'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/

[Quix]

Masterful as usual.

Though I think it was truncated in a spot or two. I love reading your elaborations on such.

[kosta50]

A-G you always take every thread to am higher intellectual level. Thank you. Pleas don't stop.

Below is a picture of a tiny, very tiny section (less than your fingernail covers) of space, that actually shows only three stars (recognizable by a cross-like diffraction pattern formed by the secondary mirror ('spider') support of a reflecting telescope). The rest of the objects in this small field are galaxies. And the rest of the deep sky shots, all 360-degrees of it, are studded with nothing but galaxies.

A galaxy contains millions of stars. Ours, the Milky Way, home of our solar system and millions of stars in it, is traversed by light traveling at 160,000 miles per second (that's the distance from the earth to the moon) in 100,000 years.

A close-up of colliding galaxies. Note the stars (cross-like images) that are part of our galaxy. The white "puffs" in the larger galaxy are actually star clusters, not individual stars.

Our sun is an average yellow star, whose light takes eight minutes to reach us. Our closest star (α-centarui) sends light that takes 4 years to reach us. The light we see of our closest galaxy, the Andromeda, left 2 million years ago.

There are billions of galaxies out there. Their cataclysms and catastrophic extragalactic supernovae star explosions have been recorded by the images that traveled millions of years to reach us.

Galactic supernova — a giant star (arrow) expodes in a distant galaxy NGC 2841 50 million years ago.

When I say that corruption predates mankind, I mean it. We did not usher corruption as the Bible says. God did not create just the heaven and the earth. That much is obvious.

[kosta50]

THAT notion assumes that PERFECTION would not, did not, maybe could not have as HIS design . . . a component of PERFECT CHANGE

Does God get older? Does He get wiser? Does He get better? Does He get kinder? Does He get holier?

Is God not Justice? Is God not Truth? Is God not all that is Divine? Is God not Love? Can any of these "change?"

So what does God change into? What does Justice morph into? What does Divinity become? And Love?

It is shackeling God with anthropomorphic terms that places Him into a human-sized box. The Age of reason did that very well, when it humanized God and deified man. Western legacy.

[kosta50]

α-centarui = a-centauri

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and thank you for your encouragments!

Though I think it was truncated in a spot or two.

Indeed, I realized almost immediately after mashing "post" that I didn't explain how the fractal examples illustrate the dynamics between permanence and flux.

In the coastline example, the coastline itself is "permanent" but the length of it - will change (flux) depending on the length of the ruler being used to measure it.

In the Mandelbrot set example, the set itself is both infinite and permanent, but what you see of it is finite, it changes (flux) based on the choices you make.

Permanence and flux would make for a good thread, IMHO - as the spiritual meaning is pregnant. Ditto for the last section pertaining to corruption, the physical v spiritual realms and Adamic man. Oh well, this thread is already soooo long.

I don't presume to put God in such a tiny box.

Truly - although we can say that God does not change (permanence) we cannot say that all change (flux) is of necessity, evil.

We can say that flux is not a property of God and it is a property of the Creation, both spiritual and physical - which includes man of course.

It is possible that we will be permanent in the new heaven and earth – it is also possible that God will provide for flux or change. But I’m very sure there will be no evil at all in the new heaven and earth, i.e. no evil flux.

Or perhaps there will be permanence in heaven for only some of us? This is the promise to the church of Philadelphia:

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name. – Rev 3:12

Compare that to this promise to the church of Ephesus:

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Rev 2:7

Fascinating. God did not make us to be “cookie cutter” Christians. After all, there are twelve very different gemstones representing the very different apostles in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

The leaning I have in the Spirit is to the church of Philadelphia, the apostle John and a burning desire to be transparent in Christ so His Light may shine unobstructed by me. Perhaps I shall be a column in the temple? Perhaps kosta50 whose testimony on the desire to be transparent in Christ will be a column, too?

And perhaps you, Quix, will be one whose personality remains in flux (albeit a good flux) as you dwell in the Paradise of God?

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Cor 2:9

We'll see...

[betty boop]

That which is perfect doesn’t change, Quix.

I think kosta50 is right abut this, Quix: If a thing is already "perfect," how, in what direction, could it change? You don't get "more perfect" than perfect. Perfect implies a certain completedness in time, and thus something that is static: something impervious to time and change. But we do not have completedness in creation before the final Judgment, which is where the perfection of God's creation is achieved -- not before. God created a "good," not a "perfect" creation, as He Himself says.... "Goodness" accords with His purpose; "perfection" would leave no room for development toward God's end or goal in creating. There would also be no role for man, for human free will in a "perfect" universe.

