BINARIES IN THE SERVICE OF THE LORD:



John Cunningham

Professor Fessenden

Women and Religion

19 August 1996

Binaries in the Service of the Lord:

Male Projection and Construction in the Representation of “Woman” in the Church

One of the most interesting and vital studies today concerns women’s place and

role historically in religion. This paper will investigate this question from a feminist

perspective, particularly in terms of Catholic Christianity. I will begin by addressing in

broad outline the background question of how gender and, more specifically, the

category of “Woman,” has been constructed. I will examine how it has been used by men

in the service of patriarchal culture and cosmology. For “[i]t is gender which has been

chiefly responsible for fixing women’s place in society.”[1]

The church’s record is ambivalent and profoundly ironic in this regard. Women

are either humiliated or idealized. Even as the paramount female figure of Mary is exalted

almost to the point of deification, the value of her earthly sisters is downgraded almost to

the point of nullification. How this situation came about says more about the men who

engineered it and the culture from which they speak, than it does about the women who

have traditionally been silenced, objectified, and excluded in the process.

C. G. Jung noted that knowledge comes through the differentiation of opposites.

The universe is structured by dynamic polarities and exists within the creative tensions

they exert. Thus, we are able to know something by means of its opposite. But wisdom,

he would say, comes beyond differentiation in the quest on another plane of the conjunctio

oppositorum. The East seems to have had more of a sense of this. Perhaps it is best

typified by the symbol of the yin-yang in which the opposites are not that far apart or

rigidly cast, but are instead fluid and merge into one another, wedded together in an

embrace of wholeness.

Many Western mystics also experienced this breakthrough of inner illumination

and understanding. But for the most part, the West, up until the very latest discoveries in

genetics and quantum physics, has been highly differentiated in its viewpoint and values.

Indeed patriarchal culture is structured through a rigidly established system of binaries.

The exploration of women’s position in Western culture and in institutional Catholicism,

which both emerged from it and spearheaded it, can only be undertaken by examining this

net of binaries which holds the whole bundle together.

The binary strands of this patriarchal net, like variations on a theme, are familiar to

us: order—chaos, subject—object, spirit—matter, mind—body, reason—passion,

heaven—earth, nature—culture. The binaries are further explicated by certain authors in

their social ramifications along gender lines: agency—communion (Ken Wilber), power—

affiliation (Carol Gilligan), ranking—linking (Riane Eisler).

The naming of binaries is an essential step in our coming to consciousness. The

polarities they define are neutral in and of themselves, but their cultural inscription—the

way value has been invested in one pole and denied in its opposite, the privileging of one

term over the other—is the originating lie of patriarchy. For all these binaries and

countless others that derive from them have been appropriated and encoded and, in some

cases, invented, by males in power to serve their bias and agenda. In this sense they are all

reducible to: Man—“Other”.

In this process, however, the “Other” has been robbed. “[W]omen have had the

power of naming stolen from us. We have not been free to use our own power to name

ourselves, the world, or God.”[2] Not only have women been deprived of naming their own

reality, they have been denied a language of their own. Disqualified as subjects in their

own right, women have been objectified, and objects do not speak. “Language itself

becomes a weapon by which ‘the Fathers’ diminish the range of women’s thought.”[3] The

only categories available to women with which to think or represent themselves are those

of men. Herein lies the deepest level of patriarchal oppression: more insidious than the

inscription of the female body is the confinement of a woman’s mind, whereby she is made

to think herself as thought by her male “Other.”

The result of the suppression of actual women in the classical world created an invention of the representation of the gender “Woman” within culture. This “Woman” appeared on the stage, in the myths, and in the plastic arts, representing the patriarchal values attached to the gender of “Woman” while suppressing the experiences, stories, feelings, and fantasies of actual women.[4]

Freudian theory emerged as the first wave of feminism was cresting and

represented something of a backlash, hailing from the formidable male bastions of

medicine and psychiatry. For it too, in effect, reaffirmed the women-as-misbegotten-males

notion of Aristotle and Aquinas. According to Freud’s theory of gender, women have

refused to accept their castration and have hope of someday obtaining a penis in spite of

everything. Realizing the futility of pursuing her active desire and the unequal terms of the

struggle, the young girl turns from her mother, her first love object, and assumes a

feminine passivity toward her father. Her enemy becomes her beloved. Recognition of

her castration gives her a feeling of inferiority about her genitals and creates a psychology

centered on compensating for her deficiency.

