It seems to me that one rarely sees a priest who happens to be a woman happen to wear a maniple.
Actually, one doesn’t see many people wear the maniple these days, for reasons that I’ve never quite understood.
Why, when one does see such a thing, does it seem invariably to be sported on the left forearm of a priest who happens to be a man?
Your thoughts please.
How about the wife of Jesus, airbrushed out of the story by later misogynist Christians? See Starbird, M “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar” and other books by her. She is an ex-Catholic who set out to refute the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story and ended by being convinced that Jesus and Mary were a married pair (and an archetype of the male/female balance principle). There’s a wonderful window in Kilmore Church, Mull. Check it out – whoever created it intended it to represent J and M as husband and wife, and M is clearly pregnant. Of course, there is no unchallengeable evidence that Jesus was married, but what I would like to ask the sceptics is why, given that He was the word made flesh and dwelt among us, is it unacceptable for Him to have been a sexual being? Why have later Christians considered sexuality, even in a loving relationship, to be something disgusting? Because they have, we are now stuck with the nasty views of the NotW brigade that sex is either an acceptable leisure activity or something gross. As Margaret Starbird points out, if we restored Mary as Jesus’ beloved consort we would be creating a much more wholesome myth!
It is a little like the arguments that might be made of the relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple though, isn’t it? All very attractive and neat if you come from a particular point of view but not really backed up with enough evidence apart from modern presumption, presupposition and desire.
I think the arguments on Jesus being married are very far from being liberationary. Rather, they’re the natural end-point of the Evangelical mindset that homophobically (and unbiblically) divides the world into Normal Heterosexual Married types and the demonised Other. “It is better to marry than burn” might have some mysognistic readings conducive to the fundamentalist world-view, but it hardly most naturally supports the idolatarisation of particular heterosexual relationships.
If I had a pound for every time a nominal Sola Scriptura type had told me that St.Paul had to have been married (presumably because Our Lord’s asceticism and disinterest in heterosexual marriage is bad enough) then I would be a very rich man indeed 😉
Interesting post Kelvin! Had no idea that St.Mary M even had red hair Perhaps she could be reclaimed as the Patron Saint of Gingers and Other Persecuted Minorities? 🙂
Oh, her hair was red, Ryan. Flaming Red I believe.
How reginal! 😉
The "trim the enormous beech tree" project is underway even as I write. I do wish that whoever has planted that tree had planted something a good deal more demure and petite. We have lots and lots of leaves. Next door has lots and lots of of bird dung. Hopefully this will help. Perhaps thinning…
This documentary on Channel 4 is very wearisome. Too many pantomime characters. Too much like real life.
Tomorrow is the day that Episcopal churches count the number of people at services. You have to be there to be counted. Tomorrow there is also a Big Sing at the church of St Peter and St Mildred, Linlithgow – starts 6 pm.
Two consultations exercises today. This morning I was in Edinburgh taking part in a discussion about what General Synod is for. (Polite answers on a postcard or in comments or e-mails). How to connect General Synod with local congregations? Which is the primary entity in the Christian church, the province/nation, the diocese, the charge (multiple…
Leave a Reply