'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."

The passage (1 Timothy 2:1-5) calls for intercession done by Timothy (for example) for the king (for example) to Christ, Who is the sole mediator to God the Father. The "sole mediator", therefore, does not prohibit mediation of Timothy to Christ, but if so, then also by Mary or any other saint to Christ.

No, Paul was writing a letter. It was written to a live person (Timothy) and to other live people who might read it. It was not written to any of the departed. Paul says "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, ...". Paul is not urging the departed, he is urging live people, the audience for his letter. The assertion that this equally applies to the departed is completely fabricated by the Church. The Bible does not support it, in fact, the Bible leans against contacting the departed. Physical death is meant to be a separation. By faith, we will be reunited with our fellow Christian brothers and sisters in Christ one day. But that day isn't today. There is no logic at all to saying that since it is fine for me to ask you for prayer, it must be fine for me to pray to the departed. They are completely different things.

okay of these ‘enough’ how many could afford to buy a copy of the bible?

My thoughts exactly, kawaii. Sometimes one is "too many," and sometimes one is "enough," depends on one's fancy.

I would say outside of the clergy and physicians, very few could read enough to comprehend prose. Tax collectors had to have rudimentary reading skills, and certainly lacked resources to deepen any interest. the same is true of all professions. Outside of the reading/writing skills needed for the profession (trade), prose comprehension was outside the reach of most people, including nobility.

Sources of books were prohibited to anyone but the privileged (clergy, court advisors, architects and physicians). Sources were scarce, travel was trecherous and expensive, time-consuming, etc. Those who could read and write and who could afford tos pend ti,me reading and writing and studying didn't have to work for a living.

All in all 'enough' probbaly could be reduced from 1 to 5 % of the population, if that much. Seems like hardly enough to me.

Paul is not urging the departed, he is urging live people, the audience for his letter. The assertion that this equally applies to the departed is completely fabricated by the Church

If the Saints are alive, as we believe they are, then they are praying for us, and this expectation is not outside of the confines of the Christian faith.

But I must agree with you, FK, that we have no biblical evidence whatsoever that saints intercede on our behalf, and specifically in resposne to our prayers.

I never pray to Theotokos or other Saints. I do thank them, whether they can hear me or not, for being the role models for us to follow and for their sacrifices.

Well, apparently, our Lord thought it to be sufficient. But what does He know, right?

I don’t think your assumption in terms of mindreading what Our Christ thought about that prayer and praying otherwise to be very convincing.

Well, let’s not be too sensitive. I do know that the Lord gives us one prayer and says thus we should pray. Everything else is a conjecture or a man-made tradition.

What “assumptions”, Quix? Does the the NT have any other official prayer from God Himself?

Our Lord thought it to be sufficient.

That comes across as a mind-reading assumption that the giving of THE LORD'S PRAYER was considered by Christ to be a full, complete, thorough, total, all encompassing treatise on prayer from His perspective and that nothing additional was desired, wished, more than barely tolerable etc.

A disciple asks how we should pray. The Lord gives us ONE EXAMPLE. That's all that happened. There's nothing to suggest that the ONE EXAMPLE included all God thought, felt, desired in terms of prayer. Construing things beyond that is based on conjecture and assumption.

There is the case of Daniel praying 3 times a day and the hint/evidence that God The Father thought that was pretty good alright. No mention of the same worded OUR FATHER in the Daniel narrative.

There's a lot of recorded conversations with God in the OT. It's been construed that Prayer is a conversation with God. Why aren't those conversations offered as grounds for assumptions and doctrine, ritual similar to those fostered by the OUR FATHER prayer?

It was one example given to a specific question at a specific point in time. There's no heading billing it as the total Heavenly doctrine on prayer. There's no footnote to that effect. Assuming that there is--is--assumption. Generalizing so grandiosely based on that is at best a great hazard.

I could probably tease out some other assumption possibilities but that should do, to prove the point.

The New Testament gives us one specific prayer with the words "Thus you should pray..." No mention of any other prayer, form, length, etc. is given. The Lord's Prayer is Lord-given,. The rest are man-made. No assumptions are made and no mind reading is involved (on my side at least).

