'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/

[kosta50]

As someone who has gone on record as stating that there are errors within the translations, criticized the writings of Paul, and believe the Old Testament is mostly made up fables; how do you know that the older version is accurate and not the newer one? Certainly someone must have noticed that before.

Not really. What about the Pericope Adulterae or the (in)famous Comma Johanneum? But your question is not without merit. How do we know, for example, what the original Gospels contained? The oldest samples, sometimes called "fragments," are copies themselves and reveal almost nothing. Even the oldest fragment (more like a shred) of the NT is a copy!

The Gospel of John 18:36 - 19:7, 2nd century AD

Now, I am willing to believe that the Prophets and the Apostles were inspired. I do not believe those who copied and re-copied were.

In essence, you are suggesting that there's a possibility that the oldest bibles are "faulty" those copies made hundreds of years later were correct. Yes, of course, there is a possibility, but what is the probability that later texts would somehow be closer to the original?

I would say very, very slim. Those texts that were in the canon at one time (Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, etc.) were rejected and this rejection was made known. In the case of 1 Cor 13:3 the difference is one letter. What makes you think the scribes in those days had Unbound Bible to consult for dozens of variants? Someone made a mistake and it was multiplied without questioning it.

Most of the monks are not even priests, so their knowledge of the scriptures is not necessarily superb. They were manual copying machines, doing the same repetitive production-line work daily. I doubt they were meticulous bible scholars.

Obviously by the 5th century 1 Cor 13:3 "developed' the words "burned" but the older two bibles, from the century earlier, say "boast." I tend to believe the older ones are closer to the original. There is no commentary of any of the Fathers to this change.

But there are plenty of examples of corruption occurring in later texts (due to copying, insufficient language skills, etc.) than the other way around.

Let me give you an example: Act 9:6, the part that starts with "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do..." is not in any Greek manuscript.

Erasmus translated it into Greek from (Latin) Vulgate and passed it on as "Greek" text, his Textus Receptus, and from thence, as a "genuine" Greek source it was used by Luther for his Bible, and found its way into KJV. This is how different people corrupted the word of God.

For People who use the Bible as the alpha and omega of authority, some Protestants show an amazing lack of knowledge about it and treat it as something pristine that fell ready-made from heavens into everyone's lap.

[Quix]

True enough, Harley.

However, none of our groups is lily white on much of any issue. None of them has it 100% right on even a handfull of issues.

HOPEFULLY most of them have the bare core minimums mostly right.

[Quester]

I construe it such that Christ is Present at—and in—in some SPIRITUAL sense in The Lord’s Supper ...

But spiritual is REAL. The Protestants, it seems think tit's "symbolic" (I guess because it's not physical — unvarnished materialism).

Protestants believe that Jesus is 'spiritually' present at the Lord's Supper ... perhaps in more ways than we know.

[Forest Keeper]

Do you believe that God takes up space in a location or a dimension? How much does God weigh? How big is He? What area does He exist within this place called "heaven"? Perhaps for people who do not think much about it, heaven can be called a "place". But for theologians who take seriously the idea that God is a spirit (and spirits do not take up space), it would be better to consider heaven as a "state of existence" rather than a physical place.

I was just thinking that for a thing to exist, it must take up space in its environment, whether in our perceivable universe or elsewhere. God exists and satan exists, they do not co-exist as one entity. There is a separation. ...... We say that God is omnipresent. I take that to mean in our perceivable universe. But I don't think that applies to the realms of Heaven and hell. Is God omnipresent in hell? AG notes this scripture as showing that there is a real spatial divide between Heaven and hell:

Luke 16:26 : And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

In the Catholic faith, my understanding is that you believe that Jesus descended into hell for a time, and then LEFT, presumably forever. If that is a fair representation, then we know that God did not exist in hell, then He did, and then He didn't again. Whether that means a physical place or a plane of existence, the idea of clear separation is unmistakable. Wherever, whenever, however God exists is confined to that existence not in common with hell.

Now, on the question of how much does God weigh, that would depend on the gravity in Heaven, if any. :) However, on earth we know FOR SURE that the human soul weighs 21 grams! :)

[Quix]

David characterized God as being everywhere, even in hell, IIRC.

The gates of hell will not even prevail against The Church.

Therefore what, I don’t know . . . but I think those are interesting aspects of the whole picture.

