Aphrodite and the BVM

I was on a ferry a few weeks ago, from Drvenic, Croatia to the island of Hvar. It was late in the afternoon, with a phosphorescent Mediterranean haze hanging over the rugged dry mountains and over the stellar blue Adriatic. Dalmatia. On the boat there was this little girl, maybe 9 or 10 years old, leaning over the railing and singing her heart out to the sea. I couldn’t hear her over the motor, but I could see her arms spread out, spread something like a mother’s arms for a son lost at sea, or maybe a lover’s arms for the one that got away, or maybe both once. Something like Aphrodite and the BVM combined. If you spend some time in Croatia it starts to make sense. I saw marked men and lonely ladies everywhere. We went to mass in a tiny little town, and I never saw so many men in a European catholic church. Usually it’s just the old ladies. And unlike in most western euro catholic churches, they sang. Seriously sang, in this kind of chanting, soulful Slavic work-song way, sang loud and serious and strong. On the island I kept seeing altars to the BVM that had the shell that you see Aphrodite perched on in that one pre-Raphaelite painting, the coquille St-Jacques. It’s the shell the pilgrims wear in Spain, I know, but it’s Aphrodite’s too. This is where Sophia keeps coming in, coming on. It’s this mash-up of eros and agape, sacred and profane. She’s the song in the country church on the hill and the beats in the nightclub where the hot Slavic girls get down. It’s Madonna—yeah, the “Hard Candy” one, and it’s the one in Medjugorge, too. Then, on the other side of the Mediterranean, there was this insane altar to the BVM in Cadaques, stuffed with cherubs and berserk gold embossing. Earlier in the day I saw a purse for sale in a boutique that said “voodoo coming.” This is the secret kingdom. Sophia in the synchronicities. You have to think of the church as invisible. Because “church” is a dirty word. It’s the slimy preacher and the crooked priest. It’s the catholic priests in Croatia goading the youngsters to join fascist gangs. It’s the bloodlusty ethnic pride, the homophobia, and the holy rollers. It´s the Spanish inquisition, the butchers. Say church and that’s where people go. How can this word, cursed, become another blessing? Catholic anglicanism is the Christendom of the imagination. It’s a utopian project. It’s a church that never was and never really has been. You can’t find it in the phone book or even on the web. And you definitely can’t find it in the newspapers. I read in the UK´s Guardian the other day about the alternative conservatives: GAFCON. It´s a conservative gaffe, all right. Read the signs. It’s time for Anglicans to come clean. We’re the church of the drunks, the homos, the dandys, the dreamers. We pray like Warhol made paintings. Because we like images. Repeat for the pleasure. Liturgy is sex. We’re pagans. If we knew how to do it, we’d dream of grace like Burroughs dreams of sex or Crowley dreams of magic. Instead we remember Tolkein and Lewis, and scrabble over JK Rowling. It´s time for Anglicanism to meet American literature, and science fiction, and graphic novels, even if only in a dream. Or in a wilderness. Like Castenada meeting Don Juan. The future is voodoo. It’s an altar to a feral Christ composed of toxic waste, computer chips, and gothic fetish objects. It´s Philip K. Dick. It’s magical realism where Abraham works at 7-11 and Cain is the local drug lord, Job works on Wall Street and Mary Magdalene is a New York DJ. The tide of Christendom flows toward a conservative third world, toward homophobia, racism, and a new dark ages of conservative gruel. They say it’s the West’s fault, for being materialistic, for being licentious, for being relativistic. But I say the imaginative excess of the West (and the pre-imperial paganism it protects) is the seed that will be planted in the imagination of a hundred Africans who will, in the 22nd century, re-discover Orson Welles, Marylin Manson, and George Clinton as Dr Funkenstein on hard drives buried in caves. They’ll think they’ve found another Nag Hammadi. They will see these men, these polysexual polyamorous believers, as science fiction saints, hermetic trickster angels lingering on the edge of familiar and familial lines of racial and class vendetta, in a fraternal future on the horizon of every unforgiven ancestral grudge, saying, to an undeniable beat, “Come. The Spirit and the Bride say come.” What’s coming is a total transfiguration of how we imagine the interplay between eros and agape. One small part of this is it’s time for a complete overhaul of homoeroticism, homosexuality, polyamrous relationships, the works. A proposal: any form of sex can only be judged by the kinds of relationships it produces. A priest—a very straight priest—once said to me “sex is about relationships.” That’s all he ever said to me about sex. It’s brilliant. The church has already secretly known this, and known that even celibacy—especially gay celibacy—has engendered incredible forms of new relationships based on the Sophianic potential for spiritual invention and human transformation. How long do we have to wait for the closeted gay genius of Auden and the gay achievements of untold numbers of devoted monks and faithful priests to be acknowledged for the acts of faith they were? How long before we are willing to deal with the logistics of the utopia of love they demanded, and make good on the dream of a world without fear and hate, a redeemed world? The Holy Spirit saw to it that countless gay lives were protected in monasteries, even as closeted and silenced, rather than simply destroyed by provincial hatreds. Now the cloisters are Berlin, New York, San Francisco, these ¨hotbeds of Western relativism, materialism, and decadence.¨ But the body of Christ is a utopian body, a body of vision: the substance is the vision. And every vision is eroticagape. Mary has come back and Sophia with her. But we are still waiting for Magdalene. For Maudlin, for Gay. The other night I was riding a bike around Paris and went past Magdalene’s church. It’s right down the street from the main French government buildings, and at the end of a little row that has all the high fashion boutiques—Chanel, Gucci, Fendi, etc. They’re like little acolytes for MM. Somehow weirdly and appropriately this church has a neoclassical façade, with severe Doric columns, makes the building feel like a mausoleum. I kind of hate it, but that’s sort of the point. Magdaelene, for the moment, is dead and buried, frozen into the only place her monstrous ambiguity can be processed, deep in the architecture of imperial constraint. In the frieze on the top of the façade is a Christ with open arms, not on the cross, just standing there. On his right are all the “good” kids—virginal types, virtuous types, saints, Peter and Paul, some angels. On his left are all the crooks and losers he partied with. Magdalene is on his left, on her knees, reaching up to him. He’s not ignoring her, he has one hand open to her, but he definitely has his eyes straight ahead. There’s so much tension and anguish and suspense here. The ones on the right are kind of pouty and bored and seem to wish JC would just forget about the whores and the street fighting men. The other side is all caught up in the heat of the moment, riding waves of passion or anger or fear. It’s like watching a bomb go off in slow motion, with Christ at the center as some kind of cosmic fuse. I guess the point of all this comes down to the thing that got me with the Spanish altars. The way there really isn’t any interplay between figure and ground, it’s just this explosion of figures, this coincidence of contraries, what the hermeticists called the conjunctium oppositorum. If you see the altar at Santa Maria in Cadaques, it’s just this explosion of angels and faces and crazy baroque gold-leaf embellishment. That’s where I see the voodoo, at least poetically, in Christianity. In the polyphony and even the cacophony of saints and sinners and spirits. Voodoo coming. Happy Feast of Mary Magdalene—today, July 22, 2008. Build her an altar and send up some love. Readings for her feast day:

