Kristell Jeannot: Mary of the Trinity, analysand of Lacan.<\/b><\/p>\n
Is it necessary to adjudicate the mystical oeuvre of Mary of the Trinity? I mean to study nothing but its other side. In fact, Mary allowed us to understand the other side of her mysticism, the clinical real that it covered, by the account of her analysis with Lacan. A courageous act. Beyond the editorial form of her mysticism, she provides a glimpse of the knotted secrets of an impasse that would cause her descent into what she named her \u201cExamination of Job\u201d. If the religious, said Lacan,\u201c put God in charge of the cause, but (cuts off) its own access to the truth there,\u201d oh well, Mary, she teaches a lesson in ethics: she endeavors to say it succinctly, particularly in relating the things Lacan shared with her.<\/p>\n
In the beginning of her analysis, Mary raised her complaint toward things exterior to her that will have caused her to be sick. Dr. Lacan disabused her of her Pascalian diversions: \u201cYou had to put yours there in order to make it so.\u201d Here is thus a succinct traversing of her analysis, a going-through of subjective rectifications brought about by the analyst. I have arranged this material using a model formed by tradition, that of the seven deadly sins.<\/p>\n
Lacan told her: \u201cThere were other things besides love of God. If there were nothing but love of God, this wouldn\u2019t have happened.\u201d<\/p>\n
First sin: Sloth<\/b>
\nIn 1944 Mary of the Trinity yearned for illness in order to escape a conflict that was tormenting her: she found her self divided between her desire to lead a contemplative life, and the Dominican life that was her day-to-day: \u201cSometimes,\u201d she says, \u201cI ask myself why the Lord doesn\u2019t make me physically incapable [\u2026]: like by making me sick\u201d.<\/p>\n
In fact, mental illness compelled her to live in the margins of the religious community for almost fifteen years. She no longer strove for anything, it was impossible for her to attend mass, let alone pray. She claimed the spiritual leaders (Directeurs spirituals<\/i>) were responsible for her despondency. Lacan retorted: \u201cIt seems to me that you\u2019ve never taken control of your life\u201d. It was thus possible for Mary to concede her \u201ccowardice,\u201d and uncover, point by point, her own hand in the matter.<\/p>\n
Second sin: Envy<\/b>
\nMary was up in arms about the takeover by men of the Church\u2019s operations. A series of dreams brought her Penisneid to light: \u201crecounted the dream from yesterday \u2013 insisted upon the analogy between this little girl from the previous dream and this little boy \u2013 recalled that another time I desired to be priest for the praise of God\u201d.<\/p>\n
Lacan interpreted it: \u201cyet you see that this priesthood leads you to this little boy with the regret that you\u2019re not him\u201d. In any event, she manifests her phallic demand in her dialogue by highlighting the importance of personal priesthood \u2013 free of Christ and made possible by the mystical union with God \u2013 vis-\u00e0-vis ministerial priesthood.<\/p>\n
Third sin: Gluttony<\/b>
\nMary suffered all her life of mental anorexia. Over the course of her analysis, she pondered the paradoxical greed that led her into her bond with the other: \u201cLove and resistance: lose the resistance and you lose the love as well \u2013 because I believe that love is the second stage of resistance [\u2026] Greed and love convey the measure of resistance. Take away resistance, there is no longer greed or love.\u201d Lacan appealed to her development: \u201cYou remember your dietary problems. Let\u2019s try to grasp the most recent: why did you come on Thursday instead \u2013 If you can face up to the tension where you\u2019re on this couch and communicating in words, not gestures \u2013 In this resistance you feel, you\u2019re touching the core (19\/3\/52)\u201d.<\/p>\n
Fourth sin: Pride<\/b>
\nMary of the Trinity on her oeuvre: \u201cIt seems to me as if it were in no way about me, that the totality of what is written is just as, if not more, important, the writings of Saint John of the Cross, Saints Theresa of Avila and of Lisieux [\u2026]\u201d At the same time, the modesty that she proclaims each week reveals high self-esteem: \u201cI believe my values are superior to those by whom I am surrounded: values of ideas and spiritual richness \u2013 but the judgment of others has ruined me.\u201d Lacan responds to her pointedly: \u201cYou\u2019re mining ideas, and you stand in admiration before your ideas.\u201d \u201cThe steeple, look at the rooster on the steeple: it\u2019s nothing next to your pride!\u201d , \u201cIt\u2019s not true that you doubt yourself, and don\u2019t say: then I\u2019m dualistic\u201d.<\/p>\n
