'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/

[kosta50]

Just answer the question. God foretold in Genesis 3:15, that there would be enmity between the serpant's seed and the woman's seed. Who is God referring to?

The Septuagint uses the term sperma (sperma) for "seed." I am asking YOU, whose sperm are you suggesting "made" Jesus? Are you suggesting that God the Father had carnal sexual relationship with Mary?

[Wallace T.]

Since Joseph is not mentioned in the Gospel narratives during the time of Christ's public ministry, although Mary is present on several occasions, it is likely that Joseph had died sometime prior to the beginning of His ministry. It is possible that the people of Nazareth identified Jesus with His mother, the surviving parent (humanly speaking). Since 30 years had passed since His incarnation, details about family history could well have blurred. Remember that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, over 100 miles south of Nazareth, spent some time there, and then fled to Egypt, where he lived for two years. By the time He and his parents returned to Nazareth, He would have been 3-4 years old.

[annalex]

they were Greek not Hebrew scholars.

This is not my problem. If you lack experts in Hebrew, find one. The fact is that Lot is called brother of Abraham in Hebrew (and in the Greek Septuagint), just like James is called brother of Jesus in Greek.

Yes since they were common names

Now you insist that the inspired Evangelists decided to confuse us by using identical sets of names of different people without clarification of the difference in their relation to Jesus. Why? To suit your prejudice against the normative reading.

Yes however the sister could be Salome

The reference is to Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. (John 19:25)

The original has no commas. You prefer the comma, inserted by the English translator, to mean enumeration. I prefer that coma to mean clarification, since an attempt is made to name everyone, and by your reading Salome would be one unnamed.

Here some more quandaries, from the excellent post by Interested Questioner:

Paul describes James as the brother of our Lord. (Gal 1: 19) Jude describes himself as the brother of James. (Jude 1: 1) Luke describes Jude as the son of James (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13) Clearly, Scripture is not using the same degree of precision in describing relations that we typically use in English. And Scripture was not written in English.

[annalex]

That's not what the quote said. It only addressed virginity up to the time of birth, "in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate"

"Remained in birth" indicates "through the duration of the birth", at least in English. There is no other purpose to link virginity and birth otherwise as most women do not enjoy marital relations once the labor begins. If you want to argue that St. Augustine was badly translated, bring your Latin experts.

[Wallace T.]

Would it be fair to say, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy would recognize the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church as valid due to its acceptance of the doctrine of apostolic succession and the issue of proper ordination?

Lutheranism's doctrine of the sacrament is one of the Real Presence, but they define it as "consubstantiation" (the elements are simultaneously the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine) rather than transubstantiation (the elements become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ although retaining the outward appearance of bread and wine). However, Lutheranism does not have the historic episcopate. As a result, would the Lutheran sacrament be held as invalid by Eastern Orthodoxy?

I assume the Calvinist position (spiritual presence only) and the Zwinglian one (memorial and symbolic only) would be rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy as invalid. Is my assumption correct?

[annalex]

I really don't understand why the Calvinist position on "sola scriptura" is maligned and mocked as "superstition".

When one wants respect for a position, one gives respect to other positions.

Positions are not people. Positions are respected, or not respected, depending on their logicality. If "sola scriptura" were defended logically, -- that is, from scripture since that is proclaimed to be the only proper method, we could talk of respect. For more discussion on why it is closer to a superstition than to a legitimate theological opinion, see On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, posted just recently, as it leads us offtopic here.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But humility is not the cornerstone of faith. Like so many things, it's bells and whistles, signifying nothing.

Christ's justification of His elect by His sacrifice alone is what separates the sheep from the wolves.

[kosta50]

Conceive, the word used for Mary in Luke 1:31 is the same word used for Mary's cousin Elizabeth in Luke 1:24, 36 and of Rebecca in Rom. 9:10

Same only in your English version.

• Luk 1:36, Luk 1:31 the word used is sullambanw (sullambano)

• Mt 1:20 the term used is gennaw (gennao)

• Rom 9:10 the expresison is koith (koite)

Maybe the authors had a reason to used them all differently. In the case of Elizabeth, the term actually means carnal (lustful) conception. In the case of Rebecca, cohabitation (both lawful and unlawful). In the case of Mat 1:20 the word means to beget.

In the biblical context, all these different terms reflect accurately the circumstances of their pregnacy. Clearly, Mary's pregnancy is treated differently, as not being lustful or carnal (physical). So there was no seed (the original Greek uses the word sperma for "seed").

At any rate, your claim that the terms used are all the same appears to be, let's say, not true, at least in the original.

[annalex]

Sola Scriptura makes a strong case against Mary's perpetual virginity

It makes a case. Not a strong case. The "brothers" reference melts down if you look at all references to "brothers" in the expansive sense. The purification is simply a ritual providing for natural births that Mary followed, and the Evangelist point out that is was just that.

On the other hand, we have an absolute scriptural case for virgin conception, and extrapolate from there. If a child can be conceived by God without an intercourse, He certainly can be birthed without violating the hymen. Marital relations for Mary, as we discussed many times, would not have been a sin, but simply make no sense for Mary in her state of sanctification.

But for the purposes of this conversation I will grant you that from the Sola Scriptura perspective there is (1) a case for Mary giving a natural birth and having marital relations, there is (2) a case that the scripture is silent, and there is no positive case for perpetual virginity in every sense of the word. So? Sola Scriptura is a wrong proposition. Start from it, and you get nowhere fast, as the Protestant experience demonstrates.