Of course, if creation were not involved in a time process (according to God's Will), then we wouldn't need to be discussing such things.... But since creation is involved in a time process (i.e., it develops or evolves in part in collaboration with man), Augustine's remark -- "The perfect is the enemy of the good" -- seems both faithful and reasonable to me.

[Quix]

There is that business about

LIVING STONES.

Heading out shortly.

Later,

[Quix]

imho, that notion is afflicted with the Aristotilian/Paltonic solid stuff which presumes there’s a perfect chair somewhere and all other chairs are perversions of that one.

Maybe God has lots of different perfect chairs.

Maybe He loves watching His kids create ever new versions.

[betty boop]

Because God gave us dominion over the earth, our failing to be like God corrupts everything around us and the result of that, ultimately, is death, a permanent separation from God. In this sense, we become like the sterile fig tree, lovingly planted and given all that is necessary to thrive and fulfill its purpose of producing figs, but doesn't. It is fit only to be uprooted and burned.

Truly splendid essay/post, Kolokotronis!

God does not "exist" -- oh, I loved that! Of course, it's true; for an existing thing is a fellow captive in the net of space and time, and God is not in space or time. Thus strictly speaking, God is "non-existent reality." Yet His parousia, his eternal Presence, is ever with us, if we seek after Him. We have this insight from classic Greek philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle. God's Presence with us was made tangible, manifest in the Incarnation, in which the Son of God chose to enter into the stream of space and time in the Person of Jesus Christ, for our redemption and salvation....

Thank you for your wonderful essay/post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for those beautiful astronomic pictures, dear kosta50! And thank you for your encouragements!

It is shackeling God with anthropomorphic terms that places Him into a human-sized box. The Age of reason did that very well, when it humanized God and deified man.

Indeed. Mankind has a terrible tendency to anthropomorphize God. And when he does that, he misses the power of God.

That is the spiritual truth which is always underscored for me in the book of Job. Starting in chapter 38 God spurns Job harshly for speaking words without knowledge.

Returning to the astronomy… if I may assert another aspect for your meditation.

What appears to us to be such an awesome display in the universe can instead be understood as no more than the phenomenon of the mathematics of observation.

Please take a few minutes and experiment with this interactive display of the powers of 10.

At 10⁺⁰ meters, you’ll see a bush – but decrease the powers of ten and you’ll see a universe of molecular detail. Increase it, and you’ll see astronomical vistas.

This is part of what betty boop and I call the “observer problem.” What we presume to be “real” is strongly biased to our position as an observer.

All 10⁸⁰ particles in the perceptible universe, for instance, may be multiply imaged from a single particle in a fifth, time-like dimension. Matter may be a shadow of extra-dimensional momentum components we cannot yet detect. Etc.

But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. - Luke 12:7

Only God knows objective truth, because all beings - whether physical or spiritual - are "in" Creation but He is the Creator.

When I say that corruption predates mankind, I mean it. We did not usher corruption as the Bible says. God did not create just the heaven and the earth. That much is obvious.

My spiritual understanding is probably different from yours, but I do not find anything irreconcilable concerning corruption and the age of the universe v. the age of man.

IOW, "all that there is" is God's revelation of Himself, His will and unknowable in its fullness. The revelation is not for this heaven and earth but rather, for the next heaven and earth.

Adam was to observe good and evil. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed where he could see it in the Garden of Eden. But he was not to feed on it, not to make it part of himself. By observing good fruits v evil fruits, he would have gained a better understanding of what it means that "God is good". Ditto for Light v. darkness, etc.

To use a modern metaphor, it is as if Adam was being shown a stage play [the physical universe] so that he could understand the difference between good and evil to comprehend that God is good and not evil. But instead of watching the show to absorb this revelation of God, he jumped onstage and became a part of it. He couldn’t step off the stage to be just a spectator again and thus he was banned to mortality, doomed to be an actor in the play he was intended to watch (Genesis 4.) He did it to himself. The only way Adam can get off that stage is to be born anew as a spectator, that is what Christ accomplished in the Resurrection.

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45

This mortal life with all the good and evil, right and wrong, Light and darkness, is a detour wherein we build our own scales of justice by which we will be weighed. But it is just a stage play (to follow the metaphor) - what it is "about" is the next heaven and earth.

