A Catholic's Defense of The Chosen

Featuring slight critique

In the wake of the release of the multi-season, episode-based, TV-show-style telling of the life of Christ called The Chosen, I have seen several objections to this series pop up in the Catholic circles in which I run. Most of the ideas that I seek to articulate here have been uttered elsewhere, often in more detail and by folks more knowledgeable and qualified than I, but I still feel the desire to utter these thoughts in my own words. At the same time, there are 1 or 2 critiques that I have of the series, which I shall also explore here.

---------------------------------

REFUTATIONS TO COMMON OBJECTIONS

1. The Chosen is flawed in that it includes details that are not present in the biblical text.

This is not incompatible with Catholicism at all. In fact, it is quite compatible! One is reminded here of medieval Catholic mystery plays and liturgical dramas, which “filled in” plenty of details that were not explicitly present in the biblical texts. The 4 Gospels only give us a bare bones outline of everything that a Christian needs to know about Christ’s life. (As John said at the end of his Gospel, “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” [John 21:25].) There are plenty of things that Jesus said and did of which we do not know. The Chosen, a very creative work of personal devotion, “fills in” details of the story of Christ’s life in the same way that Catholic artists have been doing for the past thousand years. Is it not, for example, possible that the historical Simon Peter had such a run-in with the Roman authorities as the character Simon does in The Chosen? The New Testament does not give us Simon Peter’s whole backstory - The Chosen fills one in.

One is also reminded here of the Catholic practices of lectio divina (a practice of meditating upon Scripture) and especially Ignatian contemplation, an imaginative style of prayer in which one pictures oneself participating in scenes of Scripture (such as Jesus’ feeding of loaves and fishes to the crowd of 5,000). In Ignatian contemplation, the person praying is free to “fill in” details of these Gospel scenes that are not explicitly present in the biblical text, as long as these details do not conflict with what details are explicitly present in the biblical text. What is most important to note here is that all of the extra-biblical details present in The Chosen are compatible with the biblical details. It is, however, good for a person watching The Chosen to know precisely which details in The Chosen are biblical and which ones are extra-biblical.

In a much more general way, as well, every painting, icon or statue of Christ ever created “fills in” details about Him that are not spelled out in the biblical texts. This is a necessity of every artistic medium. Jesus’ face, for example,  has been depicted by countless artists over the last 2,000 years, although we have essentially no biblical description of what His face looked like. Here, I recall the apocryphal, 2nd century Protoevangelium of James, an infancy Gospel of Christ that “fills in” many details about His early life, such as the names of Mary’s parents (Anne and Joachim). This document is held in high esteem by the Catholic Church, although it is technically non-canonical. I also recall here the mystical tradition of the Church, constituted by mainly women (such as St. Bridget of Sweden and Venerable Mary of Agreda) who recorded their own imaginative meditations on the events of the Gospels, much in the style of St. Ignatius of Loyola that I described above.

In short, every Catholic should be very comfortable with The Chosen’s addition of extra-biblical details.

2. The Chosen is wrong for showing Mary experiencing labor pains.

I have heard it argued that:

While this depiction of Mary may offend Catholic sensibilities, and while the vast majority of Church Fathers, popes, theologians and philosophers for the last 2,000 years have agreed that Mary did not experience the pain of childbirth (the consequence for Eve’s original sin, which Mary did not inherit, as stated by the dogma of the Immaculate Conception]), this belief is not authoritatively taught by the Church and is not required to be held definitively by the faithful. Therefore, The Chosen showing Mary experiencing labor pains is perhaps not ideal, but it is permissible.

I originally held the above position. However, now, I do not believe this position to be the correct one. I now hold the position that:

The Catholic belief that Mary did not experience labor pains in the way that The Chosen depicts is related to the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. (Indeed, biologically, the type of childbirth pain that The Chosen depicts is the kind that results from the infant opening the passage from the womb.) The postconciliar Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses “Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.” Christ’s newborn body coming forth from Mary’s womb with her virginity remaining intact prefigures His resurrected adult body passing through the unmoved stone outside his tomb and the doors of the upper room. The Roman Catechism of the Church’s 16th-century Council of Trent reads: “To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.”

