On Mary, Joseph, and “Francesca”

Feminists are, at their core, hollow beings. Female feminists are obsessed with envy of masculinity. Male feminists are obsessed with rebellion against the primal father. In both cases, the subject’s libidinal feelings are recursive. Rather than a healthy desire to commune with the other, the subject of the neurotic obsession is the self.

It’s all about meeeeeeeeee….

And so we meet “Francesca,” the author of Saint Joseph, Terror of The Cult of Masculinity (link), an article which was published a week ago, at my favorite feminist magazine: Patheos.

Everything that keeps the red pill poppers and alt-right windbags up at night was Saint Joseph’s life. He raised a child that was not his. His marriage was celibate, and he was chaste…

If we are to take the literal as historical, and accept that the text of the New Testament reflects stories of actual events, then we must concede in the first instance that Francesca is technically correct. Joseph was a man who raised up a son who was actually fathered by God himself.

In making this association, what “Francesca” attempts is an analogy. Every skank-ho single mom, she implicitly argues, partakes in the greatness and heroism which is the life of Mary, as recorded. This is silly and actually quite disrespectful to the literary (cum historical) character.

In the second instance, if we are to believe “Francesca”‘s claim that Joseph’s “marriage was celibate, and he was chaste…” then we are stuck with an obvious contradiction. In Mark 6:3, we read:

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

(link)

Taking “Francesca” seriously opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

  1. Perhaps James, Joses, Juda, Simon and various unnamed sisters are also the physical children of God and Mary. If that were the case, then their own magic tricks and miracles would get equal billing in the text. We never read about Simon raising the dead, nor about Juda turning water into wine, nor about the sisters walking on the surface of various lakes and rivers. So this seems impossible.
  2. Perhaps these other people are half-brothers of Jesus through God, with different mothers. Aside from points already raised, we must then wonder where the heroic stories of the virgin births through Jane, Sarah, Trixie, Sally and Bertha might be recorded. Again, this seems impossible.
  3. Perhaps “Francesca” has it right, that St. Joseph was celibate throughout his marriage, and he was the chaste husband of the single mom Mary, who banged Joe, Bill, Bob, etc. and had all these children through one or more different mortal fathers. It’s funny how the text makes absolutely no mention of such things, especially when pointing out such carnal shortcomings is a major theme of the entire corpus.

In fact, the only reasonable way to understand this idiotic article is to acknowledge that feminists are generally ignorant of the things they are wont to lecture on. “Francesca” has never read the New Testament, doesn’t know what the life of the Jesus character entails, and has no idea as to the deeper meanings of his story. Moreover: The only sensible way to interpret this nonsense is through Freud’s 1914 work On Narcissism, where we read that such people spend their lives warping great metanarratives in service of their own neurotic desires, to garner attention for themselves.

People like “Francesca” can not be helped, because any attempt to discuss their own motivations for these horrific misinterpretations is met with ego-defensive rage and more dishonest spinning. All we can really do is to point out their lunacy, scoff at them, and hold them up as examples to younger people as how not to turn out.

A screenshot of “Francesca”‘s original article reproduced here, under Fair Use.

Untitled

Advertisements

Author: Boxer

happy bachelor, iconoclast, frankfurt school. #Alt-Left

9 thoughts on “On Mary, Joseph, and “Francesca””

  1. Hello, Boxer.

    “… people spend their lives warping great metanarratives in service of their own neurotic desires …”

    Stories are the primary way humans think. Even the dullest of us frames his day, his memories, his potential future(s) as a story, perhaps not with a plot arc as the professionals imagine it, or as rich a cast of characters as a 1000-page novel, but with great sophistication. I would say it is a sweet and forgivable offense that someone would take a story, like the Chinese nobody who said he was a little brother of Jesus and fomented the Boxer Rebellion, and make something out of their unimaginative lives. If you can’t make it, fake it. Surprisingly, millions will believe less talented story creators. Look at the Mormons.