AM Psalm 116; Zephenia 3:14-20; Mark 15:14-20
PM Psalm 30, 149; Exodus 15: 19-21; 2 Corinthians 1:3-7

You can almost hear her voice coming through Paul’s here… If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.

8 Responses to “Aphrodite and the BVM”


  1. 1 A.D.

    Invisible, yes, but visible too, at the junctures where flesh meets curving flesh, and the visible sinks into darkness. That is where Auden and Herbert lived, where Anglican theology is only poetry. Where flesh meets flesh a third is born, New Flesh.

  2. 2 Janet Leslie Blumberg

    This church invisible yet seen by God — and this is the only place where I disagree with jadr in this paean of praise and joy — has been. It has always been. But that’s what grace is, a miracle.

    For anyone who wonders, though, what the above does not say is that the eroticagape vision has its evil twin; the difference between them looks like it is nothing yet is everything. The vision builds up and rejoices: it does not hurt and destroy in all God’s holy mountain…. In it the lion and the lamb lay down together and the serpent is no danger to the child.

  3. 3 DWM

    “A proposal: any form of sex can only be judged by the kinds of relationships it produces. ”

    On one level, and as your quote of the priest on sex as about relationships, this works.. I agree. But on another, don’t we risk just making sex symbolic of the supposedly deeper aspect - the relational? How do you feel about dichotomizing sex and relationships first in order to the justify or explain the sex by the kind of relationship it produces.

    Isn’t there something primal, primordial about sex that can’t be, shouldn’t be justified by the relationship? And then also isn’t there something holistic about it all that we can in the same moment say the sex and the relationship are one?

  4. 4 A.D.