On the surface Freud’s explanation appears to be based on anatomical differences

between the sexes. Yet he repeatedly stressed that all adult sexuality derived rather from

psychic development. Consequently, we move into the realm of the symbolic as the real

shaper of culture and the source of gender construction. Thus, it is not so much the penis

that is crucial, but the phallus, symbolizing the privileged signifier of power. A woman

does not have a phallus, but she can “get” the phallus through intercourse where it is

transformed into a child—always a gift from a man, never as hers to give away.

In a brilliant essay, Gayle Rubin cites a correspondence between Freud’s

psychoanalytic theory and Levi-Strauss’ anthropological account of the primordial gift

exchange of women by men. Here, the relationships between male kin are constituted by

the transfer of women. Power, a male prerogative, is passed on through the woman-in-

between. It has been suggested that “the reason women are so often defined as stupid,

polluting, disorderly, silly, profane or whatever, is that such categorizations define women

as ‘incapable’ of possessing the power which must be transferred through them.”[5]

According to Levi-Strauss the origination of marriage, as well as of the incest

taboo, arose through the exchange of women as commodities or possessions which

strengthened kinship bonds between men, in Foucault’s words, “relative to status:

handing down a name, instituting heirs, organizing a system of alliances, joining

fortunes.”[6] Men had overriding rights in women, but the latter did not have the same

rights in their male kin, nor did they have full rights to themselves. Rubin summarizes this

analysis of kinship: “At the most general level, the social organization of sex rests upon

gender [a culturally imposed construction of the sexes], obligatory heterosexuality, and the

constraint of female sexuality.”[7] Thus, phallic culture was created.

Central to phallocentric assumptions is that the female body is male property.

From this derives male supremacist construction of sex roles. Furthermore,

[i]f one body was there only to serve the other—to give it care, pleasure and offspring—this not only provided a basic template for all superior-inferior rankings; it also imposed a particular view of how the bodies of women and men should relate in their most intimate sexual relations. And this view . . . was that both women and sex are “naturally” to be controlled by men.[8]

Freud’s disciple, Jacques Lacan, continues in the same vein in his analysis of

gender construction. For him, woman is the negative of man: his signified opposite. The

female body is “read” as “Lack” or “Other,” in effect, existing to reflect male subjectivity

and desire. “In the Lacanian model, woman, as the culturally constructed, as Other, is

trapped in man’s self-representation, existing only to reflect back his image of reality,

‘only as a function of what she is not, receiving upon her denied body the etched out

stamp of the Other, as a signature of her void and a mark of his identity.’”[9]

Consequently, the binaries become “loaded.” One term is privileged and held up

as normative; the other is denigrated and declared deviant. If woman equals man’s

“Other,” she will be represented as the carrier of all that he considers himself not to be.

From the time of Zeus, a supreme male deity appearing about 2500 BCE followed by

the advent of Abraham, the first biblical patriarch and his solitary male God, Yahweh,

around 1800 BCE, men have identified themselves as rational and represented women as

irrational. The thinking was that only men had a capacity for culture and spirituality,

whereas women were innately “wild” and stamped in nature’s image. Hence the

androcentric fear of women and their dangerous ability to stir up the dark forces and rouse

the blind passions in a man’s soul.

Christianity was primarily shaped by the Hebrew heritage which gave it birth and

the Hellenistic milieu into which it moved. It’s origin was Jewish, but its mind became

Greek. Both of these sources were pervasively masculinist cultures. But nowhere was

patriarchy more in evidence and gender divisions more pronounced than in classical

Greece, the fountainhead of Western Civilization and a primal influence on later Christian

thought and discourse. Here a massive reworking of myths took place to ensure that

female figures, unlike in earlier times, would hardly be presented in a positive or

benevolent light in the drama of human destiny.

For giving men the gift of fire, Zeus bound Prometheus to a rock and punished the

creatures of Prometheus by creating women. In Hesiod’s Works and Days woman is

represented as the root of all evil. The first woman “is called Pandora, the all-giver—

perhaps because she was originally an earth goddess. . . . [W]hen Hepaestus created

Pandora ‘into her heart he put lies and false words and treachery . . . so that she might be

a sorrow to the men of the earth.’”[10] In classical Greek theater and literature women were

constructed, at best, as sacrificers of themselves in the cause of male glory, or as enigmatic

creatures and hapless victims, or, at worst, as wily temptresses, brazen witches, or

inhuman monsters.

