'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/

[Kolokotronis]

"I was trying to run a check on your superiority complex. Apparently it was unsuccessful."

Ah, and here I thought I was seeing a new sola scriptura interpretation of Galatians!

[Blogger]

Kosta,
If you know anything about the early churches, older does NOT NECESSARILY mean better. I mean, we may find sometime something written by the Nicolaitans of Paul's day. Just because what they wrote was older, does not mean better.

Westcott and Hort should be examined as well. I am not of the camp that says something stupid like everyone who uses anything other than that which was translated from the majority text is a heathen; however, I do think it is fair to examine the translators and any agendas they may have had in translation.

The KJV translators were deadly serious about translating things right and took the word of God seriously. There have been others who have approached translation the same way but didn't use the majority text.

I can have respect for that; even though I believe that some of these texts are inferior - even though they may be somewhat older.

There are a gazillion sources on the internet about Westcott and Hort. The sources range from kooky to scholarly. But if any of these quotes are contextual and true from Westcott and Hort, it does give one pause to wonder why they chose the specific texts that they chose for their Greek NT.

For example, from one website
* "I never read of the account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (page 216)
* "Oh the weakness of my faith compared with that of others! So wild, so sceptical am I. I cannot yield." (page 217)
* "O Marie , (his wife's name) as I wrote the last word, I could not help asking what am I? Can I claim to be a believer?" (page 217)
* "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels." (page 230)

Likewise, Hort seemed driven in a particular direction:
* "Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you (Westcott) about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book."
* "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
* "…Anglicanism, though by no means without a sound standing, seems a poor and maimed thing beside great Rome."

Thus, we have Hort in the camp of so many of the 19th centuries liberals who began to not look at God's word as 100% true; but rather, began to say - what in it is true? His admiration for Rome - by the 19th century (in light of the many extra-biblical doctrines which had taken hold by that time)- could put a certain slant on his choices as well, but I will leave that up to the reader.

The Westcott/Hort editions of Scripture did not develop in a sterile environment. A whole lot of things were going on at that particular time, one of which was a lot of clergy were losing their faith because of Darwinism.

I by no means deny that the Sinaiticus or Vaticanas text exist; however, I do question whether they are more reliable than the majority text. And, by the way, KJV didn't use the Alexandrian text. The more modern versions did. The KJV used the Textus Receptus which was the edition of the Greek New Testament that reflects the largest number of the NT Greek manuscripts (Byzantine texts).

[Blogger]

Galatians is a wonderful book. It's all about churches that try to enslave one into following a bunch of rules to add to faith alone for salvation. You might want to read it.

[Blogger]

Kosta. Most of the KJV items you mentioned do not matter a whole lot when determining reliability. Many more things can be said and have been said about the alternate texts. I encourage you to read them (being aware that some defending KJV can go overboard- try to sift through to see what is really important and isn't a human spouting off).

[Blogger]

I am pinging our naive Greek speaker for quality control. Kolo your comments are welcome.
Sorry Kosta. No comment necessary. It was just fun to repost.

[Blogger]

His implication was that Logos appears in the Hebrew verse.

[DungeonMaster]

As a side note of my personal fellowship problems, I've been attending a Plymouth Brethren church for about 10 years. It has elders and everyone else and is autonomous from all other rule "except the Lord". The problem has been that with no one "on the payroll" there has not been one focused person that has two important reasons to see the church thrive. Those reasons are obviously a heart's desire to see the Gospel spread and making a small living.

So just last week I started going to a Baptist church. It will take some getting used to. I guess I've developed a hugh amount of pride and I wince every time he hear the word Pastor.

[Forest Keeper]

You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources. That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.

As Fru has said, the only outside sources you offer are yourselves. For example, my friend says that all liberals are actually hatched from the eggs of lizard monsters on Mars. As objective and independent proof of that argument from an outside source, I offer my own agreement with him. Case closed and it is therefore true.

[Blogger]

I third that. So now "many scholars" agree.

