I hate the Annunciation.
Is that offensively reductive? I don’t care. Are my critiques illegitimate if they’re not nuanced and measured enough? Someone’s going to read this and go cry about how I’m theologically illiterate/not actually Catholic/whatever. I don’t care.
Here’s what I’ve learned from a couple classes about the scriptures as literature at my fancy liberal arts college: Nobody thinks they’re qualified to do anything. One of my profs told me that he thinks divinity schools paralyze their students. They’re told that they’ll never have adequate knowledge of Greek or Hebrew to fully comprehend the text, it’s impossible to know the authors’ intentions, scripture is impossibly layered and full, they’ll never be able to read the centuries (millennia) of prior exegesis, and ultimately, they’ll never know enough to contribute anything worthwhile. That pisses me off.
What’s the point of Vatican II if my own literary and theological education, the tools that are supposed to help me comprehend the text, make me too scared to know the text? What does that imply about the people who don’t have the right tools? What about all the laypeople? What about the illiterate – and that word should be weighted with the understanding that illiteracy is tied to racism, sexism, ableism, classism, etc. Literacy doesn’t equal intelligence. Literacy sure as hell doesn’t equal closeness to God.
The “hermeneutical privilege of the poor” is a concept from liberation theology. It basically says that when the poor read and interpret scripture, their understanding of the text should be considered more valid than the interpretations preferred by those in power. (Who are “the poor”? Roughly, I read “the poor” as “those who lack material and social privilege in this world.”) The poor read from a perspective that is closer to the text. This notion is imperfect, obviously, but I think it approaches a better understanding of who and what the scriptures are for.
I’m a highly educated white woman from the United States, which affords me significant privilege. That said, I’m still scared to talk about this stuff. Misogyny in the Catholic Church is a big deal. Internalized misogyny is also a big deal. This post (and this blog) represents an attempt to relearn and reinterpret text without panicking. I won’t edit rigorously – if I did, I’d never put anything online. I won’t research fastidiously – if I did, I’d never put anything online. I will simply read and respond as a woman, a feminist, a Catholic, whatever – I will respond as I am.
If I profess a reading of text that’s rooted in a politics of liberation, it’s gross and hypocritical to call my own reading invalid. My reading is valid. It’s less about ranking hermeneutics than about saying, hey, I can do hermeneutics, you can do hermeneutics, we can all do this shit! Who cares about pulpits or PhDs?
Anyway: I hate the Annunciation. The story makes me deeply uncomfortable because it’s such a crucial part of the Catholic canon. The Church has read Mary into a pure and submissive corner for millennia and I can’t read her out of that corner without thinking about the Annunciation. Realistically, though, the text is straight-up sexist. Full stop. I won’t try to twist it around to say something that it doesn’t say. I’ll just do some rough exegetical shit: I’ll go line-by-line and talk about why it’s sexist and how it reads in the 21st century.
(I’m using the KJV online. No, I don’t own my own Bible. I’m Catholic.)
Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
I’m starting in the middle of the story, of course. “The sixth month”=the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. It’s artificial to chop up the chapter like this, but that said, this intro demonstrates that we’re meant to read Mary’s pregnancy in the context of her cousin’s pregnancy. Just as the narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus later become entwined, we should understand Mary’s pregnancy as entwined with her cousin Elizabeth’s pregnancy.
Without doing a close reading of Elizabeth’s story in the first part of Luke 1, it’s worth pointing out the main character is actually her husband, Zacharias. Gabriel announces to him that Elizabeth will bear a child. His fear and disbelief have consequences – the angel strikes him dumb for panicking and asking perfectly reasonable questions.
The reader doesn’t get access to Elizabeth’s fear or disbelief, though. When Zacharias’s vision causes a disruption at the Temple, Elizabeth is entirely absent. She finally appears at the end of the passage and says, “Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.”
- Elizabeth uses the language of a woman who has been fucked, impregnated – she’s a woman who has been acted upon. The Lord “dealt with me.” “He looked at me.” She is an object, the one upon whom the sexual and generative act is performed.
- How does the Lord act through Zacharias? What role has God played in the coupling of Zacharias and Elizabeth and the conception of John? Elizabeth talks as though God, not her husband, is responsible for her pregnancy.
- Elizabeth knows that the Lord has “dealt with her”; what has Zacharias told her about his experience in the Temple? What hasn’t he told her?
