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

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

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."

I'm WAY off my game today. So just this: Water comes to me on a hot day: I'm grateful for the well, I'm grateful for the pipe, I'm grateful for the hands that lift the water to my mouth. I don't think the well loses anything by my gratitude for the pipe, or that I am proud for being grateful for my hands bringing the water to my mouth.

If, in gratitude, I dedicated myself to "serving" the pipe, by keeping it in good repair, it seems to me the Protestants would say I was insulting the well and acting like I thought the water was generated by the pipe. If I washed my hands, they'd say (it seems) that I was proud.

After a while, I just don't know how to deal with this persistent claim of knowing my intentions better than I know them.

And We are supposedly to blame for everyone who misunderstands what we say. I'd say, listen, at least they're in church and one day they might hear what is being said. My neighbor saw the hypocrisy at a local Baptist church and resolved never to go again. I've tried to talk him out of it (and NOT into my Church, just into SOME place where Jesus is praised) but to no avail, NOW I see his response a reaction to Misunderstanding the idea that the Church is, as some of you say, the society of the elect. But I'm sure you all (Not you personally FK - You're in the group of Prots I would like to have too many beers with) would give that doctrine a pass, while holding us responsible for the misunderstandings and abuse of what we teach.

I kiss flowers. I kiss trees. I can look at my pathetic attempt at a lawn and watch the life and business going on in a square foot of it and glorify all the works of the Lord and join in their song of praise.

The way my feet are healing, the mind of Lister and whoever thought up antiseptic medicine. The very smell of feet unwashed for two weeks -- and the joy of washing them! Bless ye the Lord, praise Him and Magnify Him forever.

You wanna think I'm an idolater? Because I am blown away by what God does in His creation, much less in His holy and humble men and women of heart?

Oh, Shadrach Meshach and Abednego Bless ye the Lord, Praise Him and magnify Him forever -- and those poor gloomy people over there who think that because we dance between the earth and the sky and now bow to this partner and then curtsy to that one we are committing idolatry, If they think aragula is thistles and good red wine is poison, we should pray for their healing. But under no circumstances should we stop praising the Lord.

Francis de Sales was a rich guy who became a Jesuit and ordered soldiers in his part of Switzerland to demand forced conversions using whatever means necessary.

Very typical of the counter-Reformation.

Here's what de Sales has to say in "The Catholic Controversy" regarding who controls the world...

"But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err.
I maintain that this judge is no other than the Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the interpretations and conclusions she makes with regard to the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives concerning the difficulties which are found therein. For who has ever doubted it?"

At its heart, the counter-Reformation was fought over the sovereighty of God which is just another term for Predestination. Either God elects according to His good pleasure, or men work to please God enough to get themselves elected by God.

The counter-Reformation never ended. It slithered through the Arminian camp, winded its way through European and American Protestantism and exists to this day as more of the same lie from Rome which is actually the lie from Eden -- "...and ye shall be as gods."

"Ritual performances are very pretty spectacles for silly young ladies and sillier men to gaze upon—but there is no shadow of spirit or life in them. The High Church ritual does not look like a Divine thing—on the contrary—if I stand among the throng and gaze at all its prettiness, it looks amazingly like a nursery game, or a stage play!" -- Charles Spurgeon

FK: "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 looked at the section you suggested in 11,485, thanks. That gave a few examples of Greek being better because there was no equivalent word in English. I see the same level of idea in whether Jesus had siblings, but in neither case do I see this as leading to one whole theology over another. Reformed theology survives fully in tact if the truth actually was that Jesus was an only child. Further, even if the subject is Mary, there are some points on which your theology and mine are closer together than yours is with the Catholics.

I still can't accept that only in Greek can Christianity be truly understood. Even if exact words can't be matched, I can't believe that ideas can't. Does Orthodoxy require fluency in Greek? That would surprise me. Plus, I know there is no such requirement for Catholics, and you consider them as part of the true Church. Do all of your major disagreements with the Catholics boil down to the Greek?

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.

There have been Protestant translations for as long as there have been Protestants. How can you make a wholesale charge that their positions went against their own beliefs? If you want to say that this or that translation was a work for hire to specs, that is fine, but they all couldn't have been like that. It appears you are making a general charge approaching intellectual fraud. :) I just don't buy it. I have heard from many Catholics that there are some "Catholic" translations which are good and some that are terrible. I would say the same thing about "Protestant" translations.

Like the Ethiopian Eunuch who needed a teacher?

That's not what I was talking about. The Eunuch needed help with a single difficult passage in the OT. So do I today, no big deal. Philip explained the new and easier to understand Gospel of Christ. My comments were about people today with access to both the OT and the NT. Teaching is certainly required for finer points, but the basics of faith are all right there within the four corners. I'm sure many great Christians never even learned the lesson from Isaiah that the Eunuch learned.

