'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/

[adiaireton8]

How do you know he had it right?

Because he is under the authority of the bishop, and my bishop (Archbishop Burke) is under the authority of the bishop of Rome (Pope Benedict XVI), the heir and successor of St. Peter. Christ said He would build His Church on Peter, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom, and promised Peter and the Apostles that He would send them the Spirit to guide them into all truth.

-A8

[Blogger]

That's your interpretation.

[adiaireton8]

That's your interpretation.

It is the *Church's* interpretation, and mine for that reason. That's altogether different from interpreting Scripture on one's own, apart from the guidance and authority of the Church.

-A8

[Frank Sheed]

FYI

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/exegesis.htm

Good stuff. Dei Verbum nails it, FRiend. BTW, your Archbishop is great! I am an avid admirer of Archbishop Burke. He is "a man with a chest" to quote C.S. Lewis.

Frank

[kosta50]

Excellent point. The literal lineage was through Mary. Everyone knew what "seed" meant back then, so I see no reason why God couldn't have delivered exactly as He said it would happen

So, now the Protestants are throwing in "divine genes?" To speak of Mary's DNA is ludicrous. If it is her "egg" you are talking about, it's a haploid and non-viable. It also contained female sex hormone (X). If you are talking about her flesh, then her DNA was that of her parents, namely her mother's X and her father's mother's X chromosomes, for the XX pair (and a characteristic Barr body).

To speak of any kind of "conception" as we know it is plain fantasy.

[Forest Keeper]

This is what is sounding off the sirens: "Since divine Christ was never born . . . " And this: "The Word" was never born. ...

Well, was the Logos created of Mary or not? If you say "yes" and thereby the Trinity was not formed until Mary gave birth, then I have a strong disagreement with that position. I think that all three persons of the Holy Trinity have always existed, never created. If that makes me Nestorian, then I'm Nestorian.

[adiaireton8]

Blogger Upon what do you base your belief that the Catholic church was founded by Christ in 33 AD?

A8: The testimony of the Church.

Blogger: Aside from the fact that this is Circular reasoning (which I will admit to on my own behalf but you will not on your own in all likelihood)

If God directly told you that He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and you replied, "Upon what do you base your belief that you are the Creator of the heavens and the earth?", He might very well reply, "Upon my own testimony". And if you replied, "But that's circular reasoning", He might reply, "There is nothing greater than my own testimony. My word is truth. Appealing to my own word is more certain and more sure and more authoritative than appealing to anything else."

Jesus told the Apostles that He had been sent by the Father, and that all authority had been given to Him [Jesus]. The Apostles also report that Jesus gave authority to them [the Apostles], saying, "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16) He also gave them authority so that whatever they bound on earth was bound in heaven, and loosed on earth was loosed in heaven.

If you were to ask the Apostles: "Upon what do you base your belief that the Church was founded by Christ?", they would probably have replied, "On the words of Christ". And if you had said, "Why should we believe you, rather than the teachings about Christ spread by other people like Simon Magus?" They would have replied, "We are eyewitnesses; Christ Himself gave us authority and commissioned us to speak in His name." They may also have appealed to the miracles that they performed as well.

If you had lived in the first generation after the death of the Apostles, and you had asked a bishop like Ignatius, "Upon what do you base your belief that the Church was founded by Christ?", he would have replied, "The testimony of the Apostles." And if you had replied, "Why should we believe you, rather than our interpretation of the writings left by the Apostles?" He would have replied, "Because the Apostles gave us bishops authority and responsibility and power through our ordination by the laying on of their hands to safeguard the deposit of faith which they passed on to us in their writings and oral teachings. We are the shepherds of the Church of God, and any teaching or interpretation contrary to the doctrine we pronounce is ipso facto heterodoxy.

No it isn't. I didn't deny a material aspect....I deny that the church of Christ is an Organization ...

