'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/

[P-Marlowe]

It seems to me that if the baby Jesus just "popped" into Mary's womb, then there wouldn't be any talk of Mary "conceiving".

If Mary's DNA were not present in Jesus, then Jesus could not be the promised Messiah, since God had promised that through Abraham's seed all the nations would be blessed. If Jesus were not a literal descendant of Abraham, then either that prophecy would be false or Jesus would not be the Messiah.

Take your pick.

[jo kus]

I have been called a Nestorian, A Sabellian, I think even an Arian.

If true, they are not personal attacks. They are philosophical statements of what you believe - or what others think you believe. I am an orthodox Catholic. Someone calling me that is merely placing my philosophical and religious beliefs into a charecterization for their own needs. Thus, the next time a person talks to me, they have an idea where I stand, knowing where an "orthodox Catholic" generally stands. When someone calls you a Nestorian, they understand that you believe that Mary is the Mother of Christ, not the Mother of God.

I have not read the "great pains" you have taken to spell out your beliefs. I have not really followed this thread a lot - only when I am personally addressed or when someone pings me because they desire my feedback. When you say you believe that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but not God, by definition, you place yourself in the camp of father Nestorius. As Kolokotronis suggested, you might want to read the Council of Ephesus' ruling on WHY they call Mary the Mother of God, rather than the Mother of Christ. I realize it COULD lead one to think that Mary gave birth to God. However, when properly stated, truth is better. We could certainly delve into many Christian beliefs that COULD be taken the wrong way - but we STILL profess them nonetheless. Trinity is one example that sticks out in my mind. Just because it is a difficult theological concept doesn't mean we ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist. Our understanding of Trinity has a lot to do with what we believe God is Himself.

I know from the minutes of the council itself what the true meaning is - but the term is not a good one and was made in a reactionary fashion.

That may be so. If you are familiar with the concept of "development of doctrine", then you know that IF the Church struggles with the definition given at a Council, later Church Councils or Popes will clarify what the Church meant years ago by a now-confusing definition. The men of 400 had different philosophical paradigms (such as a background of Greek philosophy that we don't necessarily hold to) than we do. To speak to the people of 2006, it may become necessary to explain what "Mother of God" means. If the Church sees excessive divisiveness over the term, I am sure she would. But for the time being, people apparently do not think that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of the Logos.

If one calls her what the Bible calls her, Mother of Jesus; then the Christology takes care of itself.

Hardly! WHY do you think later Christians discussed such issues? For heaven's sake, even in Scriptures themselves, we see people disagreeing on WHO Jesus Christ was! Have you not read 1 John? Are you familiar with Docetism? The reason why WE discuss such issues is because Scriptures are NOT crystal clear. If they were, this would be a dead topic and very little would be discussed on FR! We Catholics are NOT being purposely intransigent. We believe that the Church has taught "x" and we hold to it because that is our paradigm of interpreting Scriptures. If the paradigm didn't make Scriptural sense, we wouldn't hold to it, because we believe that the Bible is the Word of God AND so is Apostolic Tradition. How can they disagree? You are going to have to accept that there are other ways of interpreting the book we call "the Bible".

Regards

[jo kus]

What does Mary having sex after the incarnation say about anything?

This is a unique situation and has nothing to do with the sanctity of Marriage. The virginity of Mary not only expresses the singular and sublime work of God in the incarnation (and the vessel He worked through), but also expresses something about the Church itself, since Mary and the Church are interwoven throughout Scriptures. As I have said here before, what the Church says about itself can also, in a spiritual sense, be said about Mary. Thus, the idea that Mary REMAINED totally committed to God says something about the Bride of Christ.

Regards

[Blogger]

I read the why and understand the why. I've also explained why I object to her being called Mother of God. My objection has to do with God's eternal pre-existence to Mary and the non-biblical nature of the title. Of course Christ was God in her womb. But she did not beget God. Jesus was God before during and after the incarnation. I am not denying the deity of Christ, nor the unity of His Godhood with His manhood. I just find the term "Mother of God" misleading. When it needs to be explained so much, it isn't clear on the surface. The Bible calls her the Mother of Jesus. That's where I take my stand, and then explain who Jesus Is, was and evermore shall be.

I do not hold Mary as any more holy than the Bible depicts her to be, though I do respect her for who she was - blessed among women and the Mother of Jesus.

[D-fendr]

I think I'll title that "Blogger's 95 Theses" and be off to my Diet of Worms.


Happy Advent!

[blue-duncan]

"So what does Mary having sex tell you about the Incarnation?"

