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

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

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."

I'm finding it useful in areas like this where there is such a strong disagreement on interpretation to look at what the Apostles actually did. If they believed the interpretation was meant to set up an autocratic hierarchal structure they would have personally picked the Bishops for churches they helped found and declared these Bishops the final authority. Instead, what the Apostles did was assist the various congregations in selecting their own leaders based on the charismatic gifts they possessed and the churches made decisions as a group, or through the elders (plural) that the congregation had selected.

He certainly didn't move to Rome and set up the Grand Pubah of the Church and force that all rulership trickle down from there. Instead he gave out the qualifications of local elders in very good detail, as if they were supposed to pick for themselves.

Just saying what the lexicon said. Look it up. It specified the verse. I believe that they do use Thayers in that case (check the link I provided).

I have also taken Greek. Am I not allowed to make a typo? It has been about 5 years, but I've taken Greek. I will admit to being a bit rusty on it though which is why I looked it up specifically for that verse in a lexicon. (It's about midway down the page if I recall correctly, subpoint a to a B point.

Considering the context of firstborn and Jesus's brothers and sisters being mentioned in Scripture, it is a stretch to say that Mary and Joseph did not consumate their marriage and have children together. Her perpetual virginity was a later doctrine (as are most Marian doctrines- some coming from "Mary's" lips themselves).

Kosta-
Congratulations on having a "ready answer" for such an objection. However, the Greek Orthodox church has the same dog in the race that the Catholic church does - and therefore, is not exactly beyond question concerning this issue. If someone will actually look up the lexicon link that I provided, it acknowledges that there are several usages of eos in Scripture. It spells them out. For this particular verse in Matthew, the usage is until the time when and with the relative pronoun ou it gets the force of a conjunction. I do believe the lexicon is Thayers in this case.

Concerning firstborn, I also take issue with their interpretation. First, what they imply is that the Bible says Jesus was the firstbegotten Word of God. That isn't what the verse says. Rather, it says "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." They are pushing an agenda with that interpretation (and don't think that these writers don't in their commentaries which is essentially what you've given me as infallible Greek logic). Second, I disagree in that Scripture says that Jesus gave us power to become the sons of God. Jesus is also called the firstborn of many brethren. In either case, he isn't an only child for we have been adopted by the Father (Galatians 4:5)through the sacrifice of Jesus our Lord.

Now, you can turn that to say, well Mary adopted Joseph's children. Such is eisegesis, but you could say that if you wish. Just recognize, the text does not say that she and Joseph did NOT consumate their relationship (it strongly implies that they did) or have children together. (again, it is an understanding outside of the norm that says that they were cousins or children of Joseph's from another marriage).

Which English translation of the LXX, and which version of that translation, is being used? I ask because there were slightly different versions, and different translations of those versions, floating around.

Heck, if you know Latin, and want to see a great example of the art of the polite put down, read the discourses between Augustine and Jerome over the Vulgate. Augustine did not like how Jerome translated some things in the Vulgate, and was very vocal about (in a forced polite way).

But, as BD said, the verses talk of the same thing. 9.6 is the coming of Jesus, and 9.8 is a judgment on Israel. As Kosta was (I think) trying to say, the flow and emphasis of the two translations is vastly different, but not as different as say the English translation of the current Hebrew Bible would be.

Kosta also brought up another good point. Without knowing some of the turns of phrase from the original language and culture, you can get confused. The meaning of "Brothers of the Lord" is one of those words that doesn't just mean what the English translation seems to make it mean.

FK: "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. :)"

Now, be honest did you really mean it? ;-) I was with my wife for the birth of our children and I wouldn't want to go through what she went through.

In all honesty, "some" part of me might have meant it before the first one. After seeing the first one, NO part of me could have meant it for the second. (But at that time I was in law school, so I think I could have been practicing my craft a little. :)

Anyway, there is one side note that I will never forget about the first time, when I had absolutely no clue what to expect. As I was watching and "coaching", and at the critical time, I couldn't help but think of a pro football game I once saw. The announcer, probably John Madden, was commenting on endless replays of a particularly grizzly injury that had just happened on the field. He said : "The human body doesn't go like that". :)

"In all honesty, "some" part of me might have meant it before the first one"

You guys are flirting with heresy here. You don't want to go beyond the scriptures where it says God has set the boundaries. Let me reiterate one more time the boundaries of mothers and fathers.

For the mothers, Gen. 3:16, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"

For the fathers, Gen. 3:17-19, "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Notice the division of LABOR! Don't go beyond our established stations in life. That's why they have bull pens stocked with Sports Illustrated and T.V.s on, turned to ESPN in the maternity wards. They are a kind of reminder where we belong.

