'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/

[Forest Keeper]

The idea that Panagia is the "New Eve" is both very patristic and very Orthodox, FK. I don't see that that concept in any way flows from our veneration of her; indeed it might be just the opposite at least to some extent. "Co-redemptrix", however, is neither. That's just heresy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite". Also, I was under the impression that "New Eve" and "co-redemptrix" went hand in hand. What else is the point of New Eve?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Coming late to this discussion, I find the concept of the "new Eve" to be heretical.

Christ is the second Adam. To state then that Mary is the second (new) Eve is truly putting Mary on the same plane as Christ.

Heresy.

[Mad Dawg]

I don't agree with anybody. So there.

If CO in "co-redemptrix" means "Equal", then actually I do agree. Get the stake and the marshmallows, we gonna have a campfire. If it means "with", then I see some wiggle room.

As to "New Eve", wazza big deal? Whatever Mary "is" she is so by the gift of God and not in her own right. If she is "Queen of Heaven" it is not a title inherently hears, but is rather a courtesy title. The "Queen Mother" has no RIGHT to that title. She was queen by marriage not birth and is Queen Mother entirely by courtesy.

To call us "sons of God" makes us Princes of Heaven in a somewhat similar way, and the first yahoo who says he deserves it will be laughed all the way to the down elevator. New Eve, also because it was to Eve mark 1.0 that the promise was given that "her son would crush the serpent's head." If God wants to grant gifts and honors to the Theotokos, what's the deal? Shall we be envious because He is generous? Personally, I generally like parties, even when I'm not the guest of honor.

[Forest Keeper]

That "no lens" is a lens, - it is a modernist lens. For example, you consider the "power of men" to stand between you and God, but that is a modern age attitude. It did not exist in the age when knowledge was transmitted through men, rather than through books.

I disagree. You know that the Bible is packed with verses about the power and truth of God being superior to the power and truth of men. Paul tells us to test everything against God's word. This is not a modern idea. It MAY be true that fewer men actually taught that idea back then, but if true that does not go against the truth of scripture, it only goes to some not teaching it correctly.

When I first started reading parts of the Bible in high school I had no lens. The sum total of my knowledge of Catholicism was that you had a Pope. The sum total of my knowledge of "Protestantism" was that they didn't. I had never attended any church. While of course I didn't understand any complex doctrine on a first reading, the approach I took then is still the same as today. Look at what the words say, use common sense, and see what the Bible says about the same subject in other places. I only later found out that only "Protestants" do this.

"If" I had any lens at all it would be that an all powerful God who would give His followers a Holy Book would make it include everything the believers needed. I did assume that, but I didn't get it from anyone else. Obviously, my own anecdote is a big reason why I think that an unbiased reading leads sooner to some form of Protestantism.

[Marysecretary]

Hallelujah, I KNOW I'm saved. My spirit and God's Spirit are in tune with that.

[Marysecretary]

Mary must be very sad to see how her role in Jesus' life has been twisted into queenship. She was a humble maid who was obedient to God's calling on her life, like many others, except she gave birth to the Christ. She would NOT be happy about this nonsense.

[Kolokotronis]

"I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite". Also, I was under the impression that "New Eve" and "co-redemptrix" went hand in hand. What else is the point of New Eve?

I mean opposite in that it seems to me likely that the veneration which The Church directs towards her arises in great measure from her position as the New Eve and not the other way around.

The idea of Panagia being the New Eve is easily explained. As Eve introduced Adam to the occasion of his Sin, the results of which cut us off as a race from fulfilling our created purpose, so Panagia's role in the Incarnation brought the New Adam to the world and through Him our potential to fulfill our created purpose was restored and the curse of the Sin of Adam removed. Thus, in the 9th song of the Nativity Canon, we chant apropos of Panagia, "Magnify, O my soul, Her who hath delivered us from the curse." In other words, Panagia put right what Eve's disobedience had put wrong.

You need to remember, FK, that Eastern Christianity has never taught that Adam and Eve were perfect in the Garden, nor that mankind after the Fall was utterly depraved. Through Adam's Sin, man's created nature, that is to be in the image and likeness of God, was incipiently corrupted in that sin, having entered the world, eventually blotted out almost totally our likeness to God, giving sin and death power over us. Christ, the New Adam, restored the potential through His annihilation of death, and He arrived here through the Panagia. As +Irenaeos of Lyon wrote, "...the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by her unbelief, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by her faith." Against the Heresies, III, xxii, 4. Even earlier on, Justin Martyr, in calling Panagia the New Eve, wrote, "..."in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin." (Dialogue with Trypho, about 130 AD)

As Eve was our original mother in the flesh through whose disobedience we lost our potential for theosis and became bound to death, so Panagia, the New Eve, is our spiritual mother through whose obedience our deliverance was accomplished through Christ.

