'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/

[Blogger]

I construct fake traditions? Oh, Annalex. You should really watch your pro-Catholic blindness. It is so strongly opposed to anything a Protestant says that sometimes you find yourself at odds with even Catholic sources.

"Mary will be what every Jewish girl dreamed of being: the Mother of the Messiah."
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/nov97/mary.html

Following this debunking, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Jesus, "`Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts which nursed you!’ Jesus replied, `More than that; blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it’ " (Luke 11:27-28).

Jesus had just been publicly acknowledged as the Messiah, the Son of David. The woman in the crowd was stating what every Jewish woman longed for: to be the mother of the Messiah. Such was to be a position of great honor and being barren was considered a curse since it meant that a woman couldn’t possibly be the mother of the Messiah.
http://www.stathanasius.org/bible/jul_2_2000.html

Mary receives some shocking, amazing news. She is to be the mother of the Messiah. All the Jews were looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, and expectations were especially high at this time. Even the Gentiles were expecting someone very important to be born. Every Jewish girl hoped she would be the mother of the Messiah. They thought he would be a king to free Israel from Roman bondage.
http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/imprimir/index.phtml?se=39&ca=95&te=60&id=9078

And, last but certainly not least...
In that tradition, the aspirations of the "daughters of Israel," also in reference to worship and God's law, went rather in the direction of motherhood since virginity was not an ideal which was embraced or even appreciated. Israel was completely caught up in the feeling of awaiting the Messiah. Women were psychologically oriented toward motherhood also in regard to the Messiah's coming. That personal and ethnic tendency rose to the level of prophecy which permeated the history of Israel, a people in whom the messianic expectation and woman's generative function were strictly connected. Marriage, therefore, took on a religious aspect for the "daughters of Israel."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19900404en.html

So, you contend that I have constructed a fake tradition? I can understand the sentiment. Considering your source of authority does it all the time, and considering the fact that I merely mirror what they said towards the mindset of Jewish women at the time, it might be a bit difficult for you to discern the truth amongst all of their "fakery."

[The_Reader_David]

A8 is right. Your formulation is almost identical to the distinction Nestorius drew between the Divine Logos and the one from the Virgin.

If you don't believe there are two persons in Christ, and do believe that the Divine Logos and Jesus Christ are the same person, then you ought not use language that has the force of denying the unity of Christ's person. If you stop using such language now that the problem has been pointed out to you, you are not a Nestorian. No one is a heretic unless they persist in their erroneous views willfully after receiving correction from the Church (and you'll note, the East and the West are speaking with one voice on this).

[annalex]

I do not dispute the hypothesis that Mary had placed the Annunciation in the context of Isaiah 7, nor the fact that she in fact is the fulfillment of it, nor the cultural makeup of the 1c Jews. I am merely saying that given all that, Luke 1:34 still does not make sense, unless Mary did not intend to have carnal relations with Joseph.

If she saw herself as a literal fulfillment of Isaiah 7 in the sense of virgin birth (not the only reading of that passage, as you probably know), her question would have been "How can this be because I am engaged to be married?"

If she saw herself as a mother of the Messiah born through natural means, she would not have any question at all, as she was on her way to be mariied and soon a mother.

The only way her response in v. 34 makes sense is if she did not intend to have carnal relations with Joseph.

[Blogger]

Are you the church that you are now correcting him?

[The_Reader_David]

So you've decided to abandon help from the East on this one and argue the unity of the Church based on the Papal claims?

[The_Reader_David]

I think it is entirely within what little authority I have as a mere Subdeacon of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, privileged to serve the Patriarchate of Antioch (where the disciples were first called 'Christians), to report faithfully the position of the Holy Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council, thereby speaking on behalf of the Church. I have no doubt my bishop, metropolitan and patriarch would all issue the same exhorations against FK's ill-chosen statement of Christology if they were participating on this thread.

[Blogger]

But you are still building on what Scripture doesn't say ANYWHERE. If what you say is true, then why wouldn't she have said, "how can this be since I have pledged myself to God to be a virgin all my life?" Why would she allow herself to be betroathed? If she were dedicated to God alone, why would she become some man's wife and allow her attention to be swallowed up in her relationship with him?

As Paul says: 1 Corinthians 7:34
There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband

Of course, in this context virgin is better understood as unmarried woman since Mary was Joseph's espoused WIFE and still a virgin. But Jewish law and Christian instruction indicated that one shouldn't avoid sexual relations with their spouse except for short periods of time for specific spiritual purposes.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

[Blogger]

So do you declare everyone outside of your faith a heretic?

[The_Reader_David]

Not everyone outside the Orthodox faith: only Christians who knowingly deny the Orthodox faith, while purporting to be Christians. Non-Christians aren't heretics, though if they used to be Christians, they are apostates.

[Blogger]

I see. So what if someone converts to a non-Orthodox faith who previously was not of the Orthodox faith?

[The_Reader_David]

You seem to have confounded ontology and epistemology.

No one would ever have thought of quantum mechanics before classical physics broke down in the face of problems explaining the two-slit experiment and the photoelectric effect, but that doesn't mean electrons, photons and the lot haven't been quantum mechanical since the Creation.