Then I quoted Ignatius saying that it was of a normal type.

Look again at the entire quotation from Ignatius. Here it is:

"... 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. ..."

Here's the relevant line from Ignatius:

"...and was really born, as we also are"

Ignatius does not say "of a normal type". He says that Christ was "really born", as we also are "really born". That says absolutely nothing about whether Mary endured pain in the birth or whether Mary's virginity was preserved through the birth. In the context of the whole paragraph (and the heresies Ignatius is confronting in his time), Ignatius is not attempting to deal with the particularities of the manner of the birth. He is defending the incarnation, that Christ was really human, that He was really conceived in the womb of Mary without the seed of man, that He was really carried in Mary's womb for nine months, and that He was really born, and really nursed. If children had been born to Eve prior to the Fall, they too would have been "really born" even as we are really born, but without the pain that resulted from the curse. So the "and was really born as we also are", refers to the *really born*, meaning really came out of her womb. It says nothing about the particularities of that real birth, because Ignatius is not trying to saying about those particularities; he's addressing docetism, not antidicomarianism.

You have to be careful to read the fathers carefully, and not make them say what you want them to say, but let them say only what they are trying to say. And that requires being very aware of the context in which they are writing.

-A8

But, then, as Agrarian once reminded me ... the choices in the world to come shall only be good choices, so the possibility of another Fall will not exist. But, then, neither will freedom. The question that inevitably comes to mind is: why didn't we have it that way from the beginning?

I would fully agree that in the next world for the saved, that there will be no possibility of another Fall and the only choices we will have will be good ones. Sin is intolerable in Heaven. Put it this way, is the freedom to sin actually a freedom that you would want to have?

I don't worry about my level of freedom in Heaven because, without sin, I see it as being better than now. Truth sets us truly free, and in Heaven that's all that's going to be around us. I have given thought to the question "will I still be me (without my sin)"? But I don't worry about it because the faithful man spends his whole life ridding himself of sin in the first place. Heaven is 100% God-given success in that. It's a can't lose. With no tears in Heaven, I figure no person has ever asked to leave. :)

One possible reason for God not to simply have created us into Heaven in the first place was to give us the experience of sin in the world, so that we could appreciate what we have in God and His love for us. Perhaps Adam and Eve didn't understand the situation they enjoyed because they had nothing to compare it to. But whatever the real reason is, I think God DID have a reason and I will look forward to learning it. :)

I do believe the lexicon is Thayers in this case

But my point is that the people who speak the language, and have used it for the past 2,000 years (the NT Greek is the official language of the Greek Orthodox Church, and is the same language used in LXX and the NT) know the language like no other source does, because they use it.

How would you feel is some non-American source claimed that certain phrases used colloquially in America are not really as we understand them simply because they don't fit the grammatical framework of English, even of American English? Some new phrase pops up almost every week.

You'd tell him to take a hike! This is how we speak and this is how it is understood. But, again, you are free to believe whatever you want. Saying that the Greeks have an agenda to defend, no doubt the Protestants do to.

Which is why I said that the issue is dead. You stated your disbelief and we stated our belief and what are you going to do about it? Accept it or reject it and move on. I am not sure what all this lingering is all about other than a vain hope of some on the Protestant side to "prove" the other side wrong.

You are basing your beliefs on your interpretation. We are basing in on the collective and uninterrupted interpretation of the Church throughout the past 2,000 years, based on the concepts, culture, beliefs, language and other issues within context of the biblical society in which they lived, or relatively shortly thereafter. It's all written down. You can take it or leave it.

You also cleverly avoid the issue of "Woman behold your Son," and the strong indication that, especially in the cultural reality of first century Israel, any of the Lord's brothers, if they were truly His blood relatives, would have been the ones to assume responsibility for Mary, instead of, giving your mother to someone unrelated by blood.

The Church spent 24/7 for almost 2,000 years living and learning every word of the Holy Script, familiar with the customs and language, with the realities of the world in which our Lord lived and died, and that is how the Church interpreted the events in the collective consciousness of that Body of Christ.

Were there new pronouncements of the existing faith? Sure. The Church found itself forced to define the Holy Trinity, the Divine Economy, even the manner in which the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father. We find it in the New testament, but the Jews don't! We find Isaiah prophesying Christ, but the Jews and Muslims don't!

That's the way it is. Take it or leave it brother.

I would fully agree that in the next world for the saved, that there will be no possibility of another Fall and the only choices we will have will be good ones. Sin is intolerable in Heaven.

I thought the world to come will be the a new Earth and a new Jerusalem, not Heaven, except that this time it will be "just right." I believe the name is the Kingdom of Haven, not the Heaven itself.

