'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/

[HarleyD]

Which only angry west Europeon illiterates ever called 'the apocrypha'.

Say, I'm not angry.

[kawaii]

the apocrypha as applied to the deutrocanonical scriptures was an invention of iliterate west europeon peasants.

[HarleyD]

the apocrypha as applied to the deutrocanonical scriptures was an invention of iliterate west europeon peasants.

Now that's better!

[kawaii]

elsewhere on this forum you claim to have agreed that women should cover their heads while praying (at least that's what google says).

if you've abandoned that position as well as scripture then it seems arguing further is rather futile.

[kawaii]

its all i ever indended actually it wasn't a correction. i don't suspect you're a west europe native either btw.

[The_Reader_David]

At a merely human level you are right, but the same that applies to translations applies to scribal copying and redaction of texts. That the Qumran texts are often at variance with the Masorete makes it clear that the issue applies to it as well as to the LXX.

However, you are appealing to a particular theory: first
that an ur-text, directly inspired by God, actually exists, that the Holy Spirit's "[speaking] through the prophets" applies not to the text received by the Church in her councils, but to that now-lost text. And second, merely because it did not involve translation into another language, that the Masorete respresents a more faithful preservation of that original text than the LXX.

Orthodox, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, and possibly Chaldean Christians (though they favor the Peshita, rather than the LXX) will all dispute both parts of that theory. Only the adherents of Christian confessions whose roots reach back at most to the 16th century, who wish to rewrite and abolish parts of Christian tradition as it was received by all of the confessions that can trace their root back to the first four Christian centuries, and secularized or half-secularized scholars in love with the idea of an ur-text insist on this theory.

[HarleyD]

actually it wasn't a correction

That's OK. BTW-There's 2 "ll" in "illiterate".

[Forest Keeper]

Paul is only writing to those who CAN receive the Eucharist. Thus, 1 Cor 11:28-30 CANNOT apply to those who are NOT Christians by Baptism. Paul is telling those who are to receive should examine themselves if they are worthy. In other words, no mortal sin.

While your assumptions are imaginative, I'm afraid I cannot join in them. :) Besides, all it takes for one to be "able" to receive the Eucharist is for one to raise his hand and claim to be qualified. Within that group are certainly pretenders, so it works out the same. I never mentioned baptism, but since you do it in infancy, it is no indicator of whether someone winds up being a pretender or not.

Apparently, because you yourself have proclaimed to the world that you are a "true-believer", while "most Catholics" are not, then I suppose God speaks directly through you in all cases...

I'm not sure who you are confusing me with, but you don't seem to remember our prior conversations. I have NEVER, NOT ONCE, made any comments about how many Catholics I think are true believers. I haven't the slightest idea. Neither do I know how many Protestants are saved, or how many Southern Baptists are saved. On the latter, the best I can say is "at least one". :) Neither I, nor Luther, nor Calvin have any monopoly on the truth. Compare that to what you say about your hierarchy. The Holy Spirit leads all believers.

What is quite funny is that you all claim to be "true-believers", thus, justifying any particular theology that you desire to be as FROM GOD! Thus, the Jehovah Witnesses make the exact same claim you do - and disagree on whether Jesus is God or not. As it turns out, your religion is quite self-serving.

You are making another false accusation. Reformers do not say or think that everything out of our mouths is infallible and "from God". We just claim to follow scriptures, we don't claim to be perfect. This is in contrast to your hierarchy as a group. ...... I could not possibly care less what the JWs say. They have nothing to do with me. ...... Actually, one of the most self-serving faiths I have ever heard of is Catholicism. It's interesting you would accuse us of it. The infallibility of your Magisterium and Papacy is all based SOLELY on the say so of the men who claim to hold that power. You don't think THAT'S self-serving? LOL!

[Uncle Chip]

That the Qumran texts are often at variance with the Masorete makes it clear that the issue applies to it as well as to the LXX.

What Qumran text are you talking about??? There are manuscripts and fragments found at Qumran validate nearly every book of the Masoretic text. And many of the scholars can't determine for sure if a lot of the stuff there was simply discarded because they were flawed, particularly in Cave 4 which is thought to have been their trash dump.

Orthodox, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, and possibly Chaldean Christians (though they favor the Peshita, rather than the LXX) will all dispute both parts of that theory. Only the adherents of Christian confessions whose roots reach back at most to the 16th century, who wish to rewrite and abolish parts of Christian tradition as it was received by all of the confessions that can trace their root back to the first four Christian centuries.

