'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/

[jo kus]

Yes ... I will presume to speak for Protestants in saying that we do, indeed, regard only "true believers" ... as members of Christ's church (i.e. the ecclesia or "called out ones").

Unbelievers may participate, to an extent, ... in the context of the church, ... but are not considered members of the church ... until they declare their personal belief.

Yes, I thought so. This different view on who is in the Church makes a lot of sense on how we view things, such as who is saved, the effects of Baptism, and so forth.

I do think that Christ's parables on the wheat and the weeds refers to the Church, which is why Catholics view salvation a bit differently - we can see nominal Catholics and call them part of the Church, but they are not "true believers" according to the Protestant. Thus, these discussions that seem to pass by each other.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

It has been pointed out to me that I made an error in my post 1246 in saying that the Council of Ephesus refered to the Theotokos as "ever virgin". That is of course incorrect. It was the 5th Ecumenical Council at Nicea which made that statement in canon 6, reaffirming the dogma of the Council of Chalcedon.

Sorry! I guess the drugs hadn't worn off (I asked for a doggy bag but the doctor said no)! :)

[Forest Keeper]

And it was wrapped in fresh spinach!

LOL! Nice touch. :)

[P-Marlowe]

I've been wrong before.

[jo kus]

Where is your proof for the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

The teaching, as far as doctrinal, comes with the Church's understanding of Christ and Mary's role when Mary is called the Mother of God and Mary as the New Eve, both concepts clearly stated in the first 300 years of Christianity. Furthermore, with such men as St. Ambrose, Mary is called a type of the Church. The Church is ALSO our Mother (it is called this throughout history) in that it gives birth to us through being baptized (born again) and we are nourished and nutured by it (receiving the Word of God and the Sacraments). The Church more clearly defines this later on, culminating with Vatican 2. The Church sees that Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is a virgin dedicating her life to her spouse, Jesus Christ.

Thus, what the Church sees in Mary is a reflection of Christ and the Church itself.

Regards

[adiaireton8]

Any pleasure derived form it was from the devil. This was the basis for +Augustine's Confessions and his belief that, like Satan, concupiscence enslaves us.

That is not an accurate depiction of Augustine's position. He does not think that sexual pleasure is evil.

-A8

[redgolum]

BD, what do you call God's plan to have David kill his general so that David can marry the general's wife? Premeditated murder? Can we apply human law to Scripture and judge it? Can we cry "it's not fair?" Can we say it violates "human rights?" I think the absurdity of "lawyering" the Scripture is self-evident; or at least it should be.

I think it was Milton, who said that God will do as He wills, and we can't judge him for it. God is good, and operates on a whole different level than we do, so applying human laws to God is a bit silly.

[redgolum]

Sorry! I guess the drugs hadn't worn off (I asked for a doggy bag but the doctor said no)! :)

Did you have some surgery recently?

[redgolum]

I agree. The idea that sex in marriage is also "recreational" and just for "marital pleasure" is a novel one, I would even dare say latter 20th century innovation.

I wouldn't say that. The real Purtians had a rather interesting view of martial sex. A husband could be put in the stocks for not fulfilling his martial duty enough. Which is pretty ironic when you see how the word "Puritan" is used today.

[P-Marlowe]

You offered no proof of the existence of any doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. If she is the "New Eve" as you say, then she would fall under God's first commandment to Eve, "be fruitful and multiply".

Mary is a type of the Church, and the Church is a virgin dedicating her life to her spouse, Jesus Christ.

Mary was not the "spouse" of Jesus, she was his mother. She was the spouse of Joseph and as such she had been commanded to cling to him, forsaking all others. If she did not cling to Joseph, then she was a sinner. If she gave all of her attention to Jesus and none to husband then she was a sinner.

Now you can avoid all this stuff by denying that Mary was really Joseph's wife, and that her suppposed marriage was simply a sham. Is that what you are implying?

[blue-duncan]

Oh, I get it now. I see where my mistake was. I was reading Matthew from the KJV instead of reading it from a Herrew/Aramaic translation into Greek and then into English. When we do that we get,

"And the angel appeared unto Joseph and said, 'I got some good news for you and bad news.' And Joseph said, 'give me the good news first.' 'Right,' the angel said, You're going to marry a young virgin but she is pregnant'. 'That's good news', Joseph asked? 'Yup, that's the good news', the angel replied. 'If that's the good news what's the bad', asked Joseph. She's going to be an eternal virgin and you can never have sexual relations with her nor can you ever touch her since she is holy'. 'Why didn't you tell me this before I got betrothed, whatever that means?' asked Joseph. 'Cause we wanted to see if you would go through with the betrothal before we told you about the plan. It's a free-will kind of thing.' said the angel, 'very hush-hush.'"

There, I think I got it now.

[adiaireton8]

then she would fall under God's first commandment to Eve, "be fruitful and multiply".

The fruit of her womb is greater than all the fruit of all other wombs combined.

