'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/

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Why do you think that the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is a heresy?

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics
and Condemned as Heretical by two Popes
in the 5th and 6th Centuries
By William Webster

"...The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God."

[Captain Gates]

wow!

Thank you all for such a display of passion and piety(forgive the brevity.....writing on my palm)

So I want to thank both sides of the house for fleshing this discussion out quite fully.... I'm currently, and strangely, questioning my own affiliations...

Carry on and may the Lord bless us all!!

[HarleyD]

...but they are not truth because The Church says so, but rather because The Church recognizes truth.

In other words, the Chruch actually gives them the same status as what the Church has stated to be the "inspired" word. Is that correct?

[HarleyD]

annalex-The seed of faith does indeed come from God – Post 3638

HD-If the seed of faith comes from God, we will have faith. Faith, by definition, is faith. There is nothing we do to cooperate. – Post 3664

annalex-Not necessarily, see 1 Timothy 1 – Post 3690

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the commandment of God our Saviour and Christ Jesus our hope:

Well that clears that up!!!

Here is that scripture again: 9 Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him? 10 I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.

Would it help if I posted John Gill’s commentary:

say we are unprofitable servants; not in such sense as unregenerate men are, who are disobedient, and to every good work reprobate and unfit, Rom_3:12 or as the slothful servant, who did not what his Lord commanded, Mat_25:30. Nor is this the sense, that they are unprofitable to men; for they may be, and are very useful and serviceable to men, and to the saints; but that they are so to God, by whose grace and strength they are what they are, and do what they do; and can give nothing to him but what is his own, and his due; and so can lay him under no obligation to them, nor merit any thing from him; no, not even thanks, and much less heaven and eternal life. The Persic version, quite contrary to the sense of the words reads, "we are pure or clean servants, for we have done", &c. and the Ethiopic version leaves out the word "unprofitable", and reads "we are servants"; we acknowledge ourselves to be servants:

we have done that which is our duty to do; wherefore, as diligence is highly proper, and reasonable in doing the work of the Lord, humility is necessary, that a man may not arrogate that to himself, which do not belong to him; or boast of his performances; or place any dependence on them: or have his expectations raised on account of them; since when he has done the most and best, he has done but what he should, and what he was obliged to, and in that is greatly deficient: a saying somewhat like this, is used by R. Jochanan ben Zaccai (z);

"if thou hast learned the law much, do not ascribe the good to thyself; for, for this wast thou created.''

You can either do the Lord’s will or you can do your sinful will. As a Christian what do you want to do? Why?

[Blogger]

He did not say that this physically becomes my body and blood. He was still alive. There was no sacrifice as of yet. It was symbolic. When he instituted Lord's supper later, he said to do it in rememberance of me. Such a fact that it is a memorial supper (much as Passover was a memorial supper) is ignorred by Catholics and it is said to confer some special grace upon the partaker which is contributory to salvation. Once again, we have our works being mixed in with grace to give salvation. A non-Biblical idea and a different gospel.

[HarleyD]

Hey, when did y'all have a protestant ecumenical council?

We network a lot.

[Blogger]

Show me where I made that insistence. Post please. Show me where I said that Mary gave birth to a mere man.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Self cannibalisation makes Protestants a wee bit nervous.

Amen.

Let's see how Augustine viewed the Lord's Supper...

Augustine (Faustus 6.5): "While we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority."

And...

Augustine (Faustus 20.18, 20): "The Hebrews, again, in their animal sacrifices, which they offered to God in many varied forms, suitably to the significance of the institution, typified the sacrifice offered by Christ. This sacrifice is also commemorated by Christians, in the sacred offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ...Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament."

[Kolokotronis]

What does the Latin dogma of the Assumption have to do with your declaration that the belief in the perpetual sinlessness of Mary is heresy? You still haven't indicated to me, or any of us for that matter, who made this declaration that the belief was heresy. I suspect you can't becuase, frankly, there's nothing heretical about it. Even if there was, there's no recognized body let alone a person, in Protestantism to make such a declaration. Its really just loose talk, isn't it Dr.E.? When you preach to people, do you regularly use such talk and do you preach Arianism and or Nestorianism as you have here?

[annalex]

Yup.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Loose talk? LOL. I'm not the one falling down to the stock of a tree.

[Kolokotronis]

"In other words, the Chruch actually gives them the same status as what the Church has stated to be the "inspired" word. Is that correct?"

Well, it depends on the meaning of "inspired". What The Church seeks and finds in a manner necessarily limited by our human existence attempting to deal with He Who does not "exist" in the way we do, being as He is, the Source of existence, is Truth. The highest authority we have and the greatest tool we possess for finding Truth are the scriptures, which are inspired by God, but one must understand that the scriptures as we have them were determined to be useful for finding and understanding Truth because it is uniquely the position of The Church to make that determination. Similarly, it was and is for The Church to determine what is inspired and what isn't. The writings of the Fathers, to the extent they are within the consensus patrum and the declarations and dogmas of the councils accepted by The Church are useful for knowing the Truth and thus, indeed, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the hierarchy of tools of The Church to discover the Truth, the scriptures are the highest inspired source, but they are not the only inspired source.

