'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]

I guess my English is not as clear and simple as I think.

I don't recall saying once that Hebrew was not Liturgical or that Judaism was not a Liturgical religion.

I tried to take great pains to show that Christ didn't put much stock in the liturgy thing.

apology accepted.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Kindly do not reference my posts without pinging me.

[Mad Dawg]

"THE HEART IS DECEITFULLY WICKED. WHO CAN KNOW IT?"

So your answer is, "Dawg can't but Quix can? I know better than you what you think?" Where is the Scripture that unequivocally gives "Quix," for the answer to the question "Who can know it?"

You have not been able to adduce here ONE SINGLE piece of CONCLUSIVE evidence. Not ONE. It's all impressionistic and circular. As in the naming of Churches: IF we worship Mary, then our naming of Churches proves it? But if we don't, it doesn't. That's not evidence that's bigotry plain and simple, that's assuming what you want to prove.

No, You make it sound like, after demonstrating for a long time that you have no clue what we believe -- what hyperdulia feels like from the inside -- and how different it feels from worship, that you know we don't believe it.

You say I am saying none of us has a blind spot, (which clearly I am not saying or implying) but the reality is you are saying we're all, all us RCs and Eo's as blind as bats, but that you know the thoughts of all of us.

And you never answered the "disproportion in responsibility for error" argument. You remember? We see forty-eleven gazillion different Protestant denominations. SOMEBODY erred. In the 25 years I've lived here the local Baptist church has spawned two offspring that disagree with it on doctrine or piety. So SOMEBODY's got to be wrong. Why is that not the fault of the Baptists, if errors among RC are the responsibility of our teaching?

If, perchance, you are finally able to adduce someone who truly and frankly worships Mary, that will be my fault or the RC Church's fault?

Don't you see how you are unwittingly (see, if you know what I'm doing, can I know what you're doing?) testifying to a higher expectation of righteousness from us than from the Protestants? People a are alwyas disparaging us for not living up to a standard they quite holding themselves to long ago. The poor Prots can't be held responsible for the error, heresy, or apostasy which spring up among their people all the time (how many different kinds of Episcopalian are there? how many Campbellites?), but the EO's and RC are responsible for ALL of theirs?

If we start from assuming that we worship Mary and are wrong about nearly everything, then your arguments hold together. But they do not prove one single thing. And yet when Catholics gather, we can count on Protestants gathering to defame, mock (in tecnnicolor) and slander us.

IF it's for our own good, then let's look at the fruits, okay? How many converts have come from calling us liars? How many from colored 48 point fonts? If FRUITS are the standard, lets see some benefit from gathering around and abusing those who disagree with you? This starts out as a thread about a movie but by post 9 we are being told by TOM SMEDLEY that we make Mary a goddess. All done in love of course. Except, as I say, the fruit is not only tin on the ground but it was precisely this unreasoning gratuitous hatred (remember - if you can see my heart, how can you deny that I can see yours? - not you personally, I hasten to add) that led me to re-evaluate the RC Church. A fruit, in other words, of all this "love" was to encourage me to become a Catholic. Is that the fruit you all are working for with the mockery, abuse, and slander How is that working for you?

And how well do you think either camp is doing on the whole evangelism thing? We would have been content to wring our hands over perceived insults to our Lady, but you all came thundering in and started a bar-fight. And now you're complaining because we hit back.

Well I gotta go worship Isis or Diana of the Ephesians or whoever.

---

[Dr. Eckleburg]

When in doubt, ask the Holy Spirit, not some church who might not have the right answer to begin with.

Amen.

"Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak." -- Ephesians 6:16-20

[Kolokotronis]

"Is this the early theologian who has had his letters forged, so we really don't know which letters are his?"

We know, or rather strongly suspect, that a few of the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch which have come down to us are likely forgeries. The Letters to the Theotokos, for example, were considered forgeries in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but that opinion has been changing. A couple of other letters are pretty surely fakes and certain sets of otherwise apparently authentic letters seem to have been "expanded upon" in the Middle Ages, but we have what seem to be the original shorter texts. What I have quoted from or referred to are the letters which have always been deemed authentic. I know better than to quote from questionable sources on this board, WF! :)

[Mad Dawg]

In your dreams. You called me a liar, That puts you outside civilized discourse.

[Kolokotronis]

"Now if it turns magically into his blood, why would he need to drink his own blood in the kingdom?"

It doesn't happen by "magic", though I can see and understand why some people think this. Rather, The Church teaches that it occurs by the action of the Holy Spirit. By the way, do you know where the term "Hocus Pocus" comes from? :)

[Mad Dawg]

This is true. Likewise, a priest can consecrate ordinary wheat bread and fermented grape wine and they become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I'm not talking about the kind of bread. I'm recalling that if we assume (as I would) that this was a passover meal (Dom Gregory Dix to the contrary notwithstanding) that there are different cups and different loaves throughout the meal. It is not clear to me that Jesus ate of the particular loaf he declared to be His body. That was the distinction I was drawing.