Isn't it amazing that people who receive a translation of an original text eventually begin to think and contend that their translation is more genuine than the original. It's kind of like those created after the image of God thinking that they are the self-existent Original.

Those 16th century confessions have their roots in all those congregations in Italy, Gaul, and the British Isles who had and read that old Latin text of the scriptures long before the RCC or the EO was organized.

BTW does the Orthodox still stand behind Byzantine Text of the NT that those "16th century confessions" used in their English Bible, or have they abandoned their tradition of the Byzantine Text in favor of the Alexandrian Text???.

[kosta50]

If these 32 quotes are supposed to be evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint, they are not at all persuasive

Nothing is persuasive enough; logic is certainly not a factor; neither is the fact that the Apostles used and considered Septuagint Scripture. What do they know, right?

I didn't post them to 'persuade' you but simply to show you that things are not as 'black and white' as some Protestants would like to paint the picture.

My goodness, what English version of the Bible is he quoting from for some of these???

Jewish.

It must be one of those newer versions that are using Aquila's Greek text of the OT. The KJV accurately translates "alma" as "virgin" in Isaiah there. So he is wrong right off the bat

Of course, because KJV is a mix of various sources, most notably Textus Receptus, a retro double translation: a text originally translated from Greek into Latin and then, much later on, again, from Latin back into Greek! That's be 'backbone' of the KJV.

For someone who has little affinity for translations, KJV should be the last source to look into. The fact that KJV uses the word 'virgin' is proof enough that the "Hebrew" OT the Protestants believe they are using is not the Hebrew Bible the Hebrews are using. In other words, the KJV is 'doctored' just like the rest.

Ante-Nicene writers of the Septuagint would have had the NT in their hands as they translated the OT, so finding a similarity in wording would be no surprise.

Why are you even mentioning anti-Nicene Fathers? The Apostles is where you need to look. They are quoting from the Septuagint. Don't you think if it was good enough for them, it would be good enough for the Church and Christians in general?

But, wait, of course not! we have already established that logic is not persuasive, right? We would rather believe a fairytale that the Hebrew version of the Christ-denying rabbis is somehow more credible than the Christ's very disciples.

You'd rather believe that Christians make a forgery and then 'inserted' all sorts of lies in what the Apostles wrote. Instances where the MT in the NT is distinctly different from the LXX are a handful:

  Presentation of New Testament Divergences from the Septuagint

For completeness, I present here a table (similar to Table 2 above) showing those instances where the New Testament follows the Hebrew sense against the Septuagint.  Two of these, Malachi 3.1 (3 times) and Isaiah 8.14 (twice), are quoted by several New Testament authors.  Since Romans 9.33/Isaiah 8.14 is counted as half a quotation, the New Testament follows the Hebrew against the sense of the Septuagint 8.5 times.
 

New/Old Testament  Reference	New Testament/Masoretic Text	Septuagint
Matt 2.15/ Hosea 11.1	"Out of Egypt have I called my son."	out of Egypt have I called his children.
Matt 11.10/ Malachi 3.1	"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee."	Behold, I send forth my messenger, and he shall survey the way before me.
John 19.37/ Zech. 12.10	"They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."	They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me.
Rom 9.33/ Isaiah 8.14	"a stumbling stone and a rock of offense"	a stumbling stone, neither against the falling of a rock
Rom 11.35/  Job 41.11	"Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid."	or who will resist me, and abide
1 Cor 3.19/  Job 5.13	"He catches the wise in their craftiness"	who takes the wise in their wisdom

In other words, six in all.

There are more instances where the NT actually disagrees with both MT and LXX (11 in all).

But what's the point, right? You have already made up your mind.

[The_Reader_David]

The Orthodox don't use the Latin Vulgate because since the schism of the Patriarchate of Rome from the Church (c. 1009 when the Pope of Rome caved on the filioque and got removed from the diptychs of Constantinople, though conventionally dated to 1054 the Latins seem to have noticed due to a row over Eucharistic bread in 1054) there haven't been any Latin speaking Orthodox Christians. Back when the Patriarchate of Rome was Orthodox, Orthodox Christians used the Vulgate.

It's a fine translation into Latin, despite St. Jerome's erroneous belief that the Masorete was an ur-text.

[kosta50]

Dear God, impose upon me and never stop. "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4

Ps 65.4 is an example of how God imposes? "By awesome deeds You answer us in righteousness, O God of our salvation." (v. 5)

If love is imposition, then God "imposes" alright. Ps 65 proclaims universal forgiveness of God: "O You who hear prayer, to You all men come."