Citing the paradox of women in Athenian culture, Virginia Woolf poignantly

remarks,

a very queer, composite being thus emerges. Imaginatively she is of the highest importance; practically she is completely insignificant. She pervades poetry from cover to cover; she is all but absent from history. She dominates the lives of kings and conquerors in fiction; in fact she was the slave of any boy whose parents fixed a ring upon her finger. Some of the most inspired words, some of the most profound thoughts in literature fall from her lips; in real life she could hardly read, could scarcely spell, and was the property of her husband.[11]

Much of the same idealization-denigration split vision with regard to women comes to be

adopted by Christendom.

Contributing in part to the ancients’ view of female nature was faulty biological

knowledge. From Egypt came the notion of the wandering womb. The belief was that

when the womb left its place and moved up in the body it affected reason so that a woman

became hysterical. Hence, until fairly recently hysterectomies were performed to cure

hysterical women.

Perhaps the greatest biologically based setback for women lay in the centuries old

belief that the female body was merely an incubator for the male seed. According to this

model, the male was the active agent in reproduction, the female was but a necessary

receptacle in which a father’s offspring could be brought to term. The standard Athenian

wedding formula is illustrative of this, where the father of the bride gives his daughter to

the groom “for the ploughing of legitimate children.”[12] This represented a complete

reversal of neolithic and paleolithic people’s sense of wonder and reverence before the

mysterious creative power of the female to give birth, to bring forth women and men from

her own body. As Riane Eisler points out, in the pre-patriarchal epoch of the Mother

Goddess “the central religious image was a woman giving birth.”[13]

In the classical Greek version of things, Aeschylus’ seminal play, Orestia, was

heralded as celebrating the triumph of the order of law over the chaos of barbarism. At

the heart of it an amazing claim was made, one quite suited to the purposes of patriarchy,

seen, symbolically, as a victory for civilization and the polis. Orestes slays his own

mother. In standing trial before twelve Athenian male judges, his advocate Apollo, the

sun-god of reason—who himself had defeated the moon serpent and vanquished nature—

argues on his behalf that the mother is more the nurse to what she has borne, while the

father, who commits his seed to her, is the child’s true parent. He reasons, therefore, that

Orestes cannot be guilty of killing his parent. The court agrees with this logic and acquits

Orestes. “The implication of the patricentric mentality signaled by this proclamation is so

inescapable that we cannot fail to see in it the total depreciation of the generative powers

of women and the consequent demotion of their cultural and political status.”[14]

Another faulty biological datum that was to influence early Christian understanding

of gendered sex was the notion of ejaculatory “heat,” of which male offspring received an

excess and females a deficiency.

“For it is the semen, when possessed of vitality, which makes us men, hot, well braced

in limbs, heavy, well-voiced, spirited, strong to think and act.”

Women, by contrast, were failed males. The precious vital heat had not come to them in sufficient qualities in the womb. Their lack of heat made them more soft, more liquid, more clammy cold, altogether more formless than men.[15]

Indeed, men of this culture, contemporaneous with the emergence of Christianity,

feared nothing more than a cooling of this “heat” and the prospect of being rendered

“womanish.” It was not sufficient to be male, men strove to remain “virile,” and, at all

costs, to not be seen as taking on the “softness” and half-formed state of a woman.

Among other things, church fathers railed against effeminacy.

The culture in which Christianity took shape and articulated itself was not a

female-friendly, egalitarian environment. Peter Brown states, “In the second century

A.D., a young man of the privileged classes of the Roman Empire grew up looking at the

world from a position of unchallenged dominance. Women, slaves, and barbarians were

unalterably different from him and inferior to him.”[16] Since classical times the Greek

sexual hierarchy had been stringently established. Subordinate to free males as sex objects

were in ascending order: slaves, women, foreigners, and boys. The cultural paradigm

became church custom: women were in all cases inferior. “In the long history of

Christianity, women have been defined (as sources of evil in the world or as

complimentary helpmates), described (as frivolous minors or mysterious creatures), and

had their lives determined by males who claimed to speak for God.”[17]

Where a woman, favored by fortune, fared better than her sisters, she was still seen

in a patronizing light as a poor, vulnerable creature in need of protection by her man. So

where male hierarchical dominance was not cruel, it was paternalistic. The great

rhetorician, Quintillian, upon losing his wife, the mother of his two sons, remarked, “[H]er

death was like the loss not merely of a wife, but of a daughter.”[18] So to the standard

binaries that structured civic and ecclesiastical thinking, such as: superior man—inferior

woman, normative male—defective female, public political husband—silent domestic wife,

we can also add: father—child. “According to Aquinas, a woman is ‘naturally defective,’

suspended at best in a state ‘of eternal childhood,’ in which she would be subject to a man

‘for her own benefit.’”[19]

Perhaps the most influential binary was: culture—nature, man being the creator

and representative of the former, woman the embodiment and link with the latter. From

this, of course, spun off clusters of related binaries, for instance: male reason—female

passion, man’s governed moderation—woman’s uncontrollable excess, his ascent to the

One—her descent into the Many.

