The women in the life of Jesus and His compañera Miriam de Magdala

Jesus was a Jew, and not Christian, but He broke with the anti-feminism of His religious tradition. Considering his deeds and teachings, it can be seen that he was sensitive to all that pertains to the feminine, in contrast to the cultural masculine values, centered on the submission of women. In Him we find, with an original freshness, sensibility, the capacity to love and to forgive, tenderness with children, with the poor, and compassion with the sufferers of this world; an openness to all without discrimination, especially towards God, Whom He calls Father (Abba ). He lived surrounded by disciples, men and women. Since He began His pilgrimage as a preacher, women followed Him (Lc 8,1-3; 23,49; 24,6-10; cf. E. Schlüsser-Fiorenza, Discipleship of equals, (Discipulado de iguales, 1995).

Because of the Utopia He preaches –the Kingdom of God, that is the liberation of all forms of oppression –, He breaks several taboos that weighed women down. He maintains a profound friendship with Martha and Mary (Lc 10,38). Against the ethos of that time, He converses publicly and alone with a Samaritan heretic woman, causing astonishment to the disciples (Jn 7,53-8,10). He let His feet be touched and anointed by a notorious prostitute, Magdalen (Lc 7,36-50). Several women benefited from his caring: Peter’s mother in law (Lc 4,38-39); the mother of the young man from Nain, when Jesus is resurrected (Lc 7,11-17); the little deceased daughter of Jairo, the head of a synagogue (Mt 9,18-29); the stooped woman (Lc 13,10-17); the siro-phoenician pagan, whose psychologically ill daughter was liberated, (Mc 7,26); and the woman who for twelve years suffered from bleeding (Mt 9,20-22). All those women were cured.

Many women appear in His parables, especially women who are poor, like the one who lost the coin (Lc 15,8-10), the widow who threw two cents in the coffer of the temple and it was all that she had (Mc 12,41-44), the other widow, a courageous woman, who confronted the judge (Lc 18,1-8)… Women are never seen as subjects of discrimination, but with all their dignity, on the same level as men. The criticism He makes of the social practice of divorce, for the most trivial reasons, and His defense of the indissoluble bond of love (Mc 10,1-10) have their ethical meaning in the defense of the dignity of the woman.

If we admire Jesus’ feminine sensibility (the anima dimension ), His profound spiritual sense of life, to the point of seeing His provident action in every detail of life, as in the lilies of the fields, we must also suppose that He deepened this dimension when He started His contacts with women, with whom He lived. Jesus did not just teach, He also learned. Women, with their anima, complemented His masculinity, the animus.

In short, the message and the practice of Jesus signify a rupture with the prevalent situation and the introduction of a new type of relationship, founded not in the patriarchal order of subordination, but in love as mutual giving, that includes the equality of the man and the woman. The woman emerges as a person, daughter of God, protagonist and subject of the dream of Jesus, and invited, along with the man, also to be a disciple and member of the new type of humanity.

Data from recent research confirm this fact. Two texts, called apocryphal gospels, the Gospel of Mary, (Evangelio de Maria, Vozes,1998) and the Gospel of Philip, (Evangelio de Felipe, Vozes, 2006) show a relationship clearly characteristic of Jesus. As a man He profoundly lived this dimension.

It is said that he had a special relationship with Mary of Magdala, called “compañera” (koinónos ). In the Gospel of Mary, Peter confesses: “Sister, we know that the Master loved you in a different manner than He loved other women” (op. cit., p. 111) and Levi recognizes that “the Master loved her more than He loved us”. She always appeared as His principal interlocutor, communicating to her teachings not available to the disciples. Of the 46 questions the disciples propounded to Jesus after His resurrection, 39 were made by Mary of Magdala (cf. Translation and commentary by J.Y. Leloup, Vozes, 2006, p. 25-46).

The Gospel of Philip says still more: “Three always accompanied the Master, Mary His mother, the sister of His mother, and Mary of Magdala, who is known as His compañera because Mary is to Him a sister, a mother and a wife” (koinónos: Gospel of Philip, Vozes, 2006, p. 71). Further, it is specific, affirming: “The Lord loved Mary more than to all the other disciples and He frequently kissed her on her lips. The disciples, seeing that He loved her asked Him: why do You love her more than You love all of us? The Redeemer answer them saying: And what?, Can I not love her as I love you?”(Gospel of Philip, op. cit., p. 89).

