'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/

[Mad Dawg]

Okay. I think we can agree that good works are "Diagnostic". I would agree with Kierkegaard among others that works are largely internal -- or the part that "counts" is. And that means that actually on the ground, we may not always know if a work is "good".

I know some very mentally ill people. Sometimes I see what I think must be an effort at real love and charity on their part. Usually it's a manipulative destructive controlling disaster! But I think they were giving it their best shot.

I mention this not only to trumpet my own remarkable virtue and perspicacity (famed in legend and song), but to make clear the possibility that I, even I, could be very wrong about what a good work in the real world, on the ground, etc. would be. But we can agree in theory.

Now, personally I would avoid using the word salvific because it seems to make trouble. But, you know, when I get up and haul the sorry carcass out of bed and, while the coffee drips, read the day's psalms and Scripture selections, over time it seems that good things happen, the first of which is that the next day I want to get up and do it again, and maybe this time make a little surer that I am slowing down, listening as I read, etc. In other words, there is often a sequence: a good work is followed by the urge to do another good work.

MY idiosyncratic take which I submit to my RCC brethren for inquisition is this:

First, the good work is only good by grace. My motivations are complicated and NEVER pure. My execution is ditto. The work is sort of formally good: it is good to "pray". Whatever good there is in my wanting to do it and the doing itself, is a gift.

A FURTHER gift, somehow consequent on the earlier gifts, is that I might want to do the same thing tomorrow, and that during the day I might find myself giving more time to prayer - waiting for the light to change, listening while my wife articulates some tricky concept, laughing at Rush.

All these little moments help me remember God's love. All these moments help me remember that God loves that piece of mobile pond scum who just darn near ran into me in his haste to beat the light.

Because of the sequential nature of these events , God calls me to pray, I pray, God calls me more frequently (or enables me to hear His call more frequently), AND because it stands to reason that the exercise of a good action will over time help it turn into a good habit, leads me to use language about "merit". This prayer was "rewarded" with that prayer.

But I will insist that it is at the bottom a kind of celebratory play on words. As if I gave my daughter money to buy me a Christmas present and "rewarded" her for doing so with a kiss and a raise in her allowance. And later on in her life, when she had walked in various paths or good works, I might reward her by paying for her to go to Outward Bound. The gift and reward would be 28 days of severe trials! But it's all GRACE, it's all GIFT. And for me, to forget that is the way to disaster.

Now, viewed (as IF) from the perspective of the Eternal, this was all foredoomed. But while I can imagine, very inadequately, that perspective, here on the ground there are phenomena to describe in the Christian life. And I have tried to show (pedantically, the mania hasn't kicked in yet) how I describe them, while bearing in mind that the description is provisional and inadequate, albeit conventional for RCs (I think.)

Gimme some feedback, please.

[HarleyD]

What are you talking about; the deuterocanonical books or the apocrapha? This all started in post 8976 where you stated:

It matters, HD, because the Christian concept of Satan being the same as the devil, which appears only in the New Testament, comes from the so-called 'apocrypha,' the books that were apparently credible to the Apostles who wrote the NT, and to the Church Fathers who put together the Chirstian canon (including the 'apocryphal' books), but were rejected 1,500 years later by Luther and his followers.

I assumed you were referring to Revelation as an "apocrypha" book where Satan and the devil are equated as the same being and Luther didn't care for. I responded with

If you mean Revelation, the last time I looked in my Protestant bible, it was there. in post 8985.

You responded with

My goodness, HD, you don't even seem to know what deuterocanonical books are and you are debating the issue! in post 8999.

We aren't talking about the deuterocanonical books. We are talking about the New Testament and your vague reference to the "apocrapha" and something that Luther and his followers "rejected". Could you please clarify what you precisely meant in post 8976?

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you for your gracious phrasing. Now I think I'm beginning to get it.

All I can say right now is I need somebody wiser than me here. I have for a long time personally eschewed "Semi-pelagianism". But then I have to say, "At least, I THINK I have." And the reason was not academic but experiential. Whenever I do something good, I'm always amazed and then grateful. I just KNOW it wasn't me.