One postconciliar Mass preface (Preface II for Mary at the Foot of the Cross) reads: “She who had given him birth without the pains of childbirth was to endure the greatest of pains in bringing forth to new life the family of your Church.” The Eastern liturgies (and some Christmas hymns in the postconciliar Liturgy of the Hours) contain similar texts regarding the painlessness of Mary’s birth of Jesus. Indeed, “lex orandi, lex credendi” - the law of prayer is the law of belief. Pope John Paul II identified the labour pains experienced by the woman of Revelation 12 as the pain that Mary experienced at the foot of Jesus’ cross - pain that indeed brought forth the new humanity. Mary not having labor pains is therefore in fact a teaching of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (although not the extraordinary magisterium, if that distinction even really exists [that’s a discussion for another time!]) - not just a popular pious opinion. The Church has indeed taught that the virgin birth was also a painless one, even without defining this dogmatically.

The Chosen, of course, cannot be expected to conform perfectly to Catholic ideas, as it is produced primarily by Protestants. This childbirth issue seems to be the one instance in which The Chosen explicitly contradicts a teaching of the Catholic Church - fortunately, there seem not to be any other examples of this. Fortunately also, The Chosen’s problematic childbirth scene is a separate Christmas “teaser” and is outside the “canon” of official Chosen episodes.

3. In its inclusion of black people and other people of color, The Chosen is trying to be “woke.”

Not necessarily. It is quite historically accurate that people of different ethnicities would have been present in the land of Israel/Palestine 2,000 years ago. That land was important in terms of trade routes; this is the main reason that the Roman Empire desired to control it. (In terms of culture, however, Rome considered the land of Israel to be insignificant backwater.) This would have made that area something of an ethnic melting pot. The Book of Acts (8:26-40) discusses Ethiopians being present in the city of Jerusalem. It is also very likely that Jesus Himself had a rather dark skin tone, as Semitic peoples at that time, in that place, did.

A study of Christian art history quickly yields that every culture depicts Jesus as looking like them. In Chinese Christian art, Jesus looks Chinese; in African Christian art, Jesus looks African; in western European Christian art, Jesus looks western European. This is entirely appropriate. It makes perfect sense that folks in the Western world (Europe and America, the latter of course having been colonized by the former), raised in the visual culture of Western European Christian art, would picture Jesus as being ethnically/racially Caucasian, as that is our visual and artistic tradition. All of this Christian art from all of these cultures should be studied and enjoyed by any people who wish to study and enjoy them.

4. Mary’s question “how can this be?” in The Chosen shows doubt.

No, it reflects wonder and awe. In the Douay Rheims Bible, Mary asks in Luke 1:34, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

5. The Chosen depicts Jesus as silly, which is blasphemous.

I think not. In addition to being 100% divine, Jesus was indeed 100% human. Having a sense of humor is a very normal human quality. Funny people are also typically amiable (likable). An amiable person would be able to draw crowds of thousands of followers, which is what Jesus did.

6. Depicting Matthew the tax collector as autistic is problematic.

Why? There is nothing wrong whatsoever with giving greater visibility in Christian film to disabled folks. Especially for Catholics who are invested in the pro-life movement (which affirms that all human beings have an inherent right to birth and life, regardless of any disabilities they may have), this is an important point to get straight. It is entirely possible that Matthew or other biblical characters were on the spectrum of autism - we have no way of knowing for sure. It is very important to note that while Matthew’s social skills in The Chosen might be a bit “off”, he has intellectual talents and capabilities that other apostles do not possess. Jesus notices this and chooses Matthew because of it.

7. The Chosen depicts Mary Magdalene as being on the same level as the 12 apostles.

In season, Jesus tells the twelve when He is alone in a room with them that they are his apostles. Perhaps in seasons 1 and 2, The Chosen could have made more of a distinction between Mary Magdalene and the twelve. For example, if I remember correctly, certain parts of The Chosen’s first 2 seasons show Jesus speaking to the twelve plus Mary, when it might have been more fitting for Jesus to be speaking just to the twelve in these moments.