A disciple asks how we should pray. The Lord gives us ONE EXAMPLE

Now, that is an assumption. he doesn't say "For example...thus you should pray." It was a command, not an example.

There is the case of Daniel praying 3 times a day and the hint/evidence that God The Father thought that was pretty good alright. No mention of the same worded OUR FATHER in the Daniel narrative

So what? The Eastern Orthodox pray three times a day, and fast twice a week (both inherited from Judaism). Daniel couldn't have know the Lord's Prayer because it is Old Testament. God did not reveal His Prayer yet.

There's a lot of recorded conversations with God in the OT. It's been construed that Prayer is a conversation with God.

The OT also talks about sacrificing animals. The OT is only foreshadowing of Christ. Christ tells us in the Gospel how we should pray. Your argument is with Him, not with me.

It was one example given to a specific question at a specific point in time

What specific question and specific time? He was giving a sermon. He said "When you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do [i.e. blather, have "conversation" with God]; for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. Pray then in this way: Our Father..."

Seems pretty clear to me He is telling us not to waste our words making up "discourses" with God, but to pray the Lord's Prayer.

1. you should be more sad to hear that folks pray less (thus the empty temples) now than that early Christians weren’t the most literate bunch.

2. Do you have any idea the cost involved in producing a single copy of Holy Scripture at the time? There’s a reason no one even pondered the idea before Guttenburg’s printing press; it was nonsensically expensive and time consuming. That said monks labored for years (in poverty) copying Holy Scripture just to ensure that most PARISHES would have one.

If the Church spent more time distributing bibles instead of building grand cathedrals (which many now sit empty), you wouldn't need to raise this question, would you? [how many could afford to buy a copy of the bible?]

I can see how the glitter of the RCC can turn people off, myself included. Many will say the EOC is much more "humble." However, that is primarily because of the fact that the EOC was clubbered from left and right over the centuries.

At one time, Hagia Sophia stood in full glitter in Constantinople and such such bright exceptions as +John Chrysostom pressed hard for both laity and clergy to tone down their love of glitter.

But I don't see Protestant tele evangelists living a life of chastity and poverty either. Those who enjoy benefits in the RC Church do not own any of its wealth. The Prots, on the other hand, became personally wealthy by selling God.

As for your comment, I ask you: what good would be handing out bibles to a bunch of illiterate peasants? By your logic, we don't need teachers because we can all learn on our own.

There is nothing more arrogant and conceited than the Protestant notion that we personally can know better than the collective wisdom and knowledge of all the members of the church to this very day.

there are plenty of humble little Orthodox parishes but there’s a lot of huge cathedrals too and most are actually overflowing.

i’m very happy to see things like the rebuilt ‘Church of the Savior’ in Moscow, and the Cathedral of St Sava in Belgrade.

But I was also happy to see when in Russia last year a parish which the Soviets had demolished rebuilt by locals and a collection jar for passing travelers at a nearby cafe. It was in Pokrov Russia (somewhere between Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod)... I wouldn’t call the parish huge, probably medium sized, but it was packed when I stopped there traveling back to Moscow...

John wrote Revelation not Paul, and John refers to the prayers of the Saints. Did John (or any other apostle) ever refer to the saints as living as St Paul does?

No one refers to any saints as living, except +Paul. That is one of those Pauline innovations the Church resolutely rejected but never talks about.

The Book of Revelation refers to the prayers of Saints (in heaven). The author does not at any point imply that the Saints pray in response to our petitions, or that they hear our prayers.

As I wrote in post #12,324, there is simply no biblical evidence that the saints hear or respond to our prayers, but I believe with all my heart that those who prayed for us on earth would continue to do so in heaven.

So, venerating (honoring) them, loving them, kissing their icons, giving thanks to them, showing gratitude for their saintly lives and their fervent prayers, is in line with the NT witness. I find nothing wrong with that.

But I pray (as in supplication), prostrate, give glory to, worship and bow only to God, or any of His Holy Names, Father, Son, Christ, Jesus, Word, Holy Ghost/Spirit, Trinity co-essential and undivided.

