of the Annunciation stands counter to patriarchy and cultural hierarchies of male over female. However, Ruether falls short in that she does not question the gender binary of “male” and “female,” nor does she question established sexual constructions. Does not the virgin Mary still remain a figure of silenced sexuality? Does not Mary still remain a figure of punctuated gender? Is it possible for Mary to destabilize the hetero-normative constructs of gender and sexuality? To explore this possibility further, Althaus-Reid offers valuable insights regarding the biblical text.
Despite the details of the narratives, there is a large degree of silence that surrounds the biblical text. Calling Liberation Theology to be true to its task, Althaus-Reid exhorts “first comes reality; theology is only a second act.”27 This means that rather than attempting to look at reality through theological constructs of gender and sexuality, one must first be honest with the instability of gender and the chaotic nature of sexuality. This is what she calls Indecenting: “a process of coming back to the authentic, everyday life experiences described as odd by the ideology—and mythology—makers alike. Indecenting brings back the sense of reality...”28 It is often the case that one assumes certain hetero-normative patterns that are read onto our world and onto the biblical text. For example, it is often assumed that the conception of Jesus happened by a detached Divine fiat or by a beam of light as in some Renaissance artwork. This betrays the poverty of our imagination as well as the separation of sexual desire from our faith. Is it not possible that the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary was sexual event between Mary and God? Could it not have been a highly erotic event? Discomfort with these questions expose the degree to which Mary has been desexualized and dehumanized and the degree to which we believe God's sexual imagination is as boring as ours.
The possibility of Mary and God having an erotic sexual encounter might sound strange—even sacrilegious. However, why would one believe it to be otherwise? Has not conception usually been an erotic act? Why would this one be otherwise? Additionally, if the Song of Songs is any indication about relationships—both interhuman and divine/human—it is clear that relationships are highly passionate and that people are erotic beings. One's relationship with God is not only a matter of agape, but of eros. Why would God's solitary instance of a historical sexual encounter be anything other than erotic? In actuality, there is no significant ground for one to believe that this Divine/human encounter was anything other than an erotic engage that paralleled sexual intercourse.29
In a continual process of “Indecentization,” we must unravel more of the reality that could underly this text. For example, if one accepts that God is beyond neither male nor female, then it one must admit that the encounter between God and Mary is just as much a homosexual encounter as it is a heterosexual encounter.30 Based upon assumptions regarding gender and sexual “normality,” it is commonly believed that (a) the [possibly erotic] procreative encounter between God and Mary must have been heterosexual and, thereby, (b) since Mary is a female, God is located as a masculine agent. However, as neither male nor female, God's engagement in a sexual act disrupts all gender and sexual traditions. God is no more a figure of masculinity, than God is a figure of femininity or transgender. God is no more a figure of heterosexuality, than God is a figure of homo-, bi-, or pansexuality.
In an effort to cultivate our religious imaginations further and critique our assumptions, Althaus-Reid cautions: “The fact that we know about the gender roles of God (the aggressive God of Israel, or the tender God of the New Testament) does not entitle us to homologise such gender performance with his sexuality.” In other words, just because we occasionally acknowledge masculine behavior in God in the Scriptures, we do not have the permission to assume that God is heterosexual.31 This critique is not only with regard to God, it is with regard to Mary as well. Althaus-Reid states, “Having sex with a woman cannot be taken as a proof of God the Father's heterosexuality, nor should Mary's pregnancy be related to a heterosexual conception of womanhood.”32 Though she possesses a uterus and performs her cultural role as a “woman,” this does not an indication of Mary's heterosexuality either. Is it not possible that God—if God has a gender—is homo-, bi- or pansexual? Must Mary be a heterosexual in order to conceive and raise a child? Taking seriously the real instability of gender and sexuality, we begin to undo the oppressive grip of patriarchal hetero-normativeness upon our theological imaginations.
At this point one might object that all these declarations regarding God's gender and sexuality are based on the silences of the text rather than any substantial proof from the text itself. And this is true and exactly the point! These speculations expose the texts mysterious silence regarding God's gender and the sexuality of either. It exposes the fact that neither conventional gender constructions nor heterosexuality have any more valid a claim to the interpretation of this biblical text than transgender identities or homosexuality. It is the silence that liberates the text from the tyranny of patriarchal construction and it is the silence that creates space for various genders/sexualities to participate in this narrative.
