'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/

[annalex]

Binding and loosing are not related to saving a soul. Only God saves.

I agree. Dinfiong and loosing refers to legislating. The Key refetrs to access to heaven, -- saving souls. The Catohlic teaching is that while the bishops are all with legislative and teaching authority, only the Pope can legislate on matters of salvation directly. This is consistent in how the powers to bind and loose are given twice to both Peter and the apostles, and the keys to Peter only.

Tell that to the the millions who exist in exactly such structures.

Yes, that is exactly what I am telling them: that communities of faith outside of the hierarchical structures of the apostlic Church cannot fulfill the task given in Matthew 18:17. Instead, they fracture Christianity into "denominations". But, "Is Christ divided?".

But, you don't see him in any kind of a formal hierarchical role

You don't see because you don't look. Timothy and Titus he consecrated as bishops and instructed how to run the local church they are heading up. to corinthinas he shows the "rod". You can spin it away from formal authority, and indeed Paul is a kind man, but it is spin. We see heirarchy, pleanty of it in Corinthians, and in acts, and in Timothy and Titus.

early bishops did not yield to Rome

Pope No. 3 was St. Clement, and he wrote to the same wayward Corinthians one generation after St. Paul, and told them to get their act together. Nopw Clement was in Rome, and St. John was in Ephesus, and a living apostle too. Still Clement exercised papal authority over his head.

Why do we need a third party?

Because Christ set it up this way. In the Gospel he put together the apostolic college and told them to shepherd His flock. If Christ wanted to send the Holy Spirit individually to every beleiver, He certainly could have done so. He didn't.

What evidence?

Peter's tomb. See the link I gave you. Here it is again: St. Peter and Rome

Scripture is where the living Word is revealed

If so, the Scripture would tell us so. It doesn't. Christ did not give us a book. He gave us the Church. That is in the Scripture. (On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition)

I hope that you've enjoyed the discussion

Of course. Thank you.

[annalex]

I don't think Peter was into denominations

Of course not. This is my point. So, which church did Christ build?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Since Mary complied with the law it is reasonable to infer that the birth was of a normal type."

Only if you have no further information. But in this case, we *do* have further information. Therefore, "what is reasonable to infer given the absence of further information" is irrelevant.

Well, "further information" can take any form whatsoever, including graffiti on the overpass, so the simple existence of "further information" is non sequitur. I would only be interested in "further information" that had any authority, or at least some credibility. Since there is ZERO further information with any authority, my statement stands according to Sola Scriptura. Of course I have all of my theologians lined up with what I would consider credible views that the birth of Jesus was of a normal type. You have yours in opposition. That is fine, and we disagree on whether yours are authoritative. However, at least ONE Church Father took the Sola Scriptura approach to this issue. That was St. Ignatius and the following quote is courtesy of Xzins in his 820 :

"... But as for me, I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth. Mary then did truly conceive a body which had God inhabiting it. And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man. He was carried in the womb, even as we are, for the usual period of time; and was really born, as we also are; and was in reality nourished with milk, and partook of common meat and drink, even as we do. ..."

So, even among YOUR sources for further information you have to make decisions as to what to accept and what to reject. The Magisterium takes a vote, and whatever is popular at the time wins. For me, I'll just stick with scripture.

[adiaireton8]

I don't see anything in that Ignatius quotation that is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

-A8

[annalex]

you're suggesting that someone other than Mary was his mother??

What He says in that passage is that all who keep His word are His brethren, and Mary's children. He repeated that point more forcefully on the Cross. "Behold, your son". This made us all her children:

the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

(Apoc. 12:17)

[annalex]

My sense is that the tradition relied upon is carefully selected. I would claim that the dogma preceded the study rather than vice versa.

Tradition is also a part of history. Do you have an example of such dogma-first selectivity?

[xzins]

Didn't he say that they are his "brothers and his mother...?"

In any case, his mother and his brothers were outside seeking to speak to him. He was told this. He then spoke spiritually when he said, indicating the crowd, that "these" are my brothers and mother.

The contrast is between Mary and his brothers and those in the crowd who are his spiritual brothers and mother.

Mt 13:55 - Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

Mt 12:46 - While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.

Mt 12:49 - And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers!

In the following passage, the child is taken to heaven, but the woman remains on earth. This denies the Assumption, doesn't it? In fact, it is not about Mary at all.

1 A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4 His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

[blue-duncan]

"Which church did he start?"

There is no evidence that he started any church. He was an apostle to the Jews and Rome was a gentile church with a problem with the Jews. Paul's letter is a criticism of them for their arrogant attitude toward the Jews, so if Peter started the church or was its first Bishop, he wasn't doing a very good job in Paul's eyes. Paul does not even mention him in the letter.

[xzins]

I just finished going through the entire first volume of the earliest church fathers up to Irenaeus and there is no mention at all of any perpetual virginity.

That's intriguing.

There was plenty of the mention of Mary being a virgin and the fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, but not once did anyone go beyond that simple fact.

[spunkets]

Thanks xzins. I think they're ignoring what's written and using doctrine to back their claim. The claim then reinforces the doctrine.

[Forest Keeper]

The ever practical, detached and unemotional Harley told her I would be with her during the birthing procedures but I was insistent on doctors and specialists being around in a hospital environment. The labor went terribly wrong and a team of doctors rushed in to correct the problems.

