'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/

[Titanites]

brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon

Scripture does not say that these were born of Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

[adiaireton8]

As I understand the Catholic position on the Magisterium, the validity of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church is based firstly on Scriptural passages, notably the "binding and loosing" passages in Matthew 16 and 18 where Christ assigned "the keys to the kingdom" to the church.

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church does not come from Scripture; Scripture comes from the Catholic Church. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church comes directly from Christ, who gave authority to the Twelve Apostles (including the keys to Peter), who then gave authority to the bishops whom they ordained.

-A8

[xzins]

There is a word for cousin, suggenes. If they had wanted to use the word cousin, they could have used it. Instead, they used the word "adelphos." Interestingly, adelphos is a compound word that means "from the same womb."

Note how in Luke 14 & 21, Adelphos and Suggenes are in the same list. In other words, they are different from one another.

Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Lu 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Lu 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

Lu 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Lu 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

[Wallace T.]

The four Gospels were written within at most 40 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. Thus, they were available within the lifetime at least of some of the Apostles. The Catholic argument for the teaching authority of the church is indeed derived from Scripture, as opposed to oral tradition, which would support the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, for example. In the Catholic view, both Scripture and tradition derive from God, even if the instrumentality that has defined what is true Scripture (the Four Gospels vs. the Gospel of Thomas) and what is valid tradition (for instance, the tradition that is the basis for the Chalcedonian definition of the Second Person of the Trinity as opposed to the Gnostic tradition that Christ is pure spirit) is the church.

[adiaireton8]

The Catholic argument for the teaching authority of the church is indeed derived from Scripture

So between the time that Christ ascended, and the time the first book of the NT was written, when the Apostles were asked to provide an argument for the teaching authority of the Church, they were speechless?

You are obviously not Catholic.

-A8

[annalex]

Ultimately, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and other religions are constructed on metaphysical presuppositions that are accepted on the basis of faith.

It is true that to a scientific naturalist mind any belief in the supernatural is superstition. In my discussion with the Protestants, however, neither side starts with that presumption, as we all believe in the supernatural life after death, Incarnation (although, we discover, we put somewhat different meaning in the word), and Resurrection. Starting with these fundamental axiomatic believes, plus the historical fact of the existence and teachings of the Early Church, we see if we can rationally arrive at a given belief.

There are some beliefs of (some of) the Protestants that I disagree with as Catholic, but I do not find them superstitious. For example the belief in the other four "solas" while contradicting the totality of the deposit if faith given to us by Christ, has internal consistency. (Some of the solas, moreover, are not incorrect as slogans, but their Protestant interpretation is flawed). I understand that reasonable people can hold these beliefs. Likewise, many non-Christian beliefs are internally consistent. The belief in the Sola Scriptura is not internally consistent because it is not itself contained in the scripture. Besides, it is a belief in a created object, the Scripture, having supernatural power outside of the body of human divinely inspired writers who wrote it. This resonates with the deification of objects that is commonly associated with superstitions.

Is my usage of the word polemical rather than strictly by the dictionary? Yes, it is polemical. But I can defend it. Better still, why don't the Protestant defend Sola Scriptura scripturally?

***

Your description of the edifice of the Catholic dogma is a bit incorrect, although I am sure many would describe it exactly like you did. We would not say that the Church authority is derived from certain scriptural passages. Rather, we say that these scriptural passages are evidence of the authority of the Church. The basis is Christ and His sending of the Apostles. The fact that they found it expedient to write the books of the New Testament in order to fulfill the commission is secondary. They did other things beside it, for example, developed the Trinitarian christology and the basic form of Christian liturgy that remained largely outside of the canonical scripture. The scripture is like a badge given a policeman: it is not itself the authority but it is a signal of authority.

[Kolokotronis]

Just so I understand at least some of the Protestant positions on this matter, I am assuming that at least the followers of Luther and Calvin accept the canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and particularly:

"If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema." Canon II

"IF anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born [of her];(1) if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man (Anthropotokon) or the Mother of Christ (Xristotokon), as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema." Canon VI

Now, it seems pretty clear that those who deny the perpetual virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos are anthemized by The Church and have been since the 500s.

[wagglebee]

Why don't they accept what Luther and Calvin actually said about the Holy Mother?

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM

[annalex]

There is a word for cousin, suggenes

Yes, and also anepsios for nephew. However, the usage is that adelphos is a generic term of relatives of roughly the same age, when the specific narrow term cannot be applied to everyone in the group, or for some other reason not advisable. We see that expansive usage throughout the scripture and it is still common in the Middle East and Greece today.

One simple reason to use the generic term is that Jesus liked to use the word "brother" to refer to His disciples. Imagine the gospel where strangers are called warmly "brothers" whereas the flesh and blood relatives coolly "cousins". It would have been outright confusing.

[Kolokotronis]

"Why don't they accept what Luther and Calvin actually said about the Holy Mother?"

I guess you'd have to ask them, W.

[Kolokotronis]

"We see that expansive usage throughout the scripture and it is still common in the Middle East and Greece today."

Indeed it is. My cousins and I often refer to each other as brother or sister. And cousins in the generation before us as aunt or uncle and there is absolutely no distinction of degrees of kinship, like 3rd or 2nd cousins. The overall unit really is first "family" which can be a huge group and then "patriotis", a word I can't really translate but maybe Alex can. It is like calling someone a family member but it really refers more to someone from one's family's region and it is very like a term of kinship. Anglo Saxon or Western European notions of kinship just don't apply east of the Adriatic and so far as I know, they never did.

[annalex]

patriotis

Homeboy.

[Kolokotronis]

"Homeboy."

Excellent! (I keep forgetting where you live now!:) )

[wagglebee]

I have. Many times. Usually they say something about how the Reformers were interested in more important things and somehow missed this.

[annalex]

Slow day on the Free Republic

[Wallace T.]

The proof of certain Catholic doctrines is Scripture; others derive from tradition, which ultimately was reduced to writing by the pre and post-Nicene Fathers, though mostly after the New Testament was written. Obviously, Peter, John, Paul, etc., would have stated that, say. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man because they heard it from Him during His life or, as in the case of Paul, he received the information through direct divine revelation. It all boils down to God's Word, whether given directly or written down for the benefit of the generations succeeding the Apostles.

[adiaireton8]

The proof of certain Catholic doctrines is Scripture;

What is the proof of Scripture?

-A8

[kosta50]

Well, he's the doctor so he probably is the most accurate in describing her condition

There you go rationalizing again. I thought the knoweldge of the Apostles was inspired, and not acquired through school.

[Kolokotronis]

Picture reminds of how I feel right about now with 2 new lawyers in the office who each draw a paycheck, but don't bring in much at all. The things we do for our kids! :)

[kosta50]

The overall unit really is first "family" which can be a huge group and then "patriotis", a word I can't really translate but maybe Alex can

Domachi (as is "domacha rakiya"), homewgrown!