'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/

[Kolokotronis]

"The Greek verb that D-R has "delivered" is "klomenon" (with an Omega). I cannot find it in Liddell-Scott in the time I currently have, and don't know it from memory. Jerome has it translated "tradetur", delivered or betrayed."

You're good! Here is the phrase in the mother tongue:

"Λάβετε, φάγετε, τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ σῶμα, τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κλώμενον, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν."

Κλώμενον means delivered up or handed over in the sense of as to an enemy. Here's an interesting little bit. Notice the difference, Alex, between "σομα" (body) here and "σαρχ" (flesh) elsewhere.

[1000 silverlings]

Either Mary and Jesus are both divine, having been born without sin or neither is divine. Which is it? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Kolokotronis]

"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"."

I like Irving's Law. Truth be told though, I find myself regularly self condemned as a Pharisee as I with distressing frequency find myself thanking God that I'm not like "those people"! :)

[1000 silverlings]

Lol. You're right, I had a lot on my mind earlier.

Anyway, Mary is not divine and she is not to be treated as such. She was born in sin, and you need to go to no one but God for the proof of it.

In Luke 3, He shows that she is descended from Adam, and all of Adam's descendents are born in original sin.

She herself says in Luke 1:46:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 1:47

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

[annalex]

You're good!

It is Jerome who is good. It is not the first time I notice that Young's is not of great help.

the difference, Alex, between "soma" (body) here and "sarx" (flesh) elsewhere.

Yes. In the synoptic gospels and accordingly in St. Paul the Eucharist is actually happening (mutatis mutandis), and of course it is the entire Christ that is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the eucharistic elements. In John 6, however, the dispute is on the Jews' turf so to say: their problem is with "sarx" (John 6:51-53); had Christ told them anything less startling than that, the opportunity to clarify would have been lost, -- and Christ did not want it to be lost (v 61/62).

[annalex]

condemned as a Pharisee

Indeed; the comparisons between obedience to the Church and phariseism are quite common.

Incidentally, Alex, remember another law we seemed to agree on, that Protestants should not be lumped together on the basis of their rejection of Catholicism (and by implication Orthodoxy) alone? What term would you recommend on this thread? While the topics vary: Mary and the saints, role of good works, veneration of icons, the Eucharist, -- they are all Catholic teachings. Even if I wanted to draw distinctions between Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists (listing the denominations of participants on this thread which I know) I would have no opportunity to do so.

[P-Marlowe]

MD to Dr. E: You called me a liar,,,

I musta missed that. I'm just lurking here, but I could not find any reference where Dr. E called you a liar.

Would you mind pointing out that post.

Thanks.

[TomSmedley]

by post 9 we are being told by TOM SMEDLEY that we make Mary a goddess.

Not exactly. There IS a self-aware spiritual entity "out there" in the noosphere that craves worship so desperately that it will gladly masquerade as the Angel Moroni, or the BVM, to pilfer that which God Alone should receive.

[Kolokotronis]

"In the synoptic gospels and accordingly in St. Paul the Eucharist is actually happening (mutatis mutandis), and of course it is the entire Christ that is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the eucharistic elements. In John 6, however, the dispute is on the Jews' turf so to say: their problem is with "sarx" (John 6:51-53); had Christ told them anything less startling than that, the opportunity to clarify would have been lost, -- and Christ did not want it to be lost (v 61/62)." Indeed. But the word "σαρχ" has various shades, even differences, of meaning depending on the context. At least it did as used the +Athanasius where sometimes, depending on context and even verb form, it can mean the exact same thing as "σομα". For this thread the differences are too arcane to bother with much, but if we were to get into Protestant atonement theory, the distinctions can become rather more important. Fr. George Dragas, for my money the finest Orthodox theologian in America, wrote extensively on this.

[Running On Empty]

Sadly, this has ended up being an "unwell" day for me and I won't be on the forum for a few days. It's not that I don't want to answer, it's that I'm not up to it right now.
I guess I truly am ROE at this moment.

Later.

[Ping-Pong]

Dear lady, am I then to presume that women in your church come covered, stay silent, ask their husbands at home if they do not understand something, and learn in silence and submission, as the Bible says they ought to?

I assume you are talking about 1 Corinthians 14:34 here. Peace is the subject of these verses so no one should chatter in church, women or men. It doesn't mean they aren't to take part in the church. If it did then it would negate 11:5 of this Book which lets us know that women are to teach:

5.But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

To prophesy is to teach. Women are to teach, as the men are. To shave her head would show dishonor. For her head to be covered doesn't mean a hat, scarf, etc. it means to have Christ over her.

10.For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

That power is Christ and it is for His protection against the fallen angels - the same reason a man shouldn't have long hair. They are perverted and he also needs Christ' protection.

Acts 2: 17.And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, " I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy......

18.And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Acts 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy,

We're all part of the body of Christ and all parts are necessary and should all be cherished - none more important than the other.

[Forest Keeper]

[FK to Alex:]"Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless."

This isn't even remotely true of Orthodox theology. Such dogma as exists, exists because the People of God have accepted it and lived it out, ...

Yes, I was speaking much more of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I see it as claiming and exerting authority despite what the laity may believe. On the L&E thread I posted some statistics (polls) showing the RC Church in disagreement with a majority of the laity on issues such as contraception (overwhelmingly), marriage dissolution, and (I think) clerical celibacy.

[Kolokotronis]

"On the L&E thread I posted some statistics (polls) showing the RC Church in disagreement with a majority of the laity on issues such as contraception (overwhelmingly), marriage dissolution, and (I think) clerical celibacy."

I am very surprised at the last two.

[Mad Dawg]

I wasn't tangling with you. I feared what I said had been misunderstood and I was trying to clarify. Carry on. heh heh heh

[Mad Dawg]

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

View as you like. I take it you think bearing false witness is different from lying. I don't and you have again called me a liar. And further I point out that you contacted me after you asked me not to contact you. I get the having the last word thing.... Go ahead. One free shot.

[Mad Dawg]

Was that polling world wide or just here in the US?

[Mad Dawg]

You equate being born without sin to being divine? On what basis?

[Mad Dawg]

Anyway, Mary is not divine and she is not to be treated as such.

We agree. Mary is a creature and not to be treated as a Creator. If you cannot articulate what our answer is to the "God my Savior" line is, I hope you will review the argument. Our answer, which I suspect will not satisfy you has been given many times on this and other threads.

[Mad Dawg]

It was several posts. I answered you by Freepmail.

[Mad Dawg]

IN the contraception matter it may be relevant to point out that what those laity who want to use ABC want is a CHANGE of doctrine. And we're still recovering from about 2-3 decades of lousy "Spirit of Vatican II" catechesis.