There is irony in the fact that, at its core, Catholic Christianity celebrates the

reconciliation of opposites, the marriage of spirit and flesh in four cardinal doctrines:

Creation, Incarnation, Eucharist, and Resurrection, as well as in its whole sacramental

system. Yet it became a decidedly “ascending” religion in its direction and emphasis.

Philosophically and in terms of popular spirituality, by far, its focus was other-worldly; its

stress was on the supernatural; its aim was to “ascend” through a transcendence of the

body, of sex, and of the earth—all of which “Woman” symbolized. She, on the other

hand, represented “descent,” immanence, and engagement with matter. The downward

arc of her attraction lured the soul into multiplicity, temporality, and insatiable desire.

Culture was seen to be man’s work. It clearly represented an “ascent” above

untamed, unpredictable chaos and the thralldom of nature’s determinism. “[I]n every

known society women are identified as being closer to nature than to culture [because of a

certain reading of their body functions]. Since every culture devalues nature as it strives

to rise above it through mastery, women become symbolic of an inferior, intermediate

order of being.”[20]

Lerner’s thinking on this is that male and female anatomical sex differences are a

given, but that gender is a product of historical process. Both women and men struggled

together to harness nature in their drive toward civilization. In this process, however,

women were for a longer time than men constrained to “species essential activities,” which

rendered them more vulnerable to exploitation. Both women and men accepted and

adapted to biological necessity, but this is a world apart from the subordination of women

through culturally constructed customs and institutions.

A further inheritance from the patriarchal past which would especially influence the

Catholic Church was the binary: pure—impure. The sexes, already polarized in stark

opposition to one another were also contrasted along a somewhat more comparative scale.

Women were deemed “less clean” than men and, we might add, less presentable.

Hellenistic culture esteemed the male form as a glorious work of the gods, whereas the

female body was an object of shame. Eva Keuls brings out how it was not uncommon for

Greek men to go about in public dressed in a way that proudly exposed their genitals. Of

course, in the all male gymnasium nothing was worn. Women, on the other hand, were to

be well-wrapped and modestly draped at all times, and, when not confined to their

quarters in the back of the house, respectable women on the street always were veiled.

In Hebrew and other ancient cultures “it was common to view women as a source

of disease and bad spirits, especially during menstruation when intercourse was often

prohibited. Both pagans and Jews looked upon menstrual blood as infectious and

poisonous.”[21] This view was enshrined in the purity codes of Leviticus where a

menstruating woman is declared unclean for seven days (Leviticus 15:19-24). Anyone

who so much as touched a woman in this state, or touched articles she had touched,

likewise incurred impurity. For centuries Christian mothers did not attend the baptisms of

their children, since they were considered defiled by childbirth and had to first undergo the

required ritual purification, popularly called the “churching of women.” Only then could

they reenter the congregation.

Androcentric culture was constructed as the only “right order” of society. It was

buttressed and blessed by the highest religious sanctions. Its model was based on a kind

of “sexual asymmetry,” in which the different roles and tasks assigned to men and women

were defended as divinely ordained, that is to say, “natural.” In the Old Testament

patriarchal scheme, God created sex differences and these, in turn, determine one’s

gendered place in society. Focus on women’s reproductive capacity ascribed them the

role of motherhood as their chief goal in life. By implication, women who did not marry

were deviant and the “barren wife” was cursed.

The misogynistic legacy of the Hebrew tradition carries its own shadings, its

peculiar values, set forth in its own articulation of binaries. If, for the Greeks, Pandora

brought disruption and calamity into the world and was the source of all folly, for the

Hebrews, Eve—painted with an even grimmer brush—was the instigator of man’s fall.

This vain, gullible woman became the gateway of evil, including death and sex as we know

them.

The resulting curse, which Eve brought upon herself and all women after her,

focused on her reproductive role and her permanent subjugation to her mate. Yahweh

says to the woman, “I shall give you intense pain in child bearing, / you will give birth to

your children in pain. / Your yearning will be for your husband, / and he will dominate you

(Genesis 3:16).”[22] The psychological implications are not easy to miss: alienation from

her own body, guilt for the sin committed and passed on to her children, and a lingering

sense of shame and dependency.

