'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

I would like your comments on the following:

Orthodoxy and the the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos-- Unique to the modern Roman Church or ancient Eastern tradition?

Has Eastern Orthodoxy always opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, the Mother of God? She is praised in the Megalynarion hymn in the Divine Liturgy and in Vespers and Matins showing the pre-eminence of Mary among the saints:

It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cheribum, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify you.

How is the Theotokos "most pure"? Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate by St. Anne. Fr. Peter E. Gillquist comments in Becoming Orthodox:

However, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a doctrine unknown in the ancient Church and unique to the modern Roman Church.

He later refers to

the Roman Church with its questionable late dogmatic additions concerning Mary. (pp. 119, 122)

Fr. Casimir Kucharek in his magnus opus The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (1971; Alleluia Press, pp. 355-357) marshals the evidence that the early Eastern Church did believe in and commemorate the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos:

Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as archrantos, "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...." [References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]

Fr. Kucharek continues:

No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. [The very vastness of available testimony precludes listing. Two excellent surveys may be consulted: A. Ballerini, Sylloge monumentorum ad mysterium conceptionis immaculatae virginis deiparae spectantium (Rome, 1854-1855), and C. Passaglia, De immaculato deiparae semper virginis conceptu commentarius (Rome, 1854 -1855).] Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.

In support of this statement, Fr. Kucharek cites these references in a footnote on pp. 355-356:

Among the better known ninth to thirteenth century Byzantine theologians: Patriarch Photius in his homilies De Annuntiatione and De Nativitate Deiparae (S. Aristarchis, Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Vol. II [Constantinople, 1900], pp. 230-245, 368-380); George of Nicomedia in his homilies (PG 100, 1336-1504), especially Conceptione deipara and Praesentatione Mariae virginis; Michael Psellos in the recently discovered and edited homily De Annuntiatione (PO 16, pp. 517-525); John Phurnensis, Oratione de Dormitione (G. Palamas, Theophanous tou kerameos homiliai, [Jerusalem, 1860], append., pp. 271-276); Michael Glykas, Annales, III (PG 158, 439-442); Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople, In annuntiationem (edit. Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 283-382); Theognostos the Monk, In dormitionem (PO 16, pp. 457-562); Nicetas David, In nativitatem B.M.V. (PG 105, 16-28); Leo the Wise, In dormitionem and In praesentationeum (PG 107, 12-21); Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, In Conceptionem Annae (PO 16, pp. 499-505); Bishop Peter Argorum, In conceptionem B. Annae(PG 104, 1352-1365); John Mauropos, In dormitionem (PG 120, 1075-1114); James the Monk, In nativitatem et in praesentationem B.M.V. (PO 16, pp. 528-538). Cf. Jugie, L'immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale [Rome, 1952], pp. 164-307, for others.

Fr. Kucharek notes that Eastern theologians took St. Thomas Aquinas to task on this issue. (Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception):

Two of Thomas Aquinas' most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas' works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas' views on the immaculate conception. [Demetrios Kydonios, Hom. in annuntiationem deiparae, contained in Cod. Paris gr., 1213 (cf. Jugie, op cit., pp. 276-279.] No less did the other great Thomist, Georgios Scholarios (fifteenth century), in his synopsis of the immaculate conception. [Georgios Scholarios, In dormitionem (PO 16, p. 577); cf. Petit-Siderides-Jugie; Oeuvres completes de Georges Scholarios, Vol. 1 [Paris, 1928], pp. 202-203; also Petit-Sisderides-Jugie, op. cit., I, p. 501; also Jugie, Georges Scholarios et l'Immaculee Conception, Echos d'Orient (Paris-Istanbul, 17 [1915], pp. 527-530.]

How did Orthodoxy come to reject the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos? Fr. Kucharek concludes:

The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. [Nicholas Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century (cf. Jugie L'Immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale, p. 2130, but the great Cabasilas' (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception (In nativitatem [PO 19, pp. 468-482]; In dormitionem [PO 19, pp. 498-504]) still had great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch Gregory Palamas (1446-1452) whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today (De hypapante; De annuntiatione; De dormitione [PG 151]; also In Christi genealogiam and In praesentationem [edit. K. Sophocles, Tou en hagiois patros emon Gregoriou tou Palama homiliai, Athens, 1861]). Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. [Cf. N. Subbotin, Materialy dlja istorii Roskola, Vol. IV (Moscow, 1878), pp. 39-50, 229, and Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1874), p. 457.] This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

--Dave Brown

"No doubt that Mary loved G-d will all her heart, mind and soul. But everything else you said is speculation. It IS possible to love G-d with your heart, mind and soul AND have beautiful G-d santioned sex with your spouse."