[redgolum]

Which brings up another good point. In any translation of a text, it is often good to know the leanings of the translators. For instance, I used to know a gentleman who was translating the LXX into English as a hobby. He had no real intention of ever doing much with it, but enjoyed the work. His version was different than what many of the other English versions are, which wasn't a big deal because it was more of an act of devotion that anything else.

My point is, in the KJV, NIV, NAB, ESV, DRV, etc, the point of view of the translators works its way into the translated text by the nature of how such work is down. Some words and phrases can not be "machine translated" and make much sense (which is how the Luther Bible controversy got to funny). You can't really make a word for word linear translation and get something readable. Which is why it is often good to get a couple different translations from different teams together and compare.

[Quester]

Besides, it is not even clear that the brothers of Jesus were even believers yet. That would have disqualified them from the requirement here.

Jesus' brothers were not believers at this point. They became believers after He appeared to them ressurected.

To this point (the crucifixion) ... the brothers had only demonstrated their unbelief and animosity to His ministry.

John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

If Jesus truly honored His mother, ... why would He place (or allow) her in the care of such as these ... when He had a loving disciple standing right at hand.

[blue-duncan]

"Touching that which is holy would desecrate it"

Would someone please give the citation for this proposition?

[Frumanchu]

Perhaps Mary was The Virgin in the Plastic Bubble!

[Blogger]

Certainly, a human element plays a part.

For me, with an English translation, what is key is how one approached Scripture.

Did one do so with the intent of doing, as best as one possibly could, a word-for-word translation of the Greek. Or was one's intent to make it more relevant to today (literal verses dynamic). The former approach has less subjectivity than the latter. Which is one reason why I like the NASB better than the NIV by far.

Our claim to inerrancy of the Word of God is in the original texts, not translations.

There have been scribal errors, printing errors, and yes, some translation errors throughout the ages because you have someone, a human being, with their hands on the process. By faith, we believe that such errors were not committed when the texts were originally written down. Of course, we don't have the originals. However, God has promised to preserve His word and with the care the Hebrew Scribes took to get the OT right, one would assume that the same God would make sure that the NT is intact as well.

I don't believe it is overstating that when one takes the Bible as a whole, no major doctrine (Christian essential) is lacking due to any of the so-called errors in the translations (even in some of the worse translations like NIV).

[jo kus]

The fact that our teaching on original sin means that the I.C. is not required for the Virgin to be sinless does not change the fact that the Catholic doctrine makes her beginning ontologically different from every other post-fall human.

Required? What is required by God? What God does in the first dispensation, He exceeds in the next!

If Jesus and Mary are the New Adam and the New Eve respectively, why does the connection bother you? If three persons were born without sin, then how does the fourth one, Mary, fit in this parallelism that BOTH East and West recogized very early? If Mary is the New Eve, she was born sinless - meaning, she was born with God's presence within her. That is exactly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. She was born with God's presence AND she was born without the stain of original sin (stain = effect of original sin, which is concupiscence).

The fact that we agree she remained sinless through her entire life is proof that she had no concupiscence. It is impossible to remain sinless without a special grace from God. To say that Mary was an ordinary person who remained sinless by her own power is absurd. Scriptures cry out against such ideas throughout.

Regards

[jo kus]

Whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not is really a very minor point IMO. If I were to declare tomorrow that I thought Mary was a perpetual virgin it wouldn't change any of my other beliefs.

Harley,

The reason why Mary is so important theologically is because she reflects the Church itself. What is said about the Church is said about Mary and vice versus. It is only a deeper reflection that brings this out. This spiritual intepretation of Sciptures makes sense out of an otherwise erotic story of the Song of Songs. It awakens an "ah-ha" when one reads Genesis 3:15 or Rev 12. Thus, our recognition of this fact, that God has not only blessed Mary as being a container for our Savior for 9 months, but she is an integral part of salvation history that continues to this day.

The relationship between the mother and child continues... It doesn't end when the child is born. We merely are mimicing what God does by honoring Mary so highly and sublimely.

Thus, on the surface, virginity seems to mean nothing, it tells us something about Christ AND the Church.