[annalex]

the Orthodox don't agree with "something" about Transubstantiation

They don't agree with the scholastic precision with which it is defined in the West and prefer not to attempt to verbalize a mystery.

[adiaireton8]

FK, Yes, or No: Could God have prevented Mary from being ceremonially unclean upon the birth of Jesus?

-A8

[wmfights]

"Christ had wanted to save them, he could have done His mighty works before their eyes and caused them to believe. But Christ understood their disbelief was ordained by God, and so He moved on and worked miracles in front of those whom He knew were His whom God had given Him."
______________________________

I hadn't thought of that, interesting point.

[wmfights]

"I just can't imagine Peter wandering around in all that gold filigree, gold crowns, and gold scepters and staffs."
____________________________

I can't believe how many people don't understand how poor Jesus was growing up, or how much poverty existed. They had no safety net and once you were forced off your land your life was in a downward spiral. A carpenter was not much more than an itinerant worker. Yet this is exactly where our Saviour choose to be, not among the wealthy classes or religious leaders.

[TomSmedley]

Our Lord and Saviour could have come as the emporer of Rome if he wanted. Instead he came to us through a humble, poor, peasant woman.

Haad our Lord been the son of a goddess,then He would have been a demigod, and therefore not a suitable Savior.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Haad our Lord been the son of a goddess,then He would have been a demigod, and therefore not a suitable Savior.

Amen. And the holiness from which He proceeded would have been from another and not His own.

[bornacatholic]

Augustine


Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.

-Of Holy Virginity, 4, A.D. 401



It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?

-Sermons 186:1, A.D. 411



Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband.

-Heresies 56, A.D. 428

[bornacatholic]

PLease cite for me a single time I have personally called sola scriptura a superstition.

The simple fact is you charged our authorities with harboring a self-serving intent.

A simple apology will suffice, brother.

[HarleyD]

Sorry but Protestants aren't into Sola Augustine. ;O)

[AlbionGirl]

It reveals so much more than that, all of which I gained a sense of way too early on. This need of theirs to pristinate Mary, to pristinate her hymen is at its core, that which is the reason for their pederasty scandal, for their incredible propensity for cruelty, as I and many other catholic kids experienced, most of which stems from their perversion of the sexual impulse in man.

I know you're a fan of Augustine, Dr. E. I'm not really. He was a bully, and contrary to his jack the lad image, he held a deranged view of human sexuality.

IIRC, persecution of heretics began in earnest with him and the donatists, making a moloch out of Our Christ.

Note the following from Paul Johnson's History of Christianity:

At one point in Church history, Augustine and a follower of Pelagius get into a little shouting match, and here is some of that, with a little background to put it in context:

'One young follower [of Pelagius], Julian of Eclanum, engaged in spirited controversy with the angry old bishop. From their exchanges, fragmentary alas, Augustine emerges in an unpleasing light, a clever man stooping low for the purpose of vulgar appeal, remorselessly exploiting popular prejudice, an anti-intellectual, a hater of classical culture, a mob orator, and a sex-obsessive. In the infinitive wisdom of God, he noted the genitals were appropriately made the instruments for the transmission of original sin: 'Ecce unde!' That's the place! That's the place from which the first sin is passed on!' Adam had defied God -and for every man born, the shame at the uncontrollable stirring of the genitals was a reminder of and a fitting punishment for, the original crime of disobedience. Did not every man, he asked his cringing congregation, feel shame at having a nocturnal emission?(1) Of course he did. By contrast, Julian's line seems a straighforward deployment of elementary classical reason:

"You ask me why I would not consent to the idea that there is a sin that is part of human nature. I answer: it is improbable. It is untrue. It is unjust and impious. It makes it seem as if the devil were the maker of men. It violates and destroys the freedom of will...by saying that men are so incapable of virtue, that in the very womb of their mothers they are filled with bygone sins...and, what is disgusting as it is blasphemous, this view of yours fastens, as its most conclusive proof, on the common decency with which we cover our genitals.' Julian argued that sex was a kind of sixth sense, a form of neutral energy which might be used for good or ill. "Really?" replied Augustine, 'is that your experience? So, you would not have married couples restrain that evil -I refer, of course, to your favorite good? So you would have them jump into bed whenever they like, whenever they felt stirred by the desire? Far be it from them to postpone it till bedtime...if this is the sort of married life you lead, don't drag up your experience in debate.'

The Pelagian, Julian of Eclanum, is off the mark here to, but not like Augustine.

[bornacatholic]

I copies this from a site..

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.

(Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

" This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity."9

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.

(Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)

The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564):

It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God.

(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)

The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.

(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

The Bible:

In the Bible, it is obvious that Virgin Mary was always Virgin, and she only had one child: Jesus Christ, our Savior.

1- At Calvary:

It is obvious that Jesus did not have any other brothers nor sisters, because at Calvary He had to entrust His Mother to a friend, to John, " and from that moment the disciple took her to his own home" (Jn.19:27).

It would be unthinkable for a Jewish mother to go to live with a friend after the death of her son, if she had any other child of her own!...

* I find it intersting so many in here think themselves more knowledgeable than the vast vast asembly of Christians born before them who went to their graves convinced of the perpetual virgintiy of Mary. Saints, Popes, Ecumenical Councils, even the Progenitors of the Protestant Reformation are all wrong.

If everyone else who has ever lived is wrong and only you are right, what might that reveal about your ideas?