'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/

[The_Reader_David]

Actually the word 'archiereus' is translated 'chief priests'.

The fact remains that the office that is called 'priest' in Christian churches, Latin, Orthodox (or even Anglican), in English speaking countries, is that which is called, 'presbyteros' in Greek. Indeed, the English word 'priest' is derived from the Greek word presbyteros.

Actually, I would have no trouble translating the passage: I would render 'archiereus' into English as 'hierarchs'.

[kosta50]

It sounds like you can't accept us.

I have already stated that I reject anything Protestant, no matter what flavor. To me, Protesnatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Anabaptism ... is all the same. There is no compromise with heresy.

I am not happy about it; neither is the Church. But we can still be nice to each other! :)

[Blogger]

FTR, Blogger is NOT Nestorian. However, man's attempts at explaining what God did not reveal in Scripture should not be taken as means to declare one a heretic. The trinity can be found in Scripture. The deity of Christ can be found in Scripture. Exactly HOW, the precise steps of what occurred in the incarnation can not.

Blogger is no more Nestorian than the Catholic church is which also refers to Mary as Mother of Christ.

[kosta50]

I have already stated why HD's assertion was wrong in 4830. If HD bothered to read more than one verse (actually verses 5-7) he would have realized that +Paul was talking about a bishop (episkpon). Unfortunately, he remains silent on this.

[DungeonMaster]

No objection from us Orthodox on that assertion. The problem is, on all the contentious issues on this thread (until bornacatholic had the bad grace to start invoking the Latin understanding of St. Peter's confession and related matters), any understanding of the Church held by Christians prior to the 1500's, East or West (unless you're going to invoke the Assyrians on behalf of Blogger's Nestorianism), speaks against the protestant positions expressed here.

Fundies like myself are particularly disinterested in the history of Christian beliefs. We are always left frustrated because to us the pertinent discussion is what the bible says right here and now. There is no real reason to even believe what we hear that such and such group believed in such and such century. If it's not biblical history it's not reliable history. Catholics are so quick to drop names and say who believed what, when. I only wish they were as familiar with the actual bible.

So what we hear is name dropping rather than scripture dropping. Obviously two very different beliefs as to what is of value and what is worthy of our study time.

[DungeonMaster]

I have already stated that I reject anything Protestant, no matter what flavor. To me, Protesnatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Anabaptism ... is all the same. There is no compromise with heresy.

You have to thank that or you wouldn't be a Catholic. Except for that subset of Catholics that just go through the motions not knowing what it means or what their protty friends believe.

I am not happy about it; neither is the Church. But we can still be nice to each other! :)

I was. I'm always nice.

[Sioux-san]

Point of Fact, not Criticism: Catholic teachings declare that Mary, Mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after His birth and that there was never any subsequent sexual relations between her and Joseph. However, Mary and Joseph were Jews - so never having sex or any more children after Jesus would be counter to what a Jewish marriage required. Further, it is not even Biblical. Joseph was told by God's messenger not to have relations with Mary until after Jesus was born - Matthew-ch.1-v.25 "He knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." - Not ONLY Son, but firstborn Son. The Apostles often referred to Jesus' brothers and sister, as distinguished from cousins and followers. Just pointing out the incongruities here....no offense.....

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true, my dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

We are always left frustrated because to us the pertinent discussion is what the bible says right here and now. There is no real reason to even believe what we hear that such and such group believed in such and such century. If it's not biblical history it's not reliable history.

To a degree, I share in your concern about historical manuscripts. It is not so much what has been preserved over the years, but what has not been preserved - or worse, what may have been intentionally destroyed.

[annalex]

[Veneration of Mary] is not Scriptural

In a similar sense as when you do word search for "consecration of bishop" and declare it not scriptural. Indeed, veneration of saints is not referred to in the scripture for the simple reason that this form of piety developed in the age of martyrs after the books of the Canon were written. The necessary elements of the veneration of all saints, and of course, especially Mary are in the multiple requests for intercession throughout the gospel (e.g. see the daughter of Jairus episode), and in the fact that the saints have eternal life in Christ ("To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life", Romans 2). To read more, see Communion of Saints.

As Catholics we do not think that our devotions and pieties need to be explicitly mentioned in the scripture. We also do not put too great a stock in pronouncements of unscripturality coming form the Protestants, since in their case the fundamentals of their theologies are not merely unscriptural but counterscriptural.

Veneration and devotions to the Blessed Mother come in addition from her essence as the Mother of God who adopted us all at the foot of the Cross. "All generations shall call me blessed", she predicted. We understand that she participated int he mystery of the Incarnation in a unique way. There is no reason to think that she would not wish to bring the divine plan of salvation to its most glorious fruition also now; and if so, certainly she will add her prayers to ours as we plead for Christ's mercy.

Specifically you refer to the mediatorship of Christ. You forget, however, that in the same passage where His role as the sole mediator is described, intercessory prayers are also prescribed:

1 I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: 2 For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 6 Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.

(1 Timothy 2)

It should be clear that a prayer to Mary or to a saint is a prayer to Christ; but it is a stronger prayer as now two of us pray, me and her.

pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much

(James 5:16)

Your other specific objection is to consecrating the world to Mary, because "God alone is sovereign". Biblically, it is not a contradiction: as Christ is King, Mary is Queen Mother. Her last recorded word is "do as He tells you". We listen.