Fifth sin: Lust<\/b>
\nThe sin of desire is the hardest of unmask. In order to get to it, the reader of his analytic journal has taken to translating vocabulary touching on Greek sexuality, even shorthand. She mentions the \u201cinstinctive gesture\u201d she had taken to performing before falling asleep, as well as \u201cphases of voluptuousness: the hot bath, the intoxication of nature\u201d. She approaches this intimate question with her analyst: \u201cThe other day I asked you a question about what happens when I\u2019m consumed with desire for this or that and my reason no longer dominates. You simply responded, \u2018Have you not heard about a certain original sin?\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sixth sin: Avarice<\/b>
\nLacan was never stingy [ne fut point avare] with interpretations and explanations to impel his religious patient. When she was defending herself, with her body and cries, from being de-sainted, he retorted: \u201cIt\u2019s because your renunciation wasn\u2019t a true renunciation\u201d, \u201cYour preoccupation is \u2018profit\u2019 \u2013 avarice \u2013 the greedy don\u2019t keep anything for themselves \u2013 they deny themselves everything.\u201d<\/p>\n
Seventh sin: Wrath<\/b>
\nBefore being perceived as having bad nerves [comme une malade des nerfs], Mary of the Trinity and her entourage believed in the existence of a malevolent control over her. As one Sister testifies: \u201c[\u2026] there was another painful scene. She threw herself on the ground with such violence that I didn\u2019t dare go near to help her up, [\u2026] I asked myself if I was in the presence of a fit of madness or satanic possession. The expression on her face haunted me all night (\u2026) To see this angelic figure suddenly become twisted and revolting!\u201d The analysis updated the origin of these tantrums, her oath of obedience: \u201cI feel physical aversion to those who have authority over me.\u201d Lacan found for her a tailor-made nickname: \u201cTerrorism, terrifying\u201d.<\/p>\n
Is there a moral to be drawn from this analysis?<\/p>\n
The analysis of Mary of the Trinity serves to reminds us that \u201cvirtue\u201d, as such, is \u201ca name without substance\u201d. To put on a monk\u2019s habit and produce a mystical oeuvre says nothing about the ethical subject involved. Mary of the Trinity suffered from her own hypocrisy in wanting to appear as what she wasn\u2019t, to please her hierarchical Superiors. Her analysis allowed her to admit the falsification of her life, of which she was at times both author and victim. Stepping back from the domain of true lies allowed her to escape suffering from the anxiety of culpability and revinidcation.<\/p>\n
In the presence of her compulsive aversion to all figures of Authority, Dr. Lacan opened the way toward a possible blooming: \u201cThere is no proof that the religious life is the most favorable method\u201d of becoming one with God, \u201cif you find that the religious life is one [\u2026], it\u2019s necessary to get rid of it and forge one that suits you.\u201d Thus, her analysis finished, Mary of the Trinity resumed the course of her religious life, as well as the editing of her Notebooks. But the question remains to be seen whether the chief means to a possible definition of virtue isn\u2019t psychoanalysis, following the rapprochement proposed by J.-A. Miller of psychoanalysis as moral practice.<\/p>\n
translated by James Curley-Egan<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kristell Jeannot: Mary of the Trinity, analysand of Lacan. Is it necessary to adjudicate the mystical oeuvre of Mary of the Trinity? I mean to study nothing but its other side. In fact, Mary allowed us to understand the other side of her mysticism, the clinical real that it covered, by the account of her […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=159"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":519,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159\/revisions\/519"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/journal9\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}