No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Let me begin by thanking in the first instance Dr Sarah Jane Boss for the honour of being invited to give this inaugural lecture, celebrating the establishing of the Marian Study Centre here at LSU College of Higher Education. In offering such thanks, I would like to extend them beyond that invitation to include thanks for the establishing of the Marian Study Centre itself. Without having any sort of “inside track” information, I imagine that thanks for such a timely and courageous move are due not only to the interests and commitment of Dr Boss, but also to the creativity and energy of Professor Mary Grey and the innovative drive and support of the Principal of LSU, Dr Anand Chitnis.
If you remember the terms introduced into our national vocabulary by “ Yes Minister”, my characterisation of the founding of the Marian Study Cenlre as “courageous” may begin to sound a little ambiguous. If my memory serves me accurately, bold decisions cost you votes, while courageous decisions cost you elections … But I would wish to stay with the term “courageous”, because I think that in its unambiguous sense it dbes apply. The doyenne of Jungian analysts in the UK, the Baroness Vera von der Heydt, points out the sensitivities that may be involved:
To some people it is sheer blasphemy to see Mary other than in white and light blue, untouchable, and unapproachable, and unaware of human suffering, sin or temptation. In others negative emotions are aroused at the mere thought of her: it makes them indignant that a mere human creature should havd such privileges …
1 Heydt, Vera von der, Prospects for the Soul, Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1976, p.75Google Scholar.
2 Ulanov, A.B. “The objectivity of subjectivity” in Jung & Christianity in Dialogue, ed Moore, RJ & Meckel, DJ, Paulist Press, New York, 1990, p. 143Google Scholar.
3 ut sup, p. 144.
4 Reuther, Rosemary Radford, Mary: The Feminine Face of the Church, SCM Press, London, 1979, p.44‐45Google Scholar.
5 §22: “Oportebat sponsam, quam Pater desponsaverat, in thalamis caeleslibus habitare.” St John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem, Homily n, 14.
6 Marie‐Louise von Franz in Man & his Symbols, ed. Jung, C G & Franz, M‐L von, Aldus, London, 1964, p.187Google Scholar.
7 c.f. note 3.
8 Marie‐Louise von Franz, Man and his Symbols, p.187.
9 von Franz, Marie‐Louise, “Jung and Society”, in In the Wake of Jung, ed Tuby, Molly, Covemure, London, 1983, p.28Google Scholar
10 ut sup, p.28
11 Jung, C G, Aspects of the Feminine, Ark/Routledge, London, 1986, p.20Google Scholar
12 Jung, C G, Answer to Job, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1954, pp.56‐59Google Scholar
13 C G Jung, Aspects of the Feminine, p.137.
14 C G Jung, Answer to Job, pp.52‐53
15 Gilligan, Carol el al, Mapping the Moral Domain, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1988Google Scholar.
16 C G Jung, Answer to Job, pp.56‐59
17 A B Ulanov, “The objectivity of subjectivity” in Jung & Christianity in Dialogue, pp.162‐163
18 ibid
19 Wulff, David, Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Views, Wiley, New York, NY, 1991, p.121Google Scholar, citing Suttie, The Origins of Love & Hate, Julian Press, New York, 1935, p.l 18.
20 Wulff, op cit, pp 330‐333, citing Suttie, Religion: Racial Character and Mental and Social Health, British Journal of Medical Psychology, (289), 1932, p.298
21 C G Jung, Answer to Job, p.165
22 Vera von der Heydt, Prospects for the Soul, p.76
23 Interview in The Independent, date not to hand
24 Ann Belford Ulanov, “The objectivity of subjectivity” in Jung & Christianity in Dialogue, pp 165–166
You have
Access