'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 don't know that I have a lot of anointed anything to say about THE LIVING STONES.

It's just that, to me, I can't conceive of God creating ANY KIND, TYPE OF LIVING STONES which would be limited, dead, static, unALIVE!

It's like the martyrs forever standing before the throne--whatever that means. As I've noted before, I used to construe that as a horrible prison. Then it dawned on me that God would not be punishing such highly honored martyrs--this would be A GREATER BLESSING SOME HOW.

What could be a greater expansiveness of blessing than those running around ruling and reigning with Christ over endless ages and countless multi-verses? Wellll, God only knows . . . but PERHAPS . . . the martyrs forever standing before The Throne can also [with supreme Heavenly-MIND-OF-CHRIST multiplexing] tune-in AT WILL to ANY CONSCIOUSNESS OF ANY CREATURE IN ANY MULTIVERSE IN ANY ASPECT/PART/LOCATION OF GOD'S CREATION.

Now, THAT could be interesting!

I suspect THE LIVING STONES will likewise not be bored, static, motionless, IN SOME SENSE, at all. Else, they'd not be LIVING in any sense that makes sense to us. And God used the words to make SOME degree of sense, to us.

[Quix]

I think in a certain way this goes back to A-G's reference to permanence and flux. For Plato, the "perfect chair" is the [permanent] model on which any chair at all is built; it is the very idea of "chairness." The "perfect chair" resides only in the mind of God: There is no "perfect chair" in physical reality, just every type of chair constructed according to the paradigm of "chairness" that resides in the mind of God, which is the permament standard of chairness that does not change. Nothing can be said to be a "chair" that does not accord with this "perfect chair" -- it would have to be something else. All physical chairs are just various executions of that one chairness paradigm. Thus the "perfect chair" paradigm is also an instance of "non-existent reality"....

Of course, you are right about "chairness."

Thus the "perfect chair" paradigm is also an instance of "non-existent reality"....

I suppose. Though part of me starts checking my wallet; looking for the door and scanning for threat whenever someone talks about 'non-existent reality.' LOL.

But I agree--many intangible constructs have a lot of usefulness. I just think that some of them get so intellecualized and pontifically . . . airy . . . as to entirely fly out the window of really practical Biblical usefulness.

All of which is to say what . . . where were we at the start of this exchange . . . MAYBE I'll go back and check by and by.

Ahhhh yes, back at THAT WHICH IS PERFECT DOESN'T CHANGE.

Which I still find to be mostly nonsense.

Kosta50 and I think at least I have somewhat moved beyond that because the better English construct turned out to be COMPLETE, FULL, FINISHED.

But assuming that there's still some Biblical usefulness to the English notion of perfect . . . I still contend that we finite souls have little to NO practical comprehension about perfection such that we could really honestly DARE to presume/assume/infer/extrapolate that

ALMIGHTY GOD--THE--ALMIGHTY GOD WE KNOW--HIS PERFECT would not include whatever varieties, aspects of change HE CHOSE. Certainly HE IS DYNAMIC, CREATIVE TO THE MAX . . . and THAT involves at least CHANGE IN HIS CREATION and thereby in HIS RELATIONSHIP with that Creation.

[kosta50]

I rejoice too that you can spend this much time to show that you believe time is a dimension.

As impressive as cosmological theories are, they are, after all, still theories. Fifty years from now, they will be as outdated as the steady-state theory is today.

I mentioned our axial rotational speed of 1K mph as an example without going into the rotational speed around the sun, or suns rotational speed around the galaxy, or the speed with which the galaxy is closing in or receding from other galaxies.

But, your elaborate presentation is most appreciated. I do have a question regarding your statement "In sum, the universe is at least 156 light years wide." Did you forget some zeros?

Also, relativity is no different than the Ptolemaic navigational method (that, in its own right is an epitome of relativity!), which can still be used to navigate, its geocentric premises notwithstanding. But, the fact is, the same method could be applied on Mars or on a comet, with correct repetitive phenomena recorded and formulated in the same way. It would give predictable and repetitive results with a high dose of confidence, which is what science is all about, right?

But science does not give truth; it merely provides working models. And working models can have any number of "dimensions" needed for the equations to give the desired answer. In fact, if you need to account for a phenomenon, invent a new "dimension" or "element," or "particle," and plug it into an equation and you're in business!

Claudius Ptolemy conveniently introduced an "egg-shaped" orbit of Mercury, "epicycles" and "equants" that neatly completed his formulae to fit the observed phenomena! Scientists do it all the time! For instance, cosmologists conveniently "add" estimated matter "needed" to solve equations. They are all estimates, assumptions and presumptions.

What we seem to see in all of creation is that everything is going in circles. We rotate around the axis, around the sun, multiple (usually double) star systems around each other, stars around the galaxy, and galaxies belonging to a local group rotate around each other, .

The whole universe could be rotating, creating a giant 'donut' as parts closer to the common center would travel faster while peripheral parts would move slower relative to each other, thus providing the perception of expansion or contraction based on spectral shifts. But my point is that such shifts do not prove that the universe is not going around in circles, nor does it disprove that there may be more than one such universe.

Cosmology also does not explain what is this vast "space" we are traversing "through," this abyss with no beginning and no end, or where it comes from. If the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang the space is really an endless "hole," and this "hole" had to predate energy and matter!

Your elaboration and "concordance" with the Genesis and cosmology brings to mind that there are two accounts of Genesis, and that the order of creation is reversed in them, with man created before plants and animals in one and after the animals and plants in the other.

Likewise, the Big Bang theory "concordance" with the Bible would have the Bible start "And God said: 'Let there be Light!'" '[Bang!] rather than "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

But, as you say, it is not important that we disagree on which science to believe or whether the Bible is "exactly the way it happened," but whether we can find the same Spirit in our hearts. The rest is our honest journey out of love for God.