Glory be to God for leading brother Harley. :) I was blessed to go through it twice in support of my wife while she strangled the stuffed animal I gave her as a focal point. It was funny because through the whole miracle of birth I was fine, and I had the best seat in the house. The thing that made me turn green was beforehand, during the epidural: "don't move or you might be paralyzed". After that fun everything was great.

I remember that I just kept telling her that if I could go through all this in her place that I would. She really appreciated that at the time. :)

[Forest Keeper]

Jesus didn't think much of His family then. He ignored His siblings and sent Ol' Mom off to live with John. I wonner what Ol' Mom thought of that or what her other children thought about the slap in the face.

I think Ol' Mom was content to honor the decision of her Lord. As for His siblings, what could they say? They, along with the rest of them, fled at the crisis hour. Only John was there, and it was he whom Christ loved. It actually makes perfect logical sense. I am granting that Mary and John both knew who Jesus was, but not so with Christ's siblings, necessarily. I would have made the same decision, regardless of custom. It was reasonable, and Mary obviously didn't object.

Now, regarding what Jesus "thought of His family", I look to the following:

Mark 3:31-35 : 31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

This shows what JESUS thought. This CATEGORICALLY tells me that Jesus did not feel beholden to custom as to who should care for His mother. Jesus chose His brother John, who was the only brother with Him at the end.

[D-fendr]

Luther didn't care for Revelations either - nor Hebrews if I recall correctly. Along with a few from the OT.

I'm curious why his canon is accepted by you?

[jo kus]

Thank you for your explanation of original sin as per Trent and the Catholic Catechism. I also found the language used by Trent interesting. Seems "everyone" believes that Catholicism is an offshoot of St. Augustine's theological thoughts on every front. Apparently, the Catholic Church did not accept a number of his ideas, some often tainted with Manichaeism and Neo-Platoism.

There is no doubt that a number of Catholics have been taught that original sin is "guilt" that must be removed. What is interesting is that when one reads such men as St. Thomas Aquinas, we find the correct interpretation that goes back to the Patristic era. Original sin is a lack of God within our souls - which also happens to be called "sin". Whether this "sin" is a result of our own doing or of an inherited nature, it is a lack of God nonetheless that must be rectified by being "born anew".

Regards

[jo kus]

Please tell me why are we born without God's grace?

I would presume because we are as one man in Adam, just as we are as one man in Christ. We are born in sin through Adam and reborn in grace through Christ. Why is this God's plan? I cannot completely answer that question - but I can refer you to something in the human world that may provide an analogous idea:

Why does a parent punish their child?

Regards

[jo kus]

Rest assured that we Orthodox (well, the majority of us) are not your adversaries. We have discussed many a topic and we have agreed on many more than disagreed. We have also been very frank and open with each other even if we vehemently disagreed. Families argue, but it doesn't mean they are not families.

Yes, that is true, which is why we should take into consideration our different approaches to God and not condemn the other because they differ on the precise definitions of God. Families should be more lenient with the other, more accepting of the diversity - knowing there is unity among the family in the end.

Regards

[jo kus]

You're the RC. What is the earliest council that was convened by Rome to declare what was Scripture?

The point I am making is "why do you ACCEPT that council's declaration of what IS Scripture"? If they "can't get it right what the Scriptures mean", why do you even believe they got it right on what BELONGS in Scriptures? Why NOT the Gospel of Thomas??? How does a fallible organization make an infallible decision on what is the contents of Scriptures???

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I don't understand how [Mary] is diminished by the idea that she was a loving wife to her husband and a loving mother to other children."

Do you think Christ would have lived no less of a consecrated life had He married and had children?

I agree with the essence of Xzins' answer. Christ came to do the will of His Father. If that will had included Christ marrying and starting a family, then that would have been fine by me. Why not? For one, Peter was married. For two, even today there are some number of convert Catholic priests who are married and yet are considered every bit as much of a priest as the others. If that was truly a stumbling block, then the Magisterium wouldn't have allowed it, but they did.

I certainly have no illusions that Christ was married, but that is only because it was not part of God's plan. If it had been part of God's plan for Christ to marry and have children, then I do not think He would have led any less of a consecrated life. If anyone could have pulled it off perfectly, it would be Him. Christ could walk and chew gum at the same time. :)

[jo kus]

the Orthodox talk of an inherited infection of sin (Might not have phrased that right). But we are left with one of those paradox that our finite human minds can not quite get. In one sense, what we are remains what it was otherwise Jesus is not what we proclaim He is, True God and True Man. At the same time, we are not what we were, for we were not created to sin.

Catholics also call original sin an "infection" inherited from Adam. We do not define the nature that God created based on this infection. Once the cure is given, we are nursed back to health - and become more like the self we were meant to be - as Jesus shows. He represents the fulfilled man. Thus, we define man in his fullness by looking at Christ, not the mess we are in now. Our experience points to something truly terrible has happened to mankind. And until this sickness is healed completely in heaven, man will continue. Those who define man and refering to his current state are not looking at the big picture or the fact that even now, with the first installment of the Spirit, man begins to revert back - a recapitulation, if you will - to his former self.

Regards

[DungeonMaster]

He is a man, not a truck of ready mix.

Nor a piece of bread.