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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Pyro7480]

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

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/

[kosta50]

one cannot repent without faith

That's absurd. Anyone can repent for any reason whatsoever, even an atheist. Repentance merely means change of mind (metanoia in Greek). Anyone can regret something and resolve never to do it again. No faith needed there.

Od focurse, in the case of king david faith was a the factor for his metanoia, but I am willing to bet there are people of faith who don't repent of everything, even though they have faith.

[kosta50]

FK to kawaii: Maybe that's true in YOUR parish, but it has been freely admitted to me by other Orthodox here that not all their women go through their services covered and silent. You are not speaking for all Orthodox churches

Your memory serves you well, FK. Kawaii is correct in raising these issues because we seem to have double standards when it comes to Scripture: if it clashes with popular notions and habits, we go with the notions and habits and dispense with or ignore the Scripture.

Traditional Orthodox churches have women stand on the left and men on the right (my Serbian church does, but women are covered only when they receive communion, and even then not all!).

But if you go to a monastery it is done 'right.' In Serbia, most women are covered. It seems the more 'urban' and trendy (i.e. western) the area the less observant will the women be.

Clearly western Protestantism is the source of this 'abolition' of scriptural prohibition for women to preach in church/public places.

Kawaii is certainly not speaking for all Orthodox churches; there is not a single Orthodox church where even the Divine Liturgy or the church arrangement is exactly the same. :)

[D-fendr]

Here's my initial question to irishtenor's comment that you replied to:

that tells me that the Word (scripture) is Jesus, the Christ.
You aren't saying the Bible is God are you?

I'm still not sure whether your answer is yes or no or maybe.

[Cvengr]

Do you belief that a person changing their mind about sin or repenting, doesn;t imply we are turning our mind back towards God and obedience to His will, or are you asserting we are forgiven simply because we waffle to and fro regarding our particular actions or thoughts?

I suspect that when we turn back to Him, in our thinking, we have implicitly placed Him as the object of our thinking, ie. a nonmeritorious thought of ourselves, then in confession of our sin, stating it with our volition focusing on Him instead of anything else, He then is sure and just to foregive us that sin.

[Forest Keeper]

From "Just For Catholics:" Jerome And The Apocrypha

Great post, BD. Very informative, thanks.

[blue-duncan]

"If you'l recall the New Testament original language is Greek; it's not a translation."

That's not entirely correct. Matthew was first written in Hebrew then Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius and Origen all attest to the fact that it was first written in Hebrew and there is a large body of experts who say it was also in Aramaic as they say of the Gospel of Mark and Jude's letter. There is also the different forms of Greek used by Luke, Paul, James and the writer of Hebrew, with the use of different idioms and Hebraisms and Aramaic sayings; all having to be translated according to the scrivener's particular bias.

The Greek was not consistent throughout the original letters and the Old Testament references had to be translated from the Hebrew thought into the Greek language which didn't have words or thought forms to accurately translate the original ideas..

[kosta50]

The Greek was not consistent throughout the original letters and the Old Testament references had to be translated from the Hebrew thought into the Greek language which didn't have words or thought forms to accurately translate the original ideas

Your comment is spot on, since Hebrew relied also heavily on numerology (i.e. someone's name had a numerical meaning as well, and then the number was significant for various reasons), just as Japanese and Chinese cannot be fully translated into alphabetical languages because, in addition to each character having a set of pronounceable sounds, it also has a pictorial meaning.

Thus in a typical kabuki play (where all men are men and 'women' are too), one two actors may have the same sounding name but a different kanji (Chinese character) with pictorial meaning that says a lot about their different personalities, who is a hero and who is a villain.

I often thought about the numerology issue regarding the Septuagint (LXX). Balancing this is the fact that in Mishna and 6th century revisions, the Hebrew Bible underwent further 'corrections' to eliminate any Christian bias in addition to vowels which can completely change the meaning of the words.

All this points to vulnerability and bias that has invaded the Scripture, where it is impossible to ascertain which is the 'original' and which is an addition or subtraction. It is rather fascinating that none of the 'originals' survived although one would think the holiest articles would be guarded against all odds (examples: the Tablets, the original books of Moses, the true cross, Christ's robes, the original Gospels and Epistles, etc.). Instead, all we have are descriptions in copies of copies.