[jo kus]

I was just thinking that for a thing to exist, it must take up space in its environment, whether in our perceivable universe or elsewhere. God exists and satan exists, they do not co-exist as one entity. There is a separation. ...... We say that God is omnipresent. I take that to mean in our perceivable universe. But I don't think that applies to the realms of Heaven and hell. Is God omnipresent in hell? AG notes this scripture as showing that there is a real spatial divide between Heaven and hell:

In the spiritual realm, it is not necessary to occupy space, because spiritual beings have no mass. They cannot occupy space, as a result. Being is not dependent upon mass or occupying space. Magnetism exists. Yet, it occupies no space or takes up no mass. It is an effect on the visible universe. In much the same way, God also effects the visible universe yet takes up no space or mass.

God is not "in" hell because hell is a state of existence WITHOUT God. One must be careful to taking Scriptures that use anthropomorphic language - like the "hands" of God, or the physical divide between heaven and hell. Just as easily, we can interpret this divide in a spiritual sense, because we will either be in God's presence or not.

In the Catholic faith, my understanding is that you believe that Jesus descended into hell for a time, and then LEFT, presumably forever.

We do not believe that Jesus descended into HELL, but Hades. He descended there to bring Adam and the righteous people of the OT period with Him to heaven. Perhaps at this point, the wicked then were cast into hell? I am not sure about what happened at that point with regards to the wicked. But Jesus didn't descend into Hell as we refer to it.

Whether that means a physical place or a plane of existence, the idea of clear separation is unmistakable. Wherever, whenever, however God exists is confined to that existence not in common with hell.

No doubt. I will go with the later, an existence. God certainly keeps Hell in existence - but He is not there, as that is what Hell means - the lack of God. Really, I can't go much more than that on the subject, as there is very little to support it. My views are based on that fact that God is spiritual and spirits do not take up space or mass.

I presume that you are joking about the soul having mass!

Regards

[annalex]

How then can his body and blood be all over the place?

...

The understanding of Scripture that when Jesus is saying "this is my body" is figurative is obviously correct.

By the same logic you can say that Jesus walked on water figuratively because there is no other time that He did it, and how could a man walk on water?

[annalex]

I've got to remember this one for the next time the RC's complain

You should remember to steer clear of all superstition, regardless of whether the Church is abused.

[annalex]

product of Aristolian logic

No, because St. Thomas Aquinas has not difficulty explaining the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist using Aristotelian logic; in fact that is the only coherent explanation ever offered. The "unvarnished materialism" is the product of the desperation that gripped Europe after the Black Death, excesses of absolute monarchies, and the growing merchant class.

[annalex]

Either the Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture or He doesn't.

The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, which produces infallible teachings some of which are contained in the Holy Scripture and some are not. The notion of Sola Scriptura is a superstition because it believes in a supernaturality of an object apart from the inspired men who produce the object.

[HarleyD]

Would you say that the Orthodox Bible, soon to be released, represents the accurate inspired word of God? Or are you going to say that the Orthodox Bible is a man-made invention based upon Orthodoxy speculation?

[Kolokotronis]

“Would you say that the Orthodox Bible, soon to be released, represents the accurate inspired word of God? Or are you going to say that the Orthodox Bible is a man-made invention based upon Orthodoxy speculation?”

The Orthodox bible has been the Byzantine text since at the latest the 4th century. I am not aware of any 21st century compilation being planned to replace it.

[betty boop]

If satan went after Christ (not knowing He is God), trying to tempt Him, what makes you think we are immune?

What if satan knew very well that Christ is God, and that is precisely the reason he "went after" Him in the first place, the primary motivating factor?

At any rate, that would be my expectation. Satan's entire mission in everlasting death is to "trash God." He already knows he "can't win." So he is determined to take down into eternal perdition with him as many of God's beloved creatures as possible, just for sheer ungrateful, ungodly, and unregenerate spite.

And if satan finds that God lives in the soul of any particular man by His Spirit and Grace, then that particular person would present an interesting target from his point of view.

And so you raised the issue of: How do we know, when in our devotions, that the Presence we experience isn't satan himself, deceiving us?

It is a very good question to bear in mind. Let us for the sake of argument allow that there are spirits effective in the ordinary world of human experience, many if not most of which bear ill will towards human beings.

