'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/

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

I'm not sure why you posted what you posted to me.

It doesn't seem to be relevant to anything that I said.

Thanks anyway,


sitetest

[xzins]

It happened because I hit "post reply" on a comment with your name on it.

[sitetest]

Dear xzins,

That's the "how," not the "why."

Thanks,


sitetest

[adiaireton8]

Denying that Mary is the mother of God entails one of three heresies: either (1) the child of whom she was the mother was not divine or (2) the thing that the birthed was not a child but a mere [non-divine] nature, or (3) the child Jesus was not born and had no mother. All three are heretical. The first is either the heresy of Arianism or Nestorianism. The second heresy is Nestorianism. And the third heresy is Docetism.

-A8

[wagglebee]

Let me make sure I've got this straight:

An article is written suggesting that Catholics might take issue with a certain movie. So, a thread emerges in which Catholics are called to task for having Catholic beliefs in the first place. And now, all defense of Catholic beliefs is termed "straw men." Okay, we get it, you disagree with Catholic theology. Is there some sort satisfaction you get from telling Catholics that you disagree with them? Because generally people who act like this do so because they are insecure about their own beliefs.

But again, it's a movie that Catholics might take issue with. Does this issue concern you? Do you fear that Catholics are going to incite violence like some Muslims do when they are offended?

Let me pose a hypothetical situation:
Let's say that a Biblical epic about the Masada was made and in this movie Jews are portrayed as eating pork. And then an article is written about it. Would you go onto that thread and say the Jewish dietary beliefs are stupid? Would you tell Jews that they didn't need to adhere to their beliefs? Would you tell Jews that they should believe in the Holy Trinity?

Now, I realize that this hypothetical situation is a little far fetched. Ant that the new movie only offends Catholic and Orthodox beliefs, not those of Protestants. Nobody would ever make a movie that portrays Jewish beliefs incorrectly. But then why is it okay to make a movie that portrays Catholic beliefs incorrectly? Because you might remember that there are far more Catholics and Orthodox in the world than there are all Protestant denominations combined.

[Blogger]

You are simply incorrect.
1) The child was Divine; but his divinity was eternally pre-existant before Mary was.
2)He was a person.
3)As a man, he had a mother. As God, he could have no mother because a mother would pre-suppose a beginning.

The Marian heresy here is in elevating Mary to the position of divinity since something can not be the mother of something else that does not share its nature in at least the part one is referencing. I.E., A German Shepherd Mix has to have one parent that is of German Shepherd origin. Since Jesus is not a MIX, but is 100% Man and 100% God, and since Mary has no divinity within her, she can not have contributed to the Divinity of Jesus. She contributed to His biological humanity, which is miraculuously unified through the power of the Holy Spirit with His divinity.

Jesus was/is God. But not because of Mary.

[adiaireton8]

So why do you support the heresy of patripassionism?

I don't. I never have supported it.

Why do you keep saying that they did?

I don't know who you are referring to by "they".

Yet, when I say it was the incarnate 2d person of the Godhead who died on the cross, you ask me why I deny that Jesus is God.

You are referring to post #1677. First, notice that I did not ask "why" you deny that Jesus is God. I asked you "So are you denying that Jesus Christ is God?" There is a big difference between those two questions. Second, my question was not in response to your claim that the Second Person of the Trinity died on the cross, but in response to your claim that "By definition, God cannot die." I explained in #1741 that if you claim that God cannot die, then you fall into one of two heresies: either (1) Christ did not die (that's Docetism), or (2) Christ was not God (that's Arianism).

I can only conclude that you deny the Father is God (AND that the HS is God),

On the contrary, I affirm the deity of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

or you are playing some silly little "gotcha" game based on the imprecision of the word "God" in a Trinitarian system.

I'm not playing games; I'm defending orthoxy against heresy.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

As a man, he had a mother. As God, he could have no mother because a mother would pre-suppose a beginning.

My argument is sound. You chose the Nestorian option, the one that makes Mary only the mother of a nature, not the mother of a person.

-A8

[Blogger]

Yes. That Luke was a full reprobate. He also says she gave birth to her firstborn Son. Even names the kids after Jesus.

[Forest Keeper]

FK, Mary was destined to be the Mother of our Lord and nothing else, for anything else that she would be remembered for would diminish not only her special place in God's Plan but our Lord as well. It takes an active stretch of one's imagination to think that she was used as a temporary dish to carry God Incarnate only to be used later for unholy things.

How could it diminish Mary's legacy if not only was she the mother of Christ (with two natures), but also the mother of such great spiritual men as James and Jude? Granted, there's no point in trying to follow the first act in terms of bettering it, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a second act, etc., which was completely independent of the first, and not remotely comparable.

You say above that if Mary was to be remembered for anything besides being His mother that it would diminish God. Should we not remember Mary for her faith? I know for certain that you do, and I do too.

When you above refer to "unholy things", I can only assume you mean the proposition that Joseph "USED" her as a sex object and baby-making factory. I cry out "Where's the love"? :) Poor Joseph is made the fiend here. Should he have not relied on the word of the angel when he said: "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."? (Matt. 1:20) This was directly from an angel. How was Joseph supposed to decipher a secret meaning? There was no Apostolic Tradition to translate the words for him.