Well of course it is! But here's something to think about. The Fathers taught that our created purpose, from Adam and Eve down to you and me and the rest of us, is to become "like God", which is to say that we will come to a point where we become sharers in the uncreated eneregies of God (but not His Essence since, as +Gregory Palamas notes, God allows no sharing of his Essence). In order for this to happen, we need to fully "die to the self" so that our existence becomes totally focused on God. Our human, loving desire for sexual relations with our spouses is a marvelous thing and in no way sinful, yet the fulfillment of those desires necessarily involves, at least for most of us, a degree of self-fulfillment even as we are obeying God's command to be fruitful and multiply. A life of chastity involves a conscious overcoming of our Post Fall nature at a most basic level. In Orthodoxy we say that our celibate monastics are our spiritual Olympians because they have received sufficient grace to move beyond acting on their physical desires, sexual and otherwise in many cases. The Desert Fathers have left us many examples of this. +Mary of Egypt is an excellent example of a saint who so overcame her fleshly nature that she became, while alive, wraith-like. She had so advanced in theosis that her physical being began to fade away along with her will.

By venerating the Theotokos for her perpetual virginity, The Church is in no way denigrating married life and the physical joys of love within marriage. Its not a zero sum game.

Here's your answer in anutshell:

"When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it."

In fact that isn't quite what the EP said, but it will do for this discussion. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is absolutely necessary if one accepts the +Augustian construct of Original Sin, at least as it has played out over the centuries as a "macula" of some sort. Orthodoxy of course does not accept that notion at all. The dogma thus does not become "necessary", nor is it necessary to dogmatically proclaim that Panagia was from the moment of her conception ontologically different from the rest of mankind (with the doubtless unintended problem that can create for Christology).

Orthodoxy has always believed that the Theotokos was all pure and sinless, though we all know that some Fathers did speculate that she may have sinned, +John Chrysostomos for example, but those ideas are clearly outside the consensus patrum. Our Orthodox beliefs, however, posit that she received sufficient grace from God, or put another way, so responded to God's grace which falls on all of us, that she maintained her sinless state in fulfillment of God's plan for the Incarnation even after reaching an age when the rest of us begin sinning. That's what makes her special, P. If Orthodoxy rejects the idea of Original Sin as traditionally preached in the West, calling the Theotokos pure, or immaculate or Panagia, simply doesn't mean that she was, from the moment of her conception, ontologically different from the rest of us.

One might say that given some relatively modern Latin theology concerning Original Sin, this all could be a matter of semantics, but I think that ignores the dangers inherent in dogmatically declaring that the Blessed Mother wasn't as real a human being, as much a daughter of Adam and Eve as the rest of us. As I said elsewhere, it is exactly this sort of notion which leads to popular understandings of terms like "Co-Redemptrix", which, to tell you the truth, is one of the most dangerous appellations I think of.

"I'm not sure I understand the reason it is not corrected, but I don't believe the hearts of those that fall into it are bad just misguided. I think your right about EO not getting caught up in it."

Oh I think that attempts are made to correct it, but cultish behavior can be hard to stamp out, especially when the people caught up in it are there because of what they believe they have been "infallibly" taught. Contributing to this, I believe, is the great difference between the religious mindset of the West and that of the East. In the West, there is perceived a great gulf between "heaven and earth", though I don't think the Western Church teaches that. That perception comes from the adoption (and perhaps misinterpretation) of +Augustine's notions of Original Sin and the state of man after The Fall. You know, we are all familiar with the reported appearances of the Theotokos on building, bridge abutments, cheese sandwiches etc which cause a great stir among the Western faithful. What are these people seeing? I don't know, but I do know they view these visitations, whatever they are, as miraculous. But if the Theotokos is our mother as The Church teaches, why would her presence be so very astonishing? Well, likely because Western Christians have a notion that we are so sinfully depraved that it is indeed an extraordinary thing for Mary or the saints to deign to show up and talk with us. This simply isn't true in Orthodoxy. There is no great gulf perceived between us here and the saints and Panagia in heaven. In Orthodox countries, even Orthodox families here, it is not overly extraordinary that a holy person might have regular connections with the Theotokos or a saint. It simply isn't that uncommon and seems to us perfectly logical that the saints who love us would communicate with us and guide us day to day. Its pretty hard to make a cult out of something which seems perfectly natural.

"In all other cases the LORD either returns or uses angels. I think these images that people are praying to are not from GOD, but are being used to mislead people and come from the great deceiver, Satan."