I think the scriptures are pretty clear that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after the birth of Jesus. I think they are also clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that he was raised as a normal child in the family. Luke says He "grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom," and "He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." Hebrews says, "He learned obedience by the things which He suffered" and "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

This a description of someone who has a normal upbringing. He has undergone all of the normal trials that a family, including siblings, and the relationships of His trade, would impose upon Him. I don't think He learned, grew, and suffered in the abstract, but experienced all of the vicissitudes of life, just as everyman did. He could not have attracted rugged men like fishermen, business men like tax collectors or intellectuals like religious leaders and Paul, if they were not convinced that He was a "real" man.

[Blogger]

Nevermind that the concept is unbiblical.

Catholic Doctrine: Mary never sinned.
Biblical Doctrine: Romans 3
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Biblical Statement from Mary:
Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.


Catholic Doctrine: Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children
Biblical Statement:
Matthew 1
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

Furthermore, Cross-referencing Luke 2 with Leviticus 12 shows that Mary was considered unclean after the birth of her son and brought a sacrifice to the temple in order to atone for herself. If she were sinless, this would have not only been a fruitless exercise but would have been blood unnecessarily spilt.

[D-fendr]

I agree very much with your point on iconography. In our little group, we had a presentation of icons and iconography.

I think this goes closely with the western contemplative tradition and it could also be an area to bring East and West closer together.

thanks for your post...

[adiaireton8]

I realize it COULD lead one to think that Mary gave birth to God.

If you are an "orthodox Catholic", then you agree that Mary DID give birth to God.

-A8

[Quester]

Recall that the brothers mentioned in the gospels ... were late-comers to the party.

I don't see how that effects what Jude wrote years after the resurrection. As a matter of fact, it would give more force to his writings by making the more direct claim (if true).

I will grant that your analysis is a possibility.

However, I believe that it is just as reasonable ... that those related to Jesus ... would be hesitant to be seen as claiming any legitimacy ... based upon that relatedness.

You, in fact, see the same thing with John the Baptist.

Even though Jesus was his cousin, you never see John mentioning that.

[HarleyD]

No, you are doing the same thing I talked about in #2063...

I don't believe what you "pointed out" in post #2063 addresses the issue. There is no "sola scriptura" lens here. It comes down to what you, A8, want to personally believe. It is YOUR interpretation that the Church is the guiding force and so you are will to submit to the Church decrees. What you base this decision on I don't know.

[Quester]

Certainly there was ample opportunity for the Apostles to include such a title in their writings ...

Quite honestly, our knowledge of God develops over time as we pore over His Word (whether oral or written). Did the Patriarchs understand everything God told them? I contend that the Apostles did not KNOW everything about God - and that the Spirit continues to reveal more about Himself through the Apostolic teachings already given.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree (or agree) that our knowledge of God has increased beyond that of the Apostles.

What is a concern is when the church of God requires that these developed beliefs must be accepted by christians ... to be in good standing with the Church.

In other words ... the bar is continually being raised ... and it is much higher now ... than what Christ originally established.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life.

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

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Oh, I never intended to dismiss His divine nature, I just meant to distinguish it against His human nature. I don't think it subtracts anything from Christ or Mary if the pregnancy was as it goes with us, and if Mary felt normal birth pains. Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side."

Oh, FK, no, no, no! That's heresy. Its very, very close to Arianism.

Uh-oh. :) I'm almost sure that whatever you are worried about I don't actually believe. I must just be clumsy about what I am saying. If it helps, I fully agree with everything in the quote you posted from +Gregory of Sinai. :) What is sounding off the sirens?

"The Word" was never born. Jesus the Christ was born. We all agree these are both true. I'm just acknowledging that distinction. When Jesus literally forgives sin, or performs miracles, those acts are associated with His divine nature or self. When Jesus prays, that act is associated with His human nature or self. Both natures and "selves" are fully contained and united within the one man Jesus Christ. I don't know why that would be controversial.

I looked up Arianism and found nothing appealing in it at all. I also couldn't discern why someone might think I did believe in it. :)

[jo kus]

Jesus was God before during and after the incarnation.

Well, the person who "BECAME" Jesus was God "before" the Incarnation, but the resulting Hypostatic Union between God's Nature and ours, which resulted in Jesus, was technically not God before hand because what we know as Jesus didn't exist yet. The Logos, the Word of God, did not possess a human nature, so there was no "Jesus Christ". The result of the Incarnation is Jesus, which did NOT pre-exist Mary. Thus, "Jesus" did not pre-exist Mary. When we say "Jesus", we are referring to the Incarnated God, not His state of existence "before".

On the other hand, note, I place terms of time in quotes because I am speaking humanly. In God's "time", there is no past or future, only NOW. What God "was", He currently "is". Somehow, then, the Christ ALWAYS exists, since God transcends time.

