'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/

[Kolokotronis]

"LOL! Maybe he'd be better off reading Tertulian, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine on the Trinity???"

+Ambrose would be OK.

"Where, then, the grace of the Spirit is asserted, is that of God the Father of of the Only-Begotten Son denied? By no means; for as the Father is in in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so, too, "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, Who hath been given us" (Rom. 5:5). And as he who is blessed in Christ is blessed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because the Name is one and the Power one; so, too, when any divine operation, whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, is treated of it is not referred only to the Holy Spirit, but also to the Father and the Son, and not only to the Father, but also to the Son and the Spirit."

COE doesn't offer any courses on Tertullian or +Augustine. :)

[Kolokotronis]

"In his human nature, in her flesh. God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity."

This presents the once (and perhaps still) perceived tension between σαρκοθεντα and ενανθρωπησαντα. Both terms are used by the Fathers in the Creed to describe the Incarnation and in English they seem to mean the same thing but in fact they carry different shades of meaning. Generally, it has been held that Athanasian theology was Λογος-σαρζ based while the Antiochian was Λογος-ανθρωπος. Protopresbyter George Dragas who is Professor of Patristics at Holy Cross Seminary has written a new book on this issue called "Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, Original Research and New Perspectives".

Off to the office; more on this later.

[kosta50]

I can't believe you are taking things out of context. Please, let's be less emotional about this and read only parts of answers.

Placing things in context:

#3050 FK What do you mean by "Christ took the flesh of His Mother"?

#3052 Kosta In his human nature, in her flesh. God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity

#3057 P-Marlowe I can't believe I'm reading this stuff

#3057 Blogger Yikes! Now you're flirting with Docetism...Numerous Theophanies of God the Word appeared in the Old Testament...God can take on whatever form he wishes...

To the best of my knowledge, God the Word did not take on, inseparably and without confusion, human nature until Incarnation, theophanies of the Old Testaments being appearances and not real flesh.

God the Word is uncircumscribed and invisible, without flesh or form, which are the qualities of the divine nature. That same God the Word took on human nature (flesh) of Mary and became man (Incarnation), visible and circumscribed, "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9), and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jn 1:14)

So, I restate that "God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity." He assumed the form in His human nature which He took from Mary's flesh at Incarnation.

Christianity does not teach that He was flesh from eternity or that He had both divine and human nature from the beginning.

[kosta50]

This presents the once (and perhaps still) perceived tension between sarkoqenta and enanqrwpensanta. Both terms are used by the Fathers in the Creed to describe the Incarnation and in English they seem to mean the same thing but in fact they carry different shades of meaning

Yes, the shades are very well expressed in Slavonic as well, using exact equivalents to Greek terms: воплотившагося and вочеловечшася, the former meaning enfleshed (literaly) and the latter human, not just a "man."

[Kolokotronis]

"To the best of my knowledge, God the Word did not take on, inseparably and without confusion, human nature until Incarnation, theophanies of the Old Testaments being appearances and not real flesh."

You are correct. The Fathers speak of this regularly.+Ephraim the Syrian describes this in a particularly straight forward way and contrasts those Theophanies with the Incarnation to point up the importance and difference of that ultimate event in the economy of salvation:

"God's Majesty, that had clothed Itself in all sorts of similitudes, saw that humanity did not want to find salvation through this assistance, so He sent His Beloved One who, instead of the borrowed similitude with which God's Majesty had previously clothed Itself, clothed Himself with real limbs, as the First-born, and was mingled with humanity: He gave what belonged to Him and took what belonged to us, so that this mingling of His might give life to our dead state."

[blue-duncan]

"So, I restate that "God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity." He assumed the form in His human nature which He took from Mary's flesh at Incarnation."

It seems pretty clear that what John is describing is that Jesus, the Word, did not "assume" flesh but was an actual living breathing person (flesh) just as we are with all the limitations of humanity including death. If He "assumed" flesh (life), then He "assumed" death and where does that leave our hope?

John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

1Jo 1:1, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1Jo 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."

[Kolokotronis]

"If He "assumed" flesh (life), then He "assumed" death and where does that leave our hope?"

Ah, BD, that's just where our hope is fulfilled.

"Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life."

[Kolokotronis]

Meant to ping you to #3067

[adiaireton8]

The Word (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity) was always living. At the incarnation He did assume flesh. He did not then become a person; He was, and is, and always will be a Person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity. He became an enfleshed person at the annunciation, even though He has always been a living person. He became a *breathing* person on Christmas day, even though He has always been a living person.