Even though such tales can be interpreted in the spiritual sense of the gnostics, because that is their matrix, we ought not exclude – as recognized exegetists say (cf. A. Piñero, The other Jesus: the life of Jesus in the apocryphals, El otro Jesús: la vida de Jesús en los apócrifos, Córdoba, 1993, p. 113)–, a true historical background, as for example, a concrete and carnal relationship of Jesus with Mary of Magdala, a basis for spiritual meaning. Why not? Is anything more sacred than true love between a man (the Son of Man, Jesus) and a woman?

An old theological saying affirms «all that is not assumed by Jesus Christ is not redeemed». If sexuality had not been assumed by Jesus, it would not have been redeemed. The sexual dimension of Jesus does not take anything away from His divine dimension. Even better, it makes it more concrete and historical. It is His profoundly human side.

Leonardo Boff Eco-Theologian-Philosopher member  ofEarthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Dom Pedro Casaldaliga is 90 years old: poverty and liberation

Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, pastor, prophet and poet, celebrated his 90th birthday on February 16, 2018. We would like to honor him with some thoughts that, in my judgment, reveal the thread running through his life as a Christian and as a Bishop: the relationship he developed with poverty and liberation. Risking his life, he has lived and witnessed both the poverty and liberation of the most oppressed, the Indigenous and the peasants expelled by the land grabbers from the lands of São Felix del Araguaia of Mato Grosso, Brazil.

Poverty is a fact that has always challenged human practices and all types of interpretation. The poor challenge us so much that our attitude towards them ends up defining our ultimate situation before God. This is attested in the Book of the Dead, of Egypt, and in the Judeo-Christian tradition that culminates in the text of the Gospel of Mathew, 25, 31ss, as well.

Perhaps the greatest merit of bishop Dom Pedro Casaldaliga has been that he took absolutely seriously the challenges the poor of the whole world, especially those of Latin America, connected to us; and their liberation.

He certainly lived the following process. Before any reflection or strategy for helping, the initial reaction is profoundly human: to let oneself be moved and filled with compassion. How can we not listen to their pleadings, or fail to understand what their pleading hands seek to tell you? When poverty becomes misery, it raises in all sensitive persons, such as in Dom Pedro, feelings of indignation and holy rage, as is clearly seen in his prophetic texts, especially those against the capitalist and imperialist system that constantly produces poverty and misery.

Love and indignation are at the base of actions seeking to mitigate or abolish poverty. Only those who profoundly love and do not accept this inhumane situation are effectively on the side of the poor. And Dom Pedro witnessed that unconditional love.

But we are also realists, as the book of the Deuteronomy warns: “For the poor shall never disappear from the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to the needy in thy land” (15,11). It is said in praise of the Church of the origins in Jerusalem: “Neither was there any among them that lacked” (Hch 4,34) because they had everything in common.

These feelings of compassion and indignation caused Dom Pedro to leave Spain, to go to Africa and, finally, to land not just in Brazil, but in the interior of the country, where the peasants and the Indigenous endure the voracity of national and international capitalism.

1. Readings about the scandal of poverty

To adequately understand the anti-reality that is poverty, it is good to first make some clarifications that will help us be effective in our presence with the poor. Present in the debate even now are three different understandings of being poor.

First, the traditional, which understands the poor as the one who does not have, who does not have the means of life, not enough rent, no home, in a word: who lacks material goods. The poor survive unemployment, or sub-employment, and with low salaries. The system considers them economic zeros, burned oil, left overs. There, the strategy is to mobilize those who have, to help those who do not. For centuries, a broad assistance was organized in the name of that vision. A welfare policy, but not a participatory one, came into being. It is an attitude and strategy that maintains the poor in a dependent state; the poor have not discovered yet their transformative potential.

Second, the progressive, has discovered the potential of the poor and has already perceived that this potential is not being utilized. Through education and professionalization the poor can become qualified and developed. This way, the poor are inserted into the process of production. They reinforce the system, become consumers, if on a minor scale, and they help perpetuate the unjust social relationships that continue producing poor human beings. The State is assigned the principal role in the task of creating places of work for the social poor. Modern society, liberal and progressive, has taken over this vision.

The traditional reading sees the poor, but does not capture their collective character. The progressive reading discovers this collective character, but has not seen that this character is filled with conflict. Analytically considered, the poor results from mechanisms of exploitation that impoverish them, thus generating a grave social conflict. Having revealed these mechanisms was, and still is, the historic merit of Karl Marx. A critique should always be made of the type of society that constantly produces and reproduces the poor and excluded, before integrating them in the current processes of production.

