'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/

[xzins]

I will point out that I asked about the condition of "only scripture." Your answer deviates from that and says "other sources."

I think it is highly probable that using "only scripture" one will arrive at the conclusion that Mary had other children.

[adiaireton8]

Not my interpretation. The Holy Spirit's. He promised to teach me. He keeps His promises. My heart is captive to the word of God, here I stand for I can do none other; Indeed God does Help me.

It is your interpretation that the Holy Spirit promised to teach *you* [Blogger] how to interpret Scripture directly. But the promise was to the Apostles, and to their successors. The promise to the laity is that through their adherence to the Apostles and their successors, the laity will be guided into all truth.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Christ the Word was never born. Jesus the Christ was born to Mary.

That's Nestorianism. There are not *two* Christs: "Christ the Word" and "Jesus the Christ". There is only one Christ. And that Christ is eternal and also born.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

When Jesus prayed, was He just talking to Himself? Or, when He asked for the cup to be taken away, was that an internal conflict God was having? I don't think so.

He was talking to the Father.

-A8

[HarleyD]

Good point. I forgot about the "Queen of Heaven" title. Would that make Mary, God the Father's husband? If so, it says the Holy Spirit overshadow her-not God the Father. But yet the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ. Yet Christ is "King of kings..." if I remember my Christmas songs so if Mary was Queen....

Wow, I'd better stop. This Trinity stuff boggles the mind.

[HarleyD]

It is your interpretation that the Holy Spirit promised to teach *you* [Blogger]

In the end it is your interpretation that the Holy Spirit has promised to teach *you* [A8] through the Church, isn't it? You reach your conclusions precisely the same way.

[adiaireton8]

In the end it is your interpretation that the Holy Spirit has promised to teach *you* [A8] through the Church, isn't it? You reach your conclusions precisely the same way.

No, you are doing the same thing I talked about in #2063, trying to see the Catholic point of view through the 'sola scriptura' lens.

-A8

[blue-duncan]

"What I wonder about is why do you actually care what I believe about Mary?"

I don't care what you think about Mary. What I do care about is right thinking of those who are searching for answers about the incarnation of the Lord.

[Blogger]

My answers stand.

You know something I have noticed.

Over and over and over again, I've now been called a heretic and attacked personally for my beliefs. What I have said has been mischaracterized and otherwise ignorred in a rabid desire to protect the Roman Catholic Organization.

I reject Popes who were serial fornicators and orgie participants - and I'm accused of rejecting the apostles.

I reject an institution that calls me Anathema and condemns me to Hell in one century and calls me a seperated brother (or sister) in another. And am condemned because I don't support the idea that these are people Christ sent to lead the church.

I reject an institution that says there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church and then turns around and says: "The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize." The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." (VII)

I reject an institution that conforms its theology to Charles Darwin, rather than looking at Charles Darwin through God's Word.

I reject an institution that says ""The Holy Father explained the Holy Spirit is mysteriously present in the heart of every person through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior."

I reject an organization whose Popes make the following contradictory statements: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Innocent III

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins... Boniface VIII

"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Eugene IV

"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. Vatican II

“Buddhism is a religion of salvation.” - John Paul II

"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God." Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" 1964



“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.” -Joseph Ratzinger

“The new text describes the relationship between the Church and non-Catholic Christians without speaking of ‘membership.’ By shedding this terminological armor, the text acquired a much wider scope… The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches.” - Joseph Ratzinger (note, the phrase non-Catholic Christians)



And who can forget this beauty:
Pope John Paul II Kissing a Koran.

Coupled with the current Pope's prayer towards Mecca (Oh, I'm sorry, moment of meditation), gee, we have an institution here that we can really be confident in. And I'M called heretic.

Come out of Babylon folks. The water is good on the other side.

[Forest Keeper]

What egg? For lack of a better term, this was a "one time event" and we don't have the foggiest idea how [Mary's becoming impregnated] happened.

I think we are given more clues than that. One key is deciding whether the Spirit moved upon Mary's egg to cause fertilization, or whether the baby Jesus just "appeared" in Mary's womb, possibly completely independent of Mary's DNA. I happen to believe that Jesus fully had Mary's DNA from Mary. We are told one thing:

Is. 53:2 : He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

OK, so His physical features were not "perfect". He was not an "Adonis" type. His left eye was a millimeter higher than His right, or whatever. Since we are only told that His appearance was unremarkable, I think it reasonable to infer that He also had normal family resemblance. If He did not, that would have been "remarkable". So, God could have simply used Mary's egg, OR, He could have fabricated a baby with a facsimile of Mary's DNA. Which makes more sense as we argue that Jesus was fully human? We know for sure that it was not God's purpose for Jesus to have physical features so amazing that Mary's DNA could not have been a part of it. So in the interests of genuineness, why not just use Mary's egg? He made it in the first place.

I realize that none of what I'm saying is in any sense a slam dunk. Ultimately, God could have done it either way, and the scriptures are perfectly safe. To me, the two choices are whether Mary was a true mother, or a surrogate mother. AND, did Mary know which was true? I would think she did, since every new mother especially bonds with her baby from the first moment she holds him or her. It would be a HUGE difference to any mother as to whether she was a real or surrogate mom. I can't believe God would let her have false feelings in ignorance. So, what is reasonable for her to think after she was told what we know about?

If Mary believed that she was merely a surrogate, then it seems to me that her faith in Jesus being Lord would have been completely formed from the beginning. Yet, here is what we are told:

Luke 2:48-50 : 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." 49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Does this sound like a mother who had the fullest understanding of the person she gave birth to? It does not to me. Mary clearly thinks that Jesus did something wrong here. If Mary believed that she was His true mother, then that would be fine. Mary knew that people made mistakes. However, if Mary believed that she was only the surrogate mother of God, then I think an argument can be made that her expectations would have been a little different, perhaps much higher. If Mary was only a surrogate, I think she would have accepted and understood what Jesus said to them. But she did not.