[kosta50]

The Greek Fathers speak endlessly on this Love which we are to have for one another

And the NT reminds us that Love is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

[kosta50]

The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question

And a Taoist says: "Life is the way it is even if you don't understand it".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

But, your elaborate presentation is most appreciated. I do have a question regarding your statement "In sum, the universe is at least 156 light years wide." Did you forget some zeros?

LOLOL! My bad. It should have been "156 billion light years wide". Sorry about that.

Cosmology also does not explain what is this vast "space" we are traversing "through," this abyss with no beginning and no end, or where it comes from. If the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang the space is really an endless "hole," and this "hole" had to predate energy and matter!

It does speak to that. We are traveling in a space/time continuum of at least 4 dimensions (3 of space, 1 of time) - albeit you reject time as a dimension. It also asserts that space/time is created as the universe expands. Some say this is the effect of the energy/matter. Others say that energy/matter is the effect of the expansion. I hold to the latter view.

That which occupies the space between galaxies is dark energy which as an effect like negative gravity or a space/time "outdent" - as compared say to a high positive gravity area such as dark matter which occupies the center of galaxies and causes the stars to orbit, i.e. a space/time "indent." Dark energy is 70% of the critical density of the universe, dark matter is 25% and ordinary matter a meager 5%.

But, as you say, it is not important that we disagree on which science to believe or whether the Bible is "exactly the way it happened," but whether we can find the same Spirit in our hearts. The rest is our honest journey out of love for God.

And that is indeed the important part. May God always bless you, dear kosta50.

[kosta50]

monogenes -- another Greek word denoting the "first-born Son of God

And here I was, silly me, thinking all along that μονογενες meant only [mono] begotten [genes].

Wouldn't first-born imply that there may be a "second-born?"

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and question!

that said do you beleive in the branch theory. do you think that all or some christians groups are all branches of the one true church?

I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of mortal men, so to me any branches not specifically mentioned by God are irrelevant. IOW, I'm neither for nor against any such doctrine or tradition of men.

The passage which speaks of branches refers to Israel and Christianity per se:

For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. – Romans 11:16-28

[kosta50]

The price to the faithful has been much, much higher because so often now, armed with Aristotelian logic, believers demand that God must be logical

Talk about humanizing God! In order for God to be believeable He must fit our frame of mind, and "make sense." The Age of Reason is such a spiritual dead end.

[kosta50]

Of course God gave us rational minds to use them, but it does not follow that the logic our rational minds can use will allow us to understand or even come close to fully explaining even the divine economy of salvation, let alone God Himself

Exactly. Thank you Kolo.

[kosta50]

Or to put it in lay-speak, so heavenly minded we're no earthly good. LOL!

And a Russian hieromonk in a monastery told me "Kosta, we Orthodox are not of this world any longer." Now, that I can understand! :)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post!

I certainly agree that Aristotelian logic is not the instrument of choice for any valid knowledge of God. Its method requires entities about which valid propositions can be constructed. But God Himself is not such an "entity." God is not, nor can be, an "object" of an intending consciousness, which can be directly and comprehensively observed, about which valid propositional statements can be made....

For God is (strictly speaking) "non-existent reality" -- by which I mean He is not subject to the categories of space and time but is, as Plato said, "Beyond" (i.e., utterly transcendent to) the world (or Cosmos). Neither Aristotelian logic nor the scientific method can deal with this tremendous immensity.

Exactly! Very well said.

It is sad to watch Dawkins insist that God does not exist because Dawkins cannot understand Him.

It is even more sad to me when a Christian insists that God must be understandable to him. A Christian should know better than to think God could fit in a tidy little box (to use Quix's term.)

[kosta50]

And the corollary is that if something does not make sense to me, it is my carnal failing alone. Thus, I "hit the knees" begging forgiveness for my pride and listen quietly and patiently as the Spirit leads me whereever He wants me to go

Yes! Repent and He gently, and ever so lovingly, pushes us back "on track."

To quote a creat hesychastic Father, "I neither fasted, nor kept vigils, nor slept on bare floor, but, to use the Pslmist's words,'I humbled myself and God saved me.'" [Saint Symenon the New Theologian, 10th century AD)

[Alamo-Girl]

And a Russian hieromonk in a monastery told me "Kosta, we Orthodox are not of this world any longer." Now, that I can understand! :)

Me, too!

You know this is not something we discuss very often on the Religion Forum, but I'd like to see that change because this awareness of being alive in Christ while yet in the flesh is breath-taking.

And it is a subtle and beautiful part of Christ's prayer for us in John 17, before He faced the Cross. Note the tense (emphasis mine):

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. - John 17:11

[kosta50]

A belated Cristos vaskres! my friends. :) I hope you had a wonderful Pascha with your churches, families and friends

Oh and the same to you, dear FK. Christ is Risen!

[kosta50]

this awareness of being alive in Christ while yet in the flesh is breath-taking

Indeed.

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. - John 17:11

Oh, A-G...may God bless you. :)

[Alamo-Girl]

And may God bless you, dear kosta50!

[Alamo-Girl]

It may be that asymetry is necessary for A DYNAMIC flow—for anything beyond static stillness/death/deadness . . . or that may be true in all that exists THAT WE HAVE ANY PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE connection to . . . or . . .

Indeed, that may be so. I am very sure that the asymmetry is not an accident.

[Alamo-Girl]

What an outstanding post! Thank you so much for your insights!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your beautiful testimony about love and the Orthodox! No wonder so often the church of Philadelphia comes to mind when I'm having a conversation with a member of your confession.