If you deny that the Church of Christ subsists in an organization, then you are denying a material aspect. The unity of the Church is not merely a spiritual unity (i.e. we all share the same doctrine, or love). We are united by being in communion with our bishop. And the bishops are united by being in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome. As #882 of the Catechism says, "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." The faithful on earth are united into one organic whole by being united to a *material* head, namely, the bishop of Rome. Without a visible material head, there cannot be perfect material unity. And without perfect material unity, there cannot be the kind of unity Christ prays in John 17 for His followers to have, a unity that (according to Christ) should be like that of the Father and the Son.

But that hierarchical structure is NOT the church. The church is the people. Not the structure.

It is not either/or. I agree that the structure is not identical to the Church. But the hierarchical structure is an intrinsic part of the Church, and cannot be removed from the Church. Even in the world to come, the twelve Apostles will sit on twelve thrones and judge (rule). (Matt 19:28, and Luke 22:30)

We do not have to make reparations. We don't do penance. We don't have more sacrifices made for us. Christ's one sacrifice perfected us once for all. That is our only standing and claim to righteousness before God.

Well, you're in for a surprise. But getting into that would have us juggle too many things at a time. If the Catholic Church is what she says she is, then her teaching on penance is true. So it all depends on whether the Church is who and what she says she is.

However, These Popes, Cardinals, and other SSOEAs have foisted upon those under their care many falsehoods over time - speaking ex-cathedra. By what authority can a church that for most of the Middle ages was made up largely of SSOEAs engaging in Simony, Pluralism, Selling Indulgences have any claim to any authority?

Neither the bishops in ecumenical council nor the Pope speaking ex cathedra, has ever taught "simony", "pluralism", or "selling indulgences".

We weren't proclaimed so at Trent.

Do you have a particular pronouncement or declaration of Trent in mind? The Church has always recognized the distinction between knowingly apostasizing, and unknowingly becoming a part of a schismatic or heretical sect. Section #838 of the Catechism reads, "Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Well, was the Logos created of Mary or not? If you say "yes" and thereby the Trinity was not formed until Mary gave birth, then I have a strong disagreement with that position.

All three Persons have eternally existed. I know you are trying to safeguard that truth. That's not the problem. The problem arises in your description of the incarnation. Earlier you said "Since divine Christ was never born . . . " and "The Word" was never born." Notice that in both of your statements, you used the word "born". Now, above, you say, "was the Logos created of Mary or not?" Notice that you switched from "born" to "created". Those are two completely difference concepts. (Perhaps that is the root of the difficulty here.) Mary did not *create* the Logos. But Mary did give birth to the Logos, and is therefore the mother of the Logos. Giving birth to something is not the same as creating it. God created the heavens and the earth; He created it ex nihilo, out of nothing. But He did not "give birth" to the heavens and the earth. God is not Gaia! (In fact, the Gaia religion errors precisely in denying creation ex nihilo.) Mary did not create the Logos, but she did give birth to the Logos. The Person who came from her womb was the Logos, i.e. the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. When we use the term "procreate", we are using the root 'create' only in an analogous manner, not in a univocal manner to the way in which God created the heavens and the earth.

Does that help? (BTW, I don't think you are a Nestorian; I think you are simply trying to preserve an actual truth [the eternity and uncreatedness of each of the three Persons of the Trinity], but your wording in doings so has unintentionally implied Nestorianims.)

-A8

[Kolokotronis]

You're not a Nestorian, FK. You just have to get a bit more precise in your terminolgy (thus your COE courses; your Baptist co-religionists are gonna love seeing you walk into a room!). The Logos was "begotten of the Father before all ages." The Theotokos was the mother in the flesh of the Incarnate Logos, true God and true Man. Its simple! :)

[Blogger]

If God directly told you that He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and you replied, "Upon what do you base your belief that you are the Creator of the heavens and the earth?", He might very well reply, "Upon my own testimony". And if you replied, "But that's circular reasoning", He might reply, "There is nothing greater than my own testimony. My word is truth. Appealing to my own word is more certain and more sure and more authoritative than appealing to anything else.
You did not read my post carefully. I admit to circular reasoning. I believe that Scripture is true and trustworthy because Scripture tells me so. I believe that the WORD is God because His Word tells me so. Yes, that is circular reasoning but it is also indeed fact. You, as I predicted, did not admit to circular reasoning.

