'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/

[blue-duncan]

"P-Marlowe, you just stated that Incarnate Logos is not God! Lord have mercy!"

It was not P-M that said that. If you read the whole statement you will find that what is said it was not God, i.e. the God head, but the second person of the trinity, and then not His divine nature, but His human nature.

[kosta50]

I think (I hope) that by 'God' he meant more specifically the "Trinity". I don't think He was intending to deny the deity of the Logos. I think he just wasn't as specific and careful as he could have been

I hope so too, A8. It was actually blue-duncan not P-Marlowe, and my apologies to P-Marlowe again for mistaking blue-duncan's statement as P-Marlowe's.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, kosta.

What I'm looking for here is not a genetic or embryological explanation for Christ's Incarnation, which was miraculous and beyond comprehension. But --- I'm just musing about that "seed of a woman" part.

I read an Orthodox book called "Mary, the Untrodden Threshhold" (or "Portal"?) (sorry, I can't seem to find it now, cluttered house~) which said that from all the generations from Adam & Eve to Joachim and Anna, God was preparing "pure seed" for the coming of the Messiah. Gregory Palamas says something like that, too.

I'm not forming any conclusions here. I'm just musing about what it means. "Pure seed." "The seed of the woman."

You guys got any Isaac-the-Syrian type poetry on this?

And a Merry Christmas to all!

[Kolokotronis]

"Now the Word of God in His man's nature was not like that; for He was not bound to His body, but rather was Himself wielding it, so that He was not only in it, but was actually in everything, and while external to the universe, abode in His Father only. And this was the wonderful thing that He was at once walking as man, and as the Word was quickening all things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So that not even when the virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the body was [His glory] dulled; but, on the contrary, He sanctified the body also. For not even by being in the universe does He share in its nature, but all things, on the contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him." +Athanasius, On the Incarnation of The Word

The final end of Orthodoxy is pure knowledge of the two dogmas of faith - the Trinity and the Duality; to contemplate and know the Trinity as indivisible and yet not merged together; to know the Duality as the two natures of Christ joined in one person - that is, to know and to profess one's faith in the Son of God both before incarnation, and after incarnation, to praise Him in His two natures and wills unmerged, the one Divine and the other human. +Gregory of Sinai

"Trinity is simple unity; it is not merged together - it is three in one. The One three-hypostatical God has the three hypostases perfectly distinct in Himself." +Gregory of Sinai

"The purpose of the incarnate economy of God the Word, which is proclaimed by all the divine scriptures and which we read but do not understand, is surely summed up by saying that He has shared in what was ours to let us share in what was His. The Son of God became the Son of Man in order to make us men the sons of God. By grace He lifts up our race to what He is by nature. He gives birth to us from on high in the Holy Spirit, and then straightway leads us into the kingdom of heaven; or rather, He gives us the grace to have this kingdom within us. We therefore have more than just the hope of entering here; we really possess it as we cry out: 'Our life is hidden with Christ in God.'" +Symeon the New Theologian

BD, The Blessed Mother is, "as the prophets beheld, as the Apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the Teachers have dogmatised, as the Universe has agreed, as Grace has shown forth, as Truth has revealed, as falsehood has been dissolved, as Wisdom has presented, as Christ awarded, thus we declare; thus we assert,..." most certainly the Most Holy Theotokos.

A Blessed Feast of the Nativity to you all.

[kosta50]

It was not P-M that said that. If you read the whole statement you will find that what is said it was not God, i.e. the God head, but the second person of the trinity, and then not His divine nature, but His human nature

You said "the second person of the Trinity that assumed human nature, body and soul." The 2nd Person of the Holy terinity who took human nature did not cease to be God. Holy Trinity is God. Father is God. Son is God, Holy Spirit is God. You are re-defining God as being only the Holy Trinity.

That means that all three Hypostates are somehow "lesser" than "complete" God, or that God is a "compound" of three divine "ingredients" that, combined in the Godhead "make" God.

[kosta50]

Hey, it's the blessed Nativity. Rather than argue we should all be singing Christ is born! Glorify Him!

[Kolokotronis]

"You guys got any Isaac-the-Syrian type poetry on this?"

How about this?

