Defending our Lady's Honor Against the Heretics

“Let us pass on to the second gate of Hell, which is blasphemy… A certain author says: "Every sin, compared with blasphemy, is light;" and first of all, St. John Chrysostom says, there is nothing worse than blasphemy. Other sins, says St. Bernard, are committed through frailty, but this only through malice. With reason, then, does St. Bernardine of Sienna call blasphemy a diabolical sin, because the blasphemer, like a demon, attacks God Himself. He is worse than those who crucified Jesus Christ, because they did not know Him to be God; but he who blasphemes knows Him to be God, and insults Him face to face. He is worse than the dogs, because dogs do not bite their masters, who feed them, but the blasphemer outrages God, Who is at that very moment bestowing favors on him. What punishment, says St. Augustine, will suffice to chastise so horrid a crime? We should not wonder, says Julius III, that the scourges of God do not cease while such a crime exists among us.”-Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, Six Discourses on Natural Calamities Divine Threats and the Four Gates of Hell

Each year at this time families are settling down to watch the now ubiquitous set of Christmas movies for the average American.  These films can all be viewed at one time or another on TV because they have become such "classics" in American culture.  These I think would include: It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964),  A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965), etc.  

I certainly do not have a problem with these films, especially since they are vastly superior to most films today, but now into this series of "classics" have entered in any number of new Christmas movies in the last few decades, some remakes of the old classics and some new takes on old stories, but they all seem to have in common the very secular aspect of modern western Christmas.  

So it is then most understandable that when a movie comes along that purportedly is centered on Christ and the actual message of Christmas that Christians and especially Catholics would latch on to it.  Unfortunately, doing this blindly is a most dangerous mistake indeed. While movies that are entirely secular are less than desirable at this time of year a film which is supposedly focused on Christ but which subtly twists and subverts the true message of Christ and important Catholic theological teachings is far worse and even diabolical.  

Enter then the 2006 film: The Nativity Story.  I personally witnessed the great excitement of many Catholics even in the Roman Curia over this movie, which soon became very popular and even received praise from many Catholics, including some in the hierarchy.  Unfortunately this film is fraught with theological errors and countless instances of blasphemy.  But because of the lack of education of Catholics most have no idea that this is the case.  Thankfully there have been a number of good and Holy priest who are so devoted to our Lady that they were willing to speak out forcefully against this movie even in the face of Bishops and Cardinals seemingly praising the film.

One such priest, who I know personally, gives his thoughts in a short sermon here, and places the teachings presented in this powerful medium of film in contrast with that of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.


Now I want to make clear that there are many issues in this film that make it unwatchable for any Catholic.  It is fraught with all sorts of blasphemy and even one blasphemy is one too many.  For the Holy Spirit speaks in no uncertain terms about the evil of blasphemy in Sacred Scripture: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die." (Lev. 24:16).  Just as we cannot be accomplices in murder or any other sin we most of all cannot be accomplices or indifferent to such offenses against God.

One instance that is particularly repugnant is our Lady's consent to having witchcraft practiced upon her.  The ever blessed virgin Mary approving of occult practices!  What incredible blasphemy! Certainly our Lady and Saint Joseph knew their Scriptures well:

"When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations.  Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming." (Deut. 18:9-12)

That being said, for my part I researched into one specific issue concerning a blasphemy most prominently presented in the film that deeply outrages me.  This concerns the dogmas of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as her Immaculate Conception.  This particular doctrine of the Catholic faith is something that I always felt to be true before I had any support for it and it is something I have been bothered by in many accounts of the Nativity of our Lord that have appeared in film, TV, and on the radio. 

I am speaking here of the portrayal of our Lady having birth pains.

When I first heard this teaching that our Lady was free from pains of child birth it made perfect sense to me, because it is the most logical conclusion based on what the Church teaches.  Let me explain what I mean.

When Blessed Pope Pius IX infallibly declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, in his encyclical Ineffabilis Deus on 8 Dec. 1854, he said the following:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.”

Now what follows from this then is that Mary would then be free from all the effects that we labor under who were indeed conceived with original sin.  No original sin means no effects of original sin.  It’s as simple as that.  Now what are these effects?  Principally: Concupiscence, with a darkened Intellect and weekend Will.  But God also gave some very specific punishments that were attached to the first fall:

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.” (Gen. 3:16)

The labor pains that all women now suffer then are a direct punishment from the original sin and all who have the mark of original sin are subject to it.  Thus it clearly follows that because our Lady had no original sin, and no effects therefrom, she suffered no labor pains in giving birth to Christ.  It all seems very clear and logical to me, but I know many Catholics still seem to baulk at this assertion.  This is not merely my conclusion or even simply that of some holy priests I know, but in fact it is the position held by the greatest Fathers and Doctors of the Church!

Before we turn to these most trustworthy sources for the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church let me first turn you again to the infallible word of God, which clearly and evidently teaches this very fact that Mary was even prophesied to bring forth Christ without labor pains:

“Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.” (Isaias 66:7) 

This verse has always been applied by the Church to our Lady, and I believe is incontrovertible evidence of this teaching, but for those who may yet be skeptical let me give you the argument made for this teaching by the greatest genius, philosopher, and theologian the Church has ever seen that great Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The Summa Theologiae

Tertia Pars

 Q. 35 - Christ's Nativity
 a. 6 - Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?

Objection 1. It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our first parents, according to Gn. 2:17: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, according to Gn. 3:16: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain.

