'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/

[NewLand]

Wow man! Have another toke...

[Mad Dawg]

Darn, right after I got off I thought you'd think I was trying to be cute.

Your case, as it seemed to me, for saying the Church was not what we say it is (not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement of its "being an Institution to Rome) was that the guys there were a disgrace. That's why I characterized it the way I did.

So what does the church look like? Is it folks that repeat the right formulas and perform the right rituals but live like sinners the rest of the time? Or, is it people who trust Christ with their very lives?

See that sounds like it depends on the works of the people. Or - Okay, or you're saying it doesn't bear the fruits one would expect a Church to bear? So the fruits don't make Church but they diagnose Church? That's more interesting.

Still, I'll suggest door C: the folks to whom the promise was made -- as a place marker. But I'll think about it, too.

People were never saved because of the Church. And the Church was not, and is not, the hierarchy. In the worst, most upside down case - of which I'll grant Alexander was a probably example, if they administer and celebrate the sacraments and do not corrupt the teaching when they teach, the rest of their lives are not so important.

I don't know if you're ordained, as your fellowship reckons ordination, but I used to think I was ordained, and while I tried, mostly failed, to be a good example and all, I never thought being ordained conveyed especial mojo, in a general sense. I was just as liable to be a horse's patoot as the next guy, I just was in more trouble when I failed.

YES, it is more than desirable for the clergy to be conspicuously virtuous, but it's not of the essence. And in bad times, it's the essence that will count. That's what the argument against Donatism comes down to to me. There was a guy I knew slightly. I can't remember his name so the boss lady and I call him "Father Grouchy" when we pray for him. He struck me as a jerk. But, hey, I strike me as a jerk. I'm not going to hold it against him. We're all, or most of us, trying here, at least part of the time, the best we know how.

The real problem is we only know what a few academics and history makers say the church was like. If the Church is, as we maintain, NOT a human institution, we would look for the fruits maybe in unexpected places? Back to my image of Sinai: Lousy mountain, Outstanding Torah.

And the rest of it strikes me as restatement of the thesis: Luther saw nothing sacred. But it remains to be determined how accurate his vision was. You agree with him. I don't.

Stay tuned. God will figure out a way to show we're both wrong.

[metmom]

Been there, done that.

[Blogger]

Your case, as it seemed to me, for saying the Church was not what we say it is (not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement of its "being an Institution to Rome) was that the guys there were a disgrace. That's why I characterized it the way I did.
My "Case" was predicated upon trying to get into the heads of those who believe in the efficacy of sacraments and it stemmed from some things Kolo said about the sacraments as well as something I read on another thread about Alexander VI not really being all that bad of a guy. It had to do with the heart condition of the person participating in the sacrament. Can someone (in your view) still be taking part in the sacramental system with a heart that is anti-Christ? Again, I'm trying to get into your-all's thinking. I am not making a statement on my own views concerning sacraments other than I believe in ordinances not sacraments.

So what does the church look like? Is it folks that repeat the right formulas and perform the right rituals but live like sinners the rest of the time? Or, is it people who trust Christ with their very lives?

See that sounds like it depends on the works of the people. Or - Okay, or you're saying it doesn't bear the fruits one would expect a Church to bear? So the fruits don't make Church but they diagnose Church? That's more interesting.
Considering that a person's trust of Christ is due to the work of the Holy Spirit drawing, making alive to, and giving faith to people who will be saved - it (salvation) isn't a human work nor is it dependent upon human works. Since Scripture does indicate that a truly saved person will produce good works as the fruit of their faith, then yes - a lack of the fruits of the Spirit in one's life can certainly be diagnostic. As Jesus said, "by their fruits you shall know them." That doesn't mean we will be perfect, but you should see some evidence. If a pope is having orgies in the Vatican and parading his illegitimate children around making one into a cardinal, the fruit of that person, no matter how well they performed the sacrament of the Eucharist, is pretty rotten through and through.

Church was not, and is not, the hierarchy. In the worst, most upside down case - of which I'll grant Alexander was a probably example, if they administer and celebrate the sacraments and do not corrupt the teaching when they teach, the rest of their lives are not so important.
You haven't followed where I was coming from. It seems you think I am making a Donatist argument. It's just the opposite. I'm not talking about the sacraments validity in relation to the faithful if administered by a bad priest. I'm talking about the sacrament's validity to that priest. If Adolf Hilter enters a church, being a Catholic, and takes the sacraments with perfection in form- are those sacraments efficacious to Hitler?

I don't know if you're ordained, as your fellowship reckons ordination, but I used to think I was ordained, and while I tried, mostly failed, to be a good example and all, I never thought being ordained conveyed especial mojo, in a general sense. I was just as liable to be a horse's patoot as the next guy, I just was in more trouble when I failed.
That is pretty much what we believe concerning ordination. It doesn't make a person any less human, it just puts them in a position of leadership where they are held more accountable.

