'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/

[Forest Keeper]

I did not see it on this thread, but her statement "I know not man" in Luke 1 suggests that it was never the intention to consummate the marriage to Joseph in a sexual way. I recall discussing it on the Erasmus thread. That is because, normally, a woman engaged to be married does not react in utter surprise when she is told that she will bear a child.

I think you're right that we probably discussed this on the other thread, but I can't remember the details (of even what I said :). I do not understand how you reach your conclusion from Mary's statement. Her statement was true at the time she said it, I don't think it said anything either way about the future. My version says "since I am a virgin". That is why it is understandable for her to be confused.

The perceived timing issue here is critical. If Mary thought the angel meant at some distant time in the future, then your position would be stronger. If Mary thought the angel meant "soon", then her reaction was perfectly normal. The text indicates to me that it actually was "soon".

[Forest Keeper]

FK, do you think that "God the man" is a person? I ask that because I know we agree that "God the Word" is a Person. But it sounds like you believe that "God the man" is a person. In that case, however, there would be two persons passing through Mary's birth canal. That would be Nestorianism. :-)

In the way I am using the term, "God the man" is not a person in the sense of being one of the Trinity. Christ "the person" created Mary. In addition, Jesus was fully a man. Am I being clear? LOL! :)

In that case, however, there would be two persons passing through Mary's birth canal. That would be Nestorianism. :-)

I use "personhood" in the Trinitarian sense. Only one Christ passed through Mary's birth canal. While Christ had fully a human nature and a divine nature, He was nonetheless "One", AND "One" with the Father and the Spirit.

[Forest Keeper]

You say that you are using logic. Annalex says that he is using logic. Who is to say who is truly using logic?

[Forest Keeper]

We've had argument about different persons and different natures, finite and infinite in the Word Incarnate, but "different emphasis in different natures" – I think that's a new one...

That's fair enough, and I admit I was only using my own words in that description. I was thinking in terms of how we humans perceive what He did. I don't think that one Jesus was asleep while some "other" Jesus was acting, or something like that. There is only one united Christ.

At the same time, when Jesus prayed, I do not think He was talking to Himself. Still at the same time, when he physically healed others, I do not think His human nature had to do with that, I think it was from His divine nature. How would you describe the difference I am trying to describe?

[D-fendr]

How would you describe the difference I am trying to describe?

Theologically? Honestly, I think you have start here:

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/index.html

And maybe end there, theologically. It's the most unified, coherent, harmonious... theologically.

Me, personally, right now contemplating this question? I start with One Person, distinct. But I don't split that Person. That's a dead end. And, personally :), I don't have a problem with a Person praying to another Person. That may just be me.

The Word became flesh and walked among us. Ate like us, suffered like us, was humiliated like us, prayed like us. And showed us how to be Truly Human.

But, again, that may just be me.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply...

[Forest Keeper]

God could have done it without Mary and still make Jesus fully human. He did it with Adam. Why not Christ?

Yes, in that sense it did not have to be absolutely positively Mary. She was a normal young girl, and simply chosen by God. However, I don't think it could have been "anyone" else because prophecy considerations still had to be met.

In addition, God COULD have "made a copy" of someone's DNA who was in the line of David, and then zapped that baby into Mary, but I just think that sounds less genuine. That also raises the "conceive" issue.

[Forest Keeper]

FK, there is no God the man. There is God the Word, whose divine nature united with Mary's human nature.

When I say "God the man" I am just talking about part of the product of the union you speak of. How do you describe what happened when Jesus prayed? Was He talking to Himself?

[Forest Keeper]

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.

That is fine. I would be more than willing to change the way I am phrasing something if it is giving the wrong impression. I do not think Christ was two persons. He was one person with two natures, fully united. How do you describe what happened when Jesus prayed? Was He talking to Himself? When I answered this I was immediately called a Nestorian and an Arian. I am happy to learn. :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "So again, was He talking to Himself?"

No. The person of the Father is not the same person as the Son. They are one, but not one in person, but rather one in being.

That doesn't address the question. I am "one" in the same being with myself. So, if I talk to myself that would appear to match what you are saying of Christ when He prayed.

I'm saying that your position is Nestorian, because your position is Nestorian. What is it that do you not understand about that?

Well, with that additional information, now it is much easier to see what you are saying. :)

[Blogger]

I agree with your assessment. It had to be someone from the line of David. In which case, the "zapping" part wouldn't have worked either. Zapping implies that her blood has nothing to do with the child. Christ had to have David's bloodline running through His veins.

[kosta50]

How do you describe what happened when Jesus prayed? Was He talking to Himself?

No. He was praying to God the Father, to the Frist Perosn of the Holy Trinity, not to divine nature, just as He was calling on the Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trnity, and not on divine nature.

When He says He and the Father are one, He means in essence (nature), i.e. divine, not in Person.

[Forest Keeper]

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.

OK, then what is your explanation of the mechanics of the starting point of the person Mary gave birth to? Did God just zap a baby in there or what? If He did, then how were the lineage requirements met? Would the title "Son of David" really fit through adoption by Joseph? That sounds pretty forced to me, and completely unnecessary.

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

The Bible says "conceive". That usually involves "conception". What do you think it means?

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

[Forest Keeper]

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 different concepts. (Perhaps that is the root of the difficulty here.)

OK, I think you're onto something. I was using those words interchangeably. Perhaps I should not have. :)

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.

I see and agree.

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], ...

Thank you, and thanks for clearing this up. :) Thanks also to Kolo and Kosta for your comments. I never took any actual offense, I was just frustrated at not knowing how I brought this on myself. :) I think we're at the bottom of it now.

[Salvation]

Let's put Pope Benedict over the top!
http://www.islamonline.net/polls/english/24-12-06/Survey.asp

Pass it on.

[Kolokotronis]

You ought to do a "Freep this poll" on the Religion forum.

[Kolokotronis]

"...I was just frustrated at not knowing how I brought this on myself."

Like I suggested earlier, read +Athanasius "On the Incarnation". It will explain things pretty well. Then later we can start on +Gregory of Sinai, +Symeon the New Theologian and +Gregory Palamas to get a better feel for the Holy Trinity and theosis!

[Forest Keeper]

In a surrogate mother pregnancy, 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 brought forth (borne) by the one who carried Him and nourished Him and of whom He was delivered ...

Forgive me for just asking you about this. I hadn't caught up to this post yet. :) OK, if you haven't already answered elsewhere, and if Mary was only a surrogate, then what is Christ's "blood-claim" to being the Messiah and the Son of David?

The "holy thing" she gave birth to was in every way God the Word, (Logos) Who made Himself visible, circumscribed, finite, material, mortal, and every bit human by and of her flesh in a manner that is incomprehensible, inexplicable, mysterious and miraculous.

How could Jesus have been "by and of" her flesh if there was no "Mary" in Him? :)

One thing I find very amusing about this is that it could be said that I and those of like minds are making Mary "more important" in the scenario of what actually happened. That's quite a role reversal! :)

This is a fascinating discussion for me because it never occurred to me that there was any controversy about this. (All I mean is that I didn't know about it.)

[Forest Keeper]

Ping to 3,033.

[sitetest]

Dear Salvation and others,

This poll permits multiple votes from every web surfer. Be assured that the folks voting for Hamas terrorists and looney Iranian presidents will have not scruples to do just that.


sitetest

[Forest Keeper]

By your definition she could not possibly be the "Mother of God". She was just a "Surrogate Mother"; i.e., "The Immaculate Incubator".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :) Let's see, now we have Immaculate Incubator, and the Immaculate Hymen. I will volunteer to start a list, since I know that is not particularly your cup of tea. :)