Long standing, institutionalized, male supremacist values were canonized in the

Judeo-Christian tradition. No one is to blame for sexual inequality, indeed no one

questioned it, since Adam and Eve, by divine decree, it is just the way things are.

Christian writers embraced and amplified this ideology masked as revelation. The author

of the First Letter to Timothy, after stating how women ought to dress, goes on to

command that “a woman should be quiet and respectful . . . [not] . . . teach or . . . have

authority over a man . . . because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was

not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was lead astray and fell into sin.

Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is

constant in faith and love and holiness” (I Timothy 2:12-15).

The shadow of the Creation myth fell across Christian writers like a spell and

inspired Augustine’s development of the doctrine of Original Sin, with its dramatic

heightening of the sexual aspect. Augustine saw the primal sin as one of pride and

disobedience, but its consequence was an unruly sexual appetite set against the will’s

control. Other theologians interpreted the sin itself as a sexual revolt. In either case, the

female body bore its most telltale inscription.

It was one thing to see women as needing to be controlled, governed by men; it

was another to see the female sex as utterly despicable. Some of the most ribald

expressions of misogyny anywhere came from the church fathers. Thomas Fox records

some of their androcentric conclusions. In the second century, Clement of Alexandria,

who claimed to respect the feminine principle, observed that “a woman should properly be

shamed when she thinks of what nature she is.” The fourth-century woman-hater,

Augustine, wrote, “The good Christian likes what is human, loathes what is feminine.”

And from the eminent thirteenth century doctor, Thomas Aquinas: “woman is defective

and misbegotten . . . it is not possible in the female sex that any eminence of degree can be

signified.”[23]

Lacan’s signification of “Woman” as “Lack” and “Other” was an attempt to

explain the origin of gender. It is a start, if one can get around its male-centered

perspective. One may not agree with it, but it sheds some light and offers an angle of

understanding. In Simone de Beauvoir’s words, “Humanity is male . . . man defined

woman not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being.

. . . He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other.”[24]

But in my view this talk of “othering” is too neutral and does not go far enough to

account for the degree of scorn, the depth of denial, and the almost demonization of

women over the centuries in our masculinist church and culture. Another side of the coin,

of course, is that the problematic of women, to a lesser degree, has been dealt with

through the opposite abstraction, namely, idealization. But this has always been by way of

exception. If rare women were exceptions to the rule, “Woman” as a category was not.

The whole familiar web of binaries, which exalted the male and demoted the

female, empowered men and disqualified women, I think is best understood in terms of

Jung’s notion of projection. The idea is that what we do not know, cannot recognize, or

refuse to accept in our own personalities, we unconsciously project unto another person or

group. This counterpersonality he called “the shadow.” It is as real as what I call myself,

yet it threatens me (understood as my ego) to no end, so I spontaneously project it unto an

“Other.” I disidentify with it diligently and separate it as far as possible from my self-

image. Thus, what is in fact an aspect of me becomes the alien, the enemy I most fear.

The “Other” who is made to carry this projection is not unlike the biblical scapegoat,

burdened with my evil, which must be destroyed in my place. Jungian analyst, Erich

Neumann, writes about this process, “It is our subliminal awareness that we are actually

not good enough for the ideal values which have been set before us that results in the

formation of the shadow.”[25]

According to Gerda Lerner, women were the first ones in human society to

experience systematic oppression. She maintains that female subjugation provided what

she calls the “template” for all succeeding forms of domination, including slavery.

Women, then, were the original scapegoats. They were constructed not only as “Lack” or

“Other,” but, more forcefully, fearfully, as the object of man’s most troubling, twisted

projections.

We should not forget that the psychological mechanism of scapegoating derives its

name from a religious ritual. Likewise, the victimizing so named is similarly imbued with

an ardent religious sense of justification and divine ordinance. It constellates a

polarization of attitudes: a sublime righteousness in one’s self-estimation and a fierce

virulence toward the object of one’s attack. Tertullian knows where to place the blame as

he excoriates women for being man’s downfall. “You are the devil’s gateway. . . . you are

she who persuaded him whom the devil did not dare attack. . . . Do you not know that

everyone of you is an Eve? The sentence of God on your sex lives on in this age; the

guilt, of necessity, lives on too.”[26]

But it is not all that simple, for not all women were seen as evil. Some were

pedestalized. Just as patriarchy drew a sharp distinction between male and female and

their derivative genders, so it further divided women from one another. The category of

“good girls” emerged as a contrast to “bad girls.” The one constellated the other. “The

existence of ‘good’ women—according to male standards of being unmolested private

property—has required the existence of ‘bad’ women who have been sacpegoats for male

sexual guilt.”[27] The veil has traditionally been the sign distinguishing what kind of woman

a woman was.

