tree_and_leaf (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
tree_and_leaf) wrote2007-02-27 06:24 pm
tree_and_leaf) wrote2007-02-27 06:24 pm
Entry tags:
Mostly theological, mostly ranty.
I'm currently reading up on Our Lady, or rather on the Virgin in mediaeval theology and culture. It's extraordinary difficult to find good work on the subject, though: I've already moaned about the Freudian brigade, but between the sickly piety of many of the Catholic writers on the other hand, and the Catholic-bashers on the other hand, I am beginning to get a little fed up. Pity Miri Rubin's book isn't out yet, as the articles I read by her on the subject are very promising.
I have very mixed feelings about Marina Warner's "Alone of All Her Sex". There's a formidable amount of research behind it, but it's also very obvious that Warner greatly dislikes (Catholic) Christianity and the way the BVM has been used by it in particular. That's her prerogative, of course (and I think I'd probably have been embittered by a bad conventual upbringing) - but when it gets to the point that she makes statements to the fact that the church teaches that lust is the worst, and source of all, sins, I start to write rude things in the margins. Don't worry, it's my own copy. I mean, I know that Christians have written more rubbish on sex than on any other subject, but there's not reason to make things worse than they are. There at least as many theologians who held that pride was the root of all sin - and this is the idea that has prevailed, because it makes more sense. Furthermore - as Bynum demonstrates at length - even in the Middle Ages, it wasn't as simple as saying the body was bad and women were worse because they were fleshly.
The curious thing is that, although Warner sees the BVM very much through a gender-studies lens, the justification for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, at least in the hands of modern theologians, have far more to do with what it implies about how the salvation of humanity works. In fact, attitudes to Mary are very strongly related to attitudes to human nature, and particularly to the question of how far humanity can share in its own redemption, and how far it is merely passive. (Should I be worried by the fact that the thing I found most useful that I've read today was by one J Ratzinger?)
In a happier and more Anglican connection, I note that today is the commemoration of George Herbert. The C of E obligingly provides a collect of the day on the subject, which I copy here because I rather admire the way the liturgist has worked in references to Herbert's poetry:
King of glory, king of peace, who called your servant George Herbert from the pursuit of worldly honours to be a priest in the temple of his God and king: grant us also the grace to offer ourselves with singleness of heart in humble obedience to your service; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
Also, I got out of Blackwells without buying An Anglo-Catholic Manual of Devotion, which is probably good for my general sanity.
I have very mixed feelings about Marina Warner's "Alone of All Her Sex". There's a formidable amount of research behind it, but it's also very obvious that Warner greatly dislikes (Catholic) Christianity and the way the BVM has been used by it in particular. That's her prerogative, of course (and I think I'd probably have been embittered by a bad conventual upbringing) - but when it gets to the point that she makes statements to the fact that the church teaches that lust is the worst, and source of all, sins, I start to write rude things in the margins. Don't worry, it's my own copy. I mean, I know that Christians have written more rubbish on sex than on any other subject, but there's not reason to make things worse than they are. There at least as many theologians who held that pride was the root of all sin - and this is the idea that has prevailed, because it makes more sense. Furthermore - as Bynum demonstrates at length - even in the Middle Ages, it wasn't as simple as saying the body was bad and women were worse because they were fleshly.
The curious thing is that, although Warner sees the BVM very much through a gender-studies lens, the justification for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption, at least in the hands of modern theologians, have far more to do with what it implies about how the salvation of humanity works. In fact, attitudes to Mary are very strongly related to attitudes to human nature, and particularly to the question of how far humanity can share in its own redemption, and how far it is merely passive. (Should I be worried by the fact that the thing I found most useful that I've read today was by one J Ratzinger?)
In a happier and more Anglican connection, I note that today is the commemoration of George Herbert. The C of E obligingly provides a collect of the day on the subject, which I copy here because I rather admire the way the liturgist has worked in references to Herbert's poetry:
King of glory, king of peace, who called your servant George Herbert from the pursuit of worldly honours to be a priest in the temple of his God and king: grant us also the grace to offer ourselves with singleness of heart in humble obedience to your service; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
Also, I got out of Blackwells without buying An Anglo-Catholic Manual of Devotion, which is probably good for my general sanity.
no subject
no subject
I certainly don't object to reading things by authors I disagree with - come to that, there's lots in Ratzinger I disagree with, he was just the first person I'd read all day who gave the impression of *thinking* rather than going "Oooh, isn't Mary brilliant". Which is no use from a cultural history perspective, and not that fantastic from the serious theologians, either....
no subject
It calls to mind Philip Pullman's attack on religion that he made in the Guardian last year - I read but thought "He just doesn't get what faith is" (I'm an agnostic, btw, and probably don't get it either, but I'm pretty sure the person of deep faith would suggest that their faith informs much of their existence and deeds).
no subject
I think you're right about Pullman, though.
the person of deep faith would suggest that their faith informs much of their existence and deeds
Well, that's the general idea, howevenr ineffectually it works out in practice....