Your argument is I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the sole authority in matters of faith because the Roman Catholic Church told me so. The Roman Catholic church, however, is NOT God. Churches are subject to error. That's what the Pauline epistles deal with. That's what Peter warns against. That's what John deals with in the first three chapters of Revelation. If you lived in John's day, and you lived in Pergamos, you would be referred to as being a part of the "church" at Pergamos. Presumably, as a duly appointed Bishop by the "Holy Roman" institution (which didn't exist as a point of overarching authority at the time, but for arguments sake we will say did), you would have been follow the doctrines of Balaam and would be condemned. If you lived in Corinth, you'd be dealing with factionalism with some saying they are Paul's decendents, some saying they are Peter's decendents, and some saying Apollos's decendents. Paul's answer is that we are all of Christ (not 'idiots, don't you know Jesus made Peter the head of the church, follow him.'). If you lived in Galatia, you would be dealing with legalism and some who had crept in and said you need something else in addition to faith for your salvation. In this case, it is circumcision. Paul was so angry with this suggestion that he suggested that those who were trying to enslave them by works again would go the whole way and castrate themselves! The point here is that in spite of Christ's prayer, the church has forever been divided - and yet, Paul nor Peter nor John ever say to these various churches that they aren't a part of the church any more or that they are out of fellowship with Christ's centralized institution in Rome. The church of Christ is universal. We don't have an argument with that. It is not haphazzardly scattered but is unified in Christ alone. If one has Christ Jesus as Savior one is a part of that church. If one follows the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and has a true relationship with Him, one IS in good fellowship with the church and Rome has nothing to say about it.

Denying that Christ's body subsists in an organization is NOT Gnosticism. What you are espousing is Materialism.

All man-made institutions have this cockamamie idea that we can somehow "Merit" salvation. All man-made religions include works as a prerequisite to Salvation. Only Biblical Christianity realizes that It is through Christ alone, exclusive of works, that we are saved. We show that salvation through our works, but we are not saved by them. Penance, Confession, and any host of Catholic practices are works. They are meant to confer grace upon a believer. Christ's grace was shed upon us from the cross that whoever believes already has eternal life. We could not be saved by keeping the law. Only Christ saves. Only Christ keeps. Not a bureaucracy in Rome. Solos Christos! Sola Scriptura. Sola Fide. Sola Gratia. Amen.

[kosta50]

You are not a Nestorian, FK! Not at all! If a fertilized egg is inplanted into a woman's womb and it matures to term and she gives birth to a healthy baby, then she is the bearer, birth-giver (tokos in Greek) to that baby even if she did not "create" that baby.

In a surrogate mother pregnanacy, a fertilized egg is implanted into a woman and she gives birth to that existing life. In the Case of Christ, the Child was not a fertilized egg, but God the Word who humbled Himself and took on our inferior nature (became incarnate, i.e. "of flesh," i.e. mysteriously and miraculously "became" man) and fashioned Himself into an embryo that was planted in Mary's womb and carried to term and broth forth (borne) by the one who carried Him and nourished Him and of whom He was delivered. Not some "new being" created in the womb, but the ever-existing Logos, in the form of man by His will and His work, one and the same eternal God who was before Mary, and before all ages.

In order words, she delieverd the same 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity that pre-existed her; she did not give "life" to or "create" new life, new Person. The "holy thing" she gave birth to was in every way God the Word, (Logos) Who made Himself visible, cirmcuscribed, finite, material, mortal, and every bit human by and of her flesh in a manner that is incomprehensible, inexplicable, mysterious and micraculous.

