Emotions-- Society for Christian Psychology

Mary & Joseph: The Overcoming of Psychodynamic fears, Part 1: The Annunciation

Posted on January 19, 2010

[Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of January, and this is his third post].

This article presents a psychoanalytic and at some points a more general psychological interpretation of some of the motivations of Joseph, Mary and Jesus at two central moments described in the Gospels. The purpose of this interpretation is to demonstrate how a well known psychological framework can contribute to an interpretation of important Christian events in a way that supports and enlarges the traditional theological understanding of them.

The issue of applying psychology to Mary

The Virgin Mary within Roman Catholicism is understood as conceived without sin and was in her life sinless. And Jesus was not only without sin but also Divine. These unique characteristics raise the issue of whether human psychology of any kind can be applied to either of these two persons.

Although the Virgin was without sin, she nevertheless is assumed to have had normal human emotions - that is, she presumably felt love, fear, anxiety etc. To experience normal emotions even anger is not in itself to sin. To cultivate anger and fear is sinful, but such, it is understood, was not the case for Mary. If she didn’t have these normal emotions she would be scarcely human. It can be assumed, for example, that the Annunciation by St. Gabriel caused her some fear. To be afraid of death by stoning or of social exclusion is certainly not sinful. Furthermore we assume she had freewill to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the Angel’s request. Mary’s “Yes” is an example of faith and courage only if it was made in the face of natural human tendencies pushing in the opposite direction. So it is reasonable to believe that the psychological aspects of fear were experienced by the Virgin at the time of the Annunciation.

The Annunciation

Mary

The first event of interest here is the Annunciation and important psychological meanings that were presumably part of the response of both Mary and Joseph as given in the Gospels. As is well known in the Christian tradition, the Annunciation by the Angel Gabriel informed the Virgin Mary that, if she agreed, she was to conceive and bear a son. The Virgin was astonished by this announcement. She answered “how can this be since I have no relations with a man” (Lk 1:34). She was told not to be afraid and the child would be of the Holy Spirit. She is famous for her response, ‘Behold the Handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). The Virgin had every reason to be seriously afraid for she knew that if she were found with child that she might be subject to stoning as was the custom at the time. She also knew that if this did not happen, she was still likely to be set aside or rejected by Joseph. This would mean she would be an unmarried mother, socially ostracized and her child would not be considered as a member of the Jewish community. (For a legalistic discussion of this kind of situation in the Jewish world of the time see Jeremias, 1969. p.337-344.)

This kind of fear derived from placing her life and her future in the hands of the male power structure or patriarchy of her world, is a major fear for many women. In some ways this fear, which is often unconscious, is also related to what Freud called ‘penis envy’ - that is hostility towards men because they have power, fear that this power will be used against them, and envy of or desire for it. Contemporary feminism would say that in some respects this is still the major fear of women. The remarkable and impressive quality of the Virgin’s ‘Yes’ is in large part that she trusted in God in spite of what looked like a coming life of sorrow or even death as a consequence of patriarchal power. However, Mary had no envy of male power or special hostility toward patriarchy as this would imply the presence of sin, but to fear such power would have been a realistic response. Hence no claim is made here that Mary did experience envy or resentment, motivations characteristic of the Old Eve. Although not found in the Virgin, these responses in most women are nevertheless addressed by her life and example, as the New Eve. Many women who have envy and resentment of male power find an answer to them in the courageous response of the Virgin Mary. It is also quite possible this is one reason why many radical feminists strongly reject Mary as a model appropriate for women.

There are many other reasons to admire the Virgin but certainly her courage and trust in God in this matter is one of them. An example of her trust is that she never presented her case or her religious experience to Joseph to justify herself to him or convince him to accept her. Instead she kept all of this in her heart. For the Virgin, her “Yes”, was her way of going through the fear of patriarchal power by trusting God to overcome it and thus she was able to transcend this fear and leave it behind. And she serves as a distinctive example for all women in this respect.

Now, Mary’s proposed psychological fear of patriarchal power and related psychodynamic interpretations does not have to be interpreted as a necessary part of her situation. A conscious realistic fear of death by stoning or of social ostracism certainly is adequate to make her response a courageous and humble negation of Eve’s original “yes” to Satan’s temptation to power, i.e. “You will be like Gods.” (Gen.3:5)

Of course Mary’s general fear is not one just restricted in its primary sense to only women. It may be more characteristic of them, but men also have fear of getting caught up in a legal system and, of course, fear of death. Men also fear saying ‘yes’ to any ambiguous, perplexing open ended serious request, God’s or anyone else’s.