Sorry, I think that question, quest is chaff.

SPIRITUALITY
IS
NOT
INHERITED
!!!!!!!!
. . . . .
SPIRITUALITY
IS TRANSACTED
HEART BY HEART
DIRECTLY
WITH GOD
VIA THE BLOOD
OF JESUS
THE CHRIST
AND HIS
HOLY SPIRIT

I doubt there was much GROUP LINEAGE of protestant groups. INDIVIDUALS from a viable, valid, GODLY group likely reared at least some of their children in Godly ways regardless of the cultural circumstances. Eventually, such children would likely gather together with others of like precious faith.

Successive 'congregations' of such group types would ebb and flow with various levels of intimacy with God and one another and The Written Word, when available . . . as well as with the anointing and empowering, giftings of Holy Spirit.

GOD HAS ALWAYS HAD A REMNANT. And if Scripture is any clue, THE REMNANTS, HAVE TENDED TO BE PRESERVED

AT LEAST AS MUCH OUTSIDE CONVENTIONAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AS WITHIN--as with the 7,000 never bowed to baal group.

Organized groups have historically done a dreadful job of protecting THE FAITHFUL, THE FAITH AND/OR THE WORD.

GOD ALONE IS FAITHFUL. God alone is safe. Those seeking HIM FIRST AND FOREMOST are safest on all scores regardless of the culture and organizations around them.

The non-confrontative answer to your closing question is, I think, that we all know that WE reading the Bible need a context of God-given Faith and of prayer. We need the ecclesia to have preserved and handed down the Scriptures to us. And whether or not we, strictly speaking, "need" them, we certainly profit from the scholars and their tools, dictionaries, concordances, etc.

I'm with you here. Faith and prayer are the context within which to read scripture. The Church's formalization of the Canon was clearly a great thing. And, we all profit from correct teaching and tools.

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

Thanks for the hymn, it is beautiful. I think I know what you mean about the music, although I almost never get to sing hymns. :) I usually have about 12 feet of metal pipe attached to my face during the hymns (trombone), so I don't even know the words by heart to most of them. Nevertheless I do have the appreciation.

I have to admit that I'm not exactly sure how to evaluate the comparison. There are plenty of scriptures that I have and do read which I don't get on the first reading. Naturally, one of the things I do is to seek out sources that I trust for clarification. Nothing wrong with that for either of us. I think the original idea was whether scripture alone was a "balanced diet", and my first thought was along the lines of getting everything needed for salvation, rather than understanding every Biblical point. So, we're probably not that far away since I will readily agree that teaching is both good and Biblical.

You all have good concerns about idolatry and a diversion of attention away from GOd. But (it's like) I can't hear you because I am dancing before the Lord. ...

Hmmm. :) Well, I'm glad that your faith is vibrant. That's the way it is supposed to be. And, I am glad for your testimony that your focus always leads back to God in gratitude.

So while part of the fuel of our feelings when people diss our Lady is, "Uh, That's my mother you're taking about, watch your mouth!" Another part is frustration that because we dance to the flower, our friends rebuked us for dancing away from the Lord.

That's interesting. A kind of funny thing is that we don't even feel like we are dissing her. :) In fact, we believe we are sort of sticking up for her. It reminds me of seeing Billy Graham do interviews with TV media. The interviewer usually starts out the intro by giving a laundry list of his accomplishments, and of course he is always polite. But sometimes, when the interviewer goes on for too long (just being nice), Billy almost gets annoyed. He doesn't want that. He would be the first one to tell you that he was nothing more than a simple country preacher who was a sinner. I see Jesus in that. So, in my little head I guess I project that kind of humility onto Mary.

And if I were to say what the Bible lacked in a set of doctrinal propositions, I think it would be to miss the point. It is not disrespect to rhythm to say it lacks melody and no disrespect to melody to point out its rhythm (or lack thereof). I think likewise the Church needs the Bible, clearly. But the Bible needs the Church.

I suppose I would say that all the rhythms, melodies, harmonies, all of it, are all sitting right there in the scripture. God will reveal the tunes to us during our lives as He sees fit. That's one beauty of sanctification. There's always something new, and it's always beautiful.

I still can't accept that only in Greek can Christianity be truly understood

FK, I am jumping in on this because I hope I can clarify this. Your question is (or rather seems) perfectly justified, as least logically speaking.

Unfortunately, logic will not lead you to the correct answer. The reason for this is that English, as is true of most other languages, is not a liturgical language.

What does that mean? It mean that it is not structurally developed enough to express certain concepts, and tense, as a liturgical language can. Perhaps it can, but in a roundabout way that leads to awkward sentences and difficult reading.