  2. Oh, also, forgot to enclose my web address. Please do come and visit and drop a comment.

    — xwarper.wordpress.com

  3. Quick comment – Catholic doctrine (as well as that of some other branches) asserts the perpetual virginity of Mary. They believe the original term used for “brothers and sisters” of Jesus could also be used to designate cousins. All I gotta say is, that’s a sucky life for Joseph. It may not be heretical per se but there is no reason to believe this other than out of excessive, borderline-fetishistic (idolatrous) adoration for Mary.

    And yes, there is no comparison with being called to stepfather the son incarnate of God.

    1. Dear V.:

      Quick comment – Catholic doctrine (as well as that of some other branches) asserts the perpetual virginity of Mary. They believe the original term used for “brothers and sisters” of Jesus could also be used to designate cousins.

      Mariology is interesting, and I’m roughly familiar with a lot of these speculations. Speaking of psychoanalysis, Jung wrote papers on Mary’s place in the mythological cosmos (see the bottom of p. 80 here for a little teaser.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=VNhQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=jung+on+papal+bull+mary&source=bl&ots=ctfG8UlY0E&sig=yiXfTE55Rr7A71LmXSn_YNgNRDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU2riIxsrUAhUn6YMKHWuCAXIQ6AEIKTAB#v=onepage&q=jung%20on%20papal%20bull%20mary&f=false

      Anyway, the problem that “Francesca” has is simple: She either believes in the historicity of the text, or she doesn’t. If she does, she needs to explain the obvious contradictions. If, like the Mariologists (not to mention Freud, Jung, and Adler) she takes the narrative as symbolic, then she ought to acknowledge that her interpretation is entirely self-serving. There’s just no way out of her dilemma.

      1. Most of the more controversial positions regarding Mary (perpetual virginity, Assumption of Mary, immaculate conception ) were only affirmed relatively recently by the Catholic church, typically by papal decree rather than ecumenical council, but the ideas had been widely held practically from forever. From a Jungian perspective this makes sense – converted peoples introducing universal memes into the Christian mythos.

        “Francesca” appears to be Catholic herself and presumably accepts the text as literal and historical. But however you dice it, Joseph was no cuck. Taking on the stewardship of what you know to be the incarnate Son of God isn’t really comparable to marrying single moms or giving cheating women a free pass. (Francesca doesn’t actually make this connection but it seems implied, by emphasizing his supposed celibacy and chastity, as if those are the ideal traits of manhood.)

        “Francesca” (I realize the quotes are in the byline) also resorts to extremes when beneficial (stereotyping: the “cult of masculinity” is drowning in violence and lust!) and ignorant of the fact that Joseph himself was an extreme. Ignore the virgin pregnant wife – she was chaste, virtuous, full of rightness and goodness! LOL!

        Indeed, self-serving. I’d say the cult of “femininity” has been far more vocal and visible than any cult of masculinity.

    2. Sir
      There’s also a line of thought that said the jolt of had multiple wives. As with the practice on that day

      1. It’s possible, Renee, but none of the gospels mention it (or stepmoms, for that matter). And Paul repeatedly affirms monogamy as the ideal model, and Jesus quoted Genesis stating “they two shall be one flesh”. It would be strange if the earthly father of Jesus had not been monogamous. (Also, having multiple wives usually meant wealth… which doesn’t seem to describe the guy who had to have a baby in a manger.)

  4. Excellent commentary. What I found amusing was the lifting of a direct call from God into a general principle. That is, the author of the short article, very pious I’m sure, ignores that God specifically told St. Joseph to be the husband and step-father. While St. Mary is celebrated for her courage in saying “Yes” to a divine pregnancy, St. Joseph is rarely given a good word for his righteousness, his burden of performance. His desire to adhere to God’s will was no less fervent than St. Mary’s. There is the general principle of a Christian life: what is God calling you to do?

    “Francesca” seems to rather desire LARPing the Holy Family.

  5. Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I’ve really enjoyed browsing your weblog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing for your feed and I am hoping you write again very soon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s