Please don't tell me that in the Greek, that taking a girl home as your wife really meant only for tea and platonic conversation. Within the culture, the concept of Joseph "TAKING" Mary home as his wife has to be significant. But, I'll just let any Greek (or Serb :) speak for himself as to what happens when he takes a woman home as his wife. :)

[Blogger]

You would like to say thus. You are incorrect. Jesus was a person who was 100% human and 100% divine. You are trying to make a nice tidy package that everyone can understand out of Jesus's divinity/humanity. Jesus was a person. He was 100% man and 100% God. Mary gave birth to a person, but only contributed to his manhood - not His Godhood. The incarnation is a mystery and though you just LOVE throwing out the heresy accusation (ignorring what was explicitly explained by the person you are speaking to); you allow no room for the unexplainable or mysterious. Nobody has denied Christ of anything. We will not bow to your elevated Mary, however, for she is not the Mary of Scripture.

[adiaireton8]

Why do Kosta & Adi keep spreading the heresy that Mary is the Mother of the Father?

I have never claimed that Mary is the mother of the Father. You have made that false accusation at least half a dozen times now, and each time I have replied stating that Mary is not the mother of the Father.

Why do they deny that the Father is God?

Again, I have never denied that the Father is God. In fact, I have made it explicitly clear that I believe that the Father is God.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Mary gave birth to a person

Was the person to whom she gave birth divine?

-A8

[Blogger]

Is God one?

[adiaireton8]

If you affirm that Mary is the mother of a person, and you affirm that this person is God, then it follows that Mary is the mother of God. In order to reject that conclusion, you have to reject one of the two premises. You must either deny that Mary is the mother of a person, or you must deny that the person of whom she is the mother is God. Which do you deny?

-A8

[Blogger]

Is God One?

[adiaireton8]

Is God one?

Yes.

-A8

[Blogger]

Explain how God can be 3 persons and yet is One.

[jo kus]

The point I was making is that an already predisposed, like-minded source cannot count as a legitimate "outside source". You wouldn't allow me to say my Reformed theology claims are true because the outside sources of Calvin and Luther agreed with them, would you? :)

What outside claims or sources are you talking about? Are you saying that an observer of religion cannot give a report about it because his report might be biased? Then history has no value to us because we cannot trust it...

Historical evidence is a wonderful source for supporting the validity of a proposition. The problem arises when all the historians one is relying upon are already vested towards a particular bias and outcome. One is free to believe that they all are credible "anyway", but this is strictly an argument of faith, not of objectivity.

I suppose it depends where you set the bar... You are ruling out your very own Scriptures as coming from God if you continue down this path.

1 Jesus Christ existed.

2. Jesus Christ claimed to be a messenger from God.

3. Jesus Christ formed an inner body of followers.

4. Jesus Christ sent these followers from himself to continue his teachings.

5. Part of Jesus' teaching was the claim to be divine.

With this basic notion, I think we have enough to "prove" the notion that Christ established a Church to continue His teachings. If God, then you will have to answer to Him on your continued rejection. Now, if you set the bar of proof so high, what can you absolutely prove that occured before 1900 AD? Only very general things. As such, we have a relative degree of certainty that history proves the above 5 things - which leads one to see that the Catholic Church is the continuance of the Church established by Christ.

The difference would be that none of those sources would have had a personal vested interest in convincing the public that Washington was president.

How do you know that? You know I could easily invent a conspiracy theory behind why someone would want people to believe that Washington was president... It depends on how high I set the bar of proof. I used to deal with military history. Trust me. You aren't going to be able to prove ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt. History is a matter of faith in the recorders.

Unsubstantiated errors will multiply exponentially.

Where is the evidence of ANY "unsubstantiated errors" among the Church Fathers and what we call "apostolic tradition"? You see, you already approach the table "KNOWING" that the Catholic Church is wrong. Rather than approaching unbiased, you come with your Reformed thoughts. So thus, what about Calvin's "unsubstantiated errors that multiply exponentially" today?

Had scripture been their base, instead of their self-proclaimed authority to be equal with scripture, then of course matters would be much different today.

And now another presumption on top of presumption. First, you presume that the Bible is the Word of God, based on its own internal word. Sorry, the Bible isn't self-authenticating. And secondly, you are presuming that YOUR interpretation of said book is correct. Thus, I hardly would consider you a person to give me a lecture about self-proclaimed authority... Your previous argument from bias rules you out - and no one I know outside of Reformed theology considers Calvin of any consequence.

Merry Christmas - and thank a Catholic for it. You'd have no "Mass of Christ" without the Church.

Regards

[jo kus]

How could it diminish Mary's legacy if not only was she the mother of Christ (with two natures), but also the mother of such great spiritual men as James and Jude?

Scripture, please. There is no reason to believe that Mary gave birth to James or Jude. Read the letter of Jude. Don't you think it is strange that Jude calls James his brother but NOT Jesus? IF Jesus was Jude's brother through Mary, Jude would CERTAINLY call himself Jesus' brother, not James. Again, further proof of cousin.

Regards Regards