“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) |