Likewise, in early Christianity the distinction was made between two kinds of

women: the sacrificing mother and the lustful whore. And though motherhood was

approved as the lot of most women, it too was seen as necessarily tainted by its

involvement with the flesh and forbidden carnal desire, from which the married could

hardly be free. The highest and best kind of woman in Catholic estimation was the one

free from sex altogether, namely, the virgin. As Marina Warner observes, “Woman was

womb and womb was evil: this cluster of ideas endemic to Christianity is but the

extension of Augustine’s argument about original sin.” She goes on to quote St. Jean

Eudes in the seventeenth century: “‘It is a subject of humiliation of all the mothers of the

children of Adam to know that while they are with child, they carry within them an infant

. . . who is the enemy of God, the object of his hatred and malediction, and the shrine of

the demon.’”[28]

As early as Paul, living in expectation of the Parousia, the preference of virginity

over marriage is stated in his wish that, like him, everyone were voluntarily celibate for the

sake of the Kingdom (I Corinthians 7:7-8). Certain schools of Gnosticism, with their

pessimistic view of the material universe, further influenced Catholic Christianity in terms

of anti-sexual attitudes. Oddly enough, however, women fared better in Gnostic circles

and enjoyed equality with men, whereas in the mainline church they were subjugated,

signified as the embodiment of carnal passion and fallen materiality.

Other strong influences on nascent Christianity were the neo-Platonist worldview,

with its penchant for the spiritual realms, as well as Stoicism, extolled by the sages in their

pursuit of apatheia: the tranquil transcendence of all passion, the esteemed self-control of

a man over his own soul. The Christian Stoic Tertullian writes,

Let us look at our own inner world. Think of how a man feels in himself when he abstains from a woman. He thinks spiritual thoughts. If he prays to the Lord, he is next door to heaven; if he turns to the scriptures he is all of him present to them; if he sings a psalm, it fills his whole being with enjoyment; if he exorcises a demon, he does so confident in his own strength.[29]

Clearly, we hear in this a recurring note sounded, the familiar representation of

“Woman”—constructed by philosophers and adopted by churchmen—namely, the

dangerous “Other” capable of distracting, destabilizing, and destroying the “spiritual” man.

In the first three centuries the undisputed sacred heroes of the church were the

martyrs for the faith. In this time of sporadic persecutions, differences between the heroic,

who had endured hardship and not wavered, and the cowardly, who had apostatized under

pressure, were manifest. A kind of stratification, producing first and second class

members of the church, came into vogue. If martyrdom, which definitively revealed one’s

holiness, was not a possibility, an asetic “religious life,” a “white martyrdom,” was the

next best thing. Serious Christians assumed a monastic spirituality in their endeavor to

become “like angels.” A holy man fled the world’s temptations, especially the company of

women. A holy woman pursued the higher state via her virginity through which she

became, to use Jerome’s words, “like a man.” All Christians were bound to observe the

Ten Commandments, but the best embraced the Evangelical Counsels (poverty, chastity,

and obedience) as the royal road to perfection.

As far as women were concerned, their categories were definitively constructed.

They were either whores, wives, or virgins. Witches came later, a variation which

rendered a woman the devil’s whore. Even nuns “never escaped the male assumption that

[they were] a danger, a source of contamination.”[30]

Another way of understanding male church leaders’ and theological writers’

treatment of women is in terms of Jung’s idea of anima projection. Granted some

feminists would criticize what they see as essentialism in Jung’s notion of the masculine

and the feminine, nevertheless, leaving aside the question of whether this binary is

archetypal or cultural, it is a psychological fact that such projection takes place.

Jung maintained that everybody has an internalized archetypal image of the

contrasexual aspect of his or her psyche. For a man it would be his anima, his inner

feminine. The less conscious a man is, that is to say, the less aware he is of his anima, the

more readily he unconsciously projects it onto external women. We can see this operating

in the case of infatuation, where a man’s head-over-heels adoration of his new love

consists of an idealization based on his anima projection. The object of his gaze appears

to him as a goddess of beauty and perfection rather than an actual, particular human being.