Catholics believe that the twelve apostles were the first priests and bishops of the Catholic Church. This is rather an ecclesiological point that The Chosen cannot be expected to exactly nail on the head. (What The Chosen does seem to get right, though, is a certain primacy of Simon Peter!)

Luke 8:1-3 seems to be clear that numerous women, not just Mary Magdalene, traveled with Jesus. The Chosen does include extra-biblical female figures, Ramah and Tamar, traveling with Jesus, the twelve and Mary Magdalene. It does seem clear from the 4 Gospels that Mary Magdalene was a much more important part of Jesus’ ministry than Joanna or Susannah or any other woman, and The Chosen seems to get this right. The 4 Gospels mention Mary Magdalene a total of 12 times - more than most (but not all) of each of the apostles.

8. The Chosen is historically inaccurate in its depiction of Jesus having such a casual rapport with his disciples.

The Chosen also depicts Jesus and his disciples speaking English (although with accents characteristic of folks from this part of the world - a charming detail). The actors speak not the historically-accurate language of Aramaic (as they do in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” film), but the language of the show’s intended audience, which is the English-speaking world. Similarly, The Chosen depicts Jesus interacting with his disciples in the casual, easy way that modern people typically do with their superiors, not in the more historically-accurate, traditional way of an authority figure not laughing or smiling with their subordinates. (Indeed, Jesus’ washing of his disciples feet was truly radical in that time and at that place.)

This is an entirely normal feature of Christian art. In the same way that, as I discussed earlier, every culture has depicted Jesus as looking like them (Chinese, black, white - you name it), every culture in their Christian art has imported some of its own behavior, setting and environment into the Jesus story. I am reminded here, for example, of innumerable medieval and Renaissance Catholic paintings that clearly depict the angel Gabriel’s Annunciation to Mary taking place in western European castles and villages (such as Botticelli’s rendition). In these paintings, Mary is dressed in the garb of the time and place in which these paintings were completed - not in the clothing that a 1st-century Jewish woman would have been wearing. This is as it should be.

8. The Chosen is inaccurate in its depiction of the twelve being young.

Not so. The vast majority of Christian art since the early centuries of the Church has depicted the apostles as being older men, but in the 1st-century land of Israel, the dedicated students of local rabbis were usually teenagers.

9. The Chosen is inaccurate in its depiction of Simon Peter as having a living wife.

I am inclined to agree with (usually, Catholic) biblical scholars who claim that Simon’s wife was already deceased by the time Jesus called him. It makes sense that Jesus would not have called a man away from his wife for traveling missions and such, and in the Biblical narration of Jesus healing Simon’s mother-in-law, Simon’s wife indeed is not mentioned. However, this is not a doctrinal point. The Chosen’s depiction of Simon and Eden is permissible.

10. The Chosen is flawed in its depiction of Simon telling Eden, “It’s time to start our family.”

I agree that the writing of this line is perhaps a bit sloppy. As far as we know, 1st-century people had essentially no concept of when or how they could or could not start a family. However, perhaps Simon was speaking in just a very general sense. In that way, I think this line is permissible.

---------------------------------

In our current cultural time in which authenticity seems to be so much craved, The Chosen hits home in many ways. The Chosen does not ring as cheesy, which many Christian films often do. The Chosen is the first Christian film project to depict the life of Christ episode by episode, season by season, and because of this, it is able to flesh out His life and the lives of His followers in ways that are extremely detailed, engaging and convincing. The viewer easily develops real affection for the apostles and for Jesus and feels a true closeness to them. In this age of the popularity of on-demand, free streaming, the power of The Chosen as an evangelization tool cannot be overemphasized.

SOURCES

1. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-mary-free-from-labor-pain

2. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-priest-reviews-the-chosen

3. https://www.medicaldaily.com/was-jesus-white-forensic-facial-reconstruction-allegedly-shows-what-jesus-really-365668

4. https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/reconciling-marys-virginity-with-revelation-12.pdf

5. https://catholicexchange.com/did-mary-experience-labor-pains/