    Dan is too smart

  5. 5 JADR

    The kind of church visible I was rejecting is obviously a stereotype. Of course I’m talking about another kind of visibility, the one that draws me to voodoo and candomble and the other non-mythical or non-imperial paganism (shamanistic traditions, animist traditions with primarily folk or legendary metaphysics that does not reify into a mythology that entrenches some kind of manichean or gnostic cosmos, but functions as a kind of rumor of deliverances and salvations and powers and pleasures). This is teh visibility of the frieze on Magdalene’s church AND the fashion boutiques AND the songs on the hill AND the night club beats . . . it’s a visibility that can’t be specified but can always strangely be located. This is indeed a new flesh for the West even though it is an old flesh, old as adam cadmon, for humanity. Call it ‘virtual’ or ’spiritual,’ an older and better word for it, but it is a body and it is visible, to vision.

    My priest’s line about relationships was heuristic, not metaphysical, which I’m sure Dan in his smartness realizes. But I like Dan’s idea that we should not subsume sex under relationships in order to sanctify it, but go deeper into sex as sex to realize the gift it can be . . . or maybe there is a metaxu connecting sex and relationships in a polyphony of ways . . .

    Janet’s mention of the double is extremely important. Voodoo was used both for and against the people of Haiti. White and black magic often follow identical procedures. Aron’s post on the Joker and Batman is a great image of this theme which persists in so much American cinema. It’s almost as if American cinema is so manichean, so gnostic, from Westerns to Horror to Sci-fi, that it is the perfect way to see EXACTLY what the truth almost is. It is in that way a true falsehood, rather than simply a false truth.

    But back to Janet. The ultimate indiscernability of erosagape and sheer manipulation for its own sake may be the primary effect of the fall, at least on the mind, because that is the point at which we become attracted to something that seems to be God but is not. In her -ike posts Janet has articulated very well the Renaissance notion that all our disciplines added together simply prepare us for a blind moment in which everything is at risk in our decisions, and yet by grace this darkened moment can be exited not through arbitrarily willing the good (always idolatrous, since every vision of the good from here is incomplete–and which is why Gordon cannot stand as the hero in Batman, because as Derrida taught every concrete identity, especially that of people who ’simply’ do the right thing is built on a series of exclusions that demonizes the other), but by a mysterious interconnectedness of human action and natural reaction that develops a transcendent series of redemption, one whose recognition is maybe the greatest gift of all.

  6. 6 Janet Leslie Blumberg

    Yes.
    It’s like thinking about Socrates as Plato represents him, giving as his reason for staying in Athens and taking the hemlock (instead of fleeing as was customary and expected) a very simple reason. He chose, he said, to obey the laws of his native city, because she had given him his birth and nurture.
    The laws of his native city were not the highest laws — Socrates knew that. (As Ransom did, when he chose to follow the humble natural law of humankindness and return to Thulcandra….) And Socrates had been accused and condemned of flouting what his city held most sacred, by his very way of life. But like the Zen master, what matters, what is so unanswerable, is that he was able to “know” with his whole being that such a simple law and his paradoxical following of it was what fitted the occasion — and said everything that would ever need to be said…. Like the choice of Jesus, to choose the literal act that will say everything and that can never be translated adequately enough to begin to exhaust its polyvalence.
    Or Aristotle on the virtues. They cannot be given a concrete identity, he points out — they “can have no law” — because to find the mean(s) means to deviate from the conventional mean(s) in response to the difference of every occasion….
    This is itself a law, for which there can be no law; it abolishes the law by genuinely fulfilling it. As jadr says, the gift is to (be able to) notice the difference. I’m not sure this knowing can come to anyone except by being given and having been capable of receiving genuine good beforehand. Without that, the only reality is the evil twin. And what makes good and evil “so very much alike,” as Chesterton described them, is that the good lives and finds its path only by venturing into the depths of knowing just how close to evil it is always in danger of being and going there anyway.

  7. 7 Janet Leslie Blumberg

    Speaking on scrabbling about in Harry Potter books, have you seen the beautiful photos of Rowling’s The Book of Bartle the Bede. Here they are on Amazon. Shades of Tolkien here, artist and writer of “romance” or “fairie stories.”
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=pe_30860_10031940_fe_exp_2/?docId=1000179911

  8. 8 Janet Leslie Blumberg

    Well…okay…I think I got that title just a little bit wrong. (Take my advice, listen to me carefully, and don’t get old, okay….)

  1. 1 Matt’s Bookosphere 7/23/08 « Enter the Octopus
  2. 2 An Anglican Essentials List? The beginnings of a Catholic Anglican Manifesto at The Land of Unlikeness

Leave a Reply