Bottom line is: there is no verse in the entire Bible that says God imposes or compels. Christian God is impartial. To claim otherwise is un-Bilical and un-Christian.

[kosta50]

Isn't it amazing that people who receive a translation of an original text eventually begin to think and contend that their translation is more genuine than the original

KJV (a retro-double-translation) is a perfect example of that phenomenon, and its worshipers are called Protestants.

[kosta50]

God has ONE purpose (well probably more) and that is to raise sons

That's a new one. Folks, we have a revelation: God has a purpose! He doesn't 'just' exist; He exists for the sake of His sons!!!

Even before Creation His purpose was to raise sons. From all eternity. Otherwise God's eternal existence would be meaningless, or at least purposeless. God would be wondering "What am I all about? No sons to raise. I feel useless."

[Forest Keeper]

Who gave your children the soul? Is not God the Creator of everything and all? Did God not give soul to every human being? Are you saying some souls God gives are evil?

Yes, God is the creator of everything and all. I do not think of God as doling out "evil souls". The soul, as manufactured, does not include evil, for that would make God the author of evil. The Bible teaches that aside from Eve, all subsequent men are stained by the sin of Adam. All are doomed to perish, but not for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If God did not create the 'goats,' who did? Are you saying there is another 'creator' competing with God?

No, God created the goats. There is no other creator. He just did not predestine them to be of the elect. The stain of Adam and their own sins, if any, are what condemn them. Praise God that He decided to save any of us.

FK: "If all people are God's children, then God is a terrible Father."

And making people expressly destined (before they were even conceived) for eternal suffering in hell is not??!!

No, we are God's creation. He is free to do with us as He pleases. We have no rights. You are assigning duties and responsibilities to God for the fact of creating us. What standing have you to do this?

Isa 29:16 : 16 You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

---------------

FK: "We say God does indeed intervene for His real children, the elect."

He does? How so? I thought the Reformed believe that God settled what happens before there even was a Creation, and will not change His plan. What is there to 'intervene' about?

Yes, God settled everything from the beginning. That includes certain things that happen within time, such as the crucifixion. Another thing that happens is that God graces His elect such that they will turn to Him and become "saved" within time. The elect are not born in a "saved state", although it is a certainty that they will become saved during their lives.

[Forest Keeper]

Ah, so you're in the 1) camp.

... yeah, yeah, yeah..... :)

[Uncle Chip]

KJV (a retro-double-translation) is a perfect example of that phenomenon, and its worshipers are called Protestants.

Are you saying that the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus used for his Greek New Testament Text were translations from the old Latin???

[Forest Keeper]

You said God commanded you. Is 'love' a command for you?

YES! And so it is with you. When Jesus gave us the two highest commandments, what did He say? :) All of the love we have to give comes from God. When it's easy, that love just comes sort of "naturally", without having to think about it. Other love is more difficult, like when we have to do what we do not want to do, and it is because of love. Sometimes love DOES take an effort.

But as a Reformed you also believe that [FK's children] will or will not be believers if God so predestined them to be, regardless of what you do, right? So, whether you teach them or not, the outcome is already decided. What's the point of teaching them?

Yes, I cannot affect their eternal destiny. That is solely within God's providence. That outcome is already decided, but part of MY outcome includes my teaching them. The point of teaching them is that God told me to. Because of God's grace and the faith He gave me, I want to please Him and obey. God is using me, along with others, to bring my children to a knowledge of God. They will hear God's word through people and reading the scriptures, just as I did. This is simply the way God has ordered things.

[Forest Keeper]

The early fathers rarely quoted from [the deuterocanicals] or used them in their writings. Frankly I have been reading through the very early writings and have yet to come across one. (I know they're out there, just haven't hit one yet.) They were never part of the LEGITIMATE Hebrew text.

Amen. Your findings do not surprise me at all. For debating purposes, this is a tempest in a teapot. They treat the Deuts and the Fathers as having equal authority, and we treat them as having equal authority. :)

[Forest Keeper]

I guess using your mentality, we should also consider doing away with Nehemiah and Chronicles, because Jesus didn't quote from them, either...

Total straw man! I have never said or intimated that any OT book is unworthy because Jesus didn't quote from it. That isn't why the Deuts fall. It's those 100 other reasons. BTW, I HAVE seen both Nehemiah and Chronicles (especially Chronicles) quoted by at least our side several times.