The third position is la liberadora, that strongly believes that the poor have the potential not only to strengthen the work force and reinforce the system, but principally to transform its mechanisms and its logic. The poor, concientizados, self organized, and joined with other allies, can construct a new type of society. The poor can not only project, but also carry out the construction of a democracy that is open for the participation of all, economic and eco-social. The universality and plenitude of this endless democracy is called socialism. This perspective is neither one of welfare nor is it progressive. It is truly liberating, because it makes the oppressed the main actor of their own liberation and the creator of an alternative vision of society.

The Theology of Liberation assumed this understanding of the poor. This Theology opts for the poor, against poverty and in favor of life and liberty. To make oneself poor in solidarity with the poor, means a commitment against the material, economic, political, cultural and religious poverty. The opposite of this poverty is not wealth, but justice and equity.

This last perspective was and continues to be witnessed and practiced by Dom Pedro Casaldaliga in all his pastoral acts. He even risked his own life to support the peasants expelled by the great landowners. With the Little Sisters of Jesus of Father Charles de Foucauld, Dom Pedro helped with the rescue of the tapir, threatened with extinction. There is no social and popular movement that has not been supported by this pastor of exceptional human and spiritual quality.

2. The other poverty: evangelic and essential

There are still two dimensions of poverty that are present in the life of Don Pedro: the essential poverty and the evangelic poverty.

The essential poverty results from our condition of creatures, a poverty that consequently has an ontological base, that is independent of our will. This poverty arises from the fact that we have not given existence to ourselves. We exist, dependent on a plate of food, some water and the ecological conditions of the Earth. We are poor in this radical sense. The Earth neither belongs to us, nor have we created her. We are her guests, passengers on a journey that goes far beyond. Still more: we humanly depend on persons who welcome us and who live with us, with the ups and downs belonging to the human condition. We are all inter-dependent. No-one lives in himself and by himself. We are all involved in a network of relationships that guarantee our material, psychological and spiritual life. That is why we are poor and dependent one of the other.

To accept this condition humaine makes us humble and human. Arrogance and excessive self-affirmation have no room here because they have no base to sustain them. This situation invites us to be generous. If we receive our being from the others, we must also give it to the others. This essential dependence makes us be grateful to God, to the Universe, to the Earth and to all the persons who accept us just as we are. This is the essential poverty. This type of poverty made Dom Pedro a mystical bishop, grateful to all for everything. There is also evangelic poverty, proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth as one of the beatitudes. In the version of the gospel of Matthew, it is said: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (5,3). This type of poverty is not directly linked to having or not having, but to a mode of being, to an attitude that we could call spiritual infancy. Poverty here is synonym of humility, detachment, interior emptiness, renunciation of all will to power and self-affirmation. It implies the capacity to empty oneself to welcome God, and recognition of the nature of the creature, before the richness of the love of God that is gratuitously communicated. The opposite of this poverty is pride, boasting, selfishness and the closing in on oneself to the others and to God.

This poverty signified the spiritual experience of the historical Jesus: He was not only materially poor and assumed the cause of the poor, but He also made Himself poor in spirit, because He “made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And finding fashioned as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Flp 2,7-9). This poverty is the path of the Gospels, which is why it is also called, evangelic poverty, suggested by Saint Paul: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Flp 2,5).

The prophet Zephaniah witnessed this poverty of spirit when he writes: “In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away out of the midst of thee those that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain. I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord” (3,11-12).

This evangelic poverty and spiritual infancy constitute one of the most visible and convincing attributes of the personality of Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, seen in his poor but always clean dress, in his language filled with humor even when he strongly criticizes the absurdities of the economic-financial globalization and of the neoliberal arrogance, or when he prophetically denounces the mediocre vision of the central government of the Church in the face of the challenges of the wretched of the Earth, or about issues concerning all of humanity. This attitude of poverty is exemplary manifested in the encounters with Christians of the base communities, usually poor, as he sits among them and with profound attention listens to what they say, or when he sits at the feet of lecturers, be they theologians, sociologists or carriers of other qualified knowledge, to listen to them, taking notes of their ideas and humbly asking questions. This openness reveals an interior emptying that makes him capable of continuously learning and presenting his wise thoughts about the paths of the Church, of Latin America, of Brazil and of the world.