That granted, still the human being has to give them a niche to slink in through before they can do any real damage. From satan's point of view, he gets the best traction out of the perpetrators of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, envy, anger, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust....

Add to that list: Spiritual pride (your recommendation); arrogance; narcissism; inordinate desire for anything that is not God....

In God alone is the Logos, Truth -- thus final authority in this world and the next.

All praise and glory be to His Holy Names!

God bless you for writing, dear kosta50!

[cornelis]

There's something pretty about that image. It reminds of a scene in Andre Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. If you haven't seen it, do youself a favor.

[metmom]

What if satan knew very well that Christ is God, and that is precisely the reason he "went after" Him in the first place, the primary motivating factor?

Exactly. If he could get Christ to break, no redemption for mankind.

[Quix]

The notion of Sola Scriptura is a superstition because it believes in a supernaturality of an object apart from the inspired men who produce the object.

= = =

WRONG.

Scripture is quite clear.

Holy Spirit produced Scripture through inspired men. He was quite up to the task. He did not fail at the task.

We believe in Scripture inspired, produced by HOLY SPIRIT through willing obedient, anointed, inspired men.

We are dealing, when speaking of Scripture and Scriptural truth—we are dealing with nothing apart from Holy Spirit’s producing Scripture through said men.

You don’t like it when you believe proties put words in your fingers. PLEASE STOP MINDREADING US AND PUTTING WORDS IN OURS, then.

[annalex]

If it were as clear as you superstitiously insist on believing, we’d have nothing to argue about.

[annalex]

A propos our discussion of works and faith, this is St. John Chrysostom's commentary on today's Gospel, "He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him":

"Is it then enough," says one, "to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life?" By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, "Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He says, "This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God" ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, "He that believes in the Son has eternal life," and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: "He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him";) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, "This by itself is eternal life," nor, "He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life," but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. And he did not say, "awaits him," but, "abides on him," that is, "shall never remove from him." For that you may not think that the "shall not see life," is a temporary death, but may believe that the punishment is continual, he has put this expression to show that it rests upon him continually.

Homily 31 on the Gospel of John

[Quix]

If it were as clear as you superstitiously insist on believing, we’d have nothing to argue about.
= = = =

Do you like it when I or someone else mentions the superstitions of the RC’s about/around praying to idols, departed saints etc. and other !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men?

[Forest Keeper]

She believed before she understood; this is the model for all believers. Belief is what we do, not what we think.

You describe a blind faith, and true faith is not blind. We both know that all manner of the eventual damned DO all kinds of "good" things. Do they get credit in God's eyes for these? How can one believe without basic understanding? That doesn't make sense to me. Mary acknowledged God at the Annunciation, but she did NOT acknowledge Jesus as God early on. She had "faith", but it was not yet in Christ. And that's no slight to her, BTW. God delivers faith to His chosen at the time He appoints. Remember, during Jesus' ministry the gentile centurion had greater faith than Mary:

Matt 8:10 : When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

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

FK: "How can you assume Mary was asking for a miracle?"

Unless you assume that Jesus traveled with a wine supply, she was. Supermarkets on every corner were not invented yet.

Jesus was being asked to solve a problem. Now, was the only possible way to solve it by miracle? I don't think so. This was wine-making country. I can't believe this was the first time that wine ran out at a wedding. What would a normal solution be? Find a neighbor, and go get his stash. I think this "could" have been handled by conventional means.

Here is an episode where Mary is an important participant, and that leads to the formation of the Church.

Mary's role here leads to the formation of the Church? What in the world is the connection? I'm sure at some time Joseph asked Jesus to help him make a table. Did that lead to the formation of the Church too? Even if you say that Mary was asking for a miracle, so did tons of people throughout His ministry. Do they get this credit also?

I mean, you turn a blind eye to aspects of the scripture your pastors tell you to be blind to. Faulty mariology is faulty Christology.

This sounds like you believe that correct mariology is a part of central and core Christianity. Is that true? If so, is there any other human upon which we must have a correct understanding to understand God? You must understand that this is another in a long line of mixed signals that we Protestants get when you say that Mary is not worshiped, yet God cannot be understood without the correct view of her. If I thought that I had to understand Mary before I could understand God, then I would ABSOLUTELY worship her. I would have to go through her to get to God. There are some who believe that position is already taken. :)