YES, it is more than desirable for the clergy to be conspicuously virtuous, but it's not of the essence. And in bad times, it's the essence that will count. That's what the argument against Donatism comes down to to me.
That's why I was trying to convey that what I was speaking was not Donatism. It wasn't the efficacy of the sacrament based upon the condition of the priest; rather, efficacy of the sacrament based upon the condition of the participant.

If the Church is, as we maintain, NOT a human institution, we would look for the fruits maybe in unexpected places?
Which is why I specifically stated that the church was not the institution in Rome but the followers of Christ. It isn't a building (though we all call them churches). It isn't a hierarchical structure. It isn't something that a Pope heads up (seeing the spiritual condition of quite a few popes one wouldn't want to say Satan led the church). Rather, it is that group of all true believers everywhere who have Christ as their Savior.

When Luther left the Roman Institution, he did not leave Christianity. He connected with true Christianity as depicted by the apostles and others in Scripture. He was FAR FROM a perfect individual. But his hope was in Christ. He found God in spite of the muck and mire in the church, and left a rich theological heritage behind.

[jo kus]

When the Eastern hierarchs came back to Constantinople from the Council of Florence, the reaction of the lower clergy and laity, both high and low born, was that they and the Empire had been delivered into the hands of "foreign overlords", not the loving embrace of the HMC.

And tell me how exactly the "lower clergy" were able to ascertain that? Are you saying that there was not some bias already ingrained against the Pope by this time (Florence) and any rebuilding was doomed to failure because of the "lower clergy's" attitudes? Are we to believe that these men really knew what Rome was teaching?

I think 300 years of separation had ingrained a number of half truths and twistings of what the West was really doing. They hadn't ANY experience with the Western world - it is a dream to believe these "lower clergy" refused Rome because they had some inner "feeling" based on actual experience that it was wrong to reunite with the West because the West had actually fallen off the rails...

Let's be honest. There was a massive anti-West movement in the East during the time. Florence was doomed because of that, not because of theology.

Regards

[jo kus]

It is extremely difficult to make a definitive statement that the culture changed but the Church did not.

I think it would be impossible to make such a statement. The Church is made up of people from the culture itself. The Church is supposed to reach out to the world, not separate itself from it.

I don't even understand what prompted Vatican II, let alone what promoted the Roman Catholic Church to turn everything upside down and "Protestantize" itself almost to the point of being unrecognizable to the Orthodox.

Vatican 2 itself was really an outstanding effort, no doubt, a working of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, execution of its constitutions and declarations were another story. However, I have ultimate faith that this is all in God's hands for His own reasons.

Regards

[bornacatholic]

I think the fact that Fr. Taft and Patriarch Bartholomew were students together in Rome presages unanticipated results.

It is almost as if the Holy Spirit were active in these later days :)

[Kolokotronis]

"They hadn't ANY experience with the Western world - it is a dream to believe these "lower clergy" refused Rome because they had some inner "feeling" based on actual experience that it was wrong to reunite with the West because the West had actually fallen off the rails..."

Where in God's name did you get the idea that the priests and laity in Constantinople didn't know what was being taught in the West? All the East knew about the filioque and the accusations the Dominicans were making throughout the Levant that Orthodoxy had changed the Creed in an heretical fashion; all the East knew of the Papal legate's unfortunate performance at the Divine Liturgy with his "bull" of excommunication; all the East knew that the Crusaders had set a whore up on the Patriarchal throne in Agia Sophia, threw dice on the altar table and installed a "Latin Patriarch"; all the East knew of the pretentions of the Pope to universal immediate jurisdiction, popes had been making claims like that, to no effect in the East, for centuries. And finally, Jo, Easterners, unlike the masses in the West, could read. They knew what the scriptures said, they knew what The Fathers taught. They were continually exhorted to read the scriptures. It likely had an effect.

If you think theology and ecclesiology had nothing to do with the failure of the False Union of Florence, you don't understand Orthodoxy then or now. Florence wasn't doomed because of anti-Western feelings; it was doomed because the hierarchs who agreed to it sold out Orthodoxy for poltical/military reasons. The people and lower clergy knew that. You know what their response was. They got the sultan's turban and Western Christendom shattered into what is now tens of thousands of pieces 100 years later.

[Kolokotronis]

"I think the fact that Fr. Taft and Patriarch Bartholomew were students together in Rome presages unanticipated results."

Now there's an interesting and potentially important factoid.

[kosta50]

I have ultimate faith that this is all in God's hands for His own reasons

God grant it, Jo.