Reading the NT from cover to cover will not lead to correct interpretation because it is read out of context. The Holy Tradition, which has maintained scriptural interpretation in the context of pertinent times and cultures when the New Testament was written (not forgetting the political realities as well!), inlcuding the attitudes and perceptions, colloquialisms and so on, avoids the pitfalls of interpreting the text through the lens of modernism, relativism and other isms that are current in our cultural and temporal consciousness.

Latin was the first liturgical language after Hebrew and Greek to be used. It is, in fact, derived from Greek. It is capable of forming sentence structures and tense as it is in Greek. And even though it was carefully and meticulously engineered from Greek for a word-by-word equivalency, the emergence of the filioque clause and Latin adherence to is prima facie evidence that Latin is at best an imitation of Greek.

Latin (and English especially) is completely incapable of conveying the same concept involved in the Greek term used for the procession of the Spirit (ekpouremai), which implies an origin. The Latin word procedere can mean originating or not originating from something. This small difference has been one of the factors that resulted in the unfortunate Schism in the 11th century and still exists.

Saint Augustine, whose Greek was not very good, is known to have made a major error in translating Genesis involving the Latin word simul, leading to the idea that "he who lives in eternity, created the world at once.

Brothers (Saints) Cyril and Methodius from Thessaloniki, Greece, lived among the many newly arrived Slavic inhabitants and learned Old Slavonic language.

Using their native Greek as the structure, they filled it in with a tailor-made Church Slavonic they developed for liturgical use (they intended it for the Moravian Slavs in what is now the Czech Republic, as at the end of the 9th century all Slavic tribes still spoke the same language without much differentiation).

Thus, although the Church Slavonic is distinctly South Slavic in origin, it was perfectly understood by all Slavic tribes at that time.

Church Slavonic (CS) was, like Latin, developed straight out of Greek with the same ability the Greek language has to form complex words and meanings. That also eliminated any need to borrow foreign words as is the case with English (which consists of numerous foreign words).

CS also has the same tense structures found in Greek, and such important differentiations as plural and singular 'you.' Thus when one reads a liturgical text in one of the languages sophisticated enough to be liturgical the tense and the singular/plural and other concepts are never lost.

In CS the concept of brothers/cousins is maintained by the similar cultural reality that exists to this day, as calling first cousins 'brothers' or 'sisters' is perfectly normal and has a very (genetically) protective function since one does not marry his 'siblings' (and first cousins are "blood" siblings by definition).

Such words as "rabbi" are translated into teacher, words such as Orthodox are exact equivalent of the Greek orthodo+doxa (pravo-slaviye), the right-praise, right-glory. The word 'catholic' is translated (sobornost) so that no one confuses it with "Roman Catholic," and the word to 'proceed' in the Creed is without confusion one that includes the origin AND conveys an eternal process (ishodyashchago), based on the tense used, so no confusion can result from it.

In fact, NT Greek and CS is a word-by-word correct-tense translation equivalency. But no one speak or ever spoke Church Slavonic. It is a liturgical language, which is still very much intelligible to Southern and Eastern Slavs whose languages have retained many of the CS words and concepts.

If Latin is once removed from Greek, English is twice removed. It often requires descriptive translations that still don't capture the original concept — take Theotokos (Bogoroditsa in CS). German is in the same category as English. German was a non-literary language until Luther's time, when it was born out of biblical German Luther created.

Thus, there is no doubt that reading something in the original is the only way to fully grasp it. Japanese is one of those languages, like Chinese, which uses "characters" or pictures to form audio-visual words. Thus the Japanese words for volcano (ka-zan) is a combination of the character fire and a character for mountain (i.e. fire-mountain). Not all words are that simple. Many include 'radicals' that are part of the whole small story in one character. Thus, in a kabuki theater you can have two actors with equivalent names (Japanese alphabet has 5,000 characters and only 150 pronunciations, so there are many same-sounding characters), but different meaning attached to them through different characters.

Thus, Japanese screen writers have an additional degree of freedom, or linguistic dimension, which the alphabet-based languages don't have: they can create two people with the same name, but only when you see their names written out in Chinese Characters (or kan-ji) can you not only tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, but you may be able to find out a lot more about them just based on the characters chosen!

Thus, it is obvious that such literary dimension cannot be translated into any European language and that the only way to capture the meaning and the drama of the literary piece is to read it in the original.

Judaism is also very specific in that respect. Judaism, in addition to words also has numerical meanings of the words, as Hebrew numbers are simply parts of the Hebrew script. naturally, once a Hebrew words is translated into koine Greek, for example, it loses the numerical value (which is often important!), even though ancient Greek also used alphabetic letters as numbers (a custom familiar in the west which still uses Latin numbering system, i.e. III, IV, VIII, etc.), because the letters do not have the same numerical value, quantity, and order in Greek as they do in Hebrew.

So, to put is simply: yes, the only complete way to understand Christianity is to be fluent in biblical Greek.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.