[betty boop]

kosta50: In other words, the galactic realities tell us that corruption predates man. And that clashes with everything the Bible says.

A-G: The leaning that I have in the Spirit sees no problem here, i.e. that Genesis 1 is written from the aspect of God as the observer and author and the subject is not only the creation of the physical realm but the spiritual as well.

What a fascinating thread this has turned into! I'm enjoying it so much, thank you all!

There's something I'm wondering about, though, which is probably just a minor quibble, but I'd like to gain some insight into it all the same. To me, to speak of "corruption" is to touch on spiritual matters, which seemingly affect only living beings, and possibly only human beings. So I wonder to what extent we can speak of galaxies as having been subject to corruption in former times; I just don't see that galaxies could be spiritual entities -- unless the entire creation is in some fashion a living being, as Plato suggested.

Anyhoot, we do not say that an "ideal gas in thermal equilibrium" has been the victim of "corruption!" Why should we say this of any other purely physical phenomenon, such as a galaxy?

I'm not splitting hairs here, I hope! I just think kosta50 has raised an interesting question.

Thank you so much, dearest sister, for your splendidly beautiful essay-post! I very much appreciated your reference to Heraclitus, the great philosopher of permanence and flux who, as you say, prefigures the modern first and second laws of thermodynamics. Leibniz echos Heraclitus' insight in the modern period, saying that in order for there to be anything, there must be something that stays the same, and something that is capable of change and development. The periodic recycling of cells in the human body is a great example/illustration!

[Alamo-Girl]

But we do not have completedness in creation before the final Judgment, which is where the perfection of God's creation is achieved -- not before. God created a "good," not a "perfect" creation, as He Himself says.... "Goodness" accords with His purpose; "perfection" would leave no room for development toward God's end or goal in creating. There would also be no role for man, for human free will in a "perfect" universe.

Excellent, dearest sister in Christ! Just excellent!

It occurs to me that this is right up marron's alley, so I'm giving him a ping, too.

[hosepipe]

[... If each of us were to look at a seven faceted diamond from a different aspect, we may see something a bit differently - but it is still the same diamond and the same Light. ..]

GIRL....... you been shining britely lately..
Even more than usual.. shine on... (no response required..)

[Alamo-Girl]

There is that business about LIVING STONES.

Indeed. I look forward to your insights when you return!

[Alamo-Girl]

Again, you bring such beautiful insights they must be repeated!

God does not "exist" -- oh, I loved that! Of course, it's true; for an existing thing is a fellow captive in the net of space and time, and God is not in space or time. Thus strictly speaking, God is "non-existent reality." Yet His parousia, his eternal Presence, is ever with us, if we seek after Him. We have this insight from classic Greek philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle. God's Presence with us was made tangible, manifest in the Incarnation, in which the Son of God chose to enter into the stream of space and time in the Person of Jesus Christ, for our redemption and salvation....

[betty boop]

imho, that notion is afflicted with the Aristotilian/Paltonic solid stuff which presumes there’s a perfect chair somewhere and all other chairs are perversions of that one.... Maybe God has lots of different perfect chairs.... Maybe He loves watching His kids create ever new versions.

I think in a certain way this goes back to A-G's reference to permanence and flux. For Plato, the "perfect chair" is the [permanent] model on which any chair at all is built; it is the very idea of "chairness." The "perfect chair" resides only in the mind of God: There is no "perfect chair" in physical reality, just every type of chair constructed according to the paradigm of "chairness" that resides in the mind of God, which is the permament standard of chairness that does not change. Nothing can be said to be a "chair" that does not accord with this "perfect chair" -- it would have to be something else. All physical chairs are just various executions of that one chairness paradigm. Thus the "perfect chair" paradigm is also an instance of "non-existent reality"....

But then, the great Greeks may be an acquired taste, and not of general interest nowadays.... more's the pity!

[annalex]

In 12584, jo kus explained.

[annalex]

It is true from your perspective as well. This is why I avoid going on Protestant threads and asking them anything about their error, unless the Church is directly attacked.

[annalex]

Indeed, very good summary. Thank you.

[hosepipe]

Excellent post Kosta50... brings to mind a quote from Carl Sagan.. "Life had to happen first- Somewhere"..

I fully believe that place is earth..

And the biblical "heaven" will be (for some- maybe most) to populate(people) this wonderful Universe.. And that human life here, was and is qualifing "US" to do that and other things..

And that 1Cor 2;9 is beyond prophetic to being a promise..
Thanks for a very good post..