[bornacatholic]

Me buddy from So. Portland, Me. was vacationing with his Bride in Greece. He cant exactly remember the name of the small hilly town. In any event,they got back from hiking REALLY late and were making their way to their rustic base when me buddy John said to his Bride, "let's wait around for awhile, something is up"

To make a long story short, unbeknownst to them, this was the Eve of Easter and the Greeks, as you well know, were making preparations.

he and his Bride told me that was the best night they have ever had overseas.

"I couldn't believe it," said me buddy,"the whole town suddenly came alive and families lit fires all OVER the place and they were hauling out lamb and wine and one family asked us to join them."

So, they spent the night with that fam and had, accrd to me Buddy, THE best lamb he has ever had, and great wine, and they had the time of their lives.

"We talked about Jesus and the Resurrection"

And, if an Orthodox family, somewhere in the hills of some small town in Greece, could make my never-go-to-church American buddy and his bride feel at home and welcome and religious all in one night, then that is ALL I ever need to tell me they are me brothers in the same Church. Amen.

P.S. Never underestimate the importance of lamb, wine, love, welcoming strangers and words about Jesus as THE best way to evangelise :)

[kosta50]

It is almost as if the Holy Spirit were active in these later days

No, He is always active. God always knocks on our hearts. Our lack of progress cannot be blamed on God. It's just that we are lucky to have the caliber of hierarchy willing to cooperate with Him more. It's about time, if you ask me, that they put in practice what they preach.

And one has really to admire +BXVI. He came on stage and the first thing he basically said was: (re)unite the Church!; not by morphing or bu absoirption, but as two faces of the same coin. Of course, the fact that we have come this far in a relatively short time (40 years is a lunch break in Church time and speed) is due to the works of some great men: the 1964 bilateral withdrawal of those senseless anathemas, "committing them to oblivion," was the breath of life. If anything positive came out of Vatican II that was certainly one of them.

Under +JPII, the Orthodox and the Catholic actually sat down and began talking to each other. At the closing of 2006, we witnessed two brothers in Christ, the first and the second bishop in His Church, holding up each others' hands, telling us: we can do it!

[Mad Dawg]

Wow, one has to work on several levels at once.

Someone who does not intend to receive Christ (let's take Hitler as our - somewhat mythical - example)
EITHER does not receive Christ, but as Cranmer (high Receptionist doctrine, IMHO) said, gets in a whole heap of trouble for abusing the sign of so great a thing"
OR receives Christ as Judge. We don't know what that's like but we bet he won't like it.

Does that answer the question?

There's got to be a formal intention. Assume I was validly ordained. Then put me in a liturgics class demoing the conventional ceremonies around the consecration. And there's bread and wine. I say the words, I have the stuff, I'm validly ordained. But this is not worship, this is a demo, so no sacrament there.

I'm unclear on the rest, but there's a kind of mutatis mutandis for the laity. I knew a guy who got Baptized because he thought a girl he was putting the moves on would dig it. But during the pre-baptismal conversations, God graciously messed up his life. But let's assume that hadn't happened and his adult participation in the Sacrament was without any intention but simply to advance his campaign on the hottie. While we can't say what God will or will not do, and he IS full of surprises and NOT a tame lion, there is no assurance that the sacrament was efficacious. And the bottom line is that if the same guy came to me some years later, persuasively repentant and with good testimony I would entertain the possibility of baptizing him "all over again". I would probably end up NOT baptizing him, on the grounds that his current state of grace reached back in time and validated his baptism (and might even be evidence of its validity and efficaciousness.)

IS that at least clear?

As a quibble, wasn't the "By your fruits" thing about prophets? But in general, yeah. Only problem is some fruits are slow ripening. Rough soil, bad summer, and the jalapeno plant only yields one or two peppers and waits until September to do it. So I'm not going to judge til the harvest is in. What I learned in the vineyard was some years you get way fewer grapes, but those fewer grapes have a higher brix and make better wine.

But Yeah yeah yeah to if I trust (or anyone trusts) God, it was God all along.

You haven't followed where I was coming from
One of my skills is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. People keep me around so they can figure out which the right end is. It's the one I'm not holding.

I'm talking about the sacrament's validity to that priest. If Adolf Hitler enters a church, being a Catholic, and takes the sacraments with perfection in form- are those sacraments efficacious to Hitler?

Rephrase? What if we had a telegram from God (notarized) saying Adolf Hitler was validly ordained priest, before he turned into a monster.
Then, after turning falling full foul into sin, he celebrates Mass with, oh, some good Catholic as his altar boy. Both of them communicate. Did anybody receive all the benefits that sacrament has to offer after adjusting for their capacity (not regarding moral influence on capacity)?

Wow, is THAT a great question! I'm going to run it by a priest I know. My money is that the altar boy assuredly received the Body and Blood of our Lord. Valid priest, valid stuff, the right words, the right intention on the part of the altar boy.

