In defense of "Joseph of Nazareth"

The movie Joseph of Nazareth: The Story of the Man Closest to Christ is now available from Ignatius Press, who is distributing the movie in North America. I designed the collector's booklet and also wrote an essay, "Joseph in the Gospels," for the booklet, which also includes an essay by Sandra Miesel, "St. Joseph's Long March to Fame," and a collection of quotes of popes about St. Joseph, "Holy Fathers on the Foster Father of Christ."

An anonymous critic, "Customer," recently posted a very unfair and misleading "review" of the DVD on Amazon.com, titling the review, "Bad Anti-Catholic film!":

This film is actually the same film that is put out by a Protestant company in a series entitled Close to Jesus. I have no IDEA why Ignatius (a "Catholic" company) would want to re-market this film, due to its blasphemous content:

1. in this film, St. Joseph doubts the Blessed Virgin's "virginity"
2. in the above mentioned scene, St Joseph looses control of his temper and violently smashes objects nearby (he also looses control of his temper in a couple of other scenes)
3. the Blessed Virgin is shown to have labor pains
4. the Blessed Virgin rebukes St. Joseph for putting "false hopes" into the child Jesus about ever returning to Nazareth
5. St. Joseph claims to be worried about his foster-son and has his doubts about Him.
6. St. Joseph does not pay attention to the sacrifice in Jerusalem, as he is too busy thinking about the problems with his son.
7. the Blessed Virgin Mary is shown to 'despair' when she and Joseph loose their son when leaving the Temple.

Now, to a Protestant, none of the above will mean much. But to ALL Catholics, this should be considered serious reasons as to why they should not view this film. I am not going to explain why the above should set off warning bells -- but if anyone would like to know the answer then I suggest they talked to a holy and learned priest, and meditate on the issue.

I posted a response/review of my own yesterday. Here it is:

A good movie about a great saint...

... despite what the first reviewer says. Sadly, that anonymous reviewer, "Customer" both misrepresents this movie and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Full disclosure: I work for Ignatius Press, who distributes "Joseph of Nazareth" in the United States. I also co-authored the booklet which accompanies the DVD, a booklet that reflects on what the Gospels tell us about Joseph (yet without recording a single word uttered by him), explains the fascinating history of devotion to St. Joseph (who was largely ignored until the second millennium), and quotes from several recent popes about St. Joseph.

Anyone familiar with the work of Ignatius Press (whose founder and head editor, Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., was a student of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger in the 1970s), knows it would not market and distribute books or films with "blasphemous content." The reviewer, "Customer," apparently believes that St. Joseph was sinless or was somehow super human and untouched by the normal emotions experienced by other humans. Yet Joseph was not sinless or super human; neither is taught by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Mary, the Mother of God, was immaculately conceived, was born without sin, and remained sinless throughout her life. St. Joseph, like all the other Saints (with the exception, again, of his wife), was a sinner.

The movie captures well the humanity of a man who had to grapple with the great mysteries of the Incarnation, the divine conception of Jesus, and the Virgin Birth. People of good will can certainly disagree about how Joseph might have expressed, in words and actions, some of his bewilderment. But to assume, as "Customer" apparently does, that St. Joseph could not and would not express doubts and frustration is ridiculous. He was not a robot. On the contrary, he was a just man who chose, despite the difficulties and challenges facing him, to trust God and to do His will. That is the essence of sainthood. It is, by the way, the same case with Mary, who--although sinless--still had to freely choose to believe God and to obey Him in faith.

It is helpful, in addressing several of the supposed problems brought up by "Customer", to consider the recent case of another movie about the Holy Family, "The Nativity Story," which was released in 2006. Catholic film critic Steven D. Greydanus wrote an excellent essay about the controversy surrounding that film, which was produced by a Protestant production company--and yet was shown at the Vatican and given a very positive and warm reception by those viewing the film. Yet some Catholics criticized the film because it portrayed Mary in labor. Greydanus wrote:

Mary's virginity before, during and after Jesus' birth is an article of Catholic faith. What virginity in childbirth (in partu) entails in terms of physiological specifics, and in particular whether it necessarily excludes labor pains, are ultimately questions for the Magisterium. They are questions for which the Magisterium has not thus far proposed infallible answers.

So I was told by Avery Cardinal Dulles, holder of the Laurence J. McGinley Chair in Religion and Society at Fordham University, and America's most eminent Catholic theologian, when I checked with him on this point recently. The Church, Cardinal Dulles said, "has not committed itself to any particular physical theory" of virginity in partu, and therefore the possibility that Mary 'could have suffered some pains in birth" may be "compatible with Catholic doctrine.' The cardinal also pointed out that further doctrinal development and magisterial teaching could clarify the question one way or the other.

A similar assessment is expressed by Dr. Ludwig Ott, whose 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' is well respected for its careful assessment of the degree of authority pertaining to various articles of belief.

Dr. Ott declares that the doctrine of Mary's virginity in partu 'merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained.' While acknowledging that the Fathers and Schoolmen generally held that "Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains," Ott states that 'the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view' (p. 205).

Other theologians are certainly free to offer differing opinions, but the Magisterium has not so far excluded the possibility of Mary suffering labor pains as contrary to Catholic Marian dogma. The most authoritative attestation of this belief is the 16th-century Roman Catechism, which, though of great value, is neither infallible or error-free. More recent official texts, such as Lumen Gentium and The Catechism of the Catholic Church, use more circumspect language, reaffirming Mary's virginity in partu without addressing the question of labor pains. From this it might not unreasonably be inferred that the Magisterium may be distancing itself somewhat from formulations of the past, leaving the door open to different opinions and further doctrinal development on this point."