So what does this mean for Mary with regard to sexism? How, then, do these insights address current day problems in patriarchy? In her free act of faith, Mary not only discards patriarchy not only be asserting herself as a “woman,” and as an impoverished person, but also as a sexual being. She is not a figure of passivity, but a figure who takes her gender, economic status, and sexuality into her own hands. It is not of little consequence that does not even take place within the confines of marriage. She does not rely on Joseph for her worth nor does she need his consent—she disregards society's valuation of “virginity.”33 Is it not possible that our social constructions work against us rather than for us? Could it be that God is far more sexually adventurous than we once thought? Could not Mary be the image of resistance—against gender roles, sexual conventionality, and against bowing to her socio-economic status? The Virgin Mary is not holy because of an Immaculate Conception nor a perpetual virginity, but because of her assertion of faith against the constraints of society. She is an image of self-affirmation, not self-negation. As such, she ought to be a means of empowerment toward justice—affirmation of dignity—for woman, the poor, and for those who identify with marginalized sexualities. These reinterpretations of Mary can be stepping of assistance in untying the patriarchal chains that enslave the many and benefit the few.
Conclusion The Holy Virgin Mary is a figure that has been wielded like a sword against women, sexuality, and the poor. Through the theological developments of Mariology and the historical abuses of the Virgin, the Mother of Jesus has become the Mother of subjugation, bloodshed, and exclusion. However, like Abel, the blood cries out to us from the ground and it is this cry that demands that our religious imaginations be transformed. It is when we are willing to think of Mary differently than is demanded by conventional standards that we move toward more a redeeming religious framework for women, the sexually marginalized, and the oppressed. Can Mary be redeemed? Only when courageous attempts are made overturn the patriarchal constriction of our imaginations. Maybe one day, the Virgin will not be an image of “sanctified” subjection, but an figure of faith, dignity, and resistance to violence.
======
1Drawn from chapter six of Rosemary Radford Ruether's Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983).
2Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary—The Feminine Face of the Church (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 77.
3There are nations or cultures where men retains certain privileges and the roles of women are “restricted.” However this is not necessarily “patriarchy” as defined here—that is, as a form of domination and violence—and can only we named as such by those within that culture or after open engagement with that culture.
4Marcella Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender, and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 48.
5Ibid., 54.
6Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983), 139.
7Ibid., 141.
8Ibid., 142.
9Ibid., 144.
10Ibid., 150.
11Marcella Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender, and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 48.
12Ibid., 49.
13Ibid., 51.
14References to the thought of Judith Butler.
15Marcella Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender, and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 53.
16The fluidity of gender is made evident among males who are considered feminine, females who are considered masculine, transsexuals, and transvestites. Additionally, the fluidity of sexuality is made evident in those who consider themselves gay, lesbian, bisexual, or pansexual.
17Ibid., 65.
18The emphasis of Mary's virginity makes the dichotomy of virginity/whore the most defining feature of womanhood. It is her virginity—equated with holiness—that determines her value.
19Reference the earlier Mariological analysis.
20Ibid., 56.
21Ibid., 59-60.
22To wrestle with, or work within the confines of, traditional Mariology might be seen an indirect affirmation that theological construction of Mary is necessary. The author is not sure if an elaborate and coherent is necessary at all.
23The only exception to the agreement between the Lucan and the Matthean accounts is that in the Lucan account, Mary is charged with naming the child, and in the Matthean account it is Joseph who is charged with this duty.
24The author of the Gospel intentionally contrasts Mary's faith-based response to Gabriel to Zechariah's response to Gabriel which was an expression of lack of faith, (Luke 1:18-20).
25Her statement, “the servant of the Lord,” does not have be understood as passivity, but part of her declaration of willingness to participate with God.
26Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983), 154.
27Marcella Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology: Theological Perversions in Sex, Gender, and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 49.
28Ibid., 71.
29This is not to say that God's “genitalia” had contact with Mary's genitalia touched—though nothing is impossible. However, this is to say that there is no reason why this encounter could not have been filled with animalistic desires and intense bodily pleasure in the likeness of human sexual intercourse.
30Althaus-Reid writes, “a non-anthropomorphic theistic reading should not have any objection to the further development of the birth narrative as non-heterosexually constructed. For instance, it may be read an encounter between two women,” Ibid., 55.
31God exhibits both masculine and feminine characteristics, as they have been humanly conceived, throughout Scripture. Even if one desired to make a statement regarding God's gender based on these performances, these performances to not correlate to any disclosure of God's sexual orientation.
32Ibid., 67.
33That is, though her conception was virginal, her pregnancy would not have been understood as divine by the larger society. Instead, she would have simply been perceived as a woman who had intercourse and conceived out of wedlock.
No comments:
Post a Comment