Dogma (Addendum), by Albert W. Vogt III

Because I have a formula for how I write reviews, I was not able to address everything I wanted to with Dogma (1999). In my initial review, I focused on more specific aspects of Catholic doctrine that found their way into the film, though I could only address so many of them. With the previous one, it was plenary indulgences and how some of the zanier concepts it presents about keeping the Church current with modern times are not so crazy. There are two more that are key components of the plot that need to be discussed. The first is the supposition that Bethany Sloane (Linda Fiorentino) is a descendant of Jesus. The second is Rufus (Chris Rock) being the thirteenth apostle.

In Dogma, Bethany is called the Last Scion until she is miraculously made pregnant, and then that child inherits the mantle. It is not the cleanest bit of writing, but that is not the part of this idea with which this Catholic takes issue. In revealing her heritage to her, Rufus tells Bethany that Mary had other children with Joseph. This contradicts the Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the teaching that she remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. It is given a more colorful explanation by Rufus, who suggests it is ludicrous to think that a marriage could exist in that way. A Catholic would respond to such comments by asking: why not? To be sure, the sexual union of husband and wife is ordinarily an integral part of marriage, and the Church teaches that the marital act has a proper place within that sacramental union. Yet, is it also so odd to think that Joseph and Mary’s situation was unique? Their marriage had a singular role in salvation history, centered on protecting and raising the Son of God. Then there are those who point to Scripture, which appears to indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Church has never understood those passages as referring to other children of Mary. Rather, the biblical expression translated as “brothers” can refer to close relatives, and the Catechism specifically notes that James and Joseph, identified as brothers of Jesus, are elsewhere identified as sons of another Mary. More personally, I do not understand the need to contravene nearly 2,000 years of history and tradition. The movie claims it is intended as a comedy, but there are certain aspects of dogma (pun intended) that are not funny and come off as critical more than anything else.

Speaking of Dogma, a commonly held Christian belief is that Jesus chose twelve Apostles. It is in the Bible, and Protestants and Catholics have seemingly always agreed on the significance of this number and the special title given to those closest to Jesus. Again, why make up a thirteenth apostle? This one could be called less serious than the Marian theology discussed in the last paragraph, but it is still puzzling. Once more, it ignores the reason why a dozen such men were chosen. As Jesus says in Matthew 19:28, the Twelve will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The number itself is symbolic: Jesus’ choice of the Twelve deliberately evokes the twelve tribes and the restoration of God’s people. After Judas’ betrayal and death reduced their number to eleven, the early Church even chose Matthias to restore the Twelve. Thus, Rufus’ claim that a thirteenth apostle was deliberately erased because he was Black is a joke invented for the film, not a plausible gap in Christian history. It is also far too sweeping to portray the early Church as simply racist. Christianity had deep roots on both sides of the Mediterranean in its first centuries, including a flourishing North African Church that produced figures such as Saints Cyprian, Augustine, Perpetua, and Felicity. North Africa also played an important role in the early Church’s reception and recognition of the canon of Scripture, particularly through the councils of Hippo and Carthage.

These are just a few of the extra observations I compiled about Dogma, though its flawed theology could provide material for a few more reviews. Ultimately, this film is not worth your time despite some interesting moments.

Leave a comment