'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/

[Quix]

They are objects of veneration.

Not if one were ever found to have been secreted into my house!

"As the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatised, as the Universe has agreed, as Grace has shown forth, as Truth has revealed, as falsehood has been dissolved, as Wisdom has presented, as Christ awarded, thus we declare; thus we assert, thus we preach Christ our true God, and honour His Saints in words, in writings, in thoughts, in sacrifices, in Churches, in Holy Icons; on the one hand worshiping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord; and on the other hand honouring as true servants of the same Lord of all and accordingly offering them veneration.

Sorry, that whole paragraph does not strike me IN THE LEAST as ANY justification for the practices, customs, traditions given--except for a false kind of deluding rationalization--for anything but worship of !!!!TRADITION!!!!

I see nothing Godly and nothing Scriptural and nothing truly lastingly spiritually edifying in a Godly sense in such goals, practices, customs.

I think there was a question about where do I get such an orientation, perspective--yes, in large part from the Old Testament. But not only. I think anyone tuning in with the aid of Holy Spirit to God's heart on such issues would want to avoid such because that's clearly God's heart expressed in Scripture. NO amount of traditions of men, habits, customs, rationalizations can replace GOD'S PRIORITIES AND GOD'S HEART on any matter--particularly one He stated so fiercely as He did the one about avoiding images.

Thanks for your kind questions.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "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.

Is learning Greek the only way to get an accurate reading of the Bible? While it's true that I didn't know anything about 1st century life anywhere, I don't think that hampered my being able to get the basics. At the time, I don't think I was able to handle anything where Greek could have even arguably made any difference anyway. Even now, I am unaware of how Greek could possibly lead one to one theology over another, IF read without a lens. I am more than willing to review examples, but I maintain my position that Apostolics are not the only ones in history who have been capable of understanding the Greek. From earlier discussions I have gotten the impression that only pre-disposed Apostolics have ever had the intelligence to understand the language. I have been told, in effect, that all Protestant translators throughout history are either liars or idiots. Obviously, I'm not down with that. :)

I just went to my bookshelf to see and the first Bible I ever started to read was the Revised Standard Version. It's been so many years that I can't quote a single distinct verse from it. My godmother gave it to me when I was baptized as an infant in a Methodist church. After that, the next time I stepped foot in a Methodist church was for pre-marriage counseling, as we were getting married in the Methodist church that my grandfather-in-law built in the 1920's. So the fix was in, but I didn't know anything about Methodists other than that they were Protestants. We married in our home town so family and friends could attend, but we were going to live here in St. Louis, so we never attended the church as members.

In any event, if knowing Greek is absolutely key to understanding vis-a-vis leading to one whole theology over another, then why hasn't someone done an NIV for your side??? That would seem to solve the problem. Surely there is SOME manner of expressing in English what you believe to be the complete revelation in Greek, SUCH THAT a plain reading leads to an Apostolic faith. Yet, it's 2,000 years later and NO ONE has bothered? :)

Besides, zillions of Catholics don't know a word of Greek and are just fine with their English Bibles.

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.

Well, the Reformers were already learned men, so I wouldn't compare their position to my own. I agree that you and I today look at verses we haven't read (or studied) in a long time with a certain mindset, but my whole hypothesis was based on those truly starting from scratch, like I (reasonably) did. I still think there are plenty around the world who do the same thing to this day. (I spoke earlier about the Gideon's ministry.) It just depends on what is the first exposure. My children, for example, could not make the same claim as I, since they were/are being raised in the church. However, thank God, there are still lots of adults, old and young, who are coming to whatever Christian faith even with virtually no background. Some number of those begin by just picking up a Bible and reading through it. They are whom I'm talking about.

[Forest Keeper]

First that your post is interesting ......

Well thank you, my friend. :) That's a very nice compliment.

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 available, 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.

That's interesting. In fact, just off the top of my google (umm ....., I mean head) I remember that sitz im leben has to do with time and place perspective, including personal perspective. Since I have certainly used this idea to defend Biblical interpretations I freely and fully acknowledge that it is proper to use old world context to interpret scripture. When I first read selected books from the Bible I had zero information about such context.

I suppose the trick is to try to define the universality or timelessness of any given verse IN ITS PLAIN MEANING. I'll bet that definition for many verses has changed multiple times through the ages. However, I like to think that for the very core of teachings on Christ specifically, and God generally, that the exact same meaning has survived all these years, without need of any time or cultural consideration. I think we all have to have faith that the message of Christ, and His mission, are timeless without need of extravagant interpretation by ANY side. Since you and I are both Christians, we are examples.