One of the greatest of spiritual gifts, or so the Desert Fathers believed, is "discernment", whereby one can tell a delusion from the Evil One from something holy. Orthodoxy, far more so than Western Christianity, is aware of demons. Monks and holy people speak of them and warn against them all the time to this day. I've heard the howling of demons myself, several times, most often outside the walls of monasteries in Greece. I'll wager you yourself have had very real, tangible experiences with them. Ever been at church listening to a sermon or praying when out of nowhere you start thinking about the young lady three pews away in a less than holy way? Those thoughts, the Fathers tell us, come from the "logismoi", little, troublesome demons who don't have much power, but whose hatred of holy things is as great as Satan's own. And there are extremely powerful demons, some of whom can destroy even very holy people. We Orthodox are constantly reminded of the dangers of demons as Orthodox people have been for 2000 years. Here's a good example of what I am talking about and of the importance of discernment from +John Cassian who lived and wrote in the 4th century: "A recent example of the kind that I promised you will show the force of that description proclaimed of old by the blessed Anthony and by the other fathers. Think of what you recently saw happening before your very eyes. Remember the old man Hero who was cast down from the heights to the lowest depths because of a diabolical illusion. I remember how he remained fifty years in this desert, keeping to the rigors of abstinence with a severity that was outstanding, loving the secrecy of the solitary life with a fervor marvelously greater than that of any one else dwelling here. After such toil how and why could he have been fooled by the deceiver? How could he have gone down into so great a ruin that all of us here in the desert were stricken with pain and grief? Surely the reason for it was that he had too little of the virtue of discernment and that he preferred to be guided by his own ideas rather than to bow to the advice and conferences of his brethren and to the rules laid down by our predecessors. He practiced fasting so rigorously and so relentlessly, he was so given to the loneliness and secrecy of his cell, that even the special respect due to the Easter day could not persuade him to join the brethren in their meal. He was the only one who could not come together with all his brethren assembled in church for the feast, and the reason for this was that by taking the tiniest share of the vegetables he might give the impression of having relaxed from what he had chosen to do. This presumptuousness led to his being fooled. He showed the utmost veneration for the angel of Satan, welcoming him as if he were actually an angel of light. Yielding totally to his bondage he threw himself headlong into a well, whose depths no eye could penetrate. He did so trusting completely in the assurance of the angel who had guaranteed that on account of the merit of his virtues and of his works he could never come to any harm. To experience his undoubted freedom from danger the deluded man threw himself in the darkness of night into this well. He would know at first hand the great merit of his own virtue when he emerged unscathed. He was pulled out half-dead by his brothers, who had to struggle very hard at it. He would die two days later. Worse, he was to cling firmly to his illusion, and the very experience of dying could not persuade him that he had been the sport of devilish skill. Those who pitied him his leaving had the greatest difficulty in obtaining the agreement of abbot Paphnutius that for the sake of the merit won by his very hard work and by the many years endured by him in the desert he should not be classed among the suicides and hence, be deemed unworthy of the remembrance and prayers offered for the dead."

"Similarly, would not the need for precision lead us to say "the majority of Orthodox theologians today do not accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception" rather than "Orthodoxy does not accept ..." ? This would indicate that the Immaculate Conception could still be an orthodox opinion within Orthodoxy. I fear that the simple statement "Orthodoxy rejects ..." can feed into an anti-Roman reaction that uncritically considers as heretical any opinions that Catholics hold that is seem to originate outside the Orthodox consensus."

I suppose that if Orthodoxy and the Latin Church were able to agree on the basics of man's state before and after The Fall and arrive at a place different from where +Augustine's notions have lead the Western Church, I'd agree. There is absolutely no question, so far as I know, that both the Latin Church and Orthodoxy hold, in accord with the consensus patrum, that Panagia was ever sinless. How she got that way is the issue. If the West believes that she was preserved by some special, or rather, unique grace as opposed to believing that she responded fully to the very same grace which is available to all of us, and explain the Immaculate Conception that way, then we still have the same problem and such an idea couldn't even be theologoumennon in Orthodoxy. This of course points to that most arcane of theological questions, created versus uncreated grace, something which can tie our brains into knots!

P, absent an acceptance of Original Sin, I cannot see how any Orthodox person could accept the Immaculate Conception even as theologoumennon. Some Orthodox writers may have used the term Immaculate Conception, but if they accepted the usual understanding of that term, then they were outside Orthodox teachings on the issue. I remember hearing an Orthodox Metropolitan once speak about the Immaculate Conception as if it were an Orthodox doctrine. Afterwards I spoke with him about it and his explaination showed that while he had a fine understanding of the Orthodox position, it hadn't a clue what the Latin Church meant by the term. In fact, it shocked him that given the true meaning of the term, he had been using it all wrong.

"I fear that the simple statement "Orthodoxy rejects ..." can feed into an anti-Roman reaction that uncritically considers as heretical any opinions that Catholics hold that is seem to originate outside the Orthodox consensus."

There is always the danger of claims of heresy, even when it isn't actually there, especially among those who are not fully conversant with the subject. Its one thing to say that some theological opinion is rejected, quite another to say it is heresy. Recently, either here or on another site, commented that a reason the Pope proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was to combat a "heresy" that Panagia had sinned. This is of course absurd (smacks of the filioque, doesn't it?)as no one has made any move to anthemize +John Chrysostomos as a heretic so far as I know. Now your comment that the words "Orthodoxy rejects" could feed into anti-Roman sentiment is well taken. There still is some of that among the "cradle" Orthodox faithful, but in all honesty, virtually all of it has died out in the past 30 years or so. Where I see most of it is in converts from Western Protestantism who for at least a time after conversion (5-10 years)seem to carry a heavy load of anti-Catholic baggage. Thank God that usually goes away, not because they become more accepting of Latin theological positions, but because those positions simply have no meaning in their lives as Orthodox Christians.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.