"Joseph was amazed as he saw what was supernatural. He understood, O Virgin, the rain upon the fleece In thy conception without seed. And he understood the bush that burned without fire and was unconsumed, And Aaron's rod, which blossomed. Indeed, thy betrothed and guardian cried out to the priests: "A virgin gives birth, and after the birth remains a virgin."

and this:

"The Virgin today gives birth to the superessential One, And the earth proffers the cave to the unapproachable One. Angels with the shepherds sing song of praise; The Magi, with the star to guide pursue their way. For us there has been born, A newborn babe, the God before time."

and this:

"The vine which produced the unfertilized fruit carried It as though in the encircling arms of the branches, and said: 'Thou, my fruit, my life, By Whom I am known as I am and was. Thou art my God. As I behold the seal of my virginity unbroken, I proclaim Thee the immutable Word become flesh. I know no seed; I know Thee as one who delivers from corruption; For I am pure after having Thee as issue from me; For Thou hast left my womb as Thou hast found it; Thou hast kept it safe. For this reason the whole creation rejoices with me, crying: Mary, full of grace.'"

All the foregoing from +Romanos the Melodist (a good Syrian boy!).

[jo kus]

However, nobody comes to the Father unless the Spirit draws him, and of all that the Father gives Christ he will lose nothing. The very faith to believe is a fruit of the Spirit of God in our lives, for our nature will give us an inclination to turn from God, not to Him.

That goes without saying. No one can come to the Father unless previously drawn.

We are much closer together on man's righteousness than one would imagine. But I am "Calvinistic" (non hyper-Cal) in my view of how man fits into the equation.

I hope so. But my understanding of the 'Calvinistic" view is that man really has no input in the matter. Thus, the idea that man is totally dead and God picks and chooses for His own reasons whom He will send His Spirit to, refusing to send it to others. I personally disagree with this concept, as it makes perseverance, repentance, and obedience a moot point. Certainly we can do none of these without God. But to say that God does it all makes a mockery of Final Judgment.

Regards

[jo kus]

To be accurate, she was the bearer of the Logos, the Word, that became flesh, not God.

Would you say that God is one? Or do you think there are there three separate beings, Father, Son and Spirit? What One Person does, the rest are also present and doing. Jesus Himself says that when He says He can only do what the Father is doing. Thus, Mary can be properly called "Theotokos" because she bore the ENTIRE GODHEAD. The Logos is not "part" of God. He is FULLY God without any lacking or missing of part of the Godhead. Thus, the Word is FULLY God - and Mary bore God.

I agree with your second paragraph.

Regards

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you! I ain't arguin'! I'm glorifyin'!

Rejoice (x40)

[blue-duncan]

"You are re-defining God as being only the Holy Trinity"

The church proclaims, "God in three persons". My post affirms that and that Jesus is fully God in the undivided divine essence, however there is a certain order in subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being as well as certain personal attributes that distinguish the three persons of the trinity. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from eternity. There is a subordination in respect to order and relationship, a logical order of derivation, but not to any priority of time or essential dignity. The divine essence is not an independent existence alongside the three persons.

[blue-duncan]

"Thus, Mary can be properly called "Theotokos" because she bore the ENTIRE GODHEAD"

No, the scripture is clear that the Father sent the Son. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not become flesh. What you are proposing is a form of modalism, somewhat like the "Jesus Only" pentecostals.

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

[blue-duncan]

"Rather than argue we should all be singing
Christ is born! Glorify Him!"

You are right Kosta. Forgive me for sounding argumentative on this most blessed evening. Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year both spiritually and in all that your hands turn to.

Howard

[adiaireton8]

If you have any ideas on this. would you like to speculate why it says in Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed..." thus, oddly when you come to think of it, identifying the coming Messiah with the seed of the woman, and not with Adam? Of course Jesus is Adam's natural descendant ("son of Adam still Thou art, Savior to our race") but doesn't God do something counter-intuitive there, taunting the Serpent to the effect that the woman's seed would defeat him?

I agree. It is fitting that iSHaH (Hebrew: woman, lit. from man) who was taken from the first AaDaM ("bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"), and who was deceived by the evil one, and by whom the first man fell, should be that from whom the second man was taken (flesh of her flesh) who crushes the reign of the evil one, and thereby makes righteous the second AaDaM. In that way she who was the instrument of Satan by which AaDaM lost righteousness is she who is the instrument of God by which Satan is crushed and the righteousness of AaDaM is restored.