Is this co-redemptrix? No, not at all. Just as it was Adam's Sin which cursed mankind, so it was Christ's sacrifice which redeemed us. It wasn't Eve's sin, or Panagia's obedience which effected the curse or our salvation. I must say the whole co-redemptrix idea repels me. In fairness to the Latin Church, it has never proclaimed it as a dogma, though many have agitated for just that. I do not doubt for a moment that I do not fully understand the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception, but that notion, it seems to me, sets Panagia into a separate category of being, not truly human, or at least not the same as the rest of us ab initio with all that implies for Christology. This co-redemptrix idea, however, goes way beyond the IM and raises her to the level of a goddess. We Orthodox can chant in the Divine Liturgy, "It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.", but we don't confuse her with God!

[Kolokotronis]

"Look at what the words say, use common sense, and see what the Bible says about the same subject in other places."

You didn't learn Greek first though, likely in high school you knew little or nothing of the societal of 1st century Greece and the Middle East and you used which version of the Scriptures, FK? English language lens, Western Enlightenment/Protestantant Reformation pov of history and society lens and (am I wrong?)the KJV lens.

Its near impossible for anyone today to avoid lenses when reading the Scripture, even if they have never seen it before in their lifetime, FK. This was certainly true for the Reformers. It was true for many of the powerful in the Latin Church. Indeed it was even true for the Eastern Fathers. But they had an advantage the others didn't; they knew the society, they knew the language and some of the very early ones knew one or more of the Apostles.

[Mad Dawg]

"If" I had any lens at all it would be that an all powerful God who would give His followers a Holy Book would make it include everything the believers needed. I did assume that, but I didn't get it from anyone else.

Well, for the loyal opposition, allow me, between winces (feets makin' trouble today), to say ....

First that your post is interesting and stimulates something resembling thought in my frazzled brain.

And second, We had a meeting/retreat/"Day of Recollection" for the suckers, uh, I mean converts yesterday. I thought it was really good. And toward the end one of the friars came in to talk about "Lectio Divina - praying with the Bible".

And what he said was that in the bad old days before printing the Benedictines (and presumably other monks) would have their assigned time with the Monastery's one copy of the Bible, that maybe more than a hundred or even several hundred monks had to share. And they or some of them wanted to memorize it, or parts of it. And found (as so many of us have) that when you read the Bible and savor it lovingly and attentively you find that God does engage in conversation (or something sorta kinda like it) with you. And so the little teaching on lectio divina progressed.

But the relevance is that maybe our modern "lens" is provided by our sitz im leben. For more than half of the time since the Resurrection the Bible just wasn't avaiable, in practical terms outside of the living community. Not only was gentile Europe shockingly (when compared to our Jewish older brothers) illiterate, but even had they been able to read, there weren't that many Bibles to go around.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but my Church History prof said that in post reformation England churches had bibles chained to the lectern for the laity to come read. So, in terms of the history of the Church, the Solitary reading of Scripture just wasn't an option. You came to it from the Church community and returned from it to the Church community, the sacraments, the office (largely psalms anyway), the life and teaching of Church with its paradosis.

Of course, Your mileage varies, but an image I'm trying to suggest (influenced by today's appointed psalm for Congregations preparing catechumens - and the antiphon: Taste and see the goodness of the Lord) from a nutritional POV partaking only of Scripture is a newfangled and unbalanced diet, and not what Christians ate for centuries. So one might conjecture that an unbalanced diet (Sola Scriptura) would lead to an unbalanced opinion (ditto). I don't mean this as some kind of triumphant "Aha!" but just to depict/adumbrate another POV.

[Kolokotronis]

"(Tactical shotty, Marlin 1894c, S&W 686P, Sig 226 & 239, Beretta 92fs & 8357, Glock 22, & attitude!)"

Double Barrel 12 ga Parker, 20 ga Over/Under Citori grade Browning, .308 Browning BLR, 30-30 Model 94 Winchester, 9mm SK42 Lugar & absolutely no sympathy!

[Mad Dawg]

Double Barrel 12 ga Parker, 20 ga Over/Under Citori grade Browning, .308 Browning BLR, 30-30 Model 94 Winchester, 9mm SK42 Luger & absolutely no sympathy! Let's stay on the same side then, okay?

[Kolokotronis]

"Let's stay on the same side then, okay?"