[annalex]

This leaves us exactly were we were all along, that Mary anticipated being married to Joseph in the future, and the annunciation was also made about the future, so if she planned to consummate her marriage with Joseph in a sexual way she would not have responded "I know not man", because the fact that she was yet unmarried would not be an obstacle to her future marriage and natural motherhood.

[annalex]

Well that [1Ti 1:1] clears that up

The reference was, obviously (I made a precise reference earlier in my posts to you) to 1 Timothy 1:19-20, about the loss of faith.

Gill's commentary is either dull or obfuscatory, since he ignores the fact that Christ urges His followers to do works beyond obligation, i.e. charitable work, and the fact that the parable is in response to a request to increase faith.

[Kolokotronis]

"Loose talk? LOL. I'm not the one falling down to the stock of a tree."

Dr.E, do you believe that Arian and/or Nestorian Christology is heretical? Do you know what Arian and/or Nestorian Christology is? Now, as for a belief in Mary's sinlessness, you seem to have a problem answering a simple question posed sometime back. Do you say that belief is blasphemy because of a problem with the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conseption or simply because you, personally and individually pursuant to a singular revelation from the Holy Spirit, believe it to be so? Simple question, Dr.E. You tell us you preach to others; it shouldn't be too hard for you to frame an answer.

As for your Arianism or Nestorianism, as I said earlier, your comments on the nature of the Incarnate Word and His Mother, the Theotokos, not the Christokos or so The Church has dogmatized because that is the Truth, were the first clear heresy I've read from you...and it is very clear heresy. That surprised me which is why I tried to give you an out with my suggestion that perhaps it was just loose talk. Was it, or are you a heretic, even among most Protestants?

[annalex]

He did not say that this physically becomes my body and blood

This is exactly what He said:

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

He was still alive.

So? the entire discourse is about a future gift (John 6:52).

It was symbolic.

If it were symbolic, the disciples would not have left, as they objected to the physical eating of His flesh (John 6:53).

it is a memorial supper

It is both a memorial supper and a real presence of Christ in the body ("do this in rememberance of me" but also "this is my body"; also see 1 Cor 11 and especially v. 29 where a reference to the real presence is made).

we have our works being mixed in with grace

Yes we do. The Bible tells us so.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The loose talk is all on your side, K. To equate a belief that Mary was not a supernatural being, but a woman graced by God to give birth to Jesus Christ as told in Scripture to the heresy that demotes the Son in the Trinity is ludicrous, and simply shows you cannot defend your determination to fall down to the stock of a tree without making insipid accusations.

Where in the Bible does it say we are not supposed to pray to a package of cheese? Where in the Bible does it say we are not supposed to draw pictures of elephants and venerate them? Where in the Bible does it say we are not to commemorate garlic and bananas as part of the Lord's Supper?

Your extra-Biblical leaps and bounds are no less fanciful. I guess we can chalk it up to more unknowable mysticism.

[Kolokotronis]

"The loose talk is all on your side, K. To equate a belief that Mary was not a supernatural being, but a woman graced by God to give birth to Jesus Christ as told in Scripture to the heresy that demotes the Son in the Trinity is ludicrous, and simply shows you cannot defend your determination to fall down to the stock of a tree without making insipid accusations."

Can you affirm that Mary is The Theotokos and NOT the Christokos? If you can't, well, you are either an Arian heretic or a Nestorian heretic. I am not the one who said she gave birth to Jesus Christ "the man", you are and that, at a minimum is Nestorianism. Now tell me, Dr.E, what is insipid about that accusation? You want insipid? Insipid is asking an Orthodox Christian whether or not Mary gave birth "to the Godhead"! Good heavens!

By the way, I sincerely doubt that there is one person who has participated in this thread who cannot or will not affirm that Mary is The Theotokos and NOT the Christokos, except, apparently, you.

[HarleyD]

Well, it depends on the meaning of "inspired".

That sounds very much like a Clitonism.

but one must understand that the scriptures as we have them were determined to be useful for finding and understanding Truth because it is uniquely the position of The Church to make that determination.

Sorry, if I understand you correctly, that's the old Catholic argument; "The scriptures are infallible because we say it so." The early church fathers always recognized the infallible from the fallible. They did not include the first 300 years of writings by various church fathers when they were compiling the scriptures. Why didn't the church fathers include Polycarp's or Ignatius' writings if they feel they were equally inspired?

And if memory serves me correctly, the Orthodox are not ashamed to admit they are willing to change teaching and doctrinal positions. Does that mean what was the infallible position of the Church, like bishops being the husbands of one wife as Paul stated, is no long an infallible teaching? Was Paul out of date? One has to wonder if it was good 300 years later why it isn't good now? It does make one question what the term "infallible" means?

In the hierarchy of tools of The Church to discover the Truth, the scriptures are the highest inspired source, but they are not the only inspired source.

I guess that makes some of the writings by St. Bob or St. Fred equivalent to St. Paul and St. Peter; at least as long as a few hundred people vote to say it is.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The bottom line is that I worship Jesus Christ, second of three persons in the holy Trinity of the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, all the same in substance, and equal in power and glory, while you worship the vessel through which God chose to bring Jesus Christ to earth.

At your peril.