-A8

[xzins]

who is the woman who gives birth to the child?

The woman of Rev 12 who gives birth to a male child:

Sun, Moon, Stars...
• Genesis 37:5-11 5 Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. 6 He said to them, "Listen to this dream I had: 7 We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it." 8 His brothers said to him, "Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?" And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said. 9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. "Listen," he said, "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me." 10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, "What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?" 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

• Rev 12:1 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.

The woman:
• Rom 11: 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness F45 in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30 For as ye in times past have not believed F46 God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, F47 that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded F48 them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

• Rev 21: 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

[blue-duncan]

"I think it was Milton, who said that God will do as He wills, and we can't judge him for it. God is good, and operates on a whole different level than we do, so applying human laws to God is a bit silly."

Watch yourself, you are beginning to sound like those dreaded Calvinists!

[jo kus]

How instrumental was the Bible in convincing you that the Church is the Church set up by Christ? Did you come to believe the Roman Catholic Church was Christ's "Ont True Church" primarily because Scripture said it was or because you chose to believe others when they told you it was?

I found that extra-biblical writings, whether secular or religious, appeared to agree and that there appeared to be cohesiveness with the Catholic claim. The sources led me to believe the veracity, along with the witnesses who make the claim. Of course the bible played a role. But men surrounding the Bible, the Church, make a distinctive claim that only Islam or Judaism makes in a historical context. So one comes down to whether one believes Mohemmed or Jesus Christ was indeed a continuation of Judaism. I disregarded the Koran - not because of the Bible, but because of the Church AND the witness of Islam.

And at the time of Augustine the Church was quite well orthodox and Biblical in its teachings. The church you belong to today is not.

So the Catholic Church of St. Augustine is not the same Catholic Church of today? That is like saying an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree... Men do not remain static in their contemplation of the Word of God.

You're putting words into my mouth when we've never even had a discussion on Biblical inerrancy, which demonstrates pretty clearly that the "sola scriptura" you are railing against isn't the sola scriptura historical Protestantism holds to.

I've had this conversation enough times to know that Protestants themselves do not hold to their own definition of Sola Scriptura. Basically, it comes down to interpretation - your own - vs. anyone else. Anyone who disagrees with your particular interpretation is clearly wrong... Thus, the "spirit" gives a million different interpretations on a wide array of topics. I suppose that goes hand in hand with the relativism prevalent today in society... - "what i believe is truth and what you believe is truth"

It says they examined the Scriptures to see if the things they heard were so. It does NOT say they went back and re-interpreted the Scriptures in light of what Paul told them.

Wrong. The first Christians - Jews - had to do a MAJOR paradigm shift. Anyone who doesn't recognize that hasn't a clue on what was being taught vs. what was previously held by the Jews. For example, the OT says that anyone who was hung on a tree was condemned... Paul himself had a problem with that verse, no doubt, because Jews brought it up! People didn't become Christian because of the Old Testament. They became Christian because they SAW Christ in the Church, the people. They saw a committment, a love, a fervor for God. The "foolishness" of the Gospel was a stumbling block - until people SAW Christians at work, SAW Christ working through these people.

Today, this continues. People convert LARGELY because of the witness of other people, not by picking the Bible off the library shelf and reading it. I can tell you this is so from my own experience every year when people become Catholic.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

" Did you have some surgery recently?"

Nope. An "invasive test" that people over 50 are supposed to have! :)

[P-Marlowe]

The fruit of her womb is greater than all the fruit of all other wombs combined.

In that sense she is truly Blessed.

However that did not relieve her of her duty of devotion to her husband. She was married to Joseph.

[jo kus]

I'm pretty sure I have read in Catholic posts that you believe that Mary did not experience birth pangs and travail in delivering Jesus.

Also, the persecution narrative of the remainder of the chapter is more representative of Israel (the Jews) ... than of Mary.

Brother, the Church has seen since before St. Ambrose' time that Mary is a type of the Church. Thus, when the Scriptures relate something about the Church (as interpreted by the Church), they also see Mary there, as well. For example, the Song of Songs. The 12th Chapter of Revelations. Genesis 3:15. And the persecution narratives. There is NOT an either/or here. Just as the Church sees in Israel's crossing of the Red Sea as a type of Baptism in Scriptures (Peter), the Church ALSO sees in Mary the Church, the People of God. Vatican 2 clearly points this out, and does it very well.

Who obeys God? Mary/True Israel. Who is the one who gives birth to the Savior? Mary/Church(True Israel is the Church, according to Paul in Romans 11). Thus, when we see Scripture that points to God's People, True Israel, the Church, we also see Mary there as well. That is why we call BOTH Virgin. That is why we call BOTH our Mother. This understanding will help you see why we hold Mary so highly. Because God does in His plan of salvation.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"There, I think I got it now."

No wonder poor +Joseph looks so down in the dumps (lower left with the Devil talking to him)!

[redgolum]

You know, I am really not looking forward to that part of getting older.