Not a different Person. The same Person, but with added human nature. So, she is every way truly the bearer of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the most-blessed and Ever Virgin, Theotokos, who provided the flesh of His humanity, and therefore the true Mother of our God, Jesus Chirst. It was through Her, and through the choice of the Almighty God that she give birth to our Savior, God, Lord, eternal Logos inacrnate of her flesh, divine and human in nature, of divine and human will, but one and the same divine Person that pre-existed all eons.

[annalex]

you can't ignore

What am I ignoring? It is a scriptural thing. Not everything is, mind you, but Luke 1:34 is an extraordionary response, and I have not seen another logical explanation.

[kosta50]

broth forth = brought forth (danr those spell checkers!)

[annalex]

I am responding to the half that makes marginal sense.

[D-fendr]

How would you distinguish, identify, define a "work" in this context?

[annalex]

a quite natural reaction from a young Jewish woman in Israel in the last century BC.

No it is not, as I explained. If Mary saw in herself Isaiah's virgin -- a big if -- she would not point that out as a contradiction to the plan.

The Bible NOWHERE says that Mary had pledged herself to be a perpetual virgin. That is Catholic Tradition

And now to the big if. You just got done constructing an elaborate hypothesis regarding every young Jewish woman dreaming of a virgin birth; regarding Mary immediately recognizing Isaiah's prophecy; regarding her nevertheless uncoherent in the light of the prophecy response, -- and none of that is in the scripture. All there is in the scripture relevant to this is Isaiah's prophecy, the account of the Annunciation and Mary's response. I look at the text and draw conclusions. You build extrascriptural hypotheses, like the rest of Protestant wobbly edifice.

[Forest Keeper]

In a nutshell, Romans 3 is talking about WICKED people - and in context, wicked JEWS.

So according to Catholicism, Paul's purpose in writing Romans 3:23 was to say that: "For all wicked Jews have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Many of you must have thought that some wicked Jews were sinless, but I am here to correct you and state that in fact, ALL of the wicked Jews have sinned." This is a very profound statement. What were the rest of us supposed to think about wicked Jews until Paul came along to tell us that they all sinned? :) This reminds me of that Time Magazine cover story where it was announced for the first time that scientists had discovered that men and women were different.

[Blogger]

Sorry to see that you think the Virgin was biblically illiterate.

Oh, and it wasn't a contradiction by the way. It was a question...

Seems like you need to do some reading. Start with what I found on a Catholic website since Catholic sources are the only ones you will listen to.

"What is this plan that Jesus has for you and for me? We get a little bit of a hint of this plan in today’s Gospel. Here we have the story of the Annunciation. The Angel Gabriel said to Mary that she has been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah. Now, when God calls three things happen. First of all it appears that God calls us for something that seems to be impossible to achieve. Mary was asked to be the mother of the Messiah. Every Jewish girl had this hope to become the mother of the Messiah. But there was a problem. She was not married. Similarly if we read about the call of the Prophets and about the call of the great men and women in the Old and New Testament, God asked them to do things which seem to be rather difficult to achieve. Very difficult indeed!"

[annalex]

I think that when it suits your anticatholic bigotry, you construct fake traditions quite easily. This is such example.

it wasn't a contradiction by the way. It was a question...

Please...

- You will be the virgin in Isaiah 7
- How can this be if I am a virgin?

Makes sense?

The scripture does not tell us if Mary, or anyone else, "had this hope to become the mother of the Messiah". May be she did, but that is not what the text of Luke 1 reveals, and I go by the scripture in this instance.

[Quester]

Oh brother. If I had a dollar for every Protestant who misunderstood Romans 3...

It is taken out of context, and that is crystal clear when we go to where Paul was quoting, the Psalms of David, in where the Psalms ALSO talk about RIGHTEOUS people who follow God. In a nutshell, Romans 3 is talking about WICKED people - and in context, wicked JEWS.

This passage doesn't just speak of wicked Jews.

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

The passage ultimately says that all humanity (besides the God-man Christ) have fallen short of God's expectation of their lives.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The passage doesn't say that all are wicked ... merely that All have sinned (to a more or less extent ... in their lives).