This concept is a derivation of the Judaic messianic belief that the (physical) world will be transformed into the World to Come, where peace and happiness will reign forever. A new, and reformed world, where everyone loves God with all his heart and mind and soul and his neighbor as himself. We are actually capable of creating such a world if all of humanity truly loved God.

We have been given more than enough blessings and showered with all sorts of abilities and skills to make this world a true paradise on earth, where there will be no fear, no violence and eventually no death.

When we are given new bodies, we will not be floating around in the universe.

For this particular verse in Matthew, the usage is until the time when and with the relative pronoun ou it gets the force of a conjunction.

That is simply not true. You are misreading the lexicon. The first section in the lexicon under this term lists the conjunctive uses, the second section lists the prepositional uses. Matt 1:25 is in the second section, not the first.

As I explained to you #1368, nothing in Thayers shows which of the two possible ways this term should be taken. You keep appealing to Thayers, but Thayers does not say that this word means only 'up to but not continuing past'. In fact, there are many places where it clearly doesn't mean 'up to but not continuing past'.

-A8

I have ready plenty of COMMENTARIES with which a commentator has tried to make his viewpoint fit the text. The lexicon was specific. No. I do not trust your Greek Orthodox Source. Mary's perpetual virginity wasn't a doctrine until after Jesus's time. It was asserted in some gnostic sources and then picked up on by the Roman church at a time where true heresy began to slip in. Yes, UNTIL can mean these things, but when found with other words it does NOT. The GOC has a vested interest in interpreting that way. In the Hebrews passage, which you quoted from the same source, they imply that the Bible says that Jesus was the first begotten WORD - and somehow that negates Mary's first begotten Son. Number one, Jesus as the WORD is not found in that passage. It was dishonest and showed the agenda from the beginning. I gave you scripture that indicated that Jesus would be the firstborn of many brethren (those of us who have been adopted and have become sons and daughters of God). You have ignorred that.

Saying that just because they speak Greek that they the best sources to go to regarding the issue is fallacious. Koine Greek and Modern Greek are two different things.

I didn't address the woman behold your son passage because the argument doesn't make sense. John was Jesus' beloved apostle. His brothers had not shown themselves at that point to be the great pillars that they would become when they became believers. Jesus was entrusting Mary to someone trustworthy. It in no way disqualifies Mary from having had other biological children.

Let me reiterate one more time the boundaries of mothers and fathers...Gen 3:16...Gen 3:17-19

Then there is taking out the trash, washing clothes, dishes, obeying the husband (oooops!).

Just can't figure out where do lawyers fit in. :)

Seriously, are you suggesting that women should be screaming sorrowful "baby factories" because because Gen 3:16 says so? Are you suggesting that perhaps epidurals and other forms of anesthesia should not be be use don women giving births just so that they may remind themselves of how sorry they should be for Eve's transgression?

What are you suggesting with this all this?

I did better than appeal to Thayers, I supplied the link where I was reading it. Section II, 22 lines down under a. refers specifically to the verse in question. Quote:" b. with the gen. of the neut. rel. pron. ou or otou (which this text has by the way - ou) gets the force of a conjuction, until, till (the time when); a. ews ou (first in Hdt. 2, 143; but after that only in later auth., as Plut. et al. [W. 296 (278) note; B. 230 sq. (199)]): foll. by the indic., Mt. 1.25 [WH br. ou]; xiii.22; Lk xiii......"

From Thayer's Lexicon (Hel0) http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=25&strongs=2193&page=1&flag_full=1

You don't build doctrine on what the text doesn't say. You build it on what it does say. The text SAYS that Joseph didn't know Mary UNTIL she had Jesus. It doesn't stop with Joseph didn't know Mary. It never says that Joseph NEVER knew Mary. But the Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching builds doctrine on what SCRIPTURE doesn't say. They do so based upon tradition, which is fine, but don't say that it is Scriptural. It is not. It says, he didn't know her UNTIL... and that Jesus was her FIRST BORN Son, and that Jesus's Brothers and Sisters were travelling with Mary and calling for Jesus. Jesus was an adult at the time. Why would it take all of the adults in Jesus' family and Mary to go check up on where Jesus was? If the Catholic interpretation is correct and these were Joseph's kids from an earlier marriage, you have to believe that the daughters of Joseph in turn never married (because it would be unlikely that Mary would be gathering them out of their husband's family's house to go get Jesus) and that all of the males in Joseph's family were otherwise doing nothing at the time Jesus was preaching. It makes more sense that these are younger siblings of Jesus, half-brothers and sisters of the Lord and they went with their mother to go check on their brother.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.