MM in the news – apostola apostolorum
This is a short but good article that I found at Cleveland.com:
Mary Magdalene in fact and fiction
by David Briggs (The Plain Dealer columnist)
The thrust of this article is that one sexual fiction about Mary Magdalene-that she was a prostitute-has been popularly replaced by a different sexual fiction; namely, that she was Jesus’ wife and the mother of his children. This isn’t the first I’ve come across this point. Voiced mostly by feminists concerned that no woman, Mary Magdalene included, should be remembered primarily for her sexuality (positive or negative), the issue is even more volitile given that both seem to be imagined reputations anyway. Why not focus on things that we’re told Mary Magdalene actually did, rather than what she may or may not have done with her female plumbing?
But to manufacture a new sexual myth around Mary Magdalene and reduce her role to supportive spouse is hardly what people celebrating strong, independent women leaders in early Christianity consider helpful.
“It ultimately undercuts women’s leadership because it focuses on the fiction of Mary of Magdala’s marital status rather than the fact of her leadership as the primary witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” according to Sister Christine Schenk, executive director of Cleveland-based FutureChurch, an independent Catholic group.
I don’t disagree. Although there is definitely some “looking the other way” going on in regards to what mythology today’s women find valuable about Mary Magdalene, I think it is extremely important to look at Mary Magdalene’s most likely historical identity. Far and away, this is the role she filled as apostle of the apostles. Within Christianity, this is definitely the most important aspect of Mary Magdalene’s story.
“Rather than speculate falsely that Mary of Magdala was married to Jesus,” Schenk said, “it would be better to imitate her generosity and courage in accompanying a condemned political prisoner through a torturous death; and her faith in proclaiming God’s resurrection.”
Not surprisingly, the only expert quoted in the article is Sister Christine Schenk, who has been working with FutureChurch for many years to get as many Mary Magdalene feast day celebrations started as possible. This organization lobbies for female ordination as well as a married priesthood, and Mary Magdalene is their “poster girl.” Although I’m supportive of the FutureChurch cause, it’s good to keep their goals in mind when considering their position on Mary Magdalene’s identity.
2 Comments
This entry is filed under Apostle, Mary Magdalene, Media sightings and tagged with apostle, apostle of the apostles, feast of st. mary magdalene, feminism, July 22, marriage, mary magdalene and jesus, prostitute, sexual relationship, sexuality.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.
Whilst Briggs has a valid point, and Sr Schenk is to be highly commended for her drive towards equality for women within the ministry of all organised worship, the estimates of both of them regarding the public impact of the “JC loves MM” speculations are wildly off target. What we have seen so far (paperback dVC, Gardner, Baigent et al ) is the puny exposed tip of a gigantic berg, and will pale into insignificance when the dVC movie hits screens later this month. Such is the awesome influence of Hollywood.
Those of us who actually care about these issues will face a challenge almost equal in magnitude to that facing the early apostles themselves, if the truth is to prevail over the fantasies. A piece of pop culture like the dVC movie is like an unstoppable tank – it will just roll forward over anyone foolish enough to lie down in its path. There will be tee-shirts, coffee mugs and doubtless another twenty or so books.
Whether Mary was or wasn’t the wife of Jesus, we may never in fact know for certain. The principal point that will be highlighted in the coming month or so, and possibly for years thereafter, is that a wave of opinion generated by a powerful fictional message is capable of obscuring and manipulating our concept of history.
Sound familiar ……….. ?
C
I think it’s important to keep in mind that history is only as accurate as the memory and ethics of the authors who penned it. Nothing is written down as it happened, but instead as someone perceived it happening – or worse yet, as they would like those who read it to perceive it happening. This said, fiction has already played a huge part in creating the “history” that we pursue so avidly. As long as we never confuse truth and history, we should be okay…relatively speaking.
DNW