Of course you are right that only relatively recently has a Bible been reasonably available to (many of) the masses. We Sola Scriptura (ists?) would say that correct oral teaching still "counted" as Sola Scriptura to the extent of its faithfulness to scripture. We obviously think there was "some" error in there over the first several centuries. However, all the points of belief that make one Christian, and more, did survive and flourish in all "truly" Christian faiths.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn someday that some things I think are true are dead wrong because of sitz im leben, so I think you raise an excellent point. I would probably most expect to find that in the area of eschatology. :)

Of course, Your mileage varies, but an image I'm trying to suggest ... 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.

Adumbrate? Well, just off the top of my Free Online Dictionary (umm ....., I mean head) I remember that you are proffering a supportable and reasonable view without demanding anyone's acceptance of it as fact. (Man, you've got a good vocabulary. :) Anyway, I would respectfully disagree that partaking only of Scripture is an unbalanced diet. In the nutritional comparison, our bodies NEED nutrients from different food groups to be healthy. The supposition appears to be that we NEED Tradition in order to be healthy, i.e., that the Bible is not enough for the Christian. If true, then for spiritual health, what would you say is lacking in the Bible?

[Forest Keeper]

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.

Zero agreement on the first part and 100% agreement on this part. As Gene Wilder said: "Nice grouping!". :)

[Kolokotronis]

Quix, the passage I quoted is just a tiny part of what the Council decreed, though it is a good summation. In order to understand what the Council was doing, one has to at least read the acts and comments on the acts of the Council. Its a very long read but here is a link:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-153.htm

The next page after that title page is a comment page. About half way down there is a section called "What the Council Decreed". That comment goes into some detail about why English speaking Christians have such a hard time with what they "think" the council held. It comes down to both language and the context of the times within which the Council met. The footnotes are particularly important. Its not long at all. (FK, you might find the language and context part interesting apropos of our lens discussion)

If you have the time and read the entire acts and comments on that Council, you will need also to refer to previous council decrees. They too are on line. I think you'll find them quite scriptural.

Finally, though I sincerely recommend that commentary on "What the Council Decreed", if you want to avoid the admittedly tedious read of all the Council documents, try a read of +John Damacene "On Holy Images", sometimes called "The Holy Images". It is a supremely scriptural work laced with some delicious sarcasm and not overly long. Here's a link:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons.txt

Let me know what you think.

[Kolokotronis]

"Even now, I am unaware of how Greek could possibly lead one to one theology over another, IF read without a lens."

"Brothers of the Lord". We've been through this and multiple other examples, FK. The implications of one's interpretation of that simple phrase are fundamental to the theology of the first 1500 years of Christianity.

"I have been told, in effect, that all Protestant translators throughout history are either liars or idiots."

I haven't told you that. But I will say that Protestant translators did and do have their own positions to advance, usually in opposition to what they believed, generally incorrectly, was Romish spin.

"My godmother gave it to me when I was baptized as an infant in a Methodist church."

Always liked the Methodists; they have great hymns! :)

"In any event, if knowing Greek is absolutely key to understanding vis-a-vis leading to one whole theology over another, then why hasn't someone done an NIV for your side??? That would seem to solve the problem."

Well, there is such an NT, relatively recently done and universally acclaimed as being a miserable piece of work. The reason nothing was ever done, save into Slavonic and Arabic/Syriac, was there was no need for it. We have it in the original. Why read a translation? But given the expansion of The Church into the wider world and the fact that English is becoming the world language, its time we did have a good translation to the extent that English can handle that (see the comment on the 7th Ecumenical Council I pinged you to).

"However, thank God, there are still lots of adults, old and young, who are coming to whatever Christian faith even with virtually no background. Some number of those begin by just picking up a Bible and reading through it. They are whom I'm talking about."

Like the Ethiopian Eunuch who needed at teacher?

[fortheDeclaration]

Mary participates in the redemptive work of Christ in her unique way

Mary needed the redemptive work of Christ like anyone else.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1Tim.2:5)

[HarleyD]

What do you mean by "very close", and where can I go to see the data that lies behind this assertion?

Just Google on "Mary co-redeemer". You'll get all sorts of information both pro and con.

[fortheDeclaration]

What I said is that your church had high officals in it that believed as do the Protestants in many areas Yes, and my Church also had patriarchs who subscribed to Arain heresy, to Montanism, to Monophysitism, etc. There were always heretics in the Church. Lucas Cyril was no exception. Heresies of the Patriarch of Constantinople stud the entire 2,000 year-old Church history! Why the 20th century bore Meletius Metaxakis (1920-1923)!

And did any of those heretics get their views put forth in a major Catechism?

Thus, when you attempt to brush those views aside being 'Protestant heresies' they were in fact embraced by some of your own theologians and Greek Church Fathers Luckily the Church will always prevail over satanic attenots to destroy it.

Yes, the real church will, that is the church built on the Rock of the Lord Jesus Christ (Mat.16,1Pe.2), not phony man-made ones.(Mk.7:7)

The Longer Catechism was a major one and it was accepted as legimate by the Orthodox church. Russian Orthodox Church (the entire Orthodox Church is a ocmmunity of 14 or so independent Churches), under imperial decree, and short-lived, thank God.