Nor do we know how long the pregnancy lasted.

+Ignatius and I say it lasted nine months. :)

What we do know is that "normal" is NOT A TERM THAT COULD BE USED TO DESCRIBE ANYTHING ABOUT THE LORD'S CONCEPTION, BIRTH OR LIFE.

HA! :) See, you used the word "conception" instead of "conceive". Big difference in this discussion. This is from the KJV:

Luke 1:31 : And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Now, in most dictionaries, "conceive" just means "to become pregnant". It doesn't necessarily imply how (although common sense is common sense). However, the word "conception" definitely carries with it the idea of sperm meeting egg. This is at the heart of what we are talking about here. If the KJV "conceive" can reasonably be related to "conception", then that is evidence of a meeting between Mary's egg and the HS. To be clear, no sex was involved, and it was a supernatural fertilization. It seems to me that if the baby Jesus just "popped" into Mary's womb, then there wouldn't be any talk of Mary "conceiving".

[Blogger]

The church is one means the Holy Spirit uses to teach us. Personal Bible study is another.

[Blogger]

If Mary is Queen of Heaven, and is the Church; and the Church is the Bride of Christ, then Mary is married to her Son.

Somehow, I don't think that is a thought inspired by the Spirit of God.

[Blogger]

You are wrong. The Passage I quoted in 1 John was to the laity. Little children was who it was addressed to. I purposely included the little children so you could catch the context. John was writing to the laity when he said...1 John 2 1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, [NOT MARY BUT] Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world... 27As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

[adiaireton8]

Well said. What you say in #2099 is precisely what most Protestants do not seem to understand. They think that since they obviously can't believe that the Apostles's successors are always and everywhere infallible, therefore each person must always trust his own personal private interpretation of his own personal private Bible. And that is the deadly false dilemma that has divided and is continually dividing Christians all over the world.

-A8

[Blogger]

Again, you do not understand Protestants.

We do not believe we must ALWAYS trust just our own private interpretation of things.

The Holy Spirit does teach through His Universal Church.

He teaches through friends.

He teaches through life's circumstances.

He teaches through prayer.

He teaches through personal Bible Study.

The KEY though to discernment is "DOES IT MESH WITH SCRIPTURE?"

Where something contradicts Scripture, it is to be rejected.

The Popes, when addressing the whole church about a doctrinal issue (ex cathedra) are said to be addressing the church infallibly. But what do you do with one pope saying "infallibly" that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church and that anyone who rejects the tenets of Catholicism is damned and another Pope saying ex cathedra that we are merely separated Brethren and have salvation if we are baptized? Gee. Luther was Baptized. Luther's children were baptized. Is their anathema now invalidated?

Scripture doesn't change. The church has - and not for the better.

Christ wondered if he would even find faith on the earth when he returned.

If you follow an institution, you will be bound by the shifting sands of each new administration.

If you follow the Savior as laid out in Scripture, you hae an Anchor for your soul that never changes.

[jo kus]

Over and over and over again, I've now been called a heretic and attacked personally for my beliefs.

No one is attacking you personally. Your beliefs are heretical - incorrect. But you personally are not being attacked.

Regards

[Blogger]

Jo kus,
I have been called a Nestorian, A Sabellian, I think even an Arian. None of which are true. I have gone through great pains to spell out my beliefs concerning Christology and what I have said concerning Christ wouldn't contradict any of your Creeds. I have simply rejected the title "Mother of God", not because Jesus wasn't God and Mary wasn't His mother, but because it leaves the impression on the surface of it that Mary pre-existed God. I know from the minutes of the council itself what the true meaning is - but the term is not a good one and was made in a reactionary fashion. As proof, I note the same council's rejection of Nestorius's desire to call her mother of Christ. Why would they reject that? Wasn't she? They rejected it on the same grounds we reject "Mother of God." Namely, that it gives out a false impression (as far as Nestorius's definition went) of who Christ was and who Mary was.

If one calls her what the Bible calls her, Mother of Jesus; then the Christology takes care of itself. Don't focus on who Mary was. Focus on who Jesus was and we can come to an agreement.

[jo kus]

What I do care about is right thinking of those who are searching for answers about the incarnation of the Lord.

So what does Mary having sex tell you about the Incarnation? I believe there is a connection - that the Incarnation rules out Mary having sex with another man. What does Mary having sex tell you about Jesus Christ?

Regards

[annalex]

I can only add to the excellent 1634 and 1635 that this is one area where the Orthodox theology is more developed and refined that Catholic. In the West we do not draw this sharp distinction between the religious art and iconography. Perhaps we should, and for sure the Catholics will greatly benefit from a greater awareness of the spiritual treasures of Eastern iconography.

The Catholic tradition is more oriented toward statues, although I notice more and more Catholics write good and quite canonical icons in the timeless Eastern manner.

A part of the Catholic pop culture are so-called "holy cards" that include stories and images of saints. The art element there is usually non-remarkable from the artistic perspective. They are reminders of the life of a particular saint and form a part of that particular devotion.

A crucifix is a necessity in every Catholic house.

Crucifixion

Zurbaran

1627

[Blogger]

Mary did not have sex prior to the incarnation.

What does Mary having sex after the incarnation say about anything?

Is not sexual relations within the confines of Marriage sanctified by God? Is it somehow that you believe Mary was God's wife and therefore would have been committing adultery by having relations with Joseph? I do not understand why anyone even came up with the idea that Mary and Joseph having a normal relationship would somehow sully her. Unless it is from the Medieval church's dislike of sex for anything other that procreation.

Hebrews 13:4 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.