- Elizabeth believes that she has conceived “to take away [her] reproach among men.” This sounds like she’s more concerned with the social implications of barrenness and pregnancy than with the birth of her child. The angel didn’t say anything to Zacharias about “reproach among men.” Did Zacharias lie to his wife? Is this just Elizabeth’s interpretation? If so, she doesn’t seem focused on the “right stuff” about “John’s greatness in the sight of the Lord.”
Essentially, Elizabeth’s pregnancy is an earlier proof of God’s ability to miraculously bring forth children from women who should be childless. We should also compare Mary to Elizabeth and Zacharias and pay attention to how her responses line up…
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
- Notice the word order here. A virgin, espoused to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, she’s a virgin, by the way, in case you forgot… and her name was Mary.
- Joseph’s lineage comes before Mary’s name: This is our first of many reminders that lineage and parentage are very, very important in this passage. We don’t learn anything about Mary’s lineage here.
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
- “I’m not like other girls!!” (There are probably memes about this.)
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
- We’re inside Mary’s mind here, which is lovely. I love reading her thought process. It’s endearing; the text doesn’t say that she’s afraid or overwhelmed, just that she’s puzzling over the proper etiquette for addressing an angel.
- When she saw him, she was troubled at his saying. Why do the senses cross here?
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.
- Why has Mary found favor with God? We don’t know.
- Should one who hast not found favor with God feel fear?
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
- Gabriel doesn’t ask. He says, “thou shalt conceive in thy womb.”
- Yeah, yeah, God knew she’d say yes because she was conceived without original sin, right? But that’s later theological twisting (the whole Immaculate Conception thing comes from Jerome). It’s not relevant here. Let’s stick to what the text actually says.
- Gabriel doesn’t ask. He says, “thou shalt conceive in thy womb.”
This verse is the crux of the chapter – and the crux of my discomfort. Behold, the angel says. Behold the thing that shall happen to you. Behold what shall be done to you. Behold (hold) the child in your womb for nine months.
This is either a prophecy or a command. What’s the difference, though? Does it matter? If a prophecy foretells one’s future actions, does one still have free will? Who knows? The whole point is that no one knows. Personally, though, I know how I would feel if an angel appeared and told me what would happen to me. I know how I feel when people write my future for me (“when you get married, when you have kids, when you’re a mother…”). What is the difference between socialization and prophecy?
If we were to read this passage as an interaction between two modern humans, there would be no question. This isn’t consensual. Systems of oppression don’t have single origins (you can’t point to a date and place and say, that’s where it all started!), but this a narrative inextricably entwined with rape culture, notions about women as wombs and vessels, etc. This is one of those old, ugly myths that haunt us whether we know it or not.
It’s an ugly and awful thing to unpack and I won’t follow it to its inevitable conclusion except to say: Mary reads as a rape victim.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
- The child will have two noble fathers: God and David. These verses emphasize that both lineages are crucial in his formation and destiny.
- What about Mary’s lineage? What mark will she leave on her child?
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
- That’s it? That’s all she has to say?
- This is a reasonable question, of course, but Zacharias also asked reasonable questions. He didn’t fare so well. Why isn’t Mary struck dumb? The angel simply knows her inner goodness, I assume?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
- “The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” Sex, power, gender, dominance, etc.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
- Neatly ties back to the beginning. Also provides necessary backstory – we already know this, but Mary doesn’t. It’s sweet that the angel offers her proof – it’s like he’s trying to wheedle or convince her. Why, though? He already told her what will happen. Maybe he’s trying to assuage her doubts? Maybe he’s offering her comfort in Elizabeth – here’s someone who will go through this crazy experience with you?
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
- Gabriel does not ask for this response. Mary just… signs on to the whole package.
- Unlike Elizabeth, Mary isn’t preoccupied with the social consequences that she will face as a single mother. She just says yes. Her response is oriented toward the world beyond, not toward the world in front of her.
- What happens after the angel departs?
I hate the Annunciation because it makes me acutely aware of how the world and the Church read me. When I read the text, I read a world in which I don’t fit. I read that I should aspire to be like Mary, the perfect vessel. I should aspire to consent with just as much trust, faith, and disregard for consequences (like utter social ostracization, the loss of my honor and family standing, death in childbirth…). This is one of the foundational myths of the Madonna/whore binary and I don’t know how to read my way out of it.
The Annunciation leaves me empty (that was a bad joke!). It’s the foundational myth of womanhood in a Christian/culturally Christian context and there’s nothing to be redeemed from that. How do we hold this feast day? How do we doublethink our way out of this feast day? How do we “other girls” read this story? How do we read ourselves as “other girls” who aren’t like Mary but should be?