God is always the All-Holy Trinity from before time. That He transcends the distinction between unity and multiplicity is plain enough as a conclusion from "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One God" and "God is love". (Since how from before creation can one alone, one in the ordinary sense of unity conceived of in this-worldly terms, be love?) He reveals Himself as Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the baptism of Our Lord in the Jordan, but indications of the Trinity are to be found in the Old Testament: How is it that the Lord speaks of Himself in plural, "Come let Us make Man in Our image and likeness"? "Before the morning star I begot thee. . ." Though neither verse can be used as a proof-text against Arius' error of holding the Word to be the first creature, both tell against the variation you propose of holding that God 'became' the Trinity when we learned that He is the Trinity.

[adiaireton8]

I am not abandoning help from the East. You too believe that the Church is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic". We disagree, I think, on the material basis of that unity, and the locus of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. You, I presume, view yourselves as that Church, and Rome as having departed. Rome views it the other way around. Be that as it may, we are agreed about the first seven ECs, and therefore about the heretical nature of Nestorianism. Although the differences between us are not unimportant, they pale compared to the gulf between Protestantism on the one hand, and Catholics and Orthodox on the other. I genuinely expect that the East and the West will be fully reconciled by 2054, and I hope that I might possibly live to see it. For that reason, though I don't hesistate to state and defend the Catholic position (including its position on the basis of unity), I have almost no desire whatsover to debate with the Orthodox. What will happen will happen above us anyway, so for me, talking about our disagreements is mostly a chance for me to learn the theological wisdom God has providentially provided and preserved in the East over the 952 years that we have been separated. Rather, since Protestants broke from *us*, Catholics have a special obligation to seek reconciliation with them. I especially sense that responsibility, having myself been a Protestant most of my life. But, of course, in that endeavor of repairing what was rent in the 16th century, we welcome all the help from the East we can get, even while the East and West are still yet not fully reconciled.

-A8

[The_Reader_David]

Your post in response to my verbal poke is just. The problem I saw was that you were arguing unity based on the singleness of the Pope of Rome in the post to which I replied.

Unless a protestant becomes convinced of the authority of the ancient Church it is unlikely that he will come to accept either the Latin or the Greek approach to ecclesiology, and arguing the case from the specifically Latin position, to which a protestant is certain to be resistant for obvious historical reasons, is less likely to move him than staying close to the founding of the Church where we can speak with one voice. Once you use the papacy as the locus of unity, rather than the Apostolic Faith, you, indeed lose help from the East, since we are bound to uphold our own understanding of ecclesiology.

[D-fendr]

Speaking of firstborn... ;)

I heard a song today that made me wonder...

About the plagues and Passover and whether this has any application to the argument a while back over firstborn:

When the "firstborn" of Egypt died and the "firstborn" of Israel were spared, did this only apply to the firstborn with siblings?

[Blogger]

The Hebrew word was b'kowr which means Eldest son or preiminent in an order of things. First.

The Bible doesn't say one way or another what this meant if the child were an only child. Taking it 100% literally, however, it seems to indicate that the oldest of others was killed by the death angel. Can't be dogmatic on it. Just looking at the actual word though.

[adiaireton8]

Once you use the papacy as the locus of unity, rather than the Apostolic Faith, you, indeed lose help from the East, since we are bound to uphold our own understanding of ecclesiology.

I understand. But in Catholic theology, we do not have to choose between the papacy and the Apostolic Faith as the loci of unity. My original point to Blogger (in 2756) was that if we go by our own personal interpretation of Scripture we end up with division upon division. And I think that is also true if we each go by our own determination of the "Apostolic Faith". Without a living authoritative judge of what is the "Apostolic Faith", views will be all over the map.

-A8

[D-fendr]

thanks. I read that it also included livestock.. and that there was some debate over whether girls were included.

The feast and plague is called "Firstborn." (In all the English references I've found.) You saying that's not a proper translation.

[Blogger]

All over the map on non-essentials for the most part. Pretty close together on most essentials for Protestants.

We may differ on mode and reason for baptism, and on such things as speaking in tongues and eschatology (timing); but on the essentials, such as who Jesus is, what the Trinity is, Virgin birth, sacrificial death, etc., you will find a lot of unity.

Of course, you have some liberal groups in all religions (including Catholics) that have thrown the basics (including Scripture) out altogether since they reject the miraculous. I'm not speaking of them, nor do I think you would put them in your fold.

[annalex]

If what you say is true, then why wouldn't she have said, "how can this be since I have pledged myself to God to be a virgin all my life?" Why would she allow herself to be [betrothed]? If she were dedicated to God alone, why would she become some man's wife and allow her attention to be swallowed up in her relationship with him?

The contention is that this is what is conveyed by "I know not man". Why St. Luke did not elaborate is a good question, but a similar elaboration is missing on the essentials of the Faith, such as the Trinity, -- the stone of stumbling of the early Church or the exact relationship between the works and the faith, which putatively caused the Reformation. However, the rough outline for the need of "josephine" marriage is known from tradition and is reflected in the Protoevangelium of James: that a temple virgin would have to be married off to a suitable man who would take care of her economic life in a patriarchic society without a carnal aspect normally associated with marriage. Since temple virgins were few, the scripture does not deal with regulating the aspects of such marriages.

[annalex]

8 [...] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, [lest] perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping.

The Protoevangelium of James

There is no claim that the Protoevangelium is inspired scripture and the authorship is in doubt. It is, however, an early Christian document that reflects the culture of at the latest the 2c, and it describes the marriage of St. Joseph and the reasons for it.