Objection 2. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to Is. 53:4: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth.

Objection 3. Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [Supposititious), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."

Reply to Objection 1. The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Genesis 3:16) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [Supposititious), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.

Reply to Objection 2. As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time, so by His pains He freed us from our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth.

Reply to Objection 3. We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.

You will note the close connection between this important teaching and the perpetual virginity of Mary which again is a Dogma of the Catholic faith and must be assented to by all the faithful or you cannot be saved:

"If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever virgin and immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned." -Pope Saint Martin I, The Lateran Council, Canon 3, 649AD (DS 256)

But Saint Thomas, and for that matter Pope Saint Martin, here are merely teaching what had always been taught, and lest anyone think this was an invention of the middle ages see the following for evidence against this fanciful notion:

"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world; so was her childbearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God."
-Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop and Father of the Church, Epistle to the Ephesians, 19; 107 AD

"Who loves you is amazed and who would understand is silent and confused, because he cannot probe the Mother who gave birth in her virginity.  If it is too great to be clarified with words the disputants ought not on that account cross swords with your Son.”
-Saint Ephraim the Syrian, Father and Doctor of the Church, Songs of Praise 1, 2; 306-373 AD

"Believe in the Son of God, the Word before all the ages, who was...in these last days, for your sake, made Son of Man, born of the Virgin Mary in an indescribable and stainless way,-for there is no stain where God is and whence salvation comes..."
-Saint Gregory Nazianzen; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:45; 381 AD

 "Though coming in the form of man, yet not in every thing is He subject to the laws of man's nature; for while His being born of a woman tells of human nature; virginity becoming capable of childbirth betokens something above man. Of Him then His mother's burden was light, the birth immaculate, the delivery without pain, the nativity without defilement, neither beginning from wanton desire, nor brought to pass with sorrow. For as she who by her guilt engrafted death into our nature, was condemned to bring forth in trouble, it was meet that she who brought life into the world should accomplish her delivery with joy."
-Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on the Nativity, 388 AD

“So far as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the nature of generation: and in that it was at the usual time (for He was born on the completion of the ninth month when the tenth was just beginning), His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while in that it was painless it was above the laws of generation. For, as pleasure did not precede it, pain did not follow it, according to the prophet who says, Before she travailed, she brought forth, and again, before her pain came she was delivered of a man-child (Isaiah 66:7). The Son of God incarnate, therefore, was born of her, not a divinely-inspired man but God incarnate.... But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed (Ezekiel 44:2).”
-Saint John Damascene; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; On the Orthodox Faith, IV, 14; 676-754 AD

“How can death claim as its prey this truly blessed one, who listened to God's word in humility, and was filled with the Spirit, conceiving the Father's gift through the archangel, bearing without concupiscence or the co-operation of man the Person of the Divine Word, who fills all things, bringing Him forth without the pains of childbirth, being wholly united to God?... It was fitting that the body of her, who preserved her virginity intact in childbirth, should be kept from corruption even after death. She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles.... It was fitting that she who saw her Son die on the cross, and received in her heart the sword of pain which she had not felt in childbirth, should gaze upon Him seated next to the Father.”
-Saint John Damascene; Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church; Second Homily on the Dormition of the Mother of God; 676-754 AD

It is then clear that this teaching is ancient and universal and following the guide of Saint Vincent of Lerins we can see what this means: 

"In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors." -Saint Vincent of Lérins, Father of the Church, The Commonitorium

But now I would like to return to that last point made by Saint John Damascene, the great Doctor of the Dogma of the Assumption, and that is of the suffering of our Lady on Calvary.  I have heard it suggested, particularly by women, that it is more beautiful to consider our Lady suffering the pains of childbirth, because otherwise I suppose they have nothing to look to in their own sufferings of labor and otherwise in their life.  This is, however, to miss a most important point of Catholic Theology and Mariology: Mary did not suffer in giving birth to her Son's physical body, but rather she suffered in giving birth to His mystical body, which is the Church!


Mary's "labor pains" in giving birth to the Church took place upon Calvary.  Where the all spotless and immaculate Virgin Mary the Mother of God saw her divine Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the Immaculate Lamb, suffer the most terrible death that has ever and will ever take place, unto the remission of the uncountable sins of mankind who are yet so ungrateful.  There she saw Him abandoned by even His closest friends, save one, and striped of everything even his very flesh.  Here it was that our Lady suffered pains unimaginable to us and certainly, had she not been sustained by the grace of God, it would have caused her to die of sorrow.

We must then at all times and in all places have no tolerance for blasphemy of any kind, and we ought to pray and do penance for the conversion of those who blaspheme God, His mother, His saints, or any other holy thing.

"Tell me, blasphemer, of what country are you? Allow me to tell you, you belong to Hell...What is the language of the damned?-----blasphemy. And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and wounds. What do you gain, my brethren, by these your blasphemies? you gain no honor by them. Blasphemers are abhorred even by their blasphemous companions. Do you gain any temporal advantage?...What pleasure do you derive from blaspheming God? The pleasure of the damned; and that moment of madness past, what pain and bitterness does it not leave in your heart? Resolve to rid yourself of this vice in any event. Take care, if you do not abandon it now, that you will not carry it with you to death, as has happened to so many who have died with blasphemy in their mouths." -Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Ibid

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " (Gen. 3:15)