Regards

[blue-duncan]

When we have the next annual GRPL/neener mud wrestling picnic, perhaps we can set aside some time to come up with some novel, convenient traditions. From what I see on the various posts we don't need specific ancient writings detailing our traditions, just a mention of something close to what we want to support anything we can think of.

Maybe we should start a tradition suggestion list (oh, you would have to do that since neeners don't have lists)so we don't take too much time away from the picnic.

[The_Reader_David]

You have a bit of a problem. 'The canon was complete' could refer to two dates--the date of the completion of the last book included in the canon--or the date when the canon was closed by decision of the Church as to which books constituted it.

If you take the first date, then the formulation of every major Christian doctrine--the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the unity of Christ's Person, the duality of His natures, the need for grace (contra Pelagius), the inadmissibility of the apokatastasis (contra Origen), the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, the duality of Christ's wills, the duality of Christ's energies, the defense of the reality of the Incarnation by permitting the depiction of Christ in the Holy Icons--are all 'after the canon was complete'. If you take the Orthodox understanding of when the Church fixed the canon, all of those doctines except the first three listed took place 'after' the canon was closed even in the later sense.

Besides the Proto-Evangelium of James, which, while not included in the canon of Scripture was never condemned as fraudulent or heretical by the Church as were the so-called 'Gospels' of the gnostics, there are patristic testimonies to Mary's perpetual virginity before its solemn declaration by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and before the 'closing' of the canon of Scripture in the other sense--the conciliar decision as to which books constitute Scripture. St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the early third century, and St. Athanasius of Alexandria (whose letters also include the first extant list of the books of the New Testament without omissions or additions), both attest to Mary's perpetual virginity before the action of the Church which closed the canon.

There is a principle of Scriptural exegesis, which I though, was still well-established among protestants, that one ought not intepret one part of Scripture so as to be repugnant to another. Insisting that 'firstborn' implies subsequent births is repugnant to the sense of the Old Covenant law concerning firstborn children: the redeeming of the firstborn, who otherwise belonged to God, was not predicated on subseqent births.

Only if you add to the canon of Scripture the un-Scriptural notion that the Scriptures are a complete account of all that is true concerning Our Lord (do read the end of the Gospel of John), and that anything which cannot be proved by discursive human reason from the surface meaning of their text is false, can you reason validly to your conclusion. Of course, if you take that position, you have to explain how the Church, whose truthfulness and reliability in establishing doctrine you are disputing, managed to correctly collect your complete account. Do you claim the Holy Spirit left the Church between the Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils? (or the Council of Carthage and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, if you like the Latin account of the fixing of the canon better than the Orthodox)? On what evidence?

[jo kus]

Thus, when one looks at the actual greek, there is not a question that Joseph knew Mary. Rather, the Bible states that he witheld from marital relations with her UNTIL (or up to the time when) Jesus was born. Mat 1:25

The word "til" does NOT prove that something happened afterwards...

Marlowe, I hope you don't hit the abuse button here...

Gen 8:7 -- the raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..." Question: Did the raven return? NO!

Deut 34:6 -- Moses died "and no one knows his grave TILL this day." Question: Have we found Moses' grave? NO!

2 Sam 6:23 -- Michal "had no children TILL the day of her death." Question: Did she have children after she died? NO!

1 Macc 5:54 -- "...not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace." Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? NO!

Luke 1:80 -- John the B "was in the deserts TILL the day of his manifestation to Israel." Did John the B stay in the desert? YES! (cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4)

Rom 8:22 -- "...the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now." Is it still groaning? YES!

1 Cor 15:25 -- "For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet." After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning? YES!

Eph 4:12-13 -- "...for the equipping...for the work of ministry.... for the edifying....TILL we all come to the unity of the faith...." Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary? YES!

1 Tim 4:13 -- "TILL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." When Paul arrives, no more reading, no more exhorting, no more doctrine? NO!

1 Tim 6:14 -- "....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..." When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments? NO!

Rev 2:25-26 -- "But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power..." Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns? NO!

clipped from http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num27.htm

Matthew 1:25 does not conclusively prove anything about Mary's virginity.

Regards

[jo kus]

Ping to Post 1479...

Examples of "until" that do not mean that something happens afterwards...

Regards