3. A  Star in the Sky

When the present turbulent times have passed, when mistrust and meanness have been swallowed by the vortex of time, when we will look back to the past and consider the last decades of the XX Century and the beginnings of the XXI Century, we will identify a star in the sky of our faith, a star shinning after having crossed clouds, endured darkness and overcome tempests: it will be the figure, simple, poor, humble, spiritual and holy, of a bishop who, even though from other lands, became our compatriot, and even though distant, he made himself near, and made himself the brother of all, a universal brother: Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, who celebrates today his 90th birthday.

Leonardo Boff  theologian an philosopher, member of the Earth Charter Initiative

The Patriarchal Scriptures speak of the feminine

We must recognize that the basic lines of the spiritual Judeo-Christian tradition are predominantly expressed in patriarchal language. The God of the First Testament (AT) is seen as the God of the Fathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not as the God of Sarah, Rebekah and Miriam. In the Second Testament (NT), God is Father of only one Son, that was incarnated in the virgin Mary, in whom the Holy Spirit established a definitive dwelling, something to which theology never gave special attention, because it implies the assumption of Mary by the Holy Spirit and for that reason, she is placed besides the Divine. This is why Mary is professed as the Mother of God.

The Church that descended from the inheritance of Jesus is exclusively directed by men, who hold all the means of symbolic production. For centuries the woman has been considered a non-juridical person, and even now she is systematically excluded from all religious decision making power. A woman can be the mother of a priest, of a bishop and even of a Pope, but she will never hold priestly duties. The man, in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, was made divine, while the woman is maintained, according to common theology, as a simple creature, even though in the case of Maria, she is the Mother of God.

In spite of all this masculine and patriarchal emphasis, there is a truly revolutionary text in the book of Genesis, that affirms the equality of the sexes and of their divine origin. It is found in the priestly text (Priestercodex, written around the VI-V century, B.C.). In that text the author forcefully affirms: “God created humanity (Adam, in Hebrew, means the sons and daughters of the Earth, derived from adamah: fertile Earth) in His image and likeness; man and woman He created them” (Gn 1,27).

As can be seen, the fundamental equality of the sexes is affirmed here. Both find their origin in God Himself. God can only be known through the woman and through the man. Any reduction of this equilibrium distorts our access to God and alters the fundamental nature of our knowledge of the human being, man and woman.

In the Second Testament (NT) we find in Saint Paul the formulation of the equal dignity of the sexes: “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gl 3,28). In another place he clearly says: “in Christ neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, for as the woman derives from the man, so does the man also derive from the woman; and all things come from God” (1Cor 11,12).

In addition, the woman actively appears in the founding texts. It could have not been otherwise: because the feminine is structural, it always emerges in one form or another. Thus, in the history of Israel, there have been politically active women, such as Miriam, Esther, Judith, Deborah, and anti-heroines, such as Delilah and Jezebel. Ana, Sarah and Ruth will always be remembered and honored by the people. In The Song of Songs, the romance surrounding the love between the man and the woman, is unmatched in its highly erotic language.

Beginning with the third century B.C., Judaic theology developed a reflection about the graciousness of creation and the election of the people in the feminine figure of the divine Sophia (Wisdom; cf. all the book of Wisdom and the first ten chapters of the book Proverbs). Well known feminist theologian E.S. Fiorenza said it well: “divine Sophia is the God of Israel with the figure of a goddess”. E.S. Fiorenza, The Christian origins beginning with the woman, (Los orígenes cristianos a partir de la mujer, San Paulo 1992, p. 167).

But what penetrated humanity’s collective imagination in a devastating manner was the anti-feminist story of the creation, with Eve (Gn 2, 21-25) and the original fall from grace (Gn 3,1-19). The text is actually late (around 1000 or 900 B.C.). According to this story, woman was created from the rib of Adam who, seeing her, exclaimed: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (ishá) because she was taken out of man (ish); Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gn 2,23-25). The original meaning sought to show the unity man/woman (ish-ishá) and to set the basis for monogamy. However, this understanding, that in itself should avoid discrimination against women, ended up reinforcing it. Adam’s precedence and the formation from his rib was interpreted as the masculine superiority.

The story of the fall is even more forcefully anti-feminist: “And when the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good to eat, she took the fruit thereof, and did eat it, and also gave it unto her husband with her; and he did eat it. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they realized that they were naked” (Gn 3,6-7). Etymologically, this story places evil on the shoulders of humanity and not on God, but it articulates the idea in a way that reveals the anti-feminism of the culture of that time. Deep down, it sees woman as the weaker sex, that’s why she fell, and seduced the man. This is the reason for her historical submission, now theologically (ideologically) justified: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gn 3,16). In the patriarchal culture, Eve becomes the great seducer, the source of evil. In the next article we will see how this machista narrative twisted a previous feminist one, in order to enforce male supremacy.