If God had taken Mary's rib, Jesus would not have been her seed, her son. (Eve was not Adam's daughter.) God took Mary's seed, for only in that way could she be truly His natural mother. In taking her seed to Himself in the hypostatic union, He truly became her seed. Did Moses know that women have eggs? Probably not. But these are God-inspired words, and they have layers of meaning. The most obvious meaning is the offspring of the woman, particularly Christ. But deeper still, that offspring includes all those in Christ, including you and I. There is enmity between us on the one hand, and those on the other hand whom Jesus described as having the devil as their father (John 8:44).

It is true that we should not think that "seed of the woman" means "ovum of the woman". But, "seed of the woman" implies something about the relation between the woman and the offspring to whom it refers, namely, that this offspring is generated from her natural reproductive system, just as a certain kind of seed comes from a plant, and as a certain kind of seed comes from a man's reproductive system. Seed is the natural product of living organisms; it develops naturally and organically from our bodies. And so it was with Christ -- the Logos is the Son of the Father but also the true seed of the woman. The child conceived in her womb was truly and genuinely her seed, not only flesh of her flesh (as Eve was of Adam), but "fruit" of her womb [and don't take 'womb' in some scientific sense as equivalent to "uterus alone"]. The term 'fruit' and the Genesis term 'seed' fit together. Jesus is not the fruit of Mary's womb in the sense of mere incubator, mere surrogate, or like the fruit of a branch *grafted* onto a tree. He is truly and genuinely her seed, the actual fruit of her body. This taking of Christ out of Mary is parallel to Eve being taken out of Adam. And although we shouldn't force the two events to be the same in all respects, Christ's human nature is no less derived from Mary than Eve's human nature was derived from Adam.

Adam being the source of Eve was the basis for a hierarchical relation between them. But Mary is the mother of Jesus, and, in a certain respect, that makes Jesus subject to Mary. In another respect, of course, Jesus is God, and Mary is on that basis subject to Him, she being created by Him (in a very figurative sense, being 'taken out of Him', as Wisdom brings forth its treasures). But Mary's being subject to Jesus as her Creator does not cancel out or nullify Jesus's being subject to Mary as His mother. The two relations, each a hierarchical inversion of the other, remain juxtaposed eternally, in beauty and in love.

FRiends, I am praying fervently for the reunion of all Christians, as Jesus prayed in John 17, "that they may be one, even as Thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee". This morning as we sang the seventh verse of "Oh Come, Oh Come Emmanuel", I got chocked up, and I couldn't sing it.

Oh, come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Oh, bid our sad divisions cease,
And be Yourself our King of Peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to you, O Israel!

May Emmanuel come and heal our divisions and make us one in Christ. When we are one, then, Christ tells us, the world will know that the Father sent His Son, and that He loves us. Christ is coming again. Tonight we look back to His first coming, and forward to His second coming. But may we be *one* when He comes again. FRiends, pray with me tonight that all our sad divisions cease. And let us work untiringly to remove and heal those divisions.

-A8

[Mrs. Don-o]

I got the tree decorated,and now I'm getting ready for Midnight Mass. Ready for the Alleluias!

Thank you for those thoughts on Mary's mysterious, luminous motherhood. To me, all these beautiful doctrines together ere like a Rubik's cube of beauty and meaning.

I wonder as I wander out under the sky
How Jesus the Saviour did come for to die
For poor on'ry people like you and like I;
I wonder as I wander out under the sky

When Mary birthed Jesus 'twas in a cow's stall
With wise men and farmers and shepherds and all
But high from God's heaven, a star's light did fall
And the promise of ages it then did recall.

If Jesus had wanted for any wee thing
A star in the sky or a bird on the wing
Or all of God's Angels in heaven for to sing
He surely could have it, 'cause he was the King

I wonder as I wander out under the sky
How Jesus the Saviour did come for to die
For poor on'ry people like you and like I;
I wonder as I wander out under the sky

[Running On Empty]

Blessed Christmas to two special people.

ROE

[The_Reader_David]

I think the primary distinction between the Orthodox conception of the infallibilibity of an Ecumenical Council and the Latin conception of the infallibility of ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope of Rome lies in the fact that the later is asserted to be an expression of the infallibility of the whole of Christ's Church, while the former is operationally an expression of the infallibility (and unity) of the Church.