[kosta50]

I tried to take great pains to show that Christ didn't put much stock in the liturgy thing

Christ was a pious Jew. As a Jew He attended liturgical services in synagogues with regularity. I am sure he put a great deal of stock in it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I think the placement of her as sinless alone among humans makes Jesus no longer unique. She is the neck of his body, and to get to the head you must pass through the neck. For The Head to get to you, He has to come down through the neck. And they've not finished yet until such time as they've attached belief in all this to the bare-bones requirement of the possibility of one's salvation.

Excellent analogy. Perfectly squares with what is actually occurring in some misguided churches.

Why does the development of doctrine always result in moving Christ further away from His Sheep, not closer.

It's a matter of degree, I suppose. I'm reminded of Einstein's caution that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

There is correct doctrine and we are instructed to discern it and protect it. It and nothing else.

Thanks for the excerpt from Pastor Leithart. There is something very dark about disavowing the human sexuality of Mary and the priestly class, while cloyingly attending to various "relics" and artifacts. It shows a misunderstanding of matter in general, and God's gift of humanity in particular.

[Running On Empty]

In view of your every word on this post, and then looking at the post you made right after this one---if as His disciple, you "can do greater things than Jesus", then why should you deny Mary, His Mother, the same privilege?

If you have it--why couldn't she also have it? Is there a heierarchy of privileges here?

Just want to know.

[annalex]

My argument is with blue-duncan. Yes, it is not clear whether Jesus ate of the same bread He called His body either.

I would also agree that the Last Supper, while a prefigurement of the Mass, has aspects that make it distinct from the Mass: the Sacrifice of the Cross lay in the future rather than the past; Christ was present in the ordinary way and not only eucharistically, the context was a Passover Seder.

This is, by the way, the point recently made by the Pope to the New Catechumens: that it is possible to go too far in recreating the Last Supper liturgically.

[kosta50]

There are certain things written in the Bible that were for the day in which they were written, not now. It's hard to figure out sometimes which is which but I maintain that God is much more interested in my heart attitude than in my hat

God's word is eternal, not subject to fads and cultural fluctuations. I am sure He is aware that your heart knows what His word says about women in church and that you choose to dismiss it as unimportant or inapplicable.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I thought you weren't going to post to me. Please keep your word, MD. And please stop bearing false witness.

Otherwise I will be forced to view your constant trolling as intentionally contentious.

[Iscool]

This is the Protestant spin;

That's true...Because it's the Bible spin as well...

it clearly is not in the context of Matthew 18 because the body of believers is referenced separately in the preceding verse.

You are in err again...

Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

You'll notice that the 'offended' takes two or three members of the body of believers, the church with him...

In the next verse, the 'offended' brings the unresolved matter to the entire church body...

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

[annalex]

If the "church" in v. 17 is the entire body of believers, the progression is practically impossible. The only way the progression from three witnesses to the "church" can happen in practice is if a priest or a bishop is available to represent the "church", to which that figure of authority is accountable.

[AlbionGirl]

Why does the development of doctrine always result in moving Christ further away from His Sheep, not closer.

Dr. E., I meant this strictly concerning RC doctrine. Protestant doctrine does anything but place Christ further away from us. And the more I learn of early Christianity the more it looks quite a bit like Protestantism is today. There are disparate sects, and St. Paul is doing his level best to instruct but not obstruct that thing that I'm talking about when I say I want to think outside of a vice-grip. Paul does make "Everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

That I have a hard time with all doctrine stems from some convoluted experiences, and the desire to be able to approach Christ without my thoughts being pinched in a vice. That may not make much sense to you, and if so, I understand.

[Alex Murphy]

The short answer to your silly reply is NO, the Protestants are actually the proud inheritors of the Pharisees, sans liturgy.

I am increasingly of the opinion that religious debate needs some kind of corollary to Godwin's Law. Here's my idea - once a comparison is made between the 1st century Pharisees and someone's theology, the discussion is immediately finished - and whoever makes the comparison automatically "loses" whatever debate was in progress, forfeiting all points previously scored.

And since I'm "inventing" this new rule here, I get to name it. And thus, I dub this new rule the "Irving Law".

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Protestant doctrine does anything but place Christ further away from us. And the more I learn of early Christianity the more it looks quite a bit like Protestantism is today. There are disparate sects, and St. Paul is doing his level best to instruct but not obstruct that thing that I'm talking about when I say I want to think outside of a vice-grip. Paul does make "Everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

I should have caught that. Well-stated.

AG, if all believers displayed your love of Scripture and desire to know Christ risen, the world would be a better place.

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God" -- 1 John 3:1

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amy or Berlin?