Jesus inaugurated another type of relationship with the woman, which we will also see soon.

Leonardo Boff Eco-Theologian-Philosopher, Earthcharter CommissionFree translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

Animals: endowed with rights

Whether one acknowledges the dignity of animals depends on that person’s paradigm (vision of the world and values). Two paradigms have been handed down to us since the most remote antiquity, and still endure today.

The first partadigm understands the human being as part of nature and, with her, another inhabitant participating in the immense community of life that has existed for 3.8 billion years. When the Earth was nearly complete, with all her biodiversity, we arose on the evolutionary scene as one more member of nature, one endowed with a singular characteristic; that of having the capacity to feel, think, love and care. This does not give us the right to consider ourselves masters of the reality that preceded us and that created the conditions for us to emerge. The culmination of evolution occurred with the appearance of life, not with the human being. Human life is a sub-chapter in the main chapter of life.

The second paradigm starts with the idea that the human being is the apex of evolution, and that all things are at his disposal to dominate and use as the human being pleases. He forgets that to emerge, humans needed all the natural factors that preceded us. Humans joined everything already in existence; he was not placed above everything else.

The two positions have had representatives throughout the centuries, who exhibited very different behavior. The first position finds its best manifestation in the Orient, with Buddhism and the religions of India. Among us, besides Bentham, Schopenhauer and Schweitzer, its main proponent was Francis of Assisi, considered by Pope Francis in his Encyclical letter “On the caring for the Common Home” as someone «who lived a marvelous harmony with God, with others and with himself… an example of integral ecology» (n. 10). But this tender and fraternal behavior of fusion with nature is not the vision that prevailed.

In the second paradigm, the human being is the “master and lord of nature”, as Descartes put it, who made himself hegemonic. It sees nature from the outside, not part of nature, but as her master. This is the root of modern anthropocentrism. Humans dominated nature, subjugated peoples and exploited all the Earth’s resources, such that we now have reached a critical point of insustainability. Its representatives are the founding fathers of the modern paradigm, such as Newton, Francis Bacon and others, and contemporary industrialism, which views nature merely as a collection of resources for its enrichment.

The first paradigm –the human being as part of nature– enjoys a fraternal and amicable relationship with all beings. The Kantian principle must be widened: not only is the human being an end in itself, but so are all living beings, which therefore must be respected. There is scientific data favoring this position. When Drick and Dawson decoded the genetic code in the 1950’s, it was shown that all living beings, from the most ancient amoeba, through the great jungles and the dinosaurs, and down to us, the human beings, possess the same basic genetic code: the 20 amino acids and four phosphoric bases. This led The Earthcharter, one of UNESCOS’ principal documents on modern ecology, to affirm that «we have a kinship spirit with all life» (Introduction). Pope Francis is more emphatic: «we walk together as brothers and sisters, and a link binds us with tender affection to Brother Sun, Sister Moon, to Brother River and Mother Earth» (n. 92). From this perspective, all beings, since they are our cousins and bothers and sisters, and possess their own form of sensibility and intelligence, are endowed with dignity and rights. If Mother Earth has rights, as the United Nations has affirmed, they, as living parts of the Earth, participate in those rights.

The second paradigm –the human being as the master of nature– has a utilitarian relationship with other beings and animals. On learning how cattle and poultry are slaughtered, we are terrified by the suffering to which they are subjected. The Earthcharter warns us: «wild animals must be protected from hunting methods, traps and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged and avoidable suffering» (n. 15b). Here we remember the wise words of the Suquamish-Duwamish Elder Grandfather Si’aul, aka, Seattle, (1854): «What is man without the other animals? If all the animals disappeared, man would die of spiritual loneliness. Because what happens to the animals will also happen to man. We all are related».

If we do not convert to the first paradigm, we will continue with the barbarity against our brothers and sisters in the community of life, the animals. As ecological consciousness grows, we become ever more aware that we are related, and as such we should treat each other as Saint Francis treated the brother wolf of Gubbio, and the simpler beings of nature.

Leonardo Boff Eco-Theologian-Philosopher Earthcharter Commission

Free translation from the Spanish sent by
Melina Alfaro, alfaro_melina@yahoo.com.ar.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.