I do occasionaly ask saints to intercede though never as a replacement for praying to God, simply as an extra. I posted a few official insights on this before that basically we don’t know the mechanism however that the church beleives that somehow these requests for intercessions do get to the Saints in heaven.

I find it interesting also that some Saints are said to have pretty strongly affected things on earth after their death, for instance most of St George’s feats occured after he died (the slaying of the dragon for instance).

I think in general that in veneration we’re not venerating the personhood of the saint (nor the picture/representation physically etc) but rather the Godliness of their Saintly actions; the little peice in what they did here and in heaven which is the mark of God.

The situation is changing. There are certainly the young people who come in with little idea what to do, and there’s the old babushkas who’ve been attending for years and seem to know everything. But I have seen more young people and fewer clumsy ones when attending churches in Russia. Probably more so ruraly I guess.

I see the same thing when younger folks who are in the US on a visa or recently immigrated attend.

I think in general the church should work a bit harder to make the customs of what to do when entering/leaving/worshipping clearer.

I do like that our parish has a sign on the doors noting what times one should not be entering/leaving/moving about the church/lighting candles etc.

Our priest also gave me a little pamphlet he put together once on a few of the basics, which is excellent though it was something i had to mention to him to get ahold of.

That is possible, but it is not revealed. My point is that the Saints pray for us regardless, even more so in the Church Triumphant than on earth.

Let me just say that I do not believe in miracles that are presented as some voodoo magic. The universe itself is a miracle. Life on earth is a miracle. Miracles presented as magic should not be the source of our faith (as it seems to be in the OT and the Gospels). Faith comes from God, manifested by His presence in the Creation, not magic.

There are 92 moons, maybe mnore, circling our solar system's planets. We may or may not ever visit them, but the rest of the universe exists for us to see and not touch, admire but not own. The breath-taking beauty of nature is ours to admire and to be in awe of God's Creation, to remind us of God's power, architecture and artistry. And His revelation to us is the manifestation of His love.

We can glorify Him, and Him only for all that, remembering that the blessed Saints are His creation as well.

It will take generations for the Eastern communities to be fully integrated into the Church. For exmaple, in Serbia there are more believers than ever, but different studies show that their beliefs are questionable, their knowledge of the faith revealed is rudimentary and often very flawed.

Only aout 3% of the population attend churchr egulary. Even if a church is crowded with overflow (which happens only on great feasts), it is an insignificant number compared to the rest of the population. This is not much better than, say 5-6% in Germany, where nearlym 1/3 of the population (actually 29%) considers itself atheist.

In America, a profoundly secular country if we judge it by the way of life, trends, fashions, behavior, and so on, the attendance figures are vastly inflated, especially among the Evangelicals. All one has to do is pay attention to people on a Sunday as one drives to church. The vast majority is not going to churches. That much is obvious.

In my parish, there were seven people, priest included, at the Holy Thursday vespers. On regular Sundays, perhaps 30, if that many (it's an ethnic Serbian parish, so it is not very large). On Paschal Sunday, or Christmas Eve, there were hundreds of people present.

It's a minimalist religious culture. Like those chicken-hawks who never could give up three years of their lives to serving/defending their country, they find it impossible or too burdensome to give God two hours of their precious weekned.

It's a miracle the Churech survived communism. The rest will follow naturally, in spite of everything.

true stuff. i find that with the Russians too, even amoung the orthodox folks i often hear folks profess the most ludicrous pagan ideas...

attendance at the parish we go to now is pretty steady, and its a pretty even mix of convert-children of russians who immigrated before-new russian immigrants.

pascha was definitly packed but only about 1.5 to 2 times the usual attendance. i’m surprised that with everyone standing it fills up as easily as it does, it’s not a big building but with everyone standing you’d figure on there being a lot of room.

the oca parish we used to go to (and sometimes still do... we haven’t jumped ship per se, i don’t have any problems with the other parish) typically has 2-3 times the usual attendance on big feast days.

i’ve never been in russia on a major feast day to see how attendance is affected. that said most of their parishes are accessible daily which is something i find rare here.

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.