In "Joseph of Nazareth," the actual birth of Jesus is not shown; it is handled very discretely, with a scene showing Mary going into labor, and then a scene showing Joseph outside gathering wood for a fire and  hearing the first cries of the infant Jesus.

Also, "Customer" misrepresents how the film portrays Mary and Joseph when they realize the 12-year-old Jesus is not with them in their return home from Jerusalem. The concern shown by the two is something any parent--sinless or otherwise--can relate to. Joseph makes mention of "despair," but Mary chides him on that point, and they go back to the Temple to offer prayers (and the sacrifice of a dove, a nice and historically-accurate detail) as they seek Jesus. And, of course, they discover the young Jesus speaking at the Temple to various scribes and teachers.

Finally, I gave this movie five stars to offset a review that is both unfair and inaccurate. "Joseph of Nazareth" is not a masterpiece. But it is quite good. The lead performance by Tobias Moretti, a highly acclaimed European actor, is excellent. The movie makers demonstrate a very good grasp of the historical context and details. I think this is a fine movie for the entire family--Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise--wishing to appreciate more deeply the humanity and holiness of St. Joseph, the "Man Closest to Christ." And, if I might say so, the accompanying booklet is filled with a lot of helpful and fascinating information.

• "Go To Joseph" (November 4, 2009)

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Cowards hid behind anonymity. Why do sites let anonymous posters post? I know the answer is obvious, but it's also wrong.

[Norah]

What is the difference between posting under a fake name with a Yahoo email address and posting anonymously?

The person who posted the review was probably well meaning with an idealised picture of the Holy Family; some of those sugary holy pictures probably didn't help.

[Ed Peters]

"What is the difference between posting under a fake name with a Yahoo email address and posting anonymously?"

None.

[Christopher W]

Although it is true that we are not committed to any specific view of the physiology of the birth of Christ, portraying Mary as undergoing labor pains is not without theological content.

The argument might run something like this: Labor pains are a specific punishment for original sin; but Mary was conceived without original sin; therefore, Mary would not have received the punishment for original sin. The general consensus of the Fathers, in addition to the almost unanimous agreement of later Doctors and theologians, supports this conclusion.

Showing Mary with labor pains could be seen as an attack on this dogma.

It would seem that the anonymous reviewer's description of the movie was a bit of an overreaction. Nonetheless, the points he raises should not be dismissed to casually simply on the basis that they have not been defined by the Church.

[Carl E. Olson]

Christopher: You've summarized the argument nicely, and I certainly am not dismissive of it. Here, in my mind, is an interesting counter-argument: In cursing the Serpent, Adam, and Eve, God said:

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Gen. 3:17-19)

We know that Jesus toiled as a carpenter and that he surely sweated during many long days of labor. Does it then follow that he was being punished for the original sin brought upon mankind by the failure of Adam in the Garden? In addition, the author of Hebrews writes:

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him... (Heb. 5:7-9; see CCC 612)

Jesus experienced temptation, which wouldn't have existed without the Fall. He endured spiritual and emotional agony (Matt. 26:36-39, etc.), also results of the Fall and original sin. And he also had to learn obedience and be made perfect—despite being sinless and being God. And, of course, he died, which is the ultimate physical consequence of original sin. So, if Jesus—who was the sinless Son of God—experienced things that were the direct or indirect result of the Fall and original sin, why wouldn't Mary as well?

[Margaret]

Since we're talking about the Virgin Birth, can I raise a question here? I have heard some serious-minded Catholics assert that Our Lady, because it was a Virgin Birth, categorically could not have had a vaginal delivery. Rather, Our Lord simply passed through her "like glass through a window." I find the entire idea very off-putting, and frankly, flirting with some one of the Christological heresies. (I can't remember-- which heresy claimed He was really God, but not really Man, just playing dress up?)

[W.]

Interesting thoughts many places, but this one had me thinking: http://www.thesacredpage.com/2007/12/did-virgin-mary-experience-pains-of.html

[Nicholas Jagneaux]

I would like to compliment and complement Carl's post (11:39 am).

I haven't seen Joseph of Nazareth, but I have seen The Nativity Story.

Concerning the depiction of the birth of Jesus in The Nativity Story: I don't believe that it shows Mary experiencing pain at all.

It does show her laboring -- pushing hard to move Jesus through the birth canal. But that doesn't necessarily indicate pain. In contrast, earlier in the film, there is a scene of St. John the Baptist being born. Elizabeth is certainly portrayed as having much more "pain".

I have lifted weights in the past, sometimes very heavy weights. During the exertion to lift the bar, I had to grunt and strain; but, I wasn't hurting myself.

[Kevin C.]

Carl,

There still appears to be only one review up at Amazon.com. Do they screen comments/reviews before posting them?

[Carl E. Olson]

Kevin: Yes, the site says it usually takes 48 hours. I posted it on Friday, so I'm hoping it shows up soon.

[chad brown]

"So, if Jesus—who was the sinless Son of God—experienced things that were the direct or indirect result of the Fall and original sin, why wouldn't Mary as well?" ... He did not have to experience these things; he freely entered into them, to redeem us (what is not assumed is not saved). Mary like Jesus was sinless and also did not have to experience those things, and didn’t because she did not have the role of redeemer; that is why Mary did not experience them as well.

[Girl Dresses]

The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Mary, the Mother of God, was immaculately conceived, was born without sin, and remained sinless throughout her life.

[Wholesale Clothing]

I think people of good will can certainly disagree about how Joseph might have expressed, in words and actions, some of his bewilderment. But to assume, as "Customer" apparently does, that St. Joseph could not and would not express doubts and frustration is ridiculous..