Sunday, January 04, 2004

Heather: Okay, here goes. This is the rough draft.
I wrote a while back about how I wish there was a book on how Mary is the fulfillment of the first generation of feminists. Another chapter would be on how she fits the divine feminine, too.
Brown and his adherents (hereafter referred to as "they") want Magdalen to be the "divine feminine". They claim that Christianity wiped it out and they're just trying to restore the balance. She was the Holy Grail, carrying the "blood" of Jesus in her womb as his children. They want her to be The Apostle, running the Church. They want her as priest, as leader, as forerunner, just like Peter and Paul. They want her running around doing all of the things the men of the time were doing. They don't want a "sacred feminine." They want "sacred masculine" in drag.
Mother Mary, on the other hand, is a much better example to me of someone both sacred and feminine. She actually did something feminine, like give birth.

To be continued...

Over at Envoy, they've got a two-part review of The Da Vinci Code. I just read the first part--okay, skimmed it. I've got some thoughts about those proponents of the Code as gospel, catechism, or anything more than pulp fiction.
These thoughts are percolating through. Because this is just a blog, I'm not sure how much I need to cite as sources and I don't really have the time to hunt them down. Or the inclination, frankly, to slog through a bunch of gnostic malarkey to find where they actually state what Brown seems to promote as their beliefs.
Watch this space, and please don't make me turn it into a doctoral thesis. I'll leave that to the professional authors.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?