The difference is not primarily in the fact that an Ecumenical Council by its membership is broadly representative of the Church--after all, 'where the bishop is, there is the catholic Church', so a single bishop may teach authoritatively--but in the fact that, as the Orthodox understand it, a council must be accepted by the whole Church, the bishops who did not attend, the ordinary clergy, the monastics, the laity, to be, in the end, regarded as ecumenical. This is not a matter of individualism or 'democracy', but of the conciliar nature of the Church. Normally all Orthodox are obedient to our bishops, but even as St. Paul cursed even himself, should he preach a different Gospel than that he had preached, my bishop has exhorted us to know the Faith and to 'show him the door' if he should ever teach heresy. In extrodinary times, the ordinary clergy, the monastics, and the laity, with a minority of bishops are often the guardians of the faith, as in the time of the iconoclasts, or following the False Union Council of Florence/Ferrar.

A blessed and merry Christmas to you and yours. (I write while lying down to rest between an early Vespers and a very early Orthros and Liturgy--beginning at 10:00 tonight.)

[The_Reader_David]

In as much as Christ assumed our nature completely, and in the fullness of time, we have come to understand that our nature includes carrying within our bodies instructions, encoded in DNA, for our physical makeup, plainly Christ's body, like unto ours, did so as well.

It seems fruitless to speculate how the action of the Holy Spirit accomplished the wonder not merely of a virgin giving birth, but a virgin giving birth to a son. Doubtless one of the wonders in the life to come will be having such matters cleared up to our amazement at God's cleverness in addition to His condescension.

A blessed and merry Christmas to all!

[adiaireton8]

Thank you ROE. Christmas blessings to you both as well.

-A8

[Blogger]

Read Romans 9 and just meditate on it. God would be just if he sent all of us to Hell. NONE of us deserve Heaven. NONE of us will choose Him if not drawn. Every one of us loves our sin. We don't want to submit to God. We are rebellious to Him. It is only Mercy that gives us salvation. If He sent it to noone, then He would still be just. But, Romans 9 says he sends it to some. Why some and not others? So that the objects of His mercy can understand grace. If we didn't see the fullness of evil, we could not understand good. God is God. He can and does do as He wishes. He doesn't force people to go to Hell. He lets them have the natural inclination of their hearts. Yet, for some, the objects of His mercy, He makes them alive to and through His Spirit and draws them to Himself. There is no such thing as free will to a lost person. A lost person is not free but is willingly enslaved to their sin. They wallow in it. They don't want to do without it. They are not free, but it is not God enslaving them. It's their own selfish fallen self. True free will comes about when God quickens a Person to His Spirit and regenerates that which was dead. Once the damage that Sin did is repaired and a person that was dead is now alive, he/she WILL come to Christ and through the true faith in Christ (which even itself is a fruit of the Spirit), will believe. Christ will lose NONE of these who come to Him and none come to Him without the Spirit's drawing.

Again, Romans 9 is really a clear outline of this doctrine. At first, it may be difficult. But eventually you find it lovely. Rather than puffing one up, it is humbling to know that for nothing in myself, God chose me. It doesn't hamper evangelism for as far as I know God chose the whole world. I let Him be God and do as He wills and I am myself and obey His Word.

There is no cause for mockery in the final judgment for nobody can stand up and say that they deserve anything other than Hell. Just because God showed mercy on some, doesn't mean that the rest did not deserve their fate. They are guilty as charged and lived their lives avoiding submitting to God. They wanted God to have nothing to do with their lives. God gives them their wishes. For eternity, they will be separated from Him.

For the objects of His mercy, they have truly been made free. He whom Christ has made free is free indeed (which implies they weren't free to begin with because they were 'made' free). We can choose to do things in this life for God's glory. We will never be judged for our sins because Christ already took our judgment/punishment. But we are judged for our works. Some will be in heaven with nothing to show for it. They lived selfishly. They lived more for self than Christ or had bad motivations in the things they did. Others have sacrificed much for the Lord. Their reward will be great.

Hyper-Calvinism/double predestination is not biblical. Man is still responsible. God is still sovereign. God works out the balance and we follow and obey Him.