Dead Sea Scrolls cast a lot of light on various types of Jewish canon that existed in the 1st century AD, which is significant because they are not identical with the Masoretic Text (the Protestant OT "Hebrew Bible").

[kosta50]

I am not sure what you are tyring to say there Cvengr. I can say only that repentance does not require faith; that much is obvious.

[kosta50]

Then kindly tell me who the cherub in the garden of Eden was

It doesn't say the cherub was in the Graden of Eden. It says:

"From the day that you were created you were with the cherub." [Eze 28:14, LXX]

We are all born with guardian angels. Nothing unusual there.

While the language may be connected to what we think of the devil in Christian teachings, Eze. 28 is decidedly about the conceited king of Tyre. There is no mention of Satan. Satan in Judaism is one of the 'sons of God' in KJV, and one of the angels in LXX (Job 2:1)

[Forest Keeper]

The other is that no one reads the Bible on his own. Everyone brings in his notions of right and wrong, preferences, social instincts, etc. The Reformers, for example, brought in their democratic instincts and anticlerical disposition, very remote from the Apostolic age.

I have some sympathy for what you're saying. This is certainly true among established believers, including the first Reformers. But of course the same can be said for almost all people raised in the RCC. I was thinking of those who really did initially read (at least parts) of the Bible on their own. I was like that. At the time I knew absolutely nothing of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Of course I am an insignificant anecdote, however, there is a much larger comparison for today. That is the Gideons. A Gideon comes and speaks at our church a couple of times per year. We donate to them. Their ministry defines people reading the Bible from nothing, and there is obviously no theological follow up in a great majority of cases, if ever. Does the RCC support the Gideons, or even approve of what they do?

[kosta50]

I was unaware the Eastern Orthodox do not believe Christ's sacrifice was "foreshadowed" in the Old Testament

To the contrary. Unless I specify something as Orthodox teaching (I usually reference such statements), I am merely expressing my opinion. I am not an official of the Orthodox Church, and I make no such claim.

The EOC does teach that the OT is the "foreshadowing" of Christ. I am observing, however, that there is nothing 'temporary' about Judaic practices described in the OT, albeit there may be a hyperbolic 'foreshadowing' but not of burnt offerings.

No one? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, ... That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Notice the word 'perfect.' So far I see many people reading the scripture in many ways, none of which seems perfect because there is a lot of discord on what was read. A Presbyterian colleague of mine once told me "we all pray and worship imperfectly." Why is that? because are rendered 'perfect' by reading scripture (whatever Scripture may mean, because not even that is settled among Christians)

Why, we don't read the Bible the same way even as Christians, is it any wonder the Jews read the OT even more differently than we do?!

Read Hebrews, Kosta. It's all there and it's knowable

Read the Bible, Dr. E and tell me if one has seen God or not. Savce for one verse in Exodus, the Ot generally says that men have seen God, even face to face (and lived). +John and +Luke emphatically deny it. Which is it?

By the grace of God, they understood

I don't mean to be disrespectful, Dr. E, but the age of reason is sevenish, and that's a stretch. We don't even understand everything about our own world; let alone God.

[1000 silverlings]

No the bible is Truth, just like the Torah is Truth, God is Truth and Jesus is Truth. All are also wisdom.

Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

[1000 silverlings]

Sorry, that is not what the Hebrew says, and the full passage is describing Satan, as there is none other with those attributes that that can even come close. Many complain that scripture is hard to understand, yet here we have a description plain and simple that can only mean one thing

[Quix]

Clearly Dr E, we CAN by God's Grace, Spirit and Word

understand ENOUGH about God to

establish a relationship with Him and live with Him eternally. That will do for now, imho.

[kosta50]

Here is my reference to Ezekiel 28. I have read it over and over. I don't see Satan in it, although the same attributes were later assigned to the Christian concept of the devil. However, the Jews did not see the description of the king of Tyre identical with Satan.

I understand that some sects/cults interpret Ezekiel as describing the fall of Satan, but I don't and I am not alone

example

or this one

[kosta50]

Sorry, that is not what the Hebrew says

Hebrew? You mean the Pharisaical Bible that was 'redacted' several times since the time of Christ to 'purge' Chriastian bias out of it through Talmud and Mishna?