And then I flee to my example about the geometry original. That is, there was perhaps some fleeting perception of the option of turning away from the gift which "came to me," but, personally, that was never a live option.

Against that, though, is the real experience of struggle sometimes. What shall we make of that? The psalms wisely say a king is not delivered by his army, but the smart king does cashier all his troops. He trains them.

Okay, gang: How do we address semi-pelagianism? Give us some help here

[Mad Dawg]

I would pretty much go with what TRD said. He says it affirmatively, I back into it. (He also uses a lot fewer words. Note to self: shut up.)

[Mad Dawg]

SHOULD BE: The smart king does NOT cashier all his troops

[blue-duncan]

"How exactly does He do that? Because He cites a few sayings from what WE NOW recognize as Scriptures? Does He take aside the Sadducees and tell them that they are wrong to accept ONLY the Torah? Does Jesus lay out the entire Canon?"

Actually He does. In speaking to the religious leaders who would be using the Hebrew Canon, He says, (John 5:39), "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

As Josephus, the renegade, traitor Jew, sycophant of the Emperors Flavius and Titus wrote soon after Christ, Josephus said "Although so great a time interval has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or remove or to alter a syllable, and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, to cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf." His enumeration and description of these books show that they were the same as those of the Old Testament as we now have it.

There has always been tension in the early church between the Greek speaking Christians and the septuagint and the Jewish christians and the Hebrew Canon. The Gentile Christians as can be expected used the septuagint since it was in their language and Rome, in moving to solidify its political and religious power, used it to remove the "jewishness" of the church.

[Mad Dawg]

Where is the "must" in the things you quote?

[Mad Dawg]

Here's why I allow myself to complain about the caps and colors and stuff.

Just based on the text of your post, I see an error, or at least something to question: The passage you quote doesn't say anything about the Trinity "has to" do anything. So it seems to me that what we have is misplaced outrage.

[jo kus]

In speaking to the religious leaders who would be using the Hebrew Canon, He says, (John 5:39), "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You are avoiding my question. How does Jesus take the Sadducees aside and tell them that the Torah is NOT the total Scriptures??? John 5:39 can just as easily be interpreted to say that Jesus AGREES with their idea of Scriptures being 5 books - and then to go search THEM to find that they testify to Him... He doesn't tell them that they need to search the "Pharisees' version" of the Scriptures.

As Josephus, the renegade, traitor Jew, sycophant of the Emperors Flavius and Titus wrote soon after Christ, Josephus said "Although so great a time interval has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or remove or to alter a syllable, and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, to cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf." His enumeration and description of these books show that they were the same as those of the Old Testament as we now have it.

You have described for me the Pharisee opinion of the Canon. Wonderful. Now, what about the Saduccee or the Essene opinion? Again, Josephus didn't speak for the entire Israeli nation when he wrote for the Romans

There has always been tension in the early church between the Greek speaking Christians and the septuagint and the Jewish christians and the Hebrew Canon. The Gentile Christians as can be expected used the septuagint since it was in their language and Rome, in moving to solidify its political and religious power, used it to remove the "jewishness" of the church.

Speculation not based on the evidence at hand. You are presuming there WAS a Hebrew Canon that was widely accepted by all Jews. This was not the case until well into the Second Century. Research and the Bible tells us there was NOT a monolithic Canon accepted by Jews. The Diasporan Jews were Jewish as well as the Palestinean Jews. Modern research has also determined that the Septuagint was utilized in Palestine, not just in the Diaspora. Thus, your premise is unacceptable. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Jews were using the Septuagint during the time of Christ. More Jews lived OUTSIDE of Palestine than within. They used the Septuagint. Some Palestinean Jews ALSO used the Septuagint. Thus, it would only be natural for the JEWISH writers of the NT to use the most-used "version" of Scripture, the Septuagint. They found within the Septuagint verses that could be applied to Christ that were not as clearly marked in what we now call the Hebrew Canon (which was not the only Hebrew version of Scriptures).