I just find the term "Mother of God" misleading.

It is a term that clarifies who Christ was/is. Mary was not merely the mother of the Messiah. Stopping there avoids the implications of the Incarnation and the Hypostatic Union. While you may say you understand fully who Christ is without the title for Mary, I think that is double speak; saying one thing and meaning something else. We say what we mean. And thus, Mary IS the MOTHER OF GOD.

I do not hold Mary as any more holy than the Bible depicts her to be, though I do respect her for who she was - blessed among women and the Mother of Jesus.

Everything that Mary was is a result of God Himself. Enjoy His creation of Mary! Would you throw away the greatest plate of food put in front of you because it is "too good"? We honor God's greatest work when we honor Mary. We merely are doing what God is doing - and what God commands us to do (ALL generations will call "me" blessed).

Regards

[adiaireton8]

What is sounding off the sirens?

This is what is sounding off the sirens:

"Since divine Christ was never born . . . "

And this:

"The Word" was never born.

And this:

Both natures and "selves" . . .

That's Nestorianism.

-A8

[jo kus]

I think they are also clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that he was raised as a normal child in the family.

Where does Scripture actually say that? You are presuming that because people in the 21st century cannot think of anything but sex, then people 2000 years ago must have had the same ideas on virginity. Thus, you make the leap of faith that Mary HAD to have had sex and any brother of Christ MUST have been a child of Mary. All presumption based on your current ideas of how marriage and society works TODAY.

This a description of someone who has a normal upbringing. He has undergone all of the normal trials that a family, including siblings, and the relationships of His trade, would impose upon Him.

So being an only child is NOT normal? If a one is the sole child in a house, that person is NOT human and has not experienced human life? Wow...

I don't think He learned, grew, and suffered in the abstract, but experienced all of the vicissitudes of life, just as everyman did.

Most certainly. But it doesn't follow that Christ experienced EVERYTHING that humans went through. I don't recall the Bible saying Christ was pregnant. But there you have it - a perfectly human thing that He didn't directly experience. We can also add having blood siblings to the list of things Christ didn't experience. This doesn't make Him any less human, just like you are not less human for not giving birth to a child (presuming you are a man)

Regards

[jo kus]

Catholic Doctrine: Mary never sinned. Biblical Doctrine: Romans 3

Oh brother. If I had a dollar for every Protestant who misunderstood Romans 3...

It is taken out of context, and that is crystal clear when we go to where Paul was quoting, the Psalms of David, in where the Psalms ALSO talk about RIGHTEOUS people who follow God. In a nutshell, Romans 3 is talking about WICKED people - and in context, wicked JEWS. Merely being a Jew didn't make one righteous. The Jewish dietary laws and circumcision didn't make one righteous, but faith in God, which even the GENTILES could have. Thus, one chapter prior, Paul refutes the idea that ALL men are wicked.

Furthermore, Cross-referencing Luke 2 with Leviticus 12 shows that Mary was considered unclean after the birth of her son and brought a sacrifice to the temple in order to atone for herself. If she were sinless, this would have not only been a fruitless exercise but would have been blood unnecessarily spilt.

So why did Jesus get circumcised and baptized by John??? Because He needed to repent of His sins? Because He needed to become a child of God??? Have you ever considered that people do things out of love, not out of requirement? Once you can wrap your mind around that concept, you will come to understand Catholicism and God's action in the world. All is done out of love.

Regards

[Blogger]

Surely you're not going to start an argument over Jesus's eternal pre-existance? He was the Alpha and Omega, was at Creation, and was a Theophany several times in the Old Testament.

He is not a nature but a person. That person, the 2nd person of the trinity, whose name means Jehovah Saves and God with us was eternally preexistent to Mary.

His human body in the form of that which passed through Mary's womb did not (though he apparently took on human forms earlier in Scripture as theophanies. Or at least anthromorphic forms.)

And I understand what you all mean by "Mother of God." I still object to the term for the reasons before stated.

I reject Marian theology that finds its origin outside of Scripture because it is anti-Scriptural.

[Blogger]

Circumcision and Baptism were both PICTURES. Circumcision showed Israel's covenant with God. Baptism showed ones repentance. Baptism does NOT make one a child of God. Accepting God's gift through Jesus Christ does.

The Law of Moses specifically called the purification (which Mary had to undergo) a means of atonement.

You are massively confused on the book of Romans. Those evil Joooooos. All means all, buddy. And newsflash, that includes you.

[jo kus]

If you are an "orthodox Catholic", then you agree that Mary DID give birth to God.

Of course! But we have to be careful, because people can misunderstand that to mean Mary gave birth to God's Divinity. That certainly will not do.

Regards