The infatuation ends when the projection is withdrawn; the idealization ceases when a

realistic view is achieved.

In the church, I would submit, this kind of projection and its resulting idealization

is most operative in the cult of the Virgin Mary. In a bizarre switch, Mary carries the

positive anima projection of churchmen who elevate her almost to the zenith of the

Trinity, while women carry the negative anima projection with its attendant vilification.

Rosemary Radford Ruether sees this process as a compensation on the part of churchmen,

who, lacking real sexual relations, create fantasy love objects. In this case “celibates

whose sexual feeling could not be expressed honorably with the opposite sex. The

beautiful virgin of heaven was then a safe idealization to whom these feelings could be

directed. At the same time such devotion reinforced aversion to real women who were

thought defiled by sex and procreation.”[31]

Christian writers constructed their representations of “Woman,” much the same as

Greek authors before them invented their fictional women. Though women were almost

totally excluded from public life, “they dominate the imaginative life of Greek men . . .

Greek writers used the female—in a fashion that bore little relation to the lives of actual

women—to understand, express, criticize, and experiment with the problems and

contradictions of their culture.”[32]

Something like this happened in the church. Where women are silenced and

excluded as shapers of a religious tradition, men, to fill the void of this repression, conjure

and construct their fictive representation of “Woman.” As churchmen divided women

among themselves they further divided Mary from women, rendering her, in the words of

Maria Warner, “alone of all her sex.” What is more, Mary as model holds up the two

traditionally approved roles for women in her binary identity: virgin—mother. But in

comprising both simultaneously, she represents, not a model, but an impossibility, and thus

confounds all women. Only one is permitted to fulfill both at the same time, the rest of

womankind can never achieve this. Mary also constellates another binary in terms of her

and all other women: sinlessness—sinfulness, innocent one—guilty collective. Only she is

free from sin, all others are contaminated. In other words, there are women and there is

this singular exception. “Mary is indeed Eve’s other face; the female symbols excite that

very emotion that the story of the Fall sought to explain and the story of the Incarnate

God sought to heal: the feeling that in its very nature humanity is fatally estranged from

goodness, which, for a believer, is God.”[33]

If virginity is the highest calling of women in the church, this supreme virtue is

progressively woven into Mariology as well. In the two gospel accounts where it is

indicated, the story of the virgin birth points to God’s election of Jesus and his

incomparable destiny in salvation history. The earliest church councils developed this idea

into a doctrine meant to affirm Christ’s divine Sonship and his dual natures as God and

Man. But a further construction was soon underway, which expanded the notion of

Mary’s virginal birth of Jesus into the doctrine of her perpetual virginity and, ultimately,

into the dogma of her own Immaculate Conception. This was a major theological

reconstruction which shifted the emphasis away from incarnation to the need for

preservation from original sin understood, according to Augustine’s biological model, as a

kind of inherited stain transferred through coitus. The sexual act itself was also, to some

degree, a sin because of its carnal nature. Mary, then, had to be preserved from the sin of

sex and the original sin transmitted through it to her offspring.

The ultimate symbol construction of a culture is its God-image. The Medieval

alchemical axiom: “as above, so below,” can be reversed in this regard: a culture projects

its superlative values onto divinity. When women and the marginalized of the earth are at

last involved in imaging and naming the Divine, we will leap forward in our realization of

what Meister Eckhart called “the God beyond God.” For this world’s power hierarchies

are reflected and validated in the heavenly pantheon. This secures their unquestionable

authorization. Historically, one of the signs of conquest was the imposition of the gods of

the conqueror. We know that the great Mother Goddess receded into oblivion with the

ascendance of male warrior deities. This cosmological revolution corresponded to the

institutionalization of women’s oppression in the new order of male dominators. The

drama on earth is mirrored in heaven. Where God is male, the male is God.

To reverse or heal the church’s binary legacy of “the Fathers” more is needed than

revisionist history, inclusive language, or women priests. Nothing short of reimaging the

Divine in which women have a full share will do.

Monotheistic religions speak to us of God the Father and God made man; nothing is said

of a God the Mother or of God made Woman or even of God as a couple or couples. Not all the transcendental fancies, or ecstasies of every type, not all the quibbling over maternity and the neutrality (neuterness) of God, can succeed in erasing this one reality that determines identities, rights, symbols, and discourse.[34]

This is the hardest hurdle of all: overcoming ages of exclusivist male projections

and constructions, bound up as they are with “divine revelation” and the very economy of

salvation. The sexist assumptions underlying institutional Catholicism are so sacroscant

that to question them is tantamount to heresy under the current pope. Nevertheless, not

to question, not to seek reform, is to betray the integrated, egalitarian vision of Jesus in

the interests of continued male, clerical power and its illusions.