Remember, also, the Old Testament in your Christian Bible (at least those based on the KJV) is dependent upon the Masoretic tradition, not the original Hebrew autographs. The Dead Sea scrolls bear a closer resemblance to the Septuagint than the Masoretic texts on many occasions.

Regards

[Quix]

No need to worry about misplaced outrage, Dear Heart MD. There's gotta be plenty to go around!

Mostly joking.

Seriously, the construction on reality I and my friend took is AT LEAST plausible.

Given the flesh . . . that's not concerning? The flesh chooses such 'realities' by nature, by habit, by desire.

And, if the contention is that RC folks naturally have less of a problem with the flesh than the rest of us . . . it's a return to guffaws to the max.

[DungeonMaster]

Where is the "must" in the things you quote?

It's certainly not in the Bible.

[HarleyD]

You have described for me the Pharisee opinion of the Canon. Wonderful. Now, what about the Saduccee or the Essene opinion?

Actually, what I think b-d described was the Jewish forefathers (Christians) opinion of the Canon. Who cares what the Saduccees thought because, as our Lord Jesus told them, they "knew neither the scriptures nor the power of God". So that would raise the question why their opinion would count.

(1) For the books of the Old Testament were not given to the Christian church by stages, in temporal succession or through parts of the church, but all books belonging to it were received from the Jews at one and the same time written in one codex, after they had received unquestioned authority, which was confirmed by Christ himself and by the apostles. But the books of the New Testament were written separately in different times and places, and gradually collected into one corpus. Therefore, some of the later books, which came later to some churches, especially in remote areas, were held in doubt by some, until their authenticity gradually became known. (2) Although some Epistles and the Book of Revelation were questioned in some churches, yet there were always many more that accepted them. But there was never any disagreement over the apocryphal books, because they were always rejected by the Jewish church. - The Canonicity of the Apocrypha

[Quix]

Offense is too mild a word, imho.

Stark raving blasphemy is how it strikes my friend and I, here.

Was pondering this a bit ago . . .

I think the emotional, psychological, sociological function is like

NAME DROPPING say in D.C. or Hollyweed.

We know we can't/couldn't get to be or can't imagine being REALLY THAT CLOSE TO THE SUPER TOP ELITES ourselves . . .

But we can know someone who is. So, we sort of bring them down to our level by access to our buddy.

Mary sort of fills the role of this leader of the IN-GROUP CLUB with super tight access to The Trinity. So that makes Mary-ites have an inside track--or so says some set of neurons in their conscious and/or unconscious. Everyone likes to feel special and to have inside tracks. What a trick of satan. Feeds the ego and the flesh masterfully.

And what an affronting robbery of the Glory of God . . . what a very gross distraction from The Trinity.

I still can't believe it . . . 5 "OUR FATHERS" for every 50 hail Mary's in the Rosary. And they still say with straight fingers that their priorities are Biblicaly in order and that it's not idolatry. What denial. What a delusion. The proof is right there.

The commandment is to Love God with one's whole being . . . well . . . except for the part devoted to Mary . . . gag.

[Mad Dawg]

I'm not saying, when I say God is your secretary, that He is your inferior. I'm saying that you couldn't communicate at all or with anyone whatsoever without His sustaining the act at every level, physical and metaphysical and psychological, and in every other way that it needs support. I thought it was the Calvinists who were all about the Sovereignty of God, but now you seem to be in position of saying that communication can happen without God's help.

I understand you to say that it is remarkable that communications to Mary would be assisted by the Lord. I'm saying EVERY communication at all times is assisted by the Lord, and no communication would ever happen without him.

If that is not scriptural, then I am not scriptural. But you sound like a deist here - God wound up the communication mechanism and turned it loose? - and I know that's not true, that you're not a Deist.

So then you make the equivalence that if we say God enables communication with Mary then we are making God Mary's secretary.

And rather than dispute that, I run with it. (Would it be better if I said volunteer secretary, or if you had?)