The 'Hebrew' you read is book that had accent vowells added (and such changes change words not just the accent). And the oldest copy goes to the 9th century AD! That is CE in modern usage. Over eight hundred years after Christ.

The LXX has been a "Hebrew" Bible because it was intended for the Alexandrian Hebrews, translated and bound and all that neatly two hundred years BEFORE Christ, that is BC (or BCE modern).

The Dead Sea Scrolls are "Hebrew" Bible too. And the LXX is what the Apostles quoted as OT Scripture.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "So, if gift means free gift, and I think we agree that it does, then how could this be an invention of the KJV?"

The redundancy is the invention of the KJV. A gift is only a gift if it is free, even Dr. E agrees with me on that one (miracle!). :) There is no NEED to specify it as 'free' as it would imply that there is such a thing as non-free gift. Verbosity comes to mind.

No, no oxymoron and no redundancy. :) I already gave you a modern day example of a conditional gift (man giving an engagement ring), but the concept was well known to the people of the time. For example, anyone knowing his scriptures was aware of the Mosaic Covenant. It was a conditional covenant. God promised to give the GIFT of His blessings in exchange for the obedience of the people. This was not an exchange of anything remotely resembling equal value so it has to be considered a conditional (non-free) gift.

God's saving grace was nothing like this at all. There were no strings attached, and no promise was required by men to receive saving grace. This makes "free" a useful adjective here.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Assurance itself is guaranteed in scripture, but any believer's apprehension of it might vary from other believers."

I know the proof texts for this; however in reading the NT as a whole, it seems very contrary to its meaning. It seems prideful and presumptuous where Jesus is teaching humility. I can allow that assurance may be useful for someone in their spiritual growth at some time, but for me, personally, it's a bad road to go down.

On whether assurance is "prideful and presumptuous where Jesus is teaching humility", I think we Reformers have something of a defense. :) For example, on the issue of internal goodness at birth, we would say that man has 0%. On the issue of man's goodness in cooperating with God toward salvation, we would say God gets 100% of the credit, and man gets 0% of the credit. On the issue of any other human (living or departed) being in assistance to our salvation, we would say that God gets 100% of the credit, and all those other very nice, wonderful, and Godly people get 0% of the credit. (This includes us as we are witnessing Christ's Gospel.) On the issue of God's sovereignty with regard to us, God is always 100% sovereign, and all men are always 100% slaves, either to sin or righteousness, wholly dependent on God's sovereign will. In my mind, there's gotta be some humility in there somewhere. :)

The bottom line is that the assurance we claim has nothing to do with us, or our merits, or our goodness, or anything like that. We had zero to do with it of ourselves. That we may know it about ourselves (and no one else) is a gift of God through scripture.

On whether it is a bad road to go down, that would only be if someone abandoned the very scripture they relied upon to get their assurance in the first place. For most it may have been shorter, but full and secure assurance took me years to apprehend. As you know, the Bible is packed with descriptions of what a saved Christian looks like. NO WHERE does it say that all you have to do is sign on the bottom line for Jesus and then go do what you want. The Bible clearly teaches 180 degrees away from that. So, if anyone knows enough of the scripture to claim assurance, he must also know enough to know he cannot rest on his laurels. Yes, it is a hypothetical danger, but I have never seen it actually happen. True security in Christ MEANS knowing that we have a new nature and that God has a specific plan for our lives.

[HarleyD]

Hebrew? You mean the Pharisaical Bible that was 'redacted' several times since the time of Christ to 'purge' Chriastian bias out of it through Talmud and Mishna?

Oh, please. -t w-ht p--nt d-d th- Gr--ks p-t th- v-w-ls b-ck -n th- scr-pt-r-s?

Faith comes from God's word, not from tradition.

[kosta50]

Oh, please. -t w-ht p--nt d-d th- Gr--ks p-t th- v-w-ls b-ck -n th- scr-pt-r-s? Faith comes from God's word, not from tradition

LOL!!! HD, the Greeks always HAD vowels. They didn't use accents. Accents change a word is pronounced but they don't change words; vowels do.

There is a difference how you pronounce tomato and whether a shp is a shIp, shOp or shApE.

If you meant it as a joke, it worked. I laughed very loud. :)