Nevertheless, the Catechism was a major one, being used in a major branch of the Orthodox faith.

As for Satan and his angels, you are correct, that is one needs to separate from both the Orthodox Churches and RCC since both reject the only way to salvation, faith alone in Christ alone I would say that most Catholics and Orthodox are firmy convinced that Reformation was not God-inspired.

Yes, you are correct, but Satan and his angels know better!

[fortheDeclaration]

that works [...] of their own merit [...] can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false [Cyril Lucaris] Never heard of this author before, but that quote in itself is perfectly Catholic. To be Catholic one must acknowledge that works of free will, under grace, contribute to faith and hence to salvation; there are many ways to express it.

Faith doesn't lead to salvation, faith in the Person and work of Christ leads to salvation.

One doesn't need to add to his faith to be saved, but have the right object to put ones faith in.

Growth in faith (through the word of God), leads to fruit bearing which shows in whom one has believed (Ja.2)

[HarleyD]

But I will say that Protestant translators did and do have their own positions to advance, usually in opposition to what they believed, generally incorrectly, was Romish spin.

That is rather an odd comment considering that the Protestant Reformation started in Europe and was directed against the Church in ROME. The Orthodox supports the Church of Rome (Latin). I'm not sure how Protestants theology could be considered "Romish" when we left Rome. I think you might have us confused.

[Mad Dawg]

HarleyD, I'm thinking that to say my Church is very close to this is to make a statement which raises the anxiety level but conveys little reliable data. Yeah, some people are for it, and J2P2 seemed especially sympathetic. But I just don't know one way or another how "close" they are, and doubt there's a way to know. What do the Vegas odds-makers say?

[fortheDeclaration]

As for Satan and his angels, you are correct, that is one needs to separate from both the Orthodox Churches and RCC since both reject the only way to salvation, faith alone in Christ alone. Now why on earth would the Church switch to an unbiblical notion such as "faith alone"? Can you give me a verse that says we are saved by faith ALONE? James 2 specifically says the OPPOSITE!

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Rom.4:3-5)

James 2 is speaking of showing what you believe by works, not works contributing to salvation.

[HarleyD]

but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation ...

Sorry, but Mary in my mind does not bring about gifts of eternal salvation. She was obedient to God and was blessed by God. That's it.

In talking about great faith, Paul does not talk about Mary; instead he talks about Abraham as our example.

[HarleyD]

Didn't the church pass the Immaculate Conception thingy around 1952? Ten years before that happened I'm sure people probably said the same thing, "What makes you think the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception will take place?"

It all comes down to politics. If the Catholics get enough Cardinals to buy into it -*-POOF-*- new Canon. All they need to do is pull together some savvy writers to make it all sound legit, like the early church fathers always believed it. Heck, now-a-days they simple say it's new teaching because the early fathers couldn't grasp the concept. The Church doesn't even try to tie it to the fathers anymore.

Mary will be eventually declared co-redeptix. It just takes time. One doesn't have to be a prophet to see which ways the political winds are blowing.

[fortheDeclaration]

Never heard of [Cyril Lucas] before He was a 17th c. abomination who, embracing Calvinism, through the help of the craftiest master of lies, managed to worm his way into the Patriarchy of Constantinople like some many other satanic servants before him, and tried to change the Orthodox Church into a Protestant folly.

Well at least you guys now have a major Catechism with the truth in it so you are 'without excuse'(Rom.1).

I expect to see Cyril at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom.14:10) which is for saved people.

I expect many from the Orthodox faith who read and believed what he taught in his Catechism will be there as well.

[fortheDeclaration]

Scripture, please, for that heresy? The first two chapters of Luke, primarily. Read much?

I read in Luke that she called Christ her saviour (Lk.1:47)

She brought a sin offering (Lk.2:24)

And that Christ rebuked a woman who tried to elevate Mary and redirected the woman to the word of God (Lk.11:27-28)

[fortheDeclaration]

Of course; and indeed, if we did not have Matthew 1-1, Luke 1-2, John 2, John 19, we probably would have a difficulty developing marilogy solely on Genesis 3.

Genesis 3?

LOL!

[jo kus]

James 2 is speaking of showing what you believe by works, not works contributing to salvation.

That's not all James is saying. He says that one is not saved by faith ALONE. Thus, your theology is in opposition to the Bible itself!

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? James 2:14

So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. James 2:17

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. James 2:26

How can someone deny that faith alone does not save? It is right there! We are not saved by faith without works. Simple as that.

Regards

[jo kus]

I read in Luke that she called Christ her saviour (Lk.1:47)

She brought a sin offering (Lk.2:24)

And I read that Jesus was circumcised and then later baptized... THEN, he was tempted by satan. Later, Jesus calls God the Father "my God". Does this all mean that Jesus is not God?

We need to look at the context.

Regards