I took the equivalence that you made So, you pray to Mary and Jesus is her secretary relaying the message to her?, that is,if God helps, He must be in a servant role, and ran it out. You added the element of compulsion to what we were saying. It seems to me that if you reject what I say then you have to reject the argument that we are making Jesus Mary's secretary.

Then you say, Pardon me if that conjures up images of Jesus looking to Mary "Hey, Mom. Mad Dawg is talking to you."

Would it be okay or at least pardonable if I characterized the Calvinist view as God as a puppet master controlling everything for his amusement, saving some puppets but throwing others into fire, like a spoiled emperor pulling the wings off of flies, or a Spartan killing a Helot just for the, uh, Helot of it? It wouldn't be okay with ME if I did that.

And again, you all think that God is in time and changeable. We don't. He serves. He has always served. That's what Sovereigns do. Tyrants dominate. That's why people hate tyrants and love their good kings. They don't serve out of compulsion, but out of wisdom and love.

As to the rest, we take seriously the saying:

Αγαπητοι, νυν τεκνα θεου εσμεν, και ουπω εφανερωθη τι εσομεθα. οιδαμεν οτι εαν φανερωυη ομοιοι αθτω εσομεθα, οτι οψομεθα καθωσ εστιν.
we shall be like Him (I John 3:2)

And, come to think of it, "..greater things than these ..."

We take the promises very seriously indeed, and rejoice in them.

[Running On Empty]

I'm beginning to see how this works:

One can post anything insulting and contemptuouos about the faith of another as long as it's done by exchanging such posts with another "compadre" but avoiding making it ad hominem to a particular poster. The results are the same but there are no consequences.

It can be called "trash the faith but not the faithful".

I believe it actually ends up not changing any minds at all, so it all seems counter-productive.

[Quix]

Are you aware at all very deeply . . . and comprehensively . . . understandingly . . .

how very seriously

the Marian stuff wholsale bastardizes, trashes our faith, our Biblical Gospel?

That's just a fact.

Supposedly we can talk about issues including such facts hereon.

[Mad Dawg]

It's 6 paternosters for every 53 aves. Also 6 Glory Be's, and 6 (Fatima prayers addressed to Jesus), and 2 In the name ofs. So now were up to 53 Hail Marys against 20 invocations of the Trinity or a person thereof.

The Rosary is not our only devotion. I've already shown that on this thread. You should consider the mysteries of the Rosary, as someone else and I have described them. They are neither only, especially, exclusively, nor even predominantly about Mary. Two of them MIGHT seem liable to that Charge, the Assumption and the Coronation, but that seeming would be only among those who ignore who's doing to assuming and the crowning.

I will not make a psychopathological characterization of those who do not share my opinion, but I will venture to wonder why it is so important to so many of them to argue -- and not only argue but rant -- against practices we do not practice and dogmas we do not teach. What is UP with that? (rhetorical question.)

And please take a look at your comparison: You compare praying to the saints with dropping the names of a politician or a movie star t gain access to some other remote person and to feel special.

Sed contra: Thus saith the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy, "I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones."

We say God is nearer to us than we are to ourselves, that the saints are with us, that in our worship (as Calvin says) we enter even more fully the heavenly places, and we join our voices with "all the company of heaven." In other words they are NOT remote, God is NOT remote, and we take confidence and joy and strength from the whole Church, part and future as well as present, all in God's here and now.

And for this we are told we are insulting God and not giving Him the honor due his name. We say,"Now our feet are standing within your gates, oh Jerusalem," and are told we think we are far off. If the remark were not addressed to us, I wouldn't have known I was being discussed because it is so far from what we do and think and feel.

If there are any in any of our denominations who really think of God as "The man upstairs", or some even more remote being, we would do better to pray for than to mock them.

[Mad Dawg]

It's certainly not in the Bible.

Nor it in any of the things you quote. It's a trumped up charge. I think the Bible has something about that in it somewhere. Try arguing against what we do believe, not what we don't.

[Running On Empty]

It's a fact to you.

It doesn't make it a fact to me.