Joseph

The other part of the Annunciation event of interest here is the psychology of Joseph, her husband who learns “before they lived together she was found with child” (Mat1:18). Being found with child strongly suggests that one or more adults discovered or learned of her condition, presumably her mother and maybe other family members including members of his family. Thus, Mary’s condition is semi-public at least from Joseph’s perspective.

Joseph’s first response as a devout Jew was one of justice, namely to consider an official divorce according to Mosaic Law but his next response of a more charitable kind was to avoid public condemnation and likely stoning by putting her aside privately. This second response, unlike the first “justice” response, placed Mary’s and the child’s physical good before any desire he might have for public self-justification and protection of his reputation. That they were betrothed meant in Jewish law that they were essentially married. Even so, for Joseph to set aside his new wife whose condition would soon become apparent might imply cruelty on his part and adultery on her part.

However, in a dream, he received a message from the “Angel of the Lord” that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit and that Joseph should take Mary into his home (Mt 1:20-21), which he did. Joseph was not only just but also holy and thus he accepted the message in this dream. Assuming his earlier decision to divorce was not publicly known, his taking her into his home would have avoided that scandal. However, this would not have prevented his personal awareness of the scandalous situation as well as the awareness of those in the family who knew of Mary’s condition. It is also likely that such a “secret” might have been leaked into the community. In any case, most men after they woke up from such a dream would soon begin to doubt it! The Virgin Mary’s “yes” set up for Joseph a very distinctive male fear, namely that he was a cuckold— that he had been sexually betrayed, and he would be raising another man’s child. A related example of the mental cost to Joseph of accepting Mary was his losing the right to name his son. The name “Jesus” was chosen by God and given to Joseph in his dream. It was also given earlier to Mary in the Annunciation. The Jews of the time placed real importance on the naming privilege by a child’s father as being part of his “rightful dignity.” Naming a child was seen as “a creative act since for the ancients the name signified the essence and the calling” of the child (See W. Trilling, 1969 p.10). . But Joseph put all his male fears or “castration anxiety” aside and by trusting in God he overcame and transcended his fear. There is no evidence that his earlier concern in any way affected his commitment to Mary or his fathering role in respect to Jesus.

Women do not have exactly the same kind of fear that Joseph did of being a cuckold but they can understand Joseph’s fear as the fear of being sexually betrayed by a spouse and of losing status in the community. Such betrayal and loss of social respect is hard to accept by both sexes.

We see here in the preceding two fears a kind of complimentary male and female psychological anxiety, both brought on by the same event, namely the Virginal conception and birth. However, we assume Joseph’s fear was less strong or deep than that of the Virgin. Granted he is afraid of being a cuckold and all that would mean, but this does not present him with death or social exclusion. In contrast Mary had to overcome both the fear of the possibility of death by stoning and if not that, then a life of public disgrace. Her fiat then was in the face of a greater fear than that faced by Joseph.

It is claimed here that the distinctive fears of Mary and Joseph were overcome or transcended by each one’s trust in God. That is, God is not only showing others that we can trust him when faced with primal fears, but that in trusting God we let go of such fears and through receiving grace we leave them behind. Perfect love shown through trusting behavior drives out fear. That “Fear is useless” (Mk 5:36; Lk 8:30) is something the Scriptures show us many times.

References

Jeremias, J. (1969) Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. (First published in German, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 1962)

New American Bible, The. (1991). Trans. Catholic Bible Association of America. Iowa: World Bible Publishers.

Trilling, W., (1969). The Gospel According to St Matthew, Vol. 1. In New Testament for Spiritual Reading. Ed. J. McKenzie S.J. New York: Herder & Herder.

Correspondence for Dr. Vitz should be sent to: I.P.S., Suite 511, 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202

Filed Under Christian Psychology, Emotions, Modern Psychology, Paul Vitz, Psychoanalysis, Psychology | Leave a Comment

Mary & Joseph: The Overcoming of Psychodynamic fears, Part 1: The Annunciation

The issue of applying psychology to Mary

The Annunciation

Practice the Opposite

Administering the “Joy of the Lord” as treatment?

Experience the Word!

Fear

Further Thoughts About Emotions