Life and death are not on a par; the latter is a privation of the former. Christ assumed not life (which He already had, being Life itself), but flesh. In assuming flesh, he assumed mortality, i.e. the susceptibility to death. And in fact, He (the Second Person of the Trinity) died, through His human nature. But He remains Life itself, and death cannot defeat Him.

-A8

[P-Marlowe]

I can't believe you are taking things out of context.

I didn't. And your explanation doesn't help. In any context the phrase, "God the Word has no flesh, no form, nor shape, no humanity" is heretical.

Perhaps you have a problem with the English language.

The fact of the matter is that the Word BECAME flesh. The WORD didn't merely "assume" the form of a human being. He BECAME a human being.

Christ "assumed" the form of a human being on a number of prior occasions, such as when he wrestled with Jacob, or when he walked in the Garden. But in the incarnation he did more than merely "assume" the form of a human being.

Maybe you should be a little more careful with your words. Your ideas on this subject are downright weird. They culminated in that obviously heretical statement.

Instead of tap dancing around with silly explanations, perhaps you should just withdraw the statement. Sometimes you are just plain wrong. Sometimes you should admit it and move on.

[P-Marlowe]

Christ assumed not life (which He already had, being Life itself), but flesh. In assuming flesh, he assumed mortality, i.e. the susceptibility to death.

You're not defending kosta's statement are you?

Are you two in the same boat on this one? Be warned, your boat is sinking.

[Kolokotronis]

"Perhaps you have a problem with the English language.

The fact of the matter is that the Word BECAME flesh. The WORD didn't merely "assume" the form of a human being. He BECAME a human being."

I suggest, P-M, that English has a problem with Greek. What Kosta has said, as I said earlier, points out the distinction between two Greek words relating to the Incarnation which we all pray, I trust, every Sunday, and which English has glossed over to the point of vanishing.

[P-Marlowe]

I suggest, P-M, that English has a problem with Greek.

Are you defending that statement?

[adiaireton8]

You seem to be taking issue with the claim that Christ assumed flesh, because you think that the sense of the term 'assume' is not as ontologically unitive as "became". But 'assume' in its broader sense simply means 'take on' or 'put on'. Christ did take on human nature. He did put on flesh, not just as an extrinsic accident, but in a hypostatic union, unlike the theophanies of old. By way of the hypostatic union, He actually became man and thus flesh and blood. So I think that you are taking the word 'assume' in a much weaker ontological sense than is intended by kosta and myself, and hence you are inferring docetism where there is none.

-A8

[Kolokotronis]

" Are you defending that statement?"

Here is what the Creed says:

"Τόν διÂ’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους καί διά τήν ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ τών ουρανών καί σαρκωθέντα εκ Πνεύματος ‘Αγίου καί Μαρίας τής Παρθένου καί ενανθρωπήσαντα."

Notice how The Fathers framed this statement of the Incarnation by attributing the "σαρκωθέντα" (enfleshment is probaby the best way to put it but there really is more to it than that) to the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and then saying "ενανθρωπήσαντα", roughly was made or became human. What the Fathers are describing is a completely unique event in human history. The other theophanies you refer to are God taking a form of something human, but not "σαρκωθέντα" or "ενανθρωπήσαντα". To argue otherwise is to deny the uniqueness of the Incarnation.

So yes, as explained above, I support Kosta's statement.

[blue-duncan]

Did His human nature die in His flesh?

Acts 2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."

[P-Marlowe]

You seem to be taking issue with the claim that Christ assumed flesh...

Indeed I do.

as·sumed (-smd)

adj.

1. Taken up or used so as to deceive; pretended: an assumed name.

2. Taken for granted; supposed: an assumed increase in population.

Abandon ship!

[adiaireton8]

Your dictionary is incomplete. There are older senses of the term, rooted in the Latin etymology of ad-sumere, to "take on", "put on", to "take upon oneself".

-A8

[Kolokotronis]

"Did His human nature die in His flesh?

Acts 2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.""

Here's your answer:

[Kolokotronis]

"Did His human nature die in His flesh?

Acts 2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."

It occurs to me that since you guys don't use icons, words might answer your question better. Likely you've never read or heard this unless you've caught it here on FR when I have posted the entire sermon in the past:

"Let no one grieve at his poverty,
for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;
for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!" +John Chrysostomos

Question answered?