Bibliography

Arkins, Brian. “The Reign of the Phallus: Women in Fifth Century Athens.” U. C. G.

Women’s Studies Centre Review. Ed. Pat Byrne, Jane Conway, and Alan Hayes. Galway, Ireland: University College Press, Vol. 3, 1995.

Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early

Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Daly, Mary. Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation.

Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.

Daly, Mary. The Church and the Second Sex. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Dolan, Jill. The Feminist Spectator As Critic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,

1988.

Eisler, Riane. Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body. San Francisco:

Harper-Collins, 1995.

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.

Forte, Jeanie. “Women’s Performance Art: Feminism and Postmodernism.” Performing

Feminisms. Ed. Sue Ellen Case. Baltimore: Johns hopkins university Press, 1990.

Fox, Thomas, C. Sexuality and Catholicism. New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1995.

Foucault, Michel. The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality, Volume Three. Trans.

Robert Hurley. London: Penguin Books, 1984.

Highwater, Jamake. Myth and Sexuality. New York: New American Library, 1990.

Irigaray, Luce. “Equal to Whom?” The Essential Difference. Ed. Naomi Schor and

Elizabeth Weed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.

Jaggar, Allison. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Sussex: Rowman and Allanheld,

1983.

Keuls, Eva C. The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens. New York:

Harper and Row, 1985.

Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Neumann, Erich. Depth Psychology and a New Ethic. Trans. Eugene Rolfe. New York:

G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1969.

Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books, 1988.

Ranke-Heinemann, Uta. Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the

Catholic Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1990.

Rubin, Gayle. “The Traffic in Women.” Toward an Anthropology of Women. ed. Pam Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Mary, the Feminine Face of the Church. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.

The New Jerusalem Bible. Gen. Ed. Henry Wansbrough. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1985.

Warner, Maria. Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. New York: Vintage Books, 1976.

Weaver, Mary Jo. New Catholic Women: A Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Authority. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.

-----------------------

[1] Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1986), 21.

[2] Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), 8.

[3] Allison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Sussex: Rowman and Allanheld, 1983), 114.

[4] Jill Dolan, The Feminist Spectator As Critic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988), 96.

[5] Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic in Women,” Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. Pam Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), 192.

[6]Michel Foucault, The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality, Volume Three, trans. Robert Hurley (London: Penguin Books, 1984), 74.

[7]Rubin, 179.

[8]Riane Eisler, Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body (San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1995), 165.

[9]Jeanie Forte, “Women’s Performance Art: Feminism and Postmodernism,” Performing Feminisms, ed. Sue Ellen Case (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 255.

[10]Jamake Highwater, Myth and Sexuality (New York: New American Library, 1990), 57.

[11]Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own, cited in Brian Arkins, “The Reign of the Phallus: Women in Fifth Century Athens,” U. C. G. Women’s Studies Centre Review, ed. Pat Byrne, Jane Conway, Alan Hayes (Galway, Ireland: University College Press, 1995), vol. 3, 66-67.

[12]Eva C. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 100.

[13]Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 20-21.

[14]Highwater, 67.

[15]Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 10.

[16]Ibid., 9.

[17]Mary Jo Weaver, New Catholic Women: A Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Authority (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 110.

[18]Brown, 25.

[19]Weaver, 56.

[20]Lerner, 25.

[21]Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1990), 21.

[22]Scriptural references are from The New Jerusalem Bible.

[23]Thomas C. Fox, Sexuality and Catholicism (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1995), 218.

[24]Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex. Cited in Weaver, 7.

[25]Erich Neumann, Depth Psychology and a New Ethic, trans. Eugene Rolfe (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1969), 53.

[26]Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (New York: Vintage Books, 1988), 63. Author’s emphasis.

[27]Daly, Beyond God the Father, 44.

[28]Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (New York: Vintage Books, 1976), 57.

[29]Cited in Brown, 78.

[30]Mary Daly, The Church and the Second Sex (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 50.

[31]Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary, the Feminine Face of the Church (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 72.

[32]Helene Foley, Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome. Cited in Arkins, 67.

[33]Warner, 254.

[34]Luce Irigaray, “Equal to Whom?” The Essential Difference, ed. Naomi Schor and Elizabeth Weed (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 76.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download