The Coronation of the Virgin

Gentile da Fabriano

The J. Paul Getty Museum

[annalex]

I am not really trying to persuade. Maybe I'm suggesting that there is a range and subtlety to religious affect and affiliation which might be more nuanced than folks at first appreciate.

Bears repeating. My goal is to first, make the Catholic faith clear to the outsiders and secondly, explain why we do what we do. The rest is up to the reader. Marian and other devotions of the Catholic Church are private expressions of the faith. While certain truths about the Blessed Virgin are taught dogmatically, various dedications and devotions to her are not required in order to be Catholic or in order to be saved. Typically, the faithful develop them each in his own personal way, in what a Protestant might somewhat heretically call "relationship with God".

What is taught dogmatically? Her perpetural virginity; her desire to participate in the divine plan of salvation; her mothership and her queenship, and the mystical eschatological connection that exists between her and Christ's Church. The Catechism devotes two chapters to the Blessed Mother:

ARTICLE 3 "HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"
ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"

[Mad Dawg]

It begs the question, do you CONTROL the HOLY SPIRIT, or does the HOLY SPIRIT indwell all believers?

Well, I think there are other doors I'd like to choose. One would be a distinction between "reliably valid" and "possibly valid". Which is to say NO we don't control the Spirit, but God promised, etc. So we "KNOW" (within the terms of the discussion) that THESE orderes over HERE are valid, but we don't know about THOSE ones - maybe they are, maybe not.

And then the other "hair-spliitng" -- I'm sticking with my strengths here -- would fall under the "diversity of gifts of the Spirit" column. That yeah all the Baptized are granted the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean every baptized person gets all the charismata. - As we used to say, The priesthood of ALL believers does not mean the priesthood of EACH believer. Just distinguishing (hair-splitting) here ...

[annalex]

the saints are not dead

This persistent desire to bury and forget the martyrs of the Church is one of the reasons why it is hard to take Protestantism as a serious expression of faith.

It might have something to do with the fact that I inadvertently discovered just recently, that the eternal life of saints is most clearly stated in the same passage in which the salvific character of works is stated. It must be one of these verses that get skipped over by the sola scripturalists:

6 [God] will render to every man according to his works. 7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life

(Romans 2)

[HarleyD]

I have already stated why HD's assertion was wrong in 4830. If HD bothered to read more than one verse (actually verses 5-7) he would have realized that +Paul was talking about a bishop (episkpon). Unfortunately, he remains silent on this.

Sorry, but I’m exceptionally busy at the moment and my Internet connection isn’t all there. I'm missing some of the "action". You made the assertion in 4830…

From the context of that chapter, and the term presbuteros it is clear that +Paul refers to a bishop.

I have already stated that the term elder, bishop and presbyter are often used interchangeably. The King James Version (and many others) cite the passage as:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Titus 1:5-7

As you can see it uses the term interchangably. What I disagreed with is using the term “priest”. I thought I had it all figured out with Reader_David post that priest is now derived from “presbuteros” which seems to make sense. But you’ve gone and confuse me again by saying that ”first rank being deacon, then priest, then bishop”. If the priest is not a bishop, then how can you call a bishop a priest? Someone is not matching up.

I should also point out this mistaken error:

The source of error is your KJV because it was man-made to be acceptable to the Geneva-worshipping lost sheep.

The KJV was developed to compete with the Geneva-worshipping folks' Geneva Bible. While the KJV is a fine version, regrettably, King James was a little squimmish about the Calvinist leanings in the Geveva's Bible interpretation. He sought to tone the interpretation down simply by choosing other more plausible words.

You see, HD, prooftexting never provides you with a correct answer. It only confuses you.

No, what really confuses me is people telling me a priest is really a bishop but a bishop is not a priest.

[Blogger]

I did not say that Consecration of Bishops wasn't Biblical. I just couldn't find the consecration of Timothy and Titus in the Bible and wanted your scripture ref.

Veneration of Mary is NOT in Scripture period.

[annalex]

I only quote for Douay, unless otherwise noted. The original in Titus 1:5 says "presbyterous". This can be rather blandly translated as "elder" but in ecclesial usage the word means "priest". The English "priest" etymologically derives form "presbyteros". The use here in the context of ordainment, "katastase".

[bornacatholic]

Once given, I don't think it right to try and take back your tips.

[bornacatholic]

Is to

[bornacatholic]

So, when Paul ordained Timothy Bishop, as Scripture Teaches. y'all just gainsay that?

When Matthias takes Judas' Bishopric....And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

Eph 2...Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

Eph 4.. He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ

*You know, as sola scripturists, y'all gonna have to review it more carefully before making unsupportable assertions

[annalex]

Blogger: Where is there evidence that there was prayers to saints or veneration of icons in the Apostolic age?

One such icon is Christ Himself.

[Christ] is the image(*) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

(Col 1:15)

The icon of Christ is what forms us and converts us:

whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son

(Romans 8:29)

let us bear also the image of the heavenly.

(1 Corinthians 15:49)

we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.

(2 Corinthians 3:18)

putting on the new, him who is renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of him that created him.

(Colossians 3)

But wait! here is a crucifix:

before [the Galatians'] eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?

(Galatians 3:1)

we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness

(1 Corinthians 1:23)

---

(*) eikonos or eikona