I was just about to say the same thing in light of the Berettas! :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "True faith can INCREASE through works, but it cannot be FORMED through works."

I don't see the difference. However, the statement that faith can increase through works puts you in the perimeter allowed by Trent, just barely.

I was just thinking from the perspective that faith comes ONLY from God, it cannot be earned, started, formed, etc. through works.

During the lifelong process of sanctification our faith increases. Developing a servant heart is certainly part of sanctification. In my own case the actual doing of good works has helped me to develop a servant heart, so I see it as helping me to grow in faith.

[Quix]

Mary must be very sad to see how her role in Jesus' life has been twisted into queenship. She was a humble maid who was obedient to God's calling on her life, like many others, except she gave birth to the Christ. She would NOT be happy about this nonsense.
= = =

Strongly agree.

Thx.

[Quix]

As to "New Eve", wazza big deal? Whatever Mary "is" she is so by the gift of God and not in her own right. If she is "Queen of Heaven" it is not a title inherently hears, but is rather a courtesy title. The "Queen Mother" has no RIGHT to that title. She was queen by marriage not birth and is Queen Mother entirely by courtesy.
= = =

However, Dear Heart,

Makind such pronouncements for political/monetary gain for the elites of the Roman magicsterical

and then claiming God did proclaimed it

does NOT work, for me.

I can't imagine Mary being the least bit in favor of such stuff.

[Quix]

"is your imagination or construction such that you think, beileve, imagine that Mary has the authority, agency, role of functionally doing the saving?"

No, but it sure looks that way, doesn't it! By the way, it reads the same in Greek as it does in English. The Orthodox understanding of the prayer is as a plea to one whom we call upon regularly to intercede for us. The "save us" is in the sense of sending out an SOS, which isn't addressed to Christ either and doesn't mean literally "Save Our Souls".

Quix, its another one of those "mindset" things. We Orthodox know what we mean, but trust me, I can fully understand why someone else wouldn't. We don't believe that the Theotokos is our "Salvation" or "Savior" in the sense we use those terms here on this thread anymore than you do.

= = =

Sorry, I don't buy it.

WORDS HAVE IMPACT. They CERTAINLY have impact in the spiritual realm.

But they also have impact on both the conscious and unconscious personal mind.

REPEATED WORDS HAVE GREAT IMPACT.

So, to assert to me that REPEATEDLY SAYING such things year in and year out leaves one believing something different???

I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I'm too good a psychologist to buy that notion.

I can believe that one might rationalize the inner gestalt, the inner mind set that such repeated phrases result in and further that one might deny the full implications of it. I can believe that.

But I don't believe there's NO such inner spiritual/mental/belief impact from repeatedly saying such phrases. Does not wash with all I know about humans and their minds, spirits and psychologies.

[kosta50]

I was just thinking from the perspective that faith comes ONLY from God, it cannot be earned, started, formed, etc. through works

God knocks on everyone's heart. We can either let Him in or not. That decision is ours. Love does not compel. he doesn't show the faith down out throats, or hearts if you will).

Once you accept God, your faith does grow. Our primitive steps are like the first steps in children. As we mature, we begin to discern God in terms that make Him even greater in our eyes than we could originally imagine, and ever more difficult to describe — or conceive. At the same time, our faith leads us to prayer, fasting and good works.

[Kolokotronis]

"Does not wash with all I know about humans and their minds, spirits and psychologies."

OK

[Quix]

I'm not trying to suggest that your assertions are inauthentic, insincere etc.

And, I certainly cannot discern precisely anyone's heart attitude etc.

However, I have an extensive number of individual, couple, family group counseling hours . . . probably around 5,000 or so.

I KNOW from all that experience that all of us have varying levels of insight ABOUT OUR OWN inner values, beliefs, constructions on reality.

I KNOW that all of us humans have a real CAPACITY to LABEL many things about ourselves--to label inner states, beliefs, constructions on reality etc. QUITE ASKEW from "objective" reality that many who know us best might attest to.

Couple THAT with the certainly unconscious impact of repeated phrases . . . and I remain exceedingly skeptical that

SAYING MARY SAVE US

RESULTS IN

NOT BELIEVEING in Mary as Savior.

[Kolokotronis]

Honestly, Quix, I don't expect you to understand. As I said a few thousand posts ago, Marian Devotion isn't for Protestants, at least not most of you folks. If it were, you'd either be Orthodox, Latin, Anglican or perhaps Lutheran. I suppose I could get all sarcastic about 2000 years of Christian praxis and belief as opposed to modern psychology, but I'll stick with "OK".