'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Pyro7480]

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/

[jo kus]

Kolokotronis, It appears you believe that original sin is a positive metaphysical "marking" on one's soul and that Mary didn't have this "marking".

Let's define sin and evil. In reality, we know that evil is a lack of something. It is not an existence - since God created everything. Thus, IF God didn't create evil, then evil is more properly definied as a LACK of something - a lack of God.

This is what the Latins teach (although many lack this understanding of original sin). Original sin is a lack of the Grace of God within a person when first conceived. It is NOT like a sin of commission or omission. "Original sin" is called a sin NOT because we committed it, but because sin is merely a lack of God - and we exist in that state until we are "born anew". That is the whole purpose of being baptized - to receive the life of Christ within us - a life that WASN'T THERE BEFORE. Can you point me to Scriptures or Tradition that do not consider this as the primary reason for being baptized?

By trying to tie original sin with our own individual sins causes many points of confusion between the Orthodox and the Catholics. And while Orthodox may think that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception somehow takes away from Mary's decision of "yes" (as if God somehow "made" Mary to say yes by His singular blessings), this totally disregards that fact that man has free will. Mary was so blessed that she desired to say "yes" to everything God asked of her - meaning, she didn't sin. But it doesn't follow that Mary is any less honored because of God's special and singular blessing. Mary's free will was NOT overriden as a result of the Incarnation.

Regards

[wagglebee]

You are really grasping at straws here. Judaic titles pass through the father, not the mother.

[Saveaplant_Eatavegan]

In an American court, based on western notions and cultural limitations, very possibly.

But if the jury were educated on the meaning of the word "brother" and "sister" in the cultural context of the Middle East and chronological reality of Jesus' time, and reminded that there is no mention of "Mary's children" as there is unequivocal mention of "Mary' Son," the jury may not be so predisposed.


Let's not forget that Jesus asked John to take care of his mother. Any good Jewish boy with siblings would have called on and expected them to care for their mother.

[wagglebee]

I'm not even sure that this would have been legal under Judaic law of the time.

[kosta50]

Then you believe that Mary did not die?

My point is that the original Eve would not have died had she not sinned. Correct? If Mary was in every way as Eve was, except -- unlike Eve -- she did not sin, then she should not have died. Correct?

[kosta50]

Let's not forget that Jesus asked John to take care of his mother. Any good Jewish boy with siblings would have called on and expected them to care for their mother

Of course, that is a very important point. Thank you.

[jo kus]

My point is that the original Eve would not have died had she not sinned. Correct? If Mary was in every way as Eve was, except -- unlike Eve -- she did not sin, then she should not have died. Correct?

That is why I asked you. IF Mary experienced no effects of sin (childbirth pains), then she didn't die. You seem to contradict yourself by saying that Mary experienced no labor pains AND that she died.

Personally, I believe Mary experienced both death and labor pains - but not because she sinned. Sin has entered the world, and ALL men are subject to its after effects. Thus, Jesus worked and sweated, "toiling the earth", so to speak - and Mary probably also underwent labor pains...The world changed as a result of sin. But this doesn't mean that Mary HERSELF was punished. It merely means she existed in a sin-filled world.

Regards

[wmfights]

"...we cannot accept or reject theological truths just for pastoral reasons."

I respect this thinking and hope that you would recognize that this thinking applies to us that disagree with your interpretation and understanding. Now just recognize your wrong. ;-)

[blue-duncan]

Really, and how is Jesus then of the lineage of Judah and David? Through Joseph?

[kosta50]

Original sin is a lack of the Grace of God within a person when first conceived. It is NOT like a sin of commission or omission. "Original sin" is called a sin NOT because we committed it, but because sin is merely a lack of God - and we exist in that state until we are "born anew

Jo, sin is clearly defined by Geneiss as disobedience, the consequence of which is loss of Grace. Loss of Grace is a punishment. It applies to Adam and Eve as well as to those who are baptized who willingly disobey God's commandments. Just as Adam and Eve were given a chance to confess and repent, so do baptized Christians have a chance to confess and repent and be restored in the future life. It's a ticket!

Because of their refusal to repent, Adam and Eve were cursed. That curse changed their nature which became succeptible to decay and death (absence of Grace). Thus the essence of our absence of Grace is not guilt, macula, spot that has to be removed or washed away, but mortality. And we know that baptism does not remove our mortality.

[Nihil Obstat]

but it seems to me that Mary at conception was in the exact same condition a newly baptized Christian is: she is free from original sin. The timing is different, the sacramental water is absent, but the human end product is the same. Her subsequent fullness of grace (=sinlessness) is due to her perfectly formed free will, not to the Immaculate Conception. I will appreciate your comments. I think more is made out of the Immaculate Conception than is logically there.

I had this exact thought at mass yesterday. maybe it is lost in their understanding (non-sacramental) of baptism.

[PleaseNoMore]

"Mary could not claim to have delivered a child and tell the Jewish priests that His brith was miraculous. Therefore, as far as the world was concerned, she had an "ordinary child" born "naturally," which would make her "impure" for 40 days."

So, "sinless" Mary "lied" and went along with what the law required for "show"?

[wagglebee]

Where does scripture indicate that Mary is of the Davidic line?

[PleaseNoMore]

It was the Catholic Church which wrote the New Testament.

Not true. The catholic church simply put it together. It did NOT write it.

[wmfights]

I think we can make a stronger case based on the available scriptural testimony.

If we are unwilling to accept plain Scripture for Mary having other children, how about using historical sources from outside the church?

I know I can dig up the historians from that era who refer to James as "the brother of Jesus".

[kosta50]

You seem to contradict yourself by saying that Mary experienced no labor pains AND that she died

Jo, I am trying to think like a Catholic. :) The Orthodox do not teach that she didn't have labor pains because she was made "just like Eve."

Just as incarnation is a God's mystery, so was her Pregnancy and her Childbirth. In order to maintain her virginity, she would not have given Birth by ordinary means through an open birth canal. And if we can believe that God became Incarnate within her without a seed or carnal event, then it is equally valid to presume that the Birth was equally a mystery that did not violate her in any way.

Besides, if she gave birth in the conventional manner, her blood would have mixed with the Blood of Her Child(!), and a normal human birth would have spilled that precious Blood, desecrating it!

You are free to speculate, of course, but -- from an Orthodox point of view -- Mary's painless and mystical birth has nothing whatsoever to do with her being "second Eve."

If there is any contradiction in my statements, it was because I was making the argument from the Catholic point of view. :)

The Latin Church also teaches that her Birth was painless, which would, by necessity suggest that she was also immortal. Which also gives more ammunition to critics on the Protestant side that the Latins elevate Mary to a status comparable to a "goddess."

[kosta50]

So, "sinless" Mary "lied" and went along with what the law required for "show"?

Silly. She was never asked, as far as I know, just "how" was her Child conceived and how He was born. If she had been asked for some bizarre reason, I am sure she would have told them the truth.

[wmfights]

The catholic church simply put it together. It did NOT write it.

Not true. They recognized it after it had been put together.

[blue-duncan]

Compare Matt. 1 :16, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." with Luke 3:23, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,". The notes of the commentators translate "son of Heli" to be "son in law of Heli", because as you rightly say, it is through the father that the name is passed legally.

[PleaseNoMore]

Loving a spouse does not detract from loving God anymore than loving one's neighbor detracts from it.

Exactly! In fact, I believe Joseph and Mary had a beautiful marriage with Joseph loving her "as Christ loves His church" and with her "submitting" and being a perfect "helpmate". Why would the earthly parents of Jesus NOT have a marriage patterned after the way God intended for a marriage to be?