But I could be wrong. And I have no clue what Adolph got - except I KNOW he got in BIG trouble. Communicating when in a state of mortal sin (And you have every reason to know that the Church thinks you're in that state) is NOT good at ALL.

I think, and this is the weakest expression I can come up with: Say I"m having a bad day. I have made a confession and have managed to avoid committing murder since then. But right now I wouldn't trust God any further than I could throw Him. I slouch up to the altar saying to God and myself,"I don't know what I'm doing, but I am here doing what better and happier people than I intend me to do, what the Church intends me to do." I think that's a valid intention. But it's very formal, like programming with pointers: I intend obedience and conformity to the Church's teaching and am taking this sacrament because I want whatever it is that the Lord and His Church promise, but right now I don't know what that is; I'm just a blind beggar here." To me that's as valid as can be.

So the problem with out fantastic example is WHY in heaven's name would hitler do that? And good old fornicating Alexander: maybe when he wakes up -- and remember they didn't have Alka-Selzer back then -- and feels just incredibly awful, and he groans his way into his vestments and into the chapel ... who knows what he intended then? (And of course there are cultural issues. It has taken a long time for us Christinas to act like Christians. it wasn't that long ago that we thought slavery was permissible and expected a lot of men of a certain class to have mistresses, if they could afford to maintain them: Marriage for economics and heirs, mistresses for love. Cranmer was married before he broke with Rome. It didn't seem quite so awful then as it seems now.

I don't think Luther left Christianity. He was, as I am, forsworn. He and I both think we left corruption and falsehood for truth. We passed each other going opposite directions. He made out better than I did. (I have skin in this game, don't forget.) I think he left the plene esse for some lesser being of the Church. I always hope and trust that God is merciful and the benefits of His promise far over-reach my opinions. But I think we CERTAINLY have the sacraments in all their fullness, while I am not certain about Lutherans (though certain of God's mercy.) For the rest, I already know we have a different ecclesiology.

[Kolokotronis]

Ah, now see, that's a wonderful story. :) I don't doubt the story for a moment. That's the way it is in our villages, especially at Pascha.

[bornacatholic]

Beginning in 1965, Fr.Robert Taft, S.J., and the great Holy Patriarch, Bartholomew, studied together at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome under the magnificent Juan Mateos.

As the old saw holds, there are no coincidences :)

It it also "coincidental" that Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Benedict are not without EXTENSIVE knowledge of Patristics :)

[bornacatholic]

And those small hill town Greek villages ought be THE model for the entire world. Amen

I have been very impressed by Fr Taft's book. I will be reading a lot more. Scales are falling from me eyes, brother. Y'all have a LOT of reasons to feel justifiably proud.

[kosta50]

That is truly a great story and I am incredibly happy for your best buddy and his wife, as well as for you.

Not to put a damper on this, unbeknownst to your buddy and his wife, the Greeks were starving and couldn't wait to have something substantial to eat, as Paschal Sunday marks the end of our our Great Lent! :)

Those holy among us will spend the entire 40 days on nothing but greens boiled in water. "Regular" Orthodox sinners, chief among us the Greeks :), will fast rigorously for 40 days, abstaining from any meats and fish, olive oil, dairy products and so on.

Last Easter, our parish was grilling hot dogs at 3 AM! And people were walking around with huge chunks of cheese, bottles of wine and slabs of meat offering the blessed food to everyone.

Your freinds couldn't have picked a better time to be welcome, as +John Chrysostom's Paschal homily says "those who fasted and those who didn't" are welcome.

You know, I don't care what Kolo says: the Greeks have a soft spot (but they will never amdit it!). :)

[bornacatholic]

LOL Touche. But think of the impression that made on a secular tourist couple. It is always the simple things, right? Lamb, wine, welcoming the strangers to your family table in the hills, Sweet loving words about the Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour. Dark,chilly hills, suddenly lit and revifived, renewed and warmed by fires and coals chasing away Satan and his chilling evil, darkness: love, laughter, songs, wine, lamb on spits abounding in the heretofore silence and darkness....Good Lord. amen. If that ain't Christian Catechesis at its finest and its best, then catechesis doesn't exist

[bornacatholic]

LOL Touche. But think of the impression that made on a secular tourist couple. It is always the simple things, right? Lamb, wine, welcoming the strangers to your family table in the hills, Sweet loving words about the Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour. Dark,chilly hills, suddenly lit and revifived, renewed and warmed by fires and coals chasing away Satan and his chilling evil, darkness: love, laughter, songs, wine, lamb on spits abounding in the heretofore silence and darkness....Good Lord. amen. If that ain't Christian Catechesis at its finest and its best, then catechesis doesn't exist

[Kolokotronis]

"You know, I don't care what Kolo says: the Greeks have a soft spot (but they will never amdit it!). :)"

Τι